Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Americans for Justice, Brotherly Love and Beauty

3 views

Skip to first unread message

Everyman

unread,

Mar 1, 2003, 1:24:55 PM3/1/03

"Everyman" <sil...@nwinfo.net> wrote in message news:...
> Our government is being led into war on the basis of a well-planned
> mass-murder frameup by organized crime, especially big oil, big
> investment-bank (debt war financing), druglords, and deviant
power-grasping
> ruling-elite families associated with the names Rockefeller, Harriman,
> Bush, Rothschild, Bronfman etc. with hired poodles Kissinger, Gingrich,
> Brzezinski, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Krystol, Meyer, Rice -- CFR, Trilateral
> Commission, Bilderberg etc. etc.
>
> But how best to prove that to a deceived humanity?

=========================

THIS is how you FIGHT for WHAT'S RIGHT in the face of ridicule.

From: sil...@nwinfo.net (Everyman)
Newsgroups:
alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.gw-bush,ta
lk.politics.mideast,alt.disasters.aviation
Subject: Re: Oceans911 The Pentagon attack was a frameup by criminal
US leadership. This site establishes that a fighter jet hit the
Pentagon as

"World'sNicestGuy" <ppgoodi...@rocketmail.com> wrote

>"Everyman" <sil...@nwinfo.net> wrote in message
>news:73d08839.03022...@posting.google.com...
>> Rumsfeld Advisor Henry Kissinger: "Military men are dumb, stupid
> >animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."
> >---------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Here is the choice facing us:
>
>Uh, no. Here is the choice facing us:
>
>Listen to an obsessed, nutty spam artist who has made a career
>for years of posting bizarre and grotesque theories in Usenet .....
>or tell him he's full of crap.
>
>That's our choice, Dick(head). A, or B. I'm going with B.

-----------------

I see.

Gooding, I have accounted for all of the ASCE whitewash findings --
they do NOT
make your case.

Funny how you blank out on the entire spectrum of evidence and just
focus on the most fuzzy and vague AND INACCESSABLE evidence (and by
the very same guy who have us the Murrah building coverup!! what a
coincidence that as you are a cornered rat you put up your little paw
with only this particular tiny nail to scratch back. SO bankrupt
are your arguments that you have to bring up my writing on a
completely irrelevant subject (weather modification technology) to try
to put me in a bad light.

Your are effective in only one way, Gooding. Some are not quite
intelligent enough or decisive enough to think and draw their own
conclusion (after all the ruling elites have left us little to do but
flip burgers, drive cabs and dust shelves -- our minds get rusty) --
and so you contrive an "authority" (the ASCE) report on the structural
soundness of the Pentagon as if that was an investigation of the
attack -- when it was not. REMEMBER, THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT HAVE BLOCKED ALL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ATTACK!!! DO YOU
THINK THEY WOULD LET THIS ONE GO BY IF IT WAS A REAL INVESTIGATION OF
ALL THAT HAPPEND AT THE PENTAGON THAT DAY. NOT A BIT OF IT. THEY
TOOK A YES-MAN WHOM THEY CAN TRUST TO RESPECT THE NEEDS OF THE
COVERUP. YOU BET YOUR SWEET LIFE THEY DID.

SO WHO ARE YOU GOODING? I am Dick Eastman of 223 64th Ave., Yakima,
Washington.
WHo has been writing your paychecks for the last year, Gooding? I
work for the local Blockbuster Video. What institutions, companies
have your worked for in the past ten years. I've been a state
psychologist, the administration of a group home of developmentally
disabled and emotionally disturbed youth and I have taught psychology
and economics (intro, micro, macro, money and banking, issues, labor
economics) at Heritage College in nearby Toppenish (the psychology at
City University). So what have you been doing?
What is your political affiliation? I am an independent -- a small
"b" Buchananite -- before that, always Republican (was the co-chair of
the young voters for the President in Oakland-Berkely in 1972) --
Went to Oakland High School, Lake FOrest College, Western Michigan
University, Texas A & M University -- post graduate degrees in
experimental psychology and economics. So what about you????
Tell us what you are doing here?
I am here because I solved a crime (as have thousands of others) that
is being covered up by our government -- and hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions of lives are at stake -- why do you spend an equal
amount of time and attention answering my every post?

Come clean, Gooding.

Also, what is your real name? And country?

Are you a Mason? Of what degree?

----------

Now for this:

The Iraqis have done nothing to warrant this Anglo-American invasion.
Nothing.

Those who say that they have are either ignorant and mindlessly
impressionable or deceitful and wicked. Their names should be marked
and others warned about them -- since not all of their future posts
may reveal the defectivness of their thinking or their copnscience and
ethics.

The fact is that the terrorists of 9-11 live on Park Avenue and in
Connecticut etc. or in Arlington, Virginia.

Here is something that will give every thinking man of good will cause
to pause:

Here are a few reasons why we can be sure that the Pentagon attack was
an inside job with the complicity of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney
etc. Let's call it

The Dick Eastman Brief on the Pentagon Murders

1. The hole is too small. Only ten feet across (under just two
Pentagon windows of the third floor -- see picture.) The Priest who
saw "a plane" hit and walked from the freeway to the crash site to
help victims said that all the flame appeared to be coming from just
"two windows." (confirming the photo evidence I resented -- and the
fact that the inner walls perpendicular to the outer wall were not
brought down by airloiner engines or by anything else.) This is the
"French proof."

2. The security cam video recording, in frame #1 released by the DoD
shows the tail fin of the killer jet, but where the long fuselage of
the 757 that would be projecting ahead of that tail is simply not
there -- the plane in the picture is less than seven lengths of the
tail fin shown (if lined up stegasaurus style), whereas the fuselage
of the Boeing extends seven tail fin lengths from the tail fin to the
nose).
Write to me, anyone, I'll send you the video clip immediately on
outlook express hotmail immediatly -- or check my pages at APFN.)
This is the "Stegasaurus proof."

3. The video shows a definite missilbe plume -- the F-16 (or
comparable fighter jet) fired a missile to make the hole through which
the plane disappeared -- to ensure that there would not be any
fighter jet debris bounced back on the line to give away the coverup.
The smoke plume trail is unmistakably that of a ground to air missile
-- see pictures of an F-16 firing a ground to air missile to produce
exactly this kind of plume at my APFN page
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm (towards the bottom of the
page, after all the witness statements etc.) This is the "Missile
plume proof."

4. The killer jet could not be in two places at once! The plane was
either over the cemetery (and over the gardener's head as he claims;
and just 100 feet from Steve Riskus as it crossed the road in front of
his car as he has written to me, and seen going striaght in (i.e., at
90 degrees) -- OR it was in line with the downed lamp posts (on the
Washington Blvd overpass and cloverleaf entrances and exits for the
Pentagon parking lot) and with the outer-wall entry hole and the
sixth-wall hole (in the "C-ring") through which the single engine
exited and came to rest. It would be impossible for a Boeing 757 to
have been over the cemetery and/or the Naval Annex just south of the
cemetery (as witnesses on the Columbia Pike place it) -- where a
straight line to the crash point would hit at nearly and 85 degree
angle -- but somehow get realigned so that it approaches the crash
point (the two holes in the walls mentioned) from a 50 degree angle
through those five lamp posts at the cloverleaf interchange. "This is
the "Path-alignment Proof." or the "2-D path proof."

5. A boeing 757 could not have downed those lamp posts sitting on an
overpass above the level of the roof of the Pentagon, then dipped down
and leveled out perfectly at 6 or 7 feet above the lawn in time to be
caught by the security camera video in perfect horizontal low-level
flight when it was still half way across the lawn from the crash
point!!!! ONLY A TACTICAL FIGHTER LIKE THE F-16 COULD HAVE DONE
THAT!!!!! (i.e., a Boeing 757 could not dip from the overpass and
then perfectly level out at 6 or 7 feet over a distance that was only
three times the length of its fuselage -- it had to be a smaller, much
more maneuverable tactical fighter.) This is the "3-D-path proof."

6. Only one engine hit the building according to all evidence.

a) only one hole in the wall, and a narrow one -- ENOUGH ONLY
FOR A FUSELAGE AN ENGINE IN IT -- NOT WIDE ENOUGH FOR A BOEING WHAT
SITS SIX PASSENGERS ACROSS AND HAS TWO MASSIVE TITANIUM ENGINES UNDER ITS
WINGS TEN FEET BETWEEN THE FUSELAGE!!!! Remember the hole is only
10 feet across -- with interior walls perpendicular to the outer wall
in tact on either side!!!!)

b) only one engine photographed by FEMA (or by anyone else) amid
the rubble

c) only one engine photographed or reported being lifted out of
the wreckage during cleanup (engines are not easily portable, they are
not easily sneaked in like wheels and struts)

This is the "Single-engine proof."

7. There is a bi-polar distribution of what was seen by witnesses
(see my page at APFN for all of these witness reports -- not including
my letter from Riskus -- which I received after that page was posted)
-- showing that some saw the Beoing come in over the Annex and
cemetery while others had the killer jet come over their cars on
highway 395 -- they heard it go over their heads, then looked out
their windows and saw the Boeing (which by then had passed the
cemetery and was converging with the killer jet at the target point,
except that the killer jet was flying at six feet as it crossed the
lawn and the Boeing at 80 feet as it got over the building hidden by
the immediate blast and smoke of the crash below it -- and in less
than a minute it was over Reagan National Airport where it landed
etc. See the apfn page for more on this.) This is the "Bi-polar
witness conflict proof."

8. Air traffic controllers report the attacking plane behaving like a
jet fighter before it dipped below radar (the only way they could
track it, since transponders were mysteriously deactivated --
preventing identification of aircraft being observed -- all they had
was a blip -- a blip that behaved like a jet fighter!) "This is the
"Blip behavior" evidence (strong corroboration -- but not, by itself,
a proof.)

TO this we can add all of the corroborating proofs amassed by 9-11
investigator Gerard Holmgren (previously provided -- see yesterday's
message). The "Holgmgren Proofs.")

Also, we have the exposure of deliberately planted false evidence --
for example the piece from an American Airlines Boeing that could only
come from the starboard side that was found two hundred feet to the
port side of the approaching plane -- a non-aerodynamic piece that
could not have gotten their any more than you could through the
unfolded page of a newspaper across a basketball court!!! A definite
plant. (check my apfn page for details, photos proving this) --
mysteriously there were 540 FBI guys on the scene picking up debris
(see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart ) but only one piece was
left for photographers -- that planted piece -- that has since
disappeared for all time!!!!

Anyone who calls a moron, a loon, a leftist, an arab-lover any and
all who are moved to question the official story on the basis of this
hard information -- exposes himself as part of the criminal coverup of
this mass murder operation. Gooding and Ocean -- the guard dogs of
the Bush-related newsgroup threads seem to fit this bill.

They intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut about what they
are convinced of -- but not everyone -- some speak the truth despite
the certain ridicule and the unstated threat -- and when enough do
this -- the damn will break -- and Gooding and Ocean will be
changing places with some innocent goat hearders at Guantanamo (where
they will join some of the finest people in society -- so don't feel
sorry for them.)

Everyman (is responsible to every other man)

==========

Rumsfeld Advisor Henry Kissinger: "Military men are dumb, stupid
animals to
be used as pawns for foreign policy."
---------------------------------------------------

Here is the choice facing us: Kissinger's elitist arrogant
domineering
mercenary-enforced globalization or Patrick J. Buchanan's
all-middle-class
thoroughly non-interventionist, all small-business republic populism.
It is
a choice between pride and covetousness or justice and amity.

1. What Henry Kissinger Thinks of Our Military by Lisa Guliani

2. America; Wages of Empire by Patrick J. Buchanan

=========
Item #1:

WHAT HENRY KISSINGER THINKS OF OUR MILITARY
By Lisa Guliani

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as
pawns for foreign policy."
~ Henry Kissinger ~

January-February 2003 edition of Eagle Newsletter

The above statement given by Henry Kissinger should
dispel any possible doubt or confusion in the skeptics
among us as to just how little our servicemen matter
to the elitist madmen calling the shots. No longer do
they spew empty words to placate the masses. They are
admitting outright that our soldiers are expendable
and disposable. If the above statement by Kissinger
doesn't make your blood run cold, then tell me, what
will?

While the war-mongers relentlessly push us into a war
nobody else wants, our troops are scattered far and
wide, preparing for the unpredictable and seemingly
inevitable confrontations which lie ahead. Some are
saying this war will lead to peace. The absurdity of
such a statement is apparent. Why must we engage in
war to obtain peace? What will be the ultimate price
of such peace? How many American lives must be
sacrificed as collateral damage to purchase this
"peace"? How many of our sons and daughters will die
in order for the Controllers to achieve their
insidious ends?

It's beyond horrible to consider.

My son recently informed me that he intends to enlist
in the Army in November when he turns 17. He has
already spoken with an Army recruiter. Like so many
other young people his age, my son has bought into the
"Illusions of the Machine". He feels strong,
invincible, and is all "gung ho" to go into a combat
situation to "protect America" from terrorists. The
extent of his misperception is incredible. How many
of our young men and women are feeding into this crap?
Too many, I imagine. While my son is trained in how
to use deadly weapons, will he realize that someday he
may be ordered to use them against his own people?
Has he considered this possibility? No. My son is
not politically aware of how the Machine operates and
who is truly in command. . He simply sees the
opportunity to jump into the fray, travel to distant
lands, and dress up like G. I. Joe, probably imagining
he is "Rambo". He envisions excitement and danger
and a break from monotony. He likes the idea of being
a "hero".

What I would really like to do is take my son to
Washington, D.C. and let him check out the Korean War
Memorial and the Vietnam War Memorial Wall. Perhaps
some of his perceptions would change if he could look
at the faces of war, if he could feel the pain and
horror of war, if he could taste the blood of war.
The Korean War Memorial has a wall of its own. On it
is inscribed a simple sentence: "Freedom Is Not
Free." My son has no concept of this sentence at this
point. If he joins the Army in November, he is in for
one hell of a rude awakening.

Sadly, it is this feeling of invincibility that is
all too prevalent in our society today. Americans do
not believe anything can touch them or hurt them. Not
really. Many of our people are still disconnected
from the big picture, simply because nothing horrible
is happening in their own backyards. I hearken back
to 9/11/2001, and remember the disconnection of some
of the people in my life to that unforgettable mass
murder. I couldn't believe it then, and I still have
a hard time with it. America, when are you going to
realize that what happens to SOME of us happens to ALL
of us?

Our young men and women are steadily disappearing into
Bush's War Machine, where they will be forever
changed. They don't realize just WHO they're fighting
FOR. They don't know because our fine military
leaders aren't going to tell them. They don't need to
know because our war-crazy leadership isn't going to
tell them either. They are viewed as "dumb, stupid
animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy",
remember? And still they enlist, never realizing
perhaps, until it's too late, that they've put their
very lives in jeopardy for the true "evildoers", the
plutocrats designing this war to suit their heinous
schemes.

These "dumb, stupid animals" are OUR children and
they're being shipped out and set up to die on
foreign soil. How does this sit with you? It makes
my blood BOIL. And while I will do my best to
dissolve the smoke & mirrors clouding my son's
thinking, the writing is already on the wall. The
Machine wants to chew up another "dumb, stupid animal"
- my child.

I'd like to ask Henry Kissinger to personally explain
his statement to me and all the other American mothers
and fathers out there whose children are gearing up to
fight this obscene war under false pretenses.

My message to George Bush and the rest of the lunatic
Machine is:
I'll see you all in HELL. Don't be late.

================
===========

In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad asking the Iraqi leader if he could
reopen the US embassy. Rebuilding Iraq will require "a sustained commitment
from many nations" but "we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not
a day more". How extraordinary. For these are precisely the same words used
by Israel when it invaded Lebanon in 1982. It took Israel 22 years and
hundreds of Israeli lives - and thousands of Arab lives - before that
occupation ended

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=382362

==========

ABU DHABI - The United States will not be satisfied with toppling
Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab
world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes
include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a
trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.

Perle, who is close to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is said to be one
of the architects in the Bush administration on the policy of the toppling
of the Saddam regime, Middle East Newsline reported. He has played a
leading, if behind-the-scenes role in diplomatic, political and
military aspects of the current Iraqi-U.S. confrontation as well as the war
against terrorism.

=======

Item #2:

February 23, 2003
AMERICA
Wages of Empire

By Patrick J. Buchanan,
(author of "A Republic, Not an Empire" and editor of the American
Conservative.)

WASHINGTON -- To the acolytes of American empire, the invasion of
Iraq is but Act I in the exhilarating unfolding drama of the 21st
century. All the "Islamo-fascist" regimes of the Middle East and
northern Africa -- Iran, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya -- are to
follow Saddam Hussein's onto the landfill of history. As democracy
was imposed on Japan by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, so shall it be
imposed upon them all.

That is the vision of the neoconservatives to whom George W. Bush
incarnates their Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Winston Churchill. Yet,
their disillusionment is certain, for they misread the man and the
times.

True, the relative power of the United States exceeds Britain's at
the height of its empire. But this war to "liberate" Iraq and
reshape it in our own image has already called into existence
countervailing forces that stand athwart our path to empire.

The first is the force of world opinion. To protest a U.S. war on
Iraq without U.N. Security Council sanction, there were million-
person marches last week in the streets of the capitals of our
staunchest allies, Spain, Italy, Britain. Polls show that huge
majorities of Europeans oppose a U.S. war without U.N. sanction.
Among Arabs and Turks, the opposition is visceral and well-nigh
universal. We are as isolated as the Brits at the time of the Boer
War. It is the height of hubris to believe America can indefinitely
defy the whole world.

Even if Iraqis initially welcome U.S. soldiers as liberators, within
months there will be Islamic bombers willing to die to drive us out,
as they drove the French out of Algeria, the Israelis out of
Lebanon, the Marines out of Beirut. While the Arab and Islamic
worlds did not succeed in many endeavors in the 20th century, they
did excel in terrorizing and expelling all the old imperial powers.
Our turn is next.

Neoconservatives came to their editors' cubicles a century too late.
Peoples everywhere have internalized Thomas Jefferson's dictum that
all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed, and Wilson's gospel about all peoples being entitled to
self-determination. This idea has taken root in the hearts of men:
better to fight than be ruled by foreigners.

We may see American hegemony as benevolent. Is it not clear the
world does not?

Already, Cold War friends and allies are revisiting the issue of
whether the protection afforded by the presence of U.S. troops on
their national soil is worth the price paid in alienation from their
own peoples.

According to the New York Times, Crown Prince Abdullah will ask for
withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia at the end of the
Iraq war.

The new president of South Korea was elected on a pledge to review
the U.S. troop presence there. The Pakistanis want us out, and,
after 60 years of occupation, even the Okinawans wish to be rid of
us.

Nor should we resist the eviction orders, for the terrorists are
only over here because we are over there.

Worldwide, the anti-American card has become a trump. Herr Gerhard
Schroeder played it deftly to rescue himself from certain defeat in
the German elections. And while Americans may be boycotting French
wines, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is a more
celebrated figure in Old Europe than Colin L. Powell, let alone Bush.

And the staggering bill for empire has just begun to come in. Not
only are Japan, Germany and Saudi Arabia unwilling to pay the cost
of this war, as they did for Desert Storm, they are not in any
condition to do so. Nor does the United States, staring at deficits
of $300 billion to $400 billion, have the means to subsidize an
empire.

The cost of invading and rebuilding Iraq has been put at $100
billion to $200 billion by Bush's former economic advisor. That was
last year.

More recent estimates have soared. Will Americans pay this immense
sum to reconstruct and "democratize" Iraq?

With California mulling higher taxes and firing workers to cover a
$35-billion deficit, how long will taxpayers tolerate shakedowns
like Ankara's demand for as much as $30 billion for U.S. troops to
transit Turkey and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's demand for
$15 billion in foreign aid and loan guarantees to hold our coat?

Neoconservatives assure us that once Arab peoples see our
destructive power rain down on Iraq, they will line up with the
winner and accept our hegemony. But if such power has not brought
respect for Israel in Lebanon or on the West Bank, what guarantee is
there it will make American occupiers revered or loved?

History teaches otherwise. Five years after the United States had
reduced to smoldering ashes the greatest empire Asia had seen in
centuries, little North Korea, which did not even exist in 1945,
launched an invasion to throw the Americans off the peninsula and
out of Asia. World champions never lack for challengers.

Our own history teaches us this. A dozen years after the British
army had defeated our enemies in the French and Indian War, American
patriots were shooting British soldiers on the Concord Road.

George Washington wept with joy at America's alliance with France in
1777, but a year after Yorktown, American agents were back-
channeling Brits in Paris to conclude a separate peace.

As for the Bush Doctrine -- "We will not allow the world's worst
dictators to get the world's worst weapons" -- it is already going
the way of William McKinley's "open door." With Russian assistance,
Iran is building nuclear plants it does not need and mining uranium.
North Korea, with a secret uranium- enrichment program running and a
plutonium reactor being refired, is openly taunting and defying the
president. The American response to date: repeated assurances that
neither sanctions nor military strikes are being considered.

Given the immense time, energy, resources and costs -- financial and
political -- of Bush's drive to disarm a weak, isolated Iraq, will
the president, when Baghdad is occupied, press on against other
regimes, which are not under U.N. sanction?

Where will he get his authority to go after Iran, Syria or Libya, as
Sharon and his Amen Corner demand? In Iraq, the president has the
cover of U.N. resolutions. Will the Brits be with us when we go
after Iran?

Will British Prime Minister Tony Blair be up for a second adventure?
Who will be with us if we attack North Korea to disarm it? Can the
United States tread alone the path to empire in a world where the
United States is believed by much of mankind to be itself the great
threat to world peace?

Imperialism is an idea whose time has come and gone, and, in any
event, we Americans were lousy imperialists. We lacked the
tradition, the will to rule other peoples, the perseverance
required. We had not occupied the Philippines a few years before
Theodore Roosevelt, champion of annexation, wished to be rid of it.

No, empire is not our future, or our fate. The braying Beltway
interventionists are only advancing the day when this generation too
will rid itself of empire and America returns to the foreign policy
written in its history and heart: the friend to freedom everywhere
but the vindicator only of our own.

That way lies long life for the republic. To hell with empire.

==========

Also:

Everyman,

I invite you to visit
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=55364&group=webcast ,
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53078&group=webcast ,
and
http://ottawa.indymedia.ca/2003/02/2127.shtml to see what I've been up
to; and you certainly should go to http://www.indymedia.org to read about
all of the direct action taking place in Europe against the US Empire. If
you recall, the Nazis were never convicted of the Reichstag fire; they were
nailed for their crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. (The Avalon
Project is the place to go for Nuremberg info
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm) This is the likely fate of
Bush et al and is what the global movement against them is pushing
for. They have miscalculated, and the revolution is afoot to overthrow
Empire
once and for all. (For a great speech about this go to
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=2919).
This doesn't mean that I think we should stop pursuing them for their
responsibility for 911; I think we need to get them on whatever we can to
stop their mania and then finish nailing them for the rest of their crimes.

Everyman

unread,

Mar 1, 2003, 3:40:28 PM3/1/03

1. Blair Hypocrisy by John Pilger

2. Rumsfeld Swings Both Ways - Floyd

3. The spinners have spun, the plagiarists plagiarised: we are still
opposed -O'Morgan

4. Official "Crimes and Elements for Trials by Military Commission" allows
for trial for crimes that occurred prior to its effective date, i.e.,
unconstitutional ex-post facto criminal law (law under which the government
arrests and tries men who committed an act before it was declared
illegal!!!)

Blair Hypocrisy
by John Pilger
February 28, 2003
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3154

Having failed to fabricate a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and prove that
Iraq has a secret armoury of banned weapons, the warmongers have fallen back
on the "moral case" for an unprovoked attack on a stricken country. Farce
has arrived. We want to laugh out loud, a deep and dark and almost
grief-laden laugh, at Blair's concern for the "victims of Saddam Hussein"
and his admonishment (reprinted in the Observer) of the millions of
protesters: "There will be... no protests about the thousands of [Iraqi]
children that die needlessly every year..."

First, let's look back to Saddam's most famous victim, the British
journalist Farzad Bazoft, who was hanged in 1990 for "spying", a bogus trial
following a bogus charge. Those of us who protested at his murder did so in
the teeth of a smear campaign by the British government and a press
determined to cover for Britain's favourite tyrant.

The Sun smeared Bazoft by publishing his conviction for stealing when he was
a student - information supplied by MI5 on behalf of the Thatcher
government, which was then seeking any excuse not to suspend its lucrative
business and arms deals with the Iraqi dictator. The Mail and Today
suggested that Saddam was right - that Bazoft was a spy. In a memorable
editorial, the Sunday Telegraph equated investigative journalism with
criminal espionage. Defending Saddam, not his victim, was clearly
preferable.

What did Tony Blair say about this outrage? I can find nothing. Did Blair
join those of us who protested, on the streets and in print, at the fact
that ministers such as Douglas Hurd were commuting to Baghdad, with Hurd
going especially to celebrate the anniversary of the coming to power of the
dictator I described as "renowned as the interrogator and torturer of
Qasr-al-Nihayyah, the 'Palace of the End'"?

There is no record of Blair saying anything substantive about Saddam
Hussein's atrocities until after 11 September 2001 when the Americans,
having failed to catch Osama Bin Laden, declared Saddam their number one
enemy. As for Blair's assertion that there have been "no protests about the
thousands of children that die needlessly under his rule", the answer is
straightforward.

There have been years of protests about the effect of the Anglo-American
embargo on the children of Iraq. That the US, backed by Britain, is largely
responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths is the great
unspoken in the so-called mainstream of politics and journalism. That the
embargo allowed Saddam Hussein to centralise and reinforce his domestic
control is equally unmentionable. Whenever the voluminous evidence of such a
monumental western crime against humanity is laid out, the crocodile tears
of Blair and the rest of the warmongers barely disguise their cynicism.

Denis Halliday, the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations
who was the senior UN official in Baghdad, has many times identified the
"genocide" of the American-driven sanctions. The UN's Food and Agricultural
Organisation (FAO) has paid tribute to the Iraqi rationing system, giving it
credit for saving an entire population from famine. This, like the evidence
and witness of Halliday and his successor, Hans von Sponeck, and the United
Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) and the Catholic Relief Agency (Cafod) and
the 70 members of the US Congress who wrote to President Clinton describing
the embargo as "infanticide masquerading as policy", has been airbrushed
out. In contrast, the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 has
become part of Blair's and Bush's vocabulary. Eleven months after this
atrocity, the assistant US secretary of state James Kelly flew to Baghdad to
tell Saddam Hussein:

"You are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants
to broaden her relationship with Iraq."

What did Blair say about this? I can find nothing. Read the Murdoch press at
the time. There is nothing about Saddam being "another Hitler"; no mention
of torture chambers and appeasers. Saddam is one of us, because Washington
says so. The Australian, Murdoch's flagship in the country of his birth, and
currently a leading warmonger, thought the most regrettable aspect about
Iraq's use of chemical weapons at Halabja was that it had "given Tehran a
propaganda coup and may have destroyed western hopes of quiet diplomacy".
Like other Murdoch papers, it defended Saddam by suggesting that Iraq's use
of chemical and nerve agents was purely defensive.

Of the media warmongers in this country, it is difficult to choose the most
absurd. Murdoch's blustering hagiographer, William ("Mr X") Shawcross must
defer, alas, to David Aaronovitch, the retired Stalinist apologist now
employed by the Guardian Group to poke a stick at its readership and whose
penchant for getting things wrong makes him the doyen. In his condescending
lecture to the millions who marched on 15 February, Aaronovitch wrote:

"I wanted to ask, whether among your hundreds of thousands, the absences
bothered you? The Kurds, the Iraqis - of whom there are many thousands in
this country - where were they? Why were they not there?"

There were more than 4,000 Kurds marching en bloc. The Kurds foresee clearly
yet another sell-out by the west, now that Washington is encouraging the
Turkish military to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan. According to my Iraqi friends,
there were "a minimum of 3,000 Iraqis" marching. Two years ago, I attended
an Iraqi festival at Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall. More than 2,000
Iraqis were present with their families. When Denis Halliday called for an
end to the economic siege of Iraq and the implementation of that crucial
passage of Security Council Resolution 687, which requires a ban on weapons
of mass destruction throughout the region, in Israel as much as Iraq, he
received thunderous applause. Everyone there, it seemed to me, had little or
no time for Saddam Hussein; but none wanted their country strangled,
attacked and occupied by the west yet again.

Patrick Tyler, a perceptive writer in the New York Times, says that Bush and
Blair now face a "tenacious new adversary" - the public. He says we are
heading into a new bipolar world with two new superpowers: the regime in
Washington on one side, and world public opinion on the other. In a poll of
half a million Europeans, Time magazine asked which country was the greatest
threat to peace: 5.8 per cent said North Korea, 6.8 per cent said Iraq and
87 per cent said the United States. In other words, the game is up.

People have become aware, above all, that the most dangerous appeasement
today has little to do with a regional tyrant, and everything to do with
"our" governments.

===========

I T E M # 2 :

Global Eye -- Swing Blades
By Chris Floyd
http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2003/02/28/120.html

It's a well-known fact -- oft detailed in these pages -- that the boys in
the Bush Regime swing both ways. We speak, of course, of their proclivity --
their apparently uncontrollable craving -- for stuffing their trousers with
loot from both sides of whatever war or military crisis is going at the
moment.

That's why it came as no surprise to read last week that just before he
joined the Regime's crusade against evildoers everywhere (especially rogue
states that pursue the development of terrorist-ready weapons of mass
destruction), Pentagon warlord Donald Rumsfeld was trousering the proceeds
from a $200 million deal to send the latest nuclear technology -- including
plenty of terrorist-ready "dirty bomb" material -- to the rogue state of
North Korea, Neue Zurcher Zeitung reports.

In 1998, Rumsfeld was citizen chairman of the Congressional Ballistic
Missile Threat Commission, charged with reducing nuclear proliferation.
Rumsfeld and the Republican-heavy commission came down hard on the deal Bill
Clinton had brokered with North Korea to avert a war in 1994: Pyongyang
would give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for normalized
relations with the United States, plus the construction of two
non-weaponized nuclear plants to generate electricity. The plants were to be
built by an international consortium of government-backed business interests
called KEDO.

Rum deal, said Rummy: Those nasty Northies would surely turn the peaceful
nukes to nefarious ends. What's more, even the most innocuous nuclear plant
generates mounds of radioactive waste that could be made into "dirty
bombs" -- hand-carried weapons capable of killing thousands of people. The
agreement was big bad juju that threatened the whole world, Rumsfeld
declared.

Of course, that didn't prevent him from trying to profit from it. Even while
chairing commission meetings on the "dire threat" posed by the Korean
program, Rumsfeld was junketing to Zurich for board meetings of the
Swiss-based energy technology giant, ABB, where he was a top director. And
what was ABB doing at the time? Why, negotiating that $200 million deal with
North Korea to provide equipment and services for the KEDO nuclear reactors,
of course!

Yes, nuclear proliferation is ugly stuff -- but you might as well squeeze a
few dollars from it, right? A smart guy always plays the angles -- and, as
the hero-worshiping American media never stop telling us, Rumsfeld is one
smart guy.

In fact, he's so smart that he's now playing dumb. A Pentagon spokesman says
Rumsfeld "can't recall" discussing the Korean deal at ABB board meetings.
And his erstwhile ABB corporate colleagues say that it's possible the
subject never came up. Of course it didn't; going into the nuclear business
with a Communist tyranny that very nearly launched a nuclear war against the
West just four years before, in a deal that involved high-level negotiations
with the governments of the United States, South Korea, Japan and the
European Union -- that's certainly the kind of thing that would be handled
by a couple of junior executives in a branch office somewhere. Nothing for
the bigwigs -- especially hard-wired government players like Rumsfeld -- to
trouble their pretty heads about. A perfectly reasonable explanation.

And so Rumsfeld joins the roster of Bush Regime multimillionaires who once
trumpeted their "business savvy" as selling points for their right to
national leadership but now claim to have been "hands-off" figureheads who
had no idea what their companies were up to. Bush, in his sinkhole of
insider trading and stockholder scamming at Harken; Cheney, making fat deals
with Saddam Hussein (yes, after the Gulf War) and muddying up the corporate
books at Halliburton; Army Secretary Thomas White, gaming the power grid and
stealing millions for Enron in the manufactured California "energy
crisis" -- all of them went from mighty moguls to mere "front men" the
instant their corruption was brought to light. None of it was their fault;
nothing ever is.

Whatever happened to Bush's much-trumpeted "era of responsibility?" These
guys are not only chiselers, hustlers, hypocrites and war profiteers --
they're a bunch of gutless wonders as well. So you'll pardon us if we are
just the tiniest bit cynical about the "moral arguments for war" and other
such buckets of warm spit this gang is now forcing down the world's throat.

Postscript

And what became of that 1994 pact with North Korea? UN inspectors entered
the country to make sure the weapons program was put on ice. Pyongyang
signed a number of lucrative deals with various politically-connected
Western firms, like ABB, to build the promised energy plants, while waiting
for the normalization of relations with the United States to begin -- a move
which most observers thought would set North Korea on a course toward
China-style "moderation" of its monolithic regime.

But normalization never came. Clinton, pressured by rightwing forces (such
as Rumsfeld's commission) who opposed any truck whatsoever with godless
commies, did his usual folding number, with much windy suspiration of forced
breath -- and no action. The KEDO companies pocketed Pyongyang's cash but
dithered about the actual construction. Pyongyang -- while not exactly a
font of smiling cooperation itself -- concluded that the pact was being
deep-sixed. This suspicion was confirmed when Bush took office, calling
Korean leader Kim Jong Il a "pygmy" and declaring the county part of the
"axis of evil."

Pyongyang then accelerated its weapons program, kicked out the UN
inspectors, and is now threatening to unleash a nuclear war if Bush, a la
Iraq, makes a "pre-emptive strike."

A dicey situation, sure -- but at least Don Rumsfeld made some money out of
it.

Rumsfeld was on ABB Board During Nuclear Deal with North Korea
Swissinfo.org, Feb. 21, 2003

For North Korea, U.S. is Violator of Accords
Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2002 (fee required)

The Cold Test: Pakistan and North Korea
New Yorker, Jan. 27, 2003

KEDO Triggered Korea Crisis, Says Moscow
The Straits Times (fee required)

$200 Million in Orders Awarded Under Multi-Government Framework Agreement
ABB company website, Jan. 20, 2000

ABB Opens Office in Democratic People's Republic of Korea
ABB company website, June 28, 2001

ABB Wins $32 Million Power Order in Saudi Arabia
ABB company website, March 1, 2002

=============

I T E M # 3 :

Him and us
The spinners have spun, the plagiarists plagiarised: we are still opposed to
Blair's war.
Kenneth O' Morgan
Saturday March 1, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,905340,00.html

Normally in a war crisis, government and people converge as they did in 1914
and 1939. This time, they have grown further apart. Perhaps three-quarters
of the British people do not support a war. At least 30% have said they will
not support a war under any circumstances, even with a second UN resolution.
The government says the facts need to be explained and then people will form
correct views. Well, the message has been elucidated; the spinners have
spun; the plagiarists have plagiarised; and the people are more hostile than
ever. Why is that? Have we suddenly turned uniformly into Trotskyists and
pacifists? People find the government's case unconvincing; they simply do
not believe it.

In the first place, it is evident that people are not persuaded that Saddam
Hussein is a threat to the UK - perhaps not immediately a threat to
anywhere. After all, he was successfully contained by international force
for 12 years prior to this crisis. It was only after September 11 - indeed,
some time after that - that the US turned its attention, in a way that
future historians will find mysterious and interesting to penetrate, from
al-Qaida to Iraq, which, after all, had been there all along.

The public recognises that Saddam Hussein is an unpleasant man and that his
regime is cruel. They do not regard the case for his having weapons of mass
destruction - certainly not nuclear weapons - as currently proven. Saddam
has some unpleasant weapons - of course he has, we gave him some of them;
the US gave him others. The US was responsible for selling Iraq anthrax,
West Nile virus and botuliniol toxin in the 1980s, the salesman being Mr
Donald Rumsfeld.

In spite of that, the reports by Hans Blix have so far been temperate.
Things are by no means satisfactory, but they are moderately encouraging. He
talks of positive progress and it is surely reasonable to ask for inspection
to be undertaken properly and to reach its appointed time, rather than to
resort to the extreme response of war.

Second, people are not convinced of any link between Iraq and international
terrorism. The evidence is derisory. They fear that the threat of terrorism
will be greatly increased by an attack on Iraq, as may be tension between
different ethnic communities in the UK.

Third, people deeply suspect the motives of the US. That is not just
anti-Americanism; we are not anti-American. But there is great hostility to
and distrust of an extreme rightwing administration. People distrust the
unilateralism of American foreign and external policy in relation to the
environment, armaments, the international criminal court and many other
issues.

There is mass popular distrust about the American concern with oil and the
hypocrisy of not acting against an aggressive Israeli regime with an
extremely rightwing government that consistently defies the UN's edicts and
denies fundamental human rights to Palestinians. There is disbelief that the
US, rather late in the day, has decided that this is a crusade for human
rights. What human rights, when the Kurds, for example, are specifically
omitted? Why are they omitted? Because it would upset the Turks and a large
number of Kurds live in Turkey, which is a valuable base.

It is also recognised that the US has for decades propped up and continues
to prop up some of the most atrocious regimes in the world, which have
flouted human rights - at present, Uzbekistan, which provides virtually no
human rights, but is a convenient base.

The British people believe in the UN. Admirably, our prime minister also
believes in the UN. We suspect that the Americans do not - at any rate, to
nothing like the same degree. Our Commonwealth background makes us attuned
to dialogue and international discourse, whereas the history, background and
outlook of the US are different.

People see the US apparently overruling or ignoring UN resolutions and
probably not wanting to use the UN at all, had it not been pressurised into
it by Tony Blair. They believe the US, having already decided on war,
regards the Blix inspection as an irrelevant interlude. They see the
Americans trying to impose their definition of regime change unilaterally
and in defiance of the principles of international law. They see a US
committed to following its own interests, whatever the rest of the world
thinks. I fear that is the other side of America's so-called isolationism;
it is an interventionist consequence of isolationism. It frightens people.

Finally, the British people fear war because they think that it will be
barbarous and will lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent
people in Iraq. They think it will be far worse than the atrocities
committed by Saddam Hussein and will result in a humanitarian catastrophe.
They feel that war should be the last resort and that we are a long way
short of the last resort.

In addition to popular concerns about Iraq, there are more specialist
concerns. Economists are anxious about the long-term damage to the world
economy. Military experts are worried about the absence of clearly defined
strategic objectives and ask about the purpose of the projected war.
International analysts fear extreme instability for many decades in the
Middle East.

Others worry about the gulf emerging between us and our allies in France and
Germany and the effect it will have on the European ideal. We are being
alienated from France and cosying up to President Berlusconi, with whom this
country has little common interest.

As a historian, I worry about the crude use of history, particularly our old
friend the 1930s. Time and again we hear that this crisis is the 1930s come
again - what nonsense. Saddam is not another Hitler. Where is his Mein
Kampf? Where is his dream of universal conquest? George Bush is certainly no
Churchill; it would be a calumny on the reputation of that great man to
suggest it. It is a facile argument, and it disturbs me that Downing Street
produces it, all the more because I taught one or two of them. My efforts
were clearly in vain.

We should anatomise public opinion. Every element that brought New Labour to
power is hostile to war. At least 70% of women are hostile to war under
almost any circumstances. Young people are deeply alienated, as are the
trade unions. In Scotland, only 13% of people would support a war. God help
the Labour party in the elections in May. It will be a bonus for the SNP and
perhaps, in my own nation, for Plaid Cymru. All faiths are opposed to the
war. The bishops have spoken out with courage and vision - they do not see
it as a just war. There is also the powerful opposition of the Pope.

The opposition to war was reflected on February 15 in a great and moving
protest, comparable to the chartists or the suffragettes. The extent of that
protest shows how the crisis can destabilise our country. Nearer home, it is
destabilising the Labour party. I have been a member of the party since
1955. I was a member of the Labour league of youth before Tony Blair was
born. It grieves me to see the haemorrhaging of good members from our party.

Tony Blair is a brave man who prides himself on being another Churchill. He
must be wary of being another Ramsay MacDonald. This is said to be a
listening government; one that listens to the people. They should listen -
not to transatlantic ideologues but to the wisdom, humanity and decency of
the British people.

This article is based on Lord Morgan's speech in the debate on Iraq in the
House of Lords on Wednesday. He is a fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, and
his many books include biographies of Keir Hardie, Lloyd George and James
Callaghan, and a history of the Attlee government.

k.mo...@online.rednet.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

==============

I T E M # 4 :

Official "Crimes and Elements for Trials by Military Commission" allows for
trial for crimes that occurred prior to its effective date, i.e.,
unconstitutional ex-post facto criminal law (law under which the government
arrests and tries men who committed an act before it was declared
illegal!!!)
------

DoD Releases Draft Military Commission Instruction
NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of Defense
No. 092-03
(703)697-5131(media)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 28, 2003
(703)428-0711(public/industry)

DOD RELEASES DRAFT MILITARY COMMISSION INSTRUCTION

The General Counsel of the Department of Defense (DoD) today
released a draft military commission instruction entitled
"Crimes and Elements for Trials by Military Commission:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228dmci.pdf."
This instruction lists and defines certain violations of the
laws of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

DoD will be prepared to conduct full and fair legal proceedings
should a military commission be convened. Although no charges
have been referred against any individual potentially subject to
the jurisdiction of a military commission, this instruction will
help to ensure that DoD will be ready to fulfill its
responsibilities if called upon.

The international law of armed conflict, from which the Crimes
and Elements instruction is derived, is a broad and complex area
of the law. There is no single legal document that
comprehensively codifies this body of law. Rather, definitions
of crimes are dispersed throughout dozens of sources including
treaties and conventions, domestic and international statutes,
judicial decisions, and the body of custom and practice
recognized by the international community.

"Over the past few months, DoD and other government lawyers have
analyzed these sources of law and consolidated in a single
resource a list of certain crimes that potentially may be
charged and tried before a military commission as well as the
definitions of those crimes," said DoD Deputy General Counsel
Whit Cobb. "In the event that a military commission is
warranted, this instruction will assist all participants -
including prosecutors, defense counsel, and military commission
members - to understand what constitutes an offense that is
triable under the law of armed conflict."

The draft Crimes and Elements Instruction is available at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228dmci.pdf.
Those wishing to submit comments regarding the draft Crimes and
Elements Instructions should fax comments to the Office of the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense at 703-614-4432.

The General Counsel of the Department of Defense intends to
finalize and publish the final instruction early in March.

[Web version:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/b02282003_bt092-03.html]

-- News Releases: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/releases.html
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today

==============

The Bush Administration is guilty of the 9-11 mass-murder attack, a frameup
by war, drug and oil profiteers -- our deviant ruling elites.

Here's the smoking gun evidence that will start your new political education
in the right direction:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

Also this

THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11

Section 1: Airforce stand-down

1:1 It has become popular mythology in the media that fighter jets were
scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes. This is completely untrue as the
following research shows.
Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion Bykov and Jared
Israel, 14 Nov 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

1:2 Mr. Cheney's Cover Story -- Section 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov
2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

1:3 9-ll: Nothing Urgent, by George Szamuely, Research & documentation
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002
http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm

1:4 Planes "did scramble " on 9/11,they just " arrived late "
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm

1:5 Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, 12 Dec 2001
http://www.nypress.com/14/50/taki/bunker.cfm

1:6 Air National Guard Mission and Vision statements
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/ang-mission.htm

1:7 Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story impossible
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm

Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is a routine
proceedure. It happened 67 times in the 10 months between September 2000
and June 2001.

1.8 Use of military jets jumps since 9/11. Associated Press Aug 13 2002.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2002/ap081302.html
1.9 CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another 9/11 Aug 14 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/14/attack/main518632.shtml
1.10 Preventing another 9/11 Military.com
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/1,13319,FL_jet_081502,00.html
1.11 ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront020813.html
1.12 Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic events. Fox
news Aug 12 2002
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60245,00.html#top

So on Sept 11, 2001 - Why were no fighter jets scrambled, and why has a
cover up story been concocted?

In the unlikely event that the airforce failed through incompetence, ( not
once but 4 times! ) where is the major inquiry?
I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race tracks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Section 2: Complicit behavoir of G.W.Bush

It has become common mythology in the media that George W. Bush was at
Booker Elementary School when he learned of the first WTC crash. This is a
lie. Why is Bush lying about where he was, and what he knew?

2:1 Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open by Illarion Bykov and Jared
Israel.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm

This is not the only lie Bush has told about his movements that morning. See
how many times he has changed his story.

2:2 Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/01/113757.php

(Read the section called "A tangle of lies")

2.3 Bush gets tangled in his lies Part 1. A strange press conference.
By Jared israel and francisco Gil-White Sept 25 2002.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif1.htm

2:4 Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2:
White House Cover-up Creates More Problems than it Solves
by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White [7 October 2002]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif2.htm

2:5 The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that he Saw TV Footage
of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Comments by Jared Israel [Posted 12 September 2002]

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm

Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair. Bush is lying about where
he was, what he was doing and what he knew, during the crucial period
between 8.45 and 9 AM on Sept 11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Why did the President - after being told "America is under attack" continue
to listen to schoolchildren reading for another 25 minutes ? Why was he
cheering, smiling and joking even as it was known that at least one more
hijacked plane was on the loose ? View the TV footage which proves treason
at the top level.

2:6 http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/vid.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Section 3: The Ficticious Hijackers

If 19 Arabs hijacked the planes, why are there no Arabic names on any of the
passenger lists? If they used non-Arabic aliases, which of the " innocents "
on the lists are alleged to be the hijackers?
3:1 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (first WTC crash.)

3:2 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
AA 77 (Pentagon crash)

3:3
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
UAL 175 (2nd WTC crash)

3:4 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
UAL 93 (Pensylvannia crash)

If they are alleged to have been using non- Arabic aliases (19 obviously
Arabic men got on board using non-Arabic ID, with 100% success rate ? ), why
did the FBI claim that they were traced through the use of credit cards to
buy tickets in their own names?

If 9 of the alleged hijackers were searched before boarding, as claimed in
this article
3:5 http://www.policetalk.com/9_hijackers.html
why is there no airport security footage of them? How did they (allegedly)
get on board with knives, guns, AND electronic guidance systems, while being
searched, but avoiding security cameras and not being on the passenger
lists?
What aliases were they alleged to be using when they were searched,and if
they were not using aliases, why are they not on the passenger lists?

What of reports that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive, and had
nothing to do with the attacks ?
3:6 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
3:7 http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm
3:8 http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm
3:9http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T/
still_alive__fbi_mixed_up_on_t.html
3:10http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm

According to this article
3:11
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021210/ts_nm/attack_germ
any_trial_dc_2

the FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the passengers and
crew. If they used gas they would have been affected themselves - unless
they had masks. The story gets better all the time. They somehow got on
board with masks, gas, guns,knives and electronic guidance systems, in spite
of being searched, didn't show up on the airport security cameras, and were
not on the passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented
cars outside the airport ( last minute brushing up on the way there, about
how to fly the things! ) and then crashed the planes in breath taking
displays of skilled piloting. Just to make sure we knew who they were, their
passports were conveniently found in spite of fiery crashes which
incinerated the planes and occupants. So they got on board with false IDs
but used their real passports ?

If the mythical Arab hijackers really were on the planes and airport
security systems failed due to incompetence ( not once but 19 times! ),
where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into racehorse
doping scandals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------

Section 4: More oddities

Why the official story concerning the hijacking of AA11 (first WTC crash)
cannot possibly be true.

4:1 9/11 Redux: (The Observerąs Cut) American Airlines Flight 11,
Reexamined By David L. Graham
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/redux.html

Was an urban rescue team sent to New York the night before the
attacks?
4:2 http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm
4:3 http://www.tpromo.com/gk/jun02/062602.htm

4.4 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official story of 9 11
attacks.
Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html

National Security Advisor Rice and WhiteHouse spokesman Fleischer lied in
saying that nobody had ever concieved of planes being used in this manner,
their statements in this article,

Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC
News May 16 2002
4:5 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html

when the 1994 extract from Time magazine, quoted in article 2:1 demonstrates
that the potential problem had been recognized for decades.
And there are other examples of this possibility having been widely
recognized prior to sept 11.
4:6 "Omens of terror." by David Wise Oct 7 2001
http://www.hermes-press.com/omens.htm

In article 4:5 Rice also lied in saying that any threat had been
overwhelmingly perceived as being overseas. The statement she made is in
this press briefing.
4:7 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice
The James S. Brady Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10PM EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html

But this is the truth about the memo to which she refers.

4:8 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S. by Bob Wooward and Dan
Eggen.Washington Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3
5744-2002May17&notFound=true

What did happen to Flight 93? by Richrad Wallace. The Daily Mirror sept 13,
2002

4:9 http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html

4:10 http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/flight-93-shot-down.htm

4.11
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&
siteid=50143

Section 5: Where is the evidence against Bin laden?

Why is it that the US government doesn't feel confident enough of it's case
against Bin laden to lay any formal charges, but keeps " finding" convenient
video " confession" tapes ? Probably because new video technology makes it
impossible to distinguish between a real video confession and a fake.

When seeing and hearing isn't believing. by William M. Arkin. Washington
Post Feb 1 1999
5:1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald. may
16 2002
5:2 http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/16/1021415016681.html

For more detailed evidence of a preplanned agenda to fabricate evidence
against Bin Laden,

Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.
2:2 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/01/113757.php

(Read the section called "Evidence please !")

It has become a common myth that Bin Laden has admitted to the attacks. This
simply isn't true.

Bin laden denies terror attacks and points finger at jews. Annanova
news.
5:3
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war. ABC news online
Sept 17 2001.
5:4 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010917010639_1.htm

Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS ONline Milwaukee Jornal
Sentinal Sept 16 2001
5;5 http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp

Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in USA were committed by some
American terrorist group. Pravda Sept 12 2001
5:6 http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/09/12/14910.html

Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle East News
5:7 http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-37/reg/bin_laden_denies.htm

Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN sept 17 2001
5:8 http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

Bin Laden denies role in attacks. newsday.com Sept 17 2001
5:9 http://www.newsday.com/ny-wobin172369727sep17,0,7370581.story

Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13
2001.
5:10http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/denies-reuters-taliban.htm

Section 6: Insider trading reveals high level foreknowledge

In the first few hours after the attacks, it was reported that investigators
were already looking into huge volumes of insider trading on airline stocks
in the weeks leading up to the attacks.
Why has this story since completely disappeared? Do authorities seriously
expect us to believe that more than a year later, they still do not know who
was responsible? Should not alarm bells have been ringing BEFORE the attacks
with these record volumes of trading?
If the executive director of the CIA had previously managed the firm which
handled much of the trade, are we seriously expected to believe that he
doesn't know who was responsible?

Suppresed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly Into The CIA's
Highest Ranks -- CIA Executive Director `Buzzy' Krongard Managed Firm That
Handled `Put' Options on UAL, by Michael C. Ruppert, 9 Oct 2001
6:1 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

Mystery of terror `insider dealers', by Chris Blackhurst, 14 Oct 2001
6:2 http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402

Profits of Death -- Insider Trading and 9-11, by Tom Flocco - Edited by
Michael C. Ruppert, 6 Dec 2001
6:3 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO112B.html

Where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into local
government contract scandals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Section 7: The pentagon frame up

It is alleged that that American Airlines 77 ( a hijacked Boeing 757 )
crashed into the Pentagon. A Boeing 757 is a very large aircraft with a
wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft. So how did it make an initial
hole 12 ft wide, collapsing only about a 35 ft depth of the outer ring of
the building - and not leave any wreckage outside ?
This photo of the damage to the Pentagon wall
7:1 http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm
proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon was NOT AA 77, which
demonstrates the Pentagon attack to have been a self - inflicted frame up.

For a quick overview of the impossibility of the official story
7:2 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

For a full physical analysis of the crash scene

Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. by Gerard Holmgren Oct
2002
7:3 http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php

Why was there a concerted effort to fabricate eyewitness evidence for the
official story regarding AA 77?

Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. by Gerard Holmgren
June 2002

7:4
http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast

7:5 The Pentaogn crash hoax
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sectrion 8: If the Attack on Afghanistan was a retaliation for Sept 11, why
had it already been planned months before ?

BBC News report by George Arney.
8:1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

U.S. Planned for attack on Al -Qaida. White house given strategy two days
before Sept 11.NBC news. May 16 2002
8:2
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:A5WwRGMKgTYC:www.unansweredquestions.ne
t/timeline/2002/msnbc051602.html+U.S.+Planned+for+attack+on+Al+-Qaeda.+White
+house+given+strategy+two+days+before+Sept+11.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

US planned to hit bin Laden ahead of September 11 By David Rennie in
Washington

8:3
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/walq05.xml
Why were we originally told that the attack on Afghanistan was not planned
prior to sept 11, and was purely a retaliation to a " surprise " attack, and
the story then changed after proof of the preplanned attack came to light ?

Section 9: U.S. and Bin Laden co-operate behind the scenes.

The new story is that they allegedly feared Bin Laden so much that they
wanted to get him first. So why didn't they arrest him when they had the
chance in July 2001?
The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital
last July in Dubai, by Alexandra Richard, Translated courtesy of Tiphaine
Dickson, Le Figaro, 11 Oct 2001
9:1 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
9:2 http://guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
9:3 http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/lefigaro.htm

Bin Laden met with the CIA in July and walked away by Michael C. Ruppert
9:4 http://www.rense.com/general16/bin.htm
And why was the Bush family still in business with the Bin Laden Family,
even AFTER Sept 11?

Osama bin Laden's Bush family Business Connections, Alliance With Pakistan
Will Stimulate Drug Trade, Bring Revenues Under U.S. Control --Colombian
Opium Production Will Soar; The Taliban's Biggest Economic Attack on the
U.S. Came in February With The Destruction of Its Opium Crop by Michael C.
Ruppert, 18 Sept 2001
9:5 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html
Carlyle profit from Afghan war, by David Lazarus, 2 Dec 2001
9:6 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LAZ112A.html

Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm, by Leslie
Wayne, 5 Mar 2001
9:7 http://www.truthout.com/0662.Bush.Saudi.htm

The George W. Bush Money Tree
9:8 http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm

Bush Family's dirty little secret: President's oil companies funded by Bin
Laden family and wealthy Saudis who financed Osama bin Laden, by Rick
Wiles,Sep 2001
9:9 http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm

Arms Buildup Enriches Carlyle Group, Bush Sr. is Consultant, by Mark
Fineman, 10 Jan 2002
9:10 http://www.truthout.com/01.11F.Arms.Carlyle.htm

Gaping holes in the CIA V Bin Laden Story by Jared Israel
9:11 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm

BushLaden by Jared Israel
9:12 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm

Addition to the above article
9:13 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen2-i.htm

Judicial Watch:Bush/Bin Laden connection " has now turned into a scandal "
Statement from Judicial watch with comments by Jared Israel
9:14 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm

9:15 Bin laden. Terrorist monster:Take two ! by Jared Israel. Oct 9 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo-a.htm
9:16 New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama's Brother
in Law by Michel Chossudovsky 27 december 2002
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO212A.html

And why did the US turn down an offer to extradite Bin Laden in 1996, AFTER
naming him as wanted for the 1993 WTC bombing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Section 10: The suspicious collapse of the World trade centre Towers.

How did the WTC collapse? Why no serious inquiry? Why was the debris rushed
away for recycling before any examination could be held?

10:1 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J. McMichael Nov 25 2001
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
10:2 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2 by J.McMichael
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/mslp_ii.htm

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": Fire Engineering's Bill Manning Calls
for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse, 4 Jan 2002
10:3 http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2002-January/000200.html
10:4 http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/jan2002/markr19-12.htm
10:5
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/FireEngineering-1-4-02-BurningQuestionsNeedAn
swers.pdf
10:6 A firefighter says "we think there were bombs set in the building"
http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html

10:7 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on Why the WTC collapsed by John
Flaherty and Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm

10:8 Documentary footage from the scene of the WTC attacks,and eyewitness
accounts from firefighters at the scene reveal serious flaws in the official
accounts.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings/911-oddities-revealed.htm

For a series of engineering articles and informative videos on the WTC
collapse, see

10:9 http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/Collapse_update.htm

10:10 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23816.php

10:11 The World Trade Centre demolition
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm

10:12 Capter 1 of the FEMA WTC collapse report (with comment)
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

10:13 Capter 2 (with comment)
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch2.htm

Steel melts at 1539 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosine) burns at 800 degrees. Are
we seriously expected to believe that burning kerosine towards the top of
the building ( heat travels upwards ) somehow caused both towers to neatly
implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled demolition ?
Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban housefires.
Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion completely
taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about burning
jet fuel melting steel?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Section 11: Hands off Bin laden !

Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the
US?

Has someone been sitting on the FBI? Transcript of a BBC Newsnight Report on
"the questionable links of the bin Laden Family," 6 Nov 2001
11:1 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BBC111A.html
11:2 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probetrans.htm (added comments by
Jared Israel)

Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens, Hindustan Times, 7 Nov 2001
11:3 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HIN111A.html

US efforts to make peace summed up by `oil', by Lara Marlowe, 19 Nov 2001
11:4 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR111A.html
11:5 http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/news369.htm
Called Off the Trail? FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were Told,
'Let Sleeping Dogs Lie'
By Brian Ross and Vic Walker. ABC News Dec 19 2002
11:6
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/FBI_whistleblowers021219.
html
After capuring one of the six most wanted Taliban leaders, the US then let
him go. "By mistake " of course, because of "flawed intelligence."
11:7 Taliban general 'freed by mistake' Sunday Times Dec 19 2002
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,5704967%255E1557
4,00.html
11:8 US accidentally set wanted taliban Leader free. Clari news dec 18 2002.
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bn/Qus-attacks-taliban.RVGa_CD
I.html
11:9 FBI agent Robert Wright say FBI assigned to intelligence operations
continue to protect terrorists from criminal investigations and
prosecutions. Judicial Watch Sept 11, 2002.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2469.shtml

Section 12: Its really not so surprising.

In 1962, the joint chiefs of staff approved a CIA plan to commit terrorist
acts against the US and frame Cuba.

Friendly Fire -- Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities
to Provoke War With Cuba, by David Ruppe, 1 May 2001
12:1 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, The National Security
Archive, 30 Apr 2001
12:2 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Northwoods - a plan for terror to justify war. Comments by Jared Israel.
12:3 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm

US military schemes- ominously like 9/11.
12:19 http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/bamford.htm
If such tactics were considered normal and acceptable practice by the
Government in 1962, what evidence is there that things have changed?

Henry Kissenger advocated a similar strategy in 1992
12:20 http://www.spotlight.org/Newsbureau/Prisoner/Media/media.html

as Did Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997.
A War in the Planning for Four Years. HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?
Zbigniew Brzezinski and the CFR Put War Plans In a 1997 Book - It Is "A
Blueprint for World Dictatorship," Says a Former German Defense and NATO
Official Who Warned of Global Domination in 1984,in an Exclusive Interview
With FTW byMichael C. Ruppert
12:21 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Section 13: Who created and funded the Al Qaeda Network?

A Vital Piece of the Puzzle: Dollars for Terror -- The United States and
Islam, by Carol Brouillet ·
13:1 http://www.communitycurrency.org/vital.html

Bin Laden in the Balkans - Collection of mainstream media articles. Compiled
by Jared Israel
13:2 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm

The Creation called Osama by Shamsul Islam
13:3 http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm

"Articles documenting US creation of taliban and Bin Laden's terrorist
network" Series of links to different articles
13:4 http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/doc.htm

"Osama Bin Laden: Made in USA" by Jared Israel
13:5 http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm

"Bush and the media cover up the Jihad schoolbook scandal" by Jared Israel
13:6 http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm

U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo, by Umberto Pascali, 2 Nov 2001
13:7 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAS111A.html
Which Terrorists are worse? Al Quaeda? Or the KLA? by Jared Israel
13:8 http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/kla-aq.htm

Section14 : Who created the civil war in Afghanistan?
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser [Posted 6 October 2001]
Ex- National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan war and Islamism were
made in Washington
14:1 http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm

Section 15:Why have the President and Vice President resisted moves for an
inquiry into Sept 11?
Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes CNN Jan 29 2002.
15:1 http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/
Bush,GOP blast calls for 9/11 inquiry. CNN May 17 2002
15:2 http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/16/president.gop.senators/
Daschle: Bush, Cheney Urged No Sept. 11 Inquiry Reuters newswire UK May 26
2002
15:3 http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1680
Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation By Mike Hersh Oct 24, 2002, 2:22pm
15:4 http://www.mikehersh.com/article_158.shtml
Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC
News May 16 2002
4:5 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html
15.5 Bush opposes 9/11 query panel. CBS News. May 23 2002.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
15:6 9/11 Panel asks what briefers told Bush. White House retreats on
independent probe.
Dana Priest and Dana Milbank. Washington Post Sept 21 2002. Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4
6446-2002Sep20&notFound=true

Everyman

unread,

Mar 1, 2003, 6:10:05 PM3/1/03

Turks today turned down cash for justice and a clear conscience -- No
Northern Front! No northern staging for Anglo-American invasion of Iraq!!!

Bulgaria-Britain-US-Israel Axis delt setback in rape of Iraq, plunder of
Islam, monopolization of world fossil energy -- France, Turkey, China,
Russia new moral leaders among the nations

Pressler wrote the before learning that Turkish masses have triumphed over
the tiny globalist ruling minority today -- but still this is a very clear
exposition of the current state of affairs:
-----------

Larry Pressler writes:

The Bush and Blair governments are dragging the public kicking and screaming
into a war that threatens to plunge the world into chaos and which almost
nobody wants. Like an occupying force, British politicians representing
elite interests from both leading political parties are blatantly defying
the will of the British public, just as their counterparts are defying the
public in Turkey where 90% of the population is opposed to war in all
circumstances, in Spain where 79% is opposed to war in all circumstances,
and in Italy where 80% is opposed.

This would be outrageous enough, but there is more. A massive assault is
being planned against a crushed Third World country that was demolished by
the US/UK in the original Gulf War, by continuous (and now all but daily)
bombing raids since, and by murderous sanctions that have been described as
"genocidal" by senior United Nations diplomats who resigned in protest.

But even this is not the whole story. The British and US governments, with
the near 100% complicity of the mainstream media, are basing their arguments
for war on two key deceptions:

1) Iraq has large quantities of deadly weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
which it is not prepared to disclose or surrender.

2) Iraq has had 12 years to disarm but has never done so - a further 120
days of weapons inspections (as proposed by the Franco-German initiative)
are therefore pointless.

Desperate to stick to their early to mid-March timetable for war, the
British and US governments have declared the futility of further
inspections. Tony Blair has dismissed the Franco-German plan for peaceful
disarmament, saying it was "absurd" to think UN inspectors could find lethal
weapons without Baghdad's full cooperation:

"The idea that inspectors could conceivably sniff out the weapons... without
the help of Iraqi authorities is absurd," the prime minister told
parliament. "They are not a detective agency and even if they were Iraq is a
country with a land mass roughly the size of France." (Mike Peacock,
'Britain's Blair Slams Franco-German Iraq Plan', Reuters, February 25, 2003)

In reality, Blair's key claims are flatly contradicted by the UNSCOM
inspectors who sought to disarm Iraq between 1991-98.

Fundamentally Eliminated - The View From UNSCOM And Elsewhere

In 'Concerning Disarmament and Current and Future Ongoing Monitoring and
Verification Issues, 27 March 1999, a United Nations Panel reported:

"[I]n spite of well-known difficult circumstances, UNSCOM and IAEA have been
effective in uncovering and destroying many elements of Iraq's proscribed
weapons programmes in accordance with the mandate provided by the Security
Council. It is the panel's understanding that IAEA has been able to devise
a technically coherent picture of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. UNSCOM
has achieved considerable progress in establishing material balances of
Iraq's proscribed weapons. Although important elements still have to be
resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been
eliminated." (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/Amorim%20Report.htm)

Corroborating this, an article in Newsweek (February 24) "raises questions
about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist". Newsweek
reports that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995,
Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed after returning to Iraq in 1996, told UN
inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and
biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.

In its latest Media Advisory, the US media watch group FAIR reports how Gen.
Kamel was previously best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions
concerning its pre-Gulf War development of biological weapons. But
Newsweek's John Barry has obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing
by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UNSCOM.
This transcript reveals how the US and UK have kept the public from the
truth.

Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its
chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them,"
Barry writes. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks,
microfiches" and production moulds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in
order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of resuming
production after inspections had finished.

The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reports, and "a military
aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the
destruction of WMD stocks". These statements were "hushed up by the U.N.
inspectors" in order to "bluff Saddam into disclosing still more". (FAIR,
Media Advisory: 'Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed -
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press',
February 27, 2003, http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html)

In the transcript, Kamel says categorically:

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." (See Glen Rangwala's analysis of
the Kamel transcript: http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html)

Kamel was an extremely high-profile defector who has been repeatedly cited
as a credible source by George Bush, Tony Blair and leading administration
officials. Kamel was, for example, mentioned in Secretary of State Colin
Powell's infamous February 5 presentation to the UN Security Council:

"It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of
the deadly nerve agent, VX... The admission only came out after inspectors
collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel,
Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law."

In an earlier Media Advisory, FAIR reported that some of the current UNMOVIC
inspectors believe that Iraq may indeed be free of all banned weapons:

"We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet," one unnamed UNMOVIC
official told Los Angeles Times Baghdad correspondent Sergei Loiko (December
31, 2002), who added:

"The inspector said his colleagues think it possible that Iraq really has
eliminated its banned materials." (Fair, Media Advisory: 'Iraq's Hidden
Weapons: From Allegation to Fact', February 4, 2003
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-weapons.html)

In an April 2002 briefing, 'A Threat to the World? The facts about Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction', Cambridge analyst Glen Rangwala writes:

"UNSCOM recorded how there was compliance with most of its work for over
seven years of intrusive inspections. As a result, UNSCOM's executive
chairman Rolf Ekeus reported to the Security Council on 11 April 1997 that '
not much is unknown about Iraq's retained proscribed weapons capabilities'."

Many of the weapons inspectors have candidly recorded the extensive
disarmament of Iraq. Reviewing the 9 years of Iraqi disarmament, Rolf Ekeus
stated in a presentation at Harvard University on 23 May 2000 that "in all
areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally".
(http://www.arabmediawatch.com/iraq/reading/artgr6.htm)

As we have reported, chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, has
described how Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed", with 90-95% of its weapons
of mass destruction eliminated between 1991-98. Of nuclear weapons
capability, for example, Ritter says:

"When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100%
eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and
facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been
destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And
we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air -
the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We
never found anything." (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile
Books, 2002, p.26)

Ritter explains how UN arms inspectors roamed the country monitoring Iraq's
chemical, biological and nuclear facilities, installing sensitive sniffers
and cameras and performing no-notice inspections:

"We blanketed Iraq - every research and development facility, every
university, every school, every hospital, every beer factory..." (p.38)

Two Notes On The Media

1) All of the above - crucial information relating to the current crisis -
has been almost completely excluded from the media. People simply do not
know that there are good reasons for thinking that Iraq has no WMD, and that
arms inspections of the kind taking place now have been enormously
successful in disarming Iraq in the past. Incredibly, there has been almost
no discussion on the success of the 1991-98 UNSCOM inspections - an
obviously key issue for understanding the worth of the current inspection
process - and almost no mention of the opinions of previous inspectors
describing "fundamental disarmament".

As a result of this media silence, politicians have been free to talk
endlessly of the threat from Iraq's WMD, and of its lamentable failure to
cooperate and disarm peacefully. In a recent BBC Question Time programme, UK
environment minister Michael Meacher said that "no one would argue that
Saddam Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction" (February 27) - the
entire panel appeared to be in agreement.

2) John Pilger aside, no mainstream journalist has sought to draw attention
to this deep complicity of the media in suppressing the most important facts
contradicting the US/UK case for war. Even radical journalists like Robert
Fisk, Greg Palast and George Monbiot have failed to discuss the role of the
liberal media - The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent, the Independent
on Sunday, and the BBC and ITN news - in burying these facts and in thereby
making war possible.

Although the performance of the media has been appalling throughout this
crisis, as we have documented, there remains a 'gentleman's agreement' among
journalists whereby it is understood that media hosting a journalist's work
should not be criticised (just as all corporate employees understand they
are not to criticise their company's product in front of customers). This
means that radical journalists - who all work for liberal media companies -
are silent on the complicity of the media publishing them, such that these
media are protected from all honest public criticism. This has long been
unacceptable in a 'free press', but it is a genuine disaster for democracy
now when these same liberal media are playing a key role in denying the
public access to the most important facts that completely undermine the case
for an unnecessary and grossly immoral war. As the ancient sage, Nagarjuna,
warns:

"Not doing harm to others,
Not bowing down to the ignoble,
Not abandoning the path of virtue -
These are small points, but of great
Importance."

Now is the time for honesty, truth, dissent, protest and resignations - we
must +not+ subordinate the welfare of others to our own self-interest. We
must not bow down to the ignoble

=========

Know what happens to organized crime bosses who fail to deliver after a
major commitment of assets? Maybe Bush and his gang won't continue around
long enough for us to impeach him.

===========
Turk update:

By LOUIS MEIXLER, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20030301/ap_on
_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_iraq_28

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey's parliament dealt a stunning blow to U.S. war
planning Saturday by failing to approve a bill allowing in American combat
troops to open a northern front against Iraq.

The decision was likely to seriously strain ties with Washington and marked
a setback to U.S. efforts to show Saddam Hussein that he is surrounded and
his neighbors support a U.S.-led coalition.

Prime Minister Abdullah Gul hastily called a meeting with his top ministers.
It was not immediately clear if his Islamic-influenced ruling Justice and
Development party would resubmit the motion. "We will assess all this," said
Gul, looking shaken and angry.

The parliament vote was 264-250 in favor, with 19 abstentions. But speaker
Bulent Arinc nullified the decision because it was four short of the simple
majority required by the constitution. He then closed parliament until
Tuesday.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Pearson rushed to the Foreign Ministry after the
vote.

"We had certainly hoped for a favorable decision," he said. "We will wait
for further information and advice from the government of Turkey about how
we should proceed."

Turkish lawmakers had faced overwhelming public opposition to basing U.S.
troops on Turkish soil. Yet Washington had been so sure of winning approval
from close ally and NATO member Turkey, that ships carrying U.S. tanks are
waiting off Turkey's coast for deployment and the U.S. military has
thousands of tons of military equipment ready to unload at the southern
Turkish port of Iskenderun.

For weeks, the Bush administration had been pressing Turkey to agree to a
possible northern front, which would split Saddam Hussein's army between the
north and the south, likely making a war shorter and less bloody.

The motion would have empowered Turkey's government to authorize the basing
of up to 62,000 troops, 255 warplanes and 65 helicopters. In exchange,
Washington promised $15 billion in loans and grants to cushion the Turkish
economy from the impact of war.

Besides that funding, Turkey also risks losing Washington's support which
was crucial in securing billions in loans that rescued the country during an
economic crisis in 2001.

The United States has also pushed Turkey's eagerly sought candidacy in the
European Union. And if Turkey does not agree to host U.S. forces, it loses a
say in the future of neighboring Iraq if there is a war.

That is a critical issue for Turkey, which fears that a war could lead Kurds
in northern Iraq to declare an independent state and in turn inspire
Turkey's own Kurdish minority.

Nonetheless, Turkey's governing party had difficulty selling the unpopular
measure to the Turkish people and could not push through the motion despite
its overwhelming majority in parliament.

Polls show as much as 94 percent of the Muslim-dominated Turkish public
opposes a war with Iraq. Before the vote, 50,000 Turks staged an anti-war
rally near parliament as 4,000 police stood guard. They chanted "No to War"
and "We don't want to be America's soldiers." Some carried banners that
read: "The people will stop this war."

After the speaker nullified the vote, hundreds of Turks celebrated in the
streets of central Ankara, shouting anti-U.S. slogans.

"We are all Iraqis ... We will not kill, we will not die," they chanted.
They also accused the Islamic-rooted Justice party of "collaborating" with
Washington.

The Justice party was planning to meet Sunday, said Reha Denemec, the
party's deputy chairman. "We did not expect these results, but this is a
democracy," he said.

Everyman

unread,

Mar 1, 2003, 6:25:57 PM3/1/03

Pressler wrote this before learning that Turkish masses have triumphed over

Larry Pressler writes:

=========

===========

Everyman

unread,

Mar 1, 2003, 8:45:44 PM3/1/03

A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
An Advisory to US Troops
by LAWRENCE MOSQUEDA

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

As the United States government under George Bush gets closer to attacking
the people of Iraq, there are several things that the men and women of the
U.S. armed forces need to know and bear in mind as they are given orders
from the Bush administration. This information is provided for the use of
the members of the armed forces, their families, friends and supporters, and
all who are concerned about the current direction of U.S. policy toward
Iraq.

The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:

"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear
that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior
officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer",
892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In
each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey
Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders,
including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The
moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who
would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct
violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a
decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that
North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald
Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that
it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says,
'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.'
This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the
United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg
trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in
the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in
Crisis")

Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era,
when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the
reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for
their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men,
women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the
principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy" of the United States.
(Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)

Over the past year there have been literally thousands of articles written
about the impact of the coming war with Iraq. Many are based on politics and
the wisdom of engaging in an international war against a country that has
not attacked the U.S. and the legality of engaging in what Bush and
Rumsfield call "preemptive war." World opinion at the highest levels, and
among the general population, is that a U.S. first strike on Iraq would be
wrong, both politically and morally. There is also considerable evidence
that Bush's plans are fundamentally illegal, from both an international and
domestic perspective. If the war is indeed illegal, members of the armed
forces have a legal and moral obligation to resist illegal orders, according
to their oath of induction.

The evidence from an international perspective is overwhelming. The United
States Constitution makes treaties that are signed by the government
equivalent to the "law of the land" itself, Article VI, para. 2. Among the
international laws and treaties that a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq may
violate are: · The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1899, which was
reaffirmed by the U.S. at the 1946 Nuremberg International Military
Tribunals; · Resolution on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of
Nuclear War, adopted UN General Assembly, Dec 12, 1980; · Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; December 9, 1948,
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General Assembly; · Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,
Adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the
Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of
War; · Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151, Oct. 5, 1978; ·
The Charter of the United Nations; · The Nuremberg Principles, which define
as a crime against peace, "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a
war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy
for accomplishment of any of the forgoing." (For many of these treaties and
others, see the Yale Avalon project at
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm. Also see a letter to Canadian
soldiers sent by Hamilton Action for Social Change at
http://www.hwcn.org/link/hasc/letter_cf.html)

As Hamilton Action for Social Change has noted "Under the Nuremberg
Principles, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders who
are preparing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. We are all
bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948:
[T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have
intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience
imposed by the individual state." At the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was
further declared "[A]nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an
opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under
international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent
commission of the crimes."

The outcry about the coming war with Iraq is also overwhelming from legal
experts who have studied this in great detail.

By November of 2002, 315 law professors had signed a statement entitled "A
US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a
Dangerous Precedent for Violence That Will Endanger the American People."

Other legal organizations such as the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
and the Western States Legal Foundation have written more extensive reports,
such as that by Andrew Lichterman and John Burroughs on "War is Not the Path
to Peace; The United States, Iraq, and the Need for Stronger International
Legal Standards to Prevent War." As the report indicates "Aggressive war is
one of the most serious transgressions of international law." In fact, at
the Nuremberg trials, the issue was not just individual or collective acts
of atrocities or brutal actions but the starting of an aggressive war
itself. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson stated,

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen
leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started
it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes
of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify
resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an
instrument of policy." (August 12, 1945, Department of State Bulletin. )

In another report written by the same authors and also by Michael Ratner,
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, and Jules
Lobel, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh entitled "The United
Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq," the authors note that:

"Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of
force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an
actual or imminent armed attack: and when the Security Council has directed
or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and
security. Neither of those circumstances now exists. Absent one of them,
U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful."

The authors were specifically referring to Article 51 of the UN Charter on
the right to self-defense. Nothing that Iraq has done would call that
provision into effect. The report also states that:

"There is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the
concept of self-defense, as advocated in the Bush Administration's
September, 2002 "National Security Strategy" to authorize
"preemptive"--really preventive--strikes against states based on potential
threats arising from possession or development of chemical, biological, or
nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion would destabilize
the present system of UN Charter restraints on the use of force. Further,
there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that Iraq is supplying
weapons of mass destruction to terrorist.

The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq
as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,
which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state." Thus the rationales being
given to the world, the American public, and the armed forces are illegal on
their face. (For a copy of this report see
www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm)

It is important to note that none of the authors cited thus far or to be
cited have any support for Saddam Hussein or the Government of Iraq
whatsoever. They and others who do not support an illegal war in Iraq
believe that government of Saddam Hussein is corrupt, vile, and
contemptible. So is the leadership and governments of many of our "allies,"
such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan-governments that the United States may
very well attack within the next decade. It is important to remember that
Saddam Hussein was an important "ally" during the 1980s and that many of the
weapons that may be faced by our armed forces will bear a "Made in the USA"
label. The issue here is not the "evil' of Saddam Hussein, nor the
international community doing nothing, but an illegal march to war by the
Bush administration.

Even former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a very conservative Republican
from Texas, has warned that an "unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate
international law and undermine world support for President Bush's goal of
ousting Saddam Hussein." Armey explicitly states "If we try to act against
Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, without proper provocation, we will
not have the support of other nation states who might do so. I don't believe
that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation.
It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we
should be as a nation." (Chicago Tribune, August 9, 2002, available at

Other articles demonstrating the illegality of this war can be found at
here.

In addition to the violations of international laws, which have been
incorporated into U.S. law, the impending attack on Iraq is a direct
violation of national law as Bush claims that he has the authority to decide
whether the U.S. will go to war or not. The U.S. Constitution is very
explicit on this point. Only the Congress has the authority to declare war,
Article 1, section 8, Par. 11. Congress does not have the right to give that
power away, or to delegate that power to the president or anyone else. The
President as the "Commander in Chief" (Article 2, section 2, Par. 1) can
command the armed forces in times of peace and war, but he does not have the
authority to declare the war or determine if that war is to occur,
especially if he is engaged in illegal conduct in violation of the
Constitution itself or his oath of office. The Constitution spells out very
clearly the responsibility of the President and his oath, "I do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of
the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States." (Article 2, section 2, Par.
8). The President also has the primary duty to make sure "that the laws be
faithfully executed," (Article 2, section 3).

The vaguely worded resolution passed by the Congress in October was both
illegal and an act of cowardice, as noted by Senator Robert Byrd of West
Virginia. Byrd's remarks were made on the floor of the Senate on October 3,
2002. In part he said:

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a
product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its
scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution
to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President
blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign
nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an
unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority
under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter
of the United Nations on its head."

The full texts of his remarks are well worth reading, not only on the
illegality of the war but also the illegality of Congress in abandoning its
duty under the Constitution.

MORAL CODES AND LAWS

The United States is a secular country with a great variety of religions,
which are adhered to by the majority of the people. Political leaders who
claim to speak in the name of God are rightfully looked upon with suspicion,
whether they are foreign leaders or the president of the United States. This
is especially true when the issues are those of war and peace. Nevertheless,
the U.S. often blends the border on issues of Church and State, including in
public oaths, such as the oath which is taken at the time of induction. This
author will not claim to know the will of God, but it is valuable to examine
what the religious leaders of the country are saying about this war.
Virtually every major religion in the United States has come out against the
Bush plans for war. Again this is not because of any support for Saddam
Hussein, but rather the Bush plans do not meet any criteria for the concept
of "just war." One would expect this from the religions that are respected
and pacifist, but it also true from those who have supported past U.S. wars,
and even have Chaplains in the service. Below is a sample of the analysis of
U.S. religious leaders:

Catholic

We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war and help lead
the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's
threats that conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of military
force. US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Letter to President Bush, Sept.
13, 2002.

Episcopalian

The question for us now must be: what is our role in the community of
nations? I believe we have the capacity within us to help lead our world
into the way of justness and peace. The freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the
United States oblige us to attend not only to our own welfare, but to the
well-being of the world around us. A superpower, especially one that
declares itself to be "under God," must exercise the role of super servant.
Our nation has an opportunity to reflect the values and ideals that we
espouse by focusing upon issues of poverty, disease and despair, not only
within our own nation but throughout the global community of which we are a
part. The Presiding Bishop's statement on military action against Iraq,
September 6, 2002.

Jewish International cooperation is far, far better than unilateral action,
and the U.S. must explore all reasonable means of attaining such support.
Non-military action is always preferable to military action, and the U.S.
must fully explore all options to resolve the situation through such means.
If the effort to obtain international cooperation and support through the
United Nations fails, the U.S. must work with other nations to obtain
cooperation in any military action. Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Executive Committee Decision on Unilateral Action by the U.S. Against Iraq.

Lutheran

While we are fully aware of the potential threat posed by the government of
Iraq and its leader, I believe it is wrong for the United States to seek to
over-throw the regime of Saddam Hussein with military action. Morally, I
oppose it because I know a war with Iraq will have great consequences for
the people of Iraq, who have already suffered through years of war and
economic sanctions. Further, I believe it is detrimental to U.S. interests
to take unilateral military action when there is strong international
support for weapons inspections, and when most other governments oppose
military action. I also believe that U.S. military action at this time will
further destabilize the region. I call upon members of our congregations to
be fervent in prayer, engaged in conversation with one another and with our
leaders. In the final analysis, we must stand unequivocally for peace. ELCA
Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson's Statement on Iraq Situation, August 30,
2002.

Methodist United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an
unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of
our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of
war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we
have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways.
Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is
inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of
Peace, would support this proposed attack. Secretary Jim Winkler of The
United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, August 30,
2002.

Presbyterian

We urge Presbyterians to oppose a precipitate U.S. attack on Iraq and the
Bush administration's new doctrine of pre-emptive military action. We call
upon President George W. Bush and other leaders to: Refrain from language
that seems to label certain individuals and nations as "evil" and others as
"good"; Oppose ethnic and religious stereotyping, Guard against a
unilateralism, rooted in our unique position of political, economic and
military power, that perpetuates the perception that "might makes right";
Allow United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq, without undue pressure or
threats of pre-emptive, unilateral action; and End the economic sanctions
against Iraq, which have been ineffectual but have done untold damage to the
Iraqi people. The General Assembly Council and the staff leadership team of
the Presbyterian Church (USA), September 28, 2002.

United Church of Christ With heavy hearts we hear once again the drumbeat of
war against Iraq. As leaders committed to God's reign of justice and peace
in the world and to the just conduct of our nation, we firmly oppose this
advance to war. While Iraq's weapons potential is uncertain, the death that
would be inflicted on all sides in a war is certain. Striking against Iraq
now will not serve to prevent terrorism or defend our nation's interests. We
fear that war would only provoke greater regional instability and lead to
the mass destruction it is intended to prevent. UCC leaders, September 13,
2002.

Ecumenical As Christians, we are concerned by the likely human costs of war
with Iraq, particularly for civilians. We are unconvinced that the gain for
humanity would be proportionate to the loss. Neither are we convinced that
it has been publicly demonstrated that all reasonable alternative means of
containing Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction have been
exhausted. We call upon our governments to pursue these diplomatic means in
active cooperation with the United Nations and to stop the apparent rush to
war. World Council of Churches, August 30, 2002.

For a fuller elaboration of these and other comments from religious leaders,
such as by the Mennonites, Quakers (Society of Friends), Unitarian
Universalist, and other ecumenical groups see www.ecapc.org. Other religious
and moral objections to Bush's plans have been articulated. In September of
2002, 100 Christian Ethicists from major seminaries, divinity schools, and
traditionally conservative religious schools challenged the claim that
preemptive war on Iraq would be morally justified in a simply worded
statement, "As Christian ethicists, we share a common moral presumption
against a pre-emptive war on Iraq by the United States." (See the Chronicle
of Higher Education, September 23, 2002,)

Religious resistance to Bush's war plans can also be found in the
overwhelming vote of 228-14 by the U.S. Catholic Bishops against the war and
in the unprecedented show of unity by Chicago's top Christian, Jewish, and
Muslim leaders in the first public statement on any national issue of the
Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago in opposing Bush's war.
(Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 1, 2002)

It is noteworthy that the Pope John Paul II has come out very strongly
against this war in unambiguous terms, "No to war!" The Pope said during his
annual address to scores of diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican, an
exhortation that referred in part to Iraq, a country he mentioned twice.
"War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity." (NY
Times, January 14, 2003). The Pope, a seasoned diplomat, was not just making
a moral statement about peace; he referred to the legal codes discussed
earlier in this article, "War is never just another means that one can
choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of
the United Nations organization and international law itself reminds us, war
cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common
good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict
conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population
both during and after the military operations." (See Irish Examiner,
1/13/2003)

It is also important to restate that the head of Bush's own church has come
out against this war. Jim Winkler, the general secretary of the Board of
Church and Society for the United Methodist Church has come out very
strongly against this war. President Bush has refused to meet with Winkler.

"The Methodist Church, he (Winkler) says, is not pacifist, but 'rejects war
as a usual means of national policy'. Methodist scriptural doctrine, he
added, specifies 'war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so
far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the
borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a
neighboring country, nor have any of these countries pleaded for our
assistance, nor does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the
United States'." (See Observer/UK, October 20, 2002)

Individual will have to make their own decisions about the "morality" of the
war but the consensus decision that has been developing among religious
leaders is that this war does not constitute a "just war" by virtually
anyone's standards. The concept of "sin" is also a personal decision but
again those who study these issues from the Pope to theologians to pastors
to other religious leaders do not and cannot give their approval to the
illegal actions that the Bush administration are going to impose on the
world in general, and people of Iraq and the men and women of the U.S. armed
forces in particular.

REASONS FOR THE WAR AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS

The reasons for war are not supposed to be the purview of soldiers in the
field. They are just supposed to follow orders. But when a war is so
blatantly illegal soldiers need to have some background to make an informed
decision about how to conduct themselves. In a short space it is not
possible to delineate the full reasons, but it is not about the dangers of
Saddam Hussein. As indicated above, there are no credible anti-war or peace
advocates that advocate any positive statements about Saddam Hussein or the
Government of Iraq. The world, however, in general, does not believe that
the Bush administration has any solution to the situation. In fact many
believe that Bush, himself, is a significant part of the problem.

Many people have pointed out that this war is about the oil. It is, but it
is much more than that. The United States does not need the oil to survive
but the people in the Bush administration want to expand the hegemony that
the United States government has had since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This is not a critique of U.S. foreign policy, per se, but a recognition of
reality. This is essentially what Bush has been saying in his public
speeches at West Point, etc., and is very explicitly saying in his "National
Security Strategy (NSS), which he published in September of 2002.

The NSS is the political articulation of what the main actors of the Bush
administration published in September 2000, before the elections, before
they took power, and before the fateful day of September 11, 2001. That
project was called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources for a New Century", A Report of The Project For the New American
Century. These documents are essentially the blueprints for hegemony and for
a word that has come back into vogue- Empire. These documents are publicly
available, but not often read. All Americans and all members of the armed
forces should read them. Many of the people quoted in this article have no
doubt read them and understand the policies basic illegalities, and thus the
conclusion that the war itself is domestically, internationally and morally
indefensible.

There are many critiques of the impact of these policies-which articulate
the reasons not to go to war. Some of the better ones can be found at Global
Policy ; Foreign Policy in Focus or the Education for Peace in Iraq Center.
There are also several other valuable research sites.

There are also many U.S. veteran groups that have seen the horrors of war up
close and do not want to have another generation of young Americans suffer
not only the war, but also the post traumatic stresses that emerge after
war, when they discover they have been lied to, have participated in
aggression, and then are abandoned by their government after the wars. This
war is particularly amenable to such, since there is so much dissention,
based on solid information that this war is not only unnecessary but also
illegal, and may be without a foreseeable end.

Charles Sheehan Miles, is a Gulf War veteran and former President of the
National Gulf War Resource Center (http://www.ngwrc.org). He also help to
found the extraordinarily useful "Veterans for Common Sense"
(http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/) which has a great deal of
information about the current situation. On January 16, 2003, he wrote:

"This war does nothing to protect American lives, but it will do everything
to destroy the lives of many thousands of Iraqis and Americans. This war
will not protect us from weapons of mass destruction, but it will make it
more likely Iraq will try to use them. This war will not liberate the Iraqi
people, but it will do everything to ensure they receive a new master, one
ruled by corporate profits and oil to fuel more American consumption. This
war isn't worth the life of one American soldier."
(http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14952)

The idea that those who oppose the Bush plans for war are against the troops
is a fundamental lie. Support for the troops is not done by sending them off
to a war which is fundamentally unnecessary-support is keeping them home.
Support for the troops is not done by lying to them about the purpose and
goals of the war and allowing those who will benefit and profit a free ride
on the backs of the troops. Support for the troops is not done by making
them complicit in an illegal and immoral war-it is done by exposing the lies
and giving the troops an opportunity not to be complicit in war crimes.

A group of veterans of many different wars and eras has issued a statement
that has been distributed to active duty soldiers making some of the points
made in this article. Signers includes many well-known veterans such as
Vietnam veteran and author Ron Kovic (Born on the 4th of July), author and
film producer Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine), and American historian
Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States) and several hundred
other veterans.

The statement "Call to Conscience from Veterans to Active Duty Troops and
Reservist" reads in part:

"Many of us believed serving in the military was our duty, and our job was
to defend this country. Our experiences in the military caused us to
question much of what we were taught. Now we see our REAL duty is to
encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are
being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions
will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active duty and reservists, to
follow your conscience and do the right thing.

In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe
distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of
thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra -- the Highway
of Death -- where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed
trenches, burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the
battlefields radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental drugs,
burning chemical weapons depots and oil fires combined to create a toxic
cocktail affecting both the Iraqi people and Gulf War veterans today. One in
four Gulf War veterans is disabled.

If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an
occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a
people that hate you to your core? You should think about what your
"mission" really is. You are being sent to invade and occupy a people who,
like you and me, are only trying to live their lives and raise their kids.
They pose no threat to the United States even though they have a brutal
dictator as their leader. Who is the U.S. to tell the Iraqi people how to
run their country when many in the U.S. don't even believe their own
President was legally elected?

There is no honor in murder. This war is murder by another name. When, in an
unjust war, an errant bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is not
"collateral damage," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies of
dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant, it is not
"destroying enemy infrastructure," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a
father dies of a heart attack because a bomb disrupted the phone lines so he
could not call an ambulance, it is not "neutralizing command and control
facilities," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand poor farmer
conscripts die in a trench defending a town they have lived in their whole
lives, it is not victory, it is murder.

If the people of the world are ever to be free, there must come a time when
being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being the soldier of a
nation. Now is that time. When orders come to ship out, your response will
profoundly impact the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and
here at home. Your response will help set the course of our future. You will
have choices all along the way. Your commanders want you to obey. We urge
you to think. We urge you to make your choices based on your conscience. If
you choose to resist, we will support you and stand with you because we have
come to understand that our REAL duty is to the people of the world and to
our common future." (To see the full statement and view all the signatures
see www.calltoconscience.net.)

The choices that those in the military and their supporters face are hard
ones. Let us begin with some undisputed options. Members of the armed forces
are sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. They are also sworn to obey all LAWFUL orders and have an
affirmative duty to DISOBEY all UNLAWFUL orders.

The unelected president will not tell his troops or his commanders that he
is issuing unlawful orders. Few, if any, of the top commanders will tell
their troops that they are issuing unlawful orders. Those on the front
lines, those who fly the planes, those who target Cruise missiles and other
weapons of mass destruction need to make decisions. According to
International Law, Domestic Law, the Constitution, and various Moral Codes
it is not enough to say or believe that one is just "doing their job" or
just "following orders." Decisions have to be made.

One should check out the sources of information presented in this article,
to see if International Law still applies to America, to see if the
Constitution still applies, to see if the Pope and other national and
international members of the clergy are right in their moral objections to
this war, to see if the legal arguments are valid against the war or for the
war. One should investigate if they are being lied to by their unelected
commander in chief. Members of the armed forces have a sworn and sacred duty
to uphold the law and the Constitution. According to the laws,
international, domestic, and moral, the interpretation of whether orders are
legal are not only the responsibility of "superior officers," but is needed
each level of command, and by those who execute those commands.

Please note that the information presented here is not meant to encourage
one to break the law, but rather to follow international, domestic, and
moral laws. The information here is not intended to encourage one to break
one's oath but rather to be true to one's duty and conscience and make an
informed decision.

If the decision is made that the orders to begin or continue the war are
illegal, then each bomb dropped will be a war crime, each bomb loaded will
be a war crime, each support effort will be aiding and abetting a crime.
Each death, especially that of a civilian, will be a war crime (not
collateral damage). If the war itself is a crime than all efforts that aid
in that effort are criminal. Given that over 50% of the people of Iraq are
children under the age of 16, this will be a war against children and a
crime against humanity. The decision to obey one's oath and not follow
illegal orders is no doubt a difficult one, and one that will probably
result in punishment from those who issue the illegal orders. One should not
take this issue lightly, just as one should not take the decision to follow
an illegal order lightly. There will no doubt be consequences for those who
follow their conscience. It is the duty of all who recognize the illegality
of the war to support all resisters. For examples on how hundreds of
thousands of GIs resisted the illegal war in Vietnam (by the U.S.
Governments own admission in the Pentagon Papers) read Howard Zinn's "A
People's History of the United States," Chapter 18. For a personal account
of a brave officer's resistance in Vietnam and later, see "Witness to War"
by Charles Clement.

I am aware that many active duty personnel and reservist already have grave
doubts and reservations about the conduct of this war, just as do
significant numbers of veterans and the general public and citizenry. Those
who have severe doubts about the legality of what they are "ordered" to do
should talk to their comrades in arms, their spiritual advisor (if they have
one), and should contact one of the groups listed below and weigh their
options.

There may well be some safety in numbers. Albert Einstein, the genius
physicist, once stated that if 2% of the military refused to fight or
participate, the wars could not continue. Time is short. Or if you are
reading this after the hostilities have commenced, it is time to stop the
madness and war crimes.

At the end of this article there is contact information for organizations
that have historically assisted active duty personnel, reservist, or
veterans of conscience who desire specific legal, political, or moral
guidance in time of war. If possible, these would be good organizations to
contact. As the veterans "Call to Conscience" statement notes "if you have
questions or doubts about your role in the military (for any reason) or in
this war, help is available. Contact one of the organizations listed below.
They can discuss your situation and concerns, give you information on your
legal rights, and help you sort out your possible choices." These
organizations are listed for your information and are not responsible for
the contents of this article.

Also listed below are sources of information that may be useful about the
current situation, in addition to the sources listed in the article.

Lawrence Mosqueda, Ph.D. teaches at The Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Washington. He can be reached at mosq...@evergreen.edu

SUGGESTED RESOURCES:

BOOKS on foreign policy

Noam Chomsky, especially Deterring Democracy, 9/11, Rouge States

Phyllis Bennis, Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11
Crisis

Gilbert Achcar, The Clash of Barbarisms: September 11 and the Making of the
New World Disorder

William Blum, Killing Hope

Dilip Hiro, Iraq, In the Eye of the Storm

WEB SITES

Alternative News and analysis,

www.commondreams.org
www.alternet.org;
www.fair.org

Alternative Analysis,
www.globalexchange.org;
www.znet.org

Middle East Analysis,
www.merip.org;
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/index.html

English Reports from Iraq,
http://www.iraqjournal.org/jeremybio.html

ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE HELPED GIs IN THE PAST
(Some are religious, some political, some pacifist)
Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) The GI Rights Hotline
(800) 394-9544 (215) 563-4620 Fax (510) 465-2459 630 Twentieth Street #302
Oakland, CA 94612 giri...@objector.org
http://girights.objector.org/whoweare.html

American Friends Service Committee-National 1501 Cherry Street Philadelphia,
PA 19102 Phone: (215) 241-7000 Fax: (215) 241-7275 afsc...@afsc.org
www.afsc.org

American Friends Service Committee--New England Region 2161 Massachusetts
Ave. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-661-6130 afsc...@afsc.org

Center on Conscience & War (NISBCO)
1830 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009 Tel: (202) 483-2220 Fax:
(202) 483-1246 Email: nis...@nisbco.org http://www.nisbco.org/

Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild
1168 Union Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 619-233-1701

National Lawyers Guild, National Office
143 Madison Ave 4th Fl., New York NY 10016 212-679-5100 FAX 212 679-2811
nl...@nlg.org http://www.nlg.org/

Northcoast WRL / Humboldt Committee for Conscientious Objectors (NCWRL-HCCO)
1040 H Street Arcata, CA 95521 707-826-0165 HCCO...@sbcglobal.net

Quaker House of Fayetteville, NC
223 Hillside Ave Fayetteville, NC 28301 910-323-3912 or 919-663-7122

Seattle Draft and Military Counseling
PO Box 20604 Seattle, WA 98102 206-789-2751 sd...@scn.org

War Resisters League 339 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10012 212-228-0450 or
800-975-9688 w...@warresisters.org http://www.warresisters.org/

Veterans Call to Conscience
4742 42nd Ave. SW #142 Seattle, WA 98116-4553 CallToCo...@yahoo.com
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/

Veterans for Common Sense
www.veteransforcommonsense.org

National Contacts http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/contacts.asp

Citizen Soldier
267 Fifth Ave., Suite 901 New York, NY 10016
Phone (212) 679-2250 Fax (212) 679-2252 www.citizen-soldier.org/

Fellowship of Reconciliation
P.O. Box 271,NY, NY 10960 845-358-4601 Fax:(845) 358-4924
E-mail: f...@forusa.org http://www.forusa.org

Catholic Peace Fellowship
P.O. Box 41 Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-004
574-631-7666 in...@catholicpeacefellowship.org;
http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/

Peace Education Office of Mennonite Central Committee MCC US
21 S. 12th Street Akron, PA 17501-0500 717-859-3889
t...@mccus.org http://www.mcc.org/ask-a-vet/index.html

Yesterday's Features

CounterPunch Exclusive!
Ann Harrison
Mistrial? Rosenthal Jurors Say They Received Outside Legal Advice

Carl Estabrook
Israel and the US War on Iraq

Ken O'Keefe
Diary of a Human Shield

Ray McGovern
Colin Powell's Blurry Pictures: A Former CIA Man Asks If Intelligence
Analysts Are Still Free to "Tell It Like It Is"

William Hughes
Mona Charen: a True Enemy of Freedom

Linda Heard
Sharon's Bitter Dream of Empire

Fran Quigley
The Survival of Both Peoples

Paul Dean
The Infallible Opinion Poll

Alexander Cockburn
Crowds and Panic; Hitchens and Booze; Lomax and Son House, the Rip-Off
Continues

Tom Wells
Peek-A-Boo with Duct Tape

Edward Teague
An Open Letter to Tony Blair: Stand Tall, But Tell the Truth

Jack McCarthy
Press Ganging Sami Al-Arian

Website of the Day
Rummy and Saddam: the Handshake

Don Ocean

unread,

Mar 1, 2003, 11:33:12 PM3/1/03

Eastman...You are a proven dichioc moron!
Larry Pressler is a shill for the communications Industry.
He started his political career as Max Paisely's pet Senator.
The great state of South Dakota ...Democrat, Republican, etc.
Have never backed Pressler...As much like you...He was the village
Idiot. In spite of his Rhodes scholarship...He just cannot cut the mustard.
But this posting of yours is of course, just more proof to the ISP's that
you just are not bright enough to be allowed on the internet.. Go back to your
gameboy and leave us alone. Your a crossposting piece of fecal matter!

Everyman, whose real nick is Dick(the loony) Eastman wrote:

Don Ocean

unread,

Mar 1, 2003, 11:36:46 PM3/1/03

Everyman wrote:

> A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
> An Advisory to US Troops
> by LAWRENCE MOSQUEDA

So what would a draft dodging idiot like you (Eastman) know or car3e about this?

<Snippity-snip-snip>

Everyman

unread,

Mar 4, 2003, 1:59:09 AM3/4/03

Ignorance is slavery -- if you skip these articles, yours
will be voluntary.
---------------------------

1. Khalid Sheik Mohammed: Another Bush Loose Goose?

2. Reese's last anti-war article (he stupidly insists on backing Bush
once our son's begin killing the innocent and dying themselves).
(Don't you think the Germans and French would have been better off if
they kept protesting bhe bloosdy carnage during the endless battle of
Verdun during WWI, for example? Wherein the flower of liberal western
civilization was murdered by deviant elites -- bankers,
industrialists, their lawyers and their stooge politicians standing
to profit from what their blood was buying in Ottoman Oil etc.)

3. Another United Nations War, by Rep. Ron Paul

4. Origins of the "Pax American Plot" (what we have been
calling the 9-11 mass-murder frameup) of Pearle, Wolfowitz, Cheney
etc.

5. Mr. Mohammed? Or another Bush-Blair propaganda fraud?

6. Ratcheting up air attacks to enter war by successive
approximations

8. The Oil Monarchs: George W. Bush and his Royal Kin

9. Warhawk deceit over alleged Iraq WMDs exposed

10. More strangeness regarding the purported arrest of Mr. Mohammed

11. Trustworthy 9-11 Pentagon Attack Investigations
==================================

I T E M # 1:

http://www.jihadunspun.net/intheatre_internal.php?article=46554&list=/home.p
hp
By Bruce Kennedy, 3/3/3

At a time when support for George W. Bush's impending invasion of Iraq is at
an all time low, much of the concern at home stems from what is seen as the
unfinished business of catching Osama Bin laden and his top operatives who
have been condemned for, but not proven to have perpetrated the September
11th attacks. The fact that Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in Washington
last week pleading with the US not forget about Afghanistan and its goals,
the absence of even discussion over the increased attacks and instability in
that country are second only to the sheer confusion about who the enemy
actually is these days - in the minds of the American people anyway.

It never stops amazing me what lengths the Bush administration and his band
of renegades will go to in manipulating the playing field. When Colin Powell
was desperately trying to show a connection to Al-Qaida, Homeland Security
increased the terror alert and encouraged Americans to go out and buy duct
tape. Yes, that's right - duct tape. That, along with the instructions they
publicized, could have killed more Americans than would have saved them. As
soon as Powell's presentation met with a humiliating defeat at the UN, the
terror level was lowered. Is it obvious to anyone else that we are being
played here?

In recent weeks, the grass roots movements has spoken out against war on
Iraq on the basis that it will take away from concentrating on the bigger
enemy - Al-Qaida. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went on record last
week saying the US is more than capable of sustaining both fights (and North
Korea should that conflict continue to heat up) and that war with Iraq would
in no way interfere with its assault against Al-Qaida. And as if by magic,
low and behold, the number three man in Al-Qaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is
captured - making good Rumsfeld's statements. Either I am simply
disillusioned or I am getting too old for this game because it seems every
time Bush needs support on a given action - he gets it, one way or the
other. Not even the best Harvard MBA's win that many times and these
coincidental events are now nearing absurdity.

When the Bush Administration was desperate to show progress after months had
gone by with no arrests for September 11 (other than Zacarias Moussaoui who
was in custody at the time 911 occurred), Al-Qaida leader Abu Zubaydah is
said to be arrested. Curiously, we have never seen a picture of him other
than a much outdated FBI "wanted" picture. Soon afterwards, we have heard
how so many "terrorist" attacks have been foiled, based on intelligence
provided by Zubaydah. During his arrest there was a fierce gun battle and we
have yet to see the face of this man who is apparently in custody in an
"undisclosed location". Our sources claim he was killed during that shoot
out.

We have to stop here and understand a bit about Al-Qaida. As journalist
Peter Bergen, author of Holy War Inc and many others have attested to,
senior Al-Qaida operatives take a "bayat" or oath of allegiance to death. If
Al-Qaida is even one quarter of the deadly killing machine they are
attributed to be, this stands up. How could Al-Qaida avoid capture by the
most effective intelligence network in the world (any many others that have
been on their trail) if they did not have a very tight inner circle? To
believe that Al-Qaida could carry out the sophisticated attacks of 911 yet
their operatives would sing like birds when captured is contradictory. If
Al-Qaida did carry out 911, they have already proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt the allegiance of their operatives just in the ability to carry it out
to begin with. Which one is it?

When more pressure was coming to bear on the official 911 story, Bush began
putting pressure on Pakistan, saying that the country was not doing enough
in the war against "terrorism". It should be noted that at the time,
Pakistan was also looking for aid from the US. Next thing you know, Ramzi
bin al-Shibh is captured. The problem is, we can't see his face - all of the
news footage shows some young man with his head and face covered. And once
again he is supposedly whisked away to some undisclosed location and
allegedly gives up all sorts of information about Al-Qaida operations. Our
sources confirmed shortly after his alleged arrest that Ramzi was not in
fact in custody but alive, well and continuing operations.

Since last years frenzied shootout in Karachi there have been doubts over
whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed head of al-Qaeda's
military committee, died in the police raid on his apartment. The Asia Times
reported on October 30, 2002 that he did indeed perish in the raid, but his
wife and child were taken from the apartment and handed over to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in whose hands they remain.

Now, just when the American public is concerned that war with Iraq will mean
a diversion from the war on "terror", Khalid Sheik Mohammed - a "really big
fish" is captured. The only mistake the US made here is that they have
publicized his face with two distinctive styles of dress many times before
and with one very key similarity. The man is meticulously groomed in both
pictures that have been widely circulated.

Press accounts and those who have had the opportunity to interview Khalid
all claim he is a devout Muslim. Muslims take extra care in cleanliness and
grooming so despite his worst circumstances, it is unlikely he would abandon
this most important and most basic aspect of Islam. Even Bin Laden, the last
we saw of him, although aged, was meticulous in his appearance. So now we
see a picture of an overweight, dirty, grubby man who obviously hasn't had a
hair cut or bath in weeks - yet we are to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt
that this is Khalid, just captured, now being interrogated and that
"justice" is being done. If this is Sheik Mohammed,and thats a stretch, it
is hard to believe from this latest allegeded photograph that he has just
now been taken into custody.

There is surely a possibility that Sheik Mohammed was arrested but the
picture that is flashing around the world doesn't help make this case, nor
do previous press accounts, nor does the pattern of public persuasion that
has come to symbolize Bush's obsessive war tactics. And if Sheik Mohammed
has been captured, then why is he not coming back to face trial considering
he was indicted in the United States in 1996 for his alleged involvement in
a Philippines-based conspiracy to bomb commercial U.S. airliners, has been
linked to the USS Cole attack off Yemen, the killing of Wall Street Journal
reporter Daniel Pearl and the Bali bombings as well as 911? Don't the
families of those who have died deserve to this opportunity? Once again, he
is in some "undisclosed location" and I can bet the next we will hear is
that he is giving up all sorts of Al-Qaida intelligence, probably over some
mythical connection to Iraq.

The American people aren't stupid. George Bush can no more "go it alone" on
Iraq or Al-Qaida - if he could then the magnitude of 911 would have been
much less because an effort would have been made to prevent the attack on
the second tower and the Pentagon. The only thing his behavior does is erode
confidence in his administration and shows clearly he is not thinking of the
citizens of the country but rather his own thirst for power. If peace was
his objective, he would be asking "why" these events have happened and would
be making efforts to rectify them, not continue to spin story after story
when it meets his agenda. Iraq is certainly no threat to the United States
and Al-Qaida represents only a small portion of the growing hatred worldwide
for American foreign policy.

Would someone please tell me why we are not looking at the reasons for this
hatred instead of gunning down innocent civilians in Afghanistan and soon
Iraq, in the name of "terrorism"? And more importantly, will someone tell me
how we can even consider war under these circumstances if we can't even
bring justice to bear appropriately and diplomatically, under the laws of
democracy we are supposed to embrace?

======================

I T E M # 2:

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030303/index.php

The Last One
by Charley Reese

OK, this is my last anti-war column. The president's going to go, and
I have a rule that when Americans go into combat, I don't criticize
the war they're in. I'll raise hell trying to stop them from going to
war, but once they're in it, I support them.

So I want you to do me, and yourself, a favor. Buy or rent two videos.
One is "Black Hawk Down," the story of the Rangers' battle in
Mogadishu, Somalia, and the other is "We Were Soldiers," the story of
the battle in Drang Valley in Vietnam. Both are very good films, both
are based on true stories, and both give as reasonably accurate a
picture of war as you can get without making the audience throw up in
their popcorn.

You watch these two films and then remind yourself "When I say 'let's
go to war,' I'm saying young Americans should be subjected to this.
While I'm sitting at home watching the war on television, this is the
kind of hell these young men and women will be going through."

In both battles, Americans fought so heroically, sacrificed themselves
so selflessly, it makes you want to cry. But you know what's really
sad about these battles? Neither one mattered a damned bit. Neither
one changed anything. A quarter of a million wounded and 57,000 dead
Americans later, Vietnam went communist. In Mogadishu, not only was
Mohammed Aideed never captured, but the United States later cut a deal
with him. He died in 1996, and one of his sons is now the warlord.

All that heroism, all that blood, all that pain, all that suffering
was for nothing. It accomplished nothing, nada, zero and zip.

Maybe you think that after Saddam Hussein is gone, everyone will live
happily ever after, but I'm here to tell you that it will be the same.
Nothing will change. No liberal democracy is going to bloom in the
ancient desert of old Babylonia. No American will be able to say "I'm
safer and freer now" because those young people died in Iraq. No Iraqi
standing in the rubble is going to say, "Gee, I'm glad the Americans
got rid of Saddam by destroying my home and my family." All this war
is going to accomplish is to add to the world's store of misery - more
death, more wounded, more destruction, more debt, more poverty, more
hatred, more profits for the merchants of death, more pollution and
more terrorism.

To waste something so precious as a young life is awful to think
about. Look at the faces of these young soldiers. Many are barely more
than boys, really. Boys always fight wars because it's too strenuous
for old geezers. These days, the generals will sit in air-conditioned
comfort far from the sound of guns. They will hold their briefings for
the press. When the war is over and the young men are buried or packed
away in VA hospitals or sent home to try to make a living, the
generals will get the book contracts, take off on the lecture circuit
and get rich. Some of them might even get gifts of stocks from
grateful corporations that profited from the war. When the next war
comes, they'll be on television as "Fox News consultants."

And I haven't even mentioned the suffering that will be inflicted on
the Iraqis - their young boys, their children, mothers, fathers and
grandfathers. You saw how Americans ran terrified from the collapse of
the towers in New York. Imagine what it's like to be in a city that is
being bombarded with 2,000-pound bombs, cruise missiles, artillery and
Gatling guns. Imagine trying to save your children in such a mad
inferno. Imagine what it would be like to see your children torn into
ragged, bloody chunks of meat by shrapnel, or burned into a twisted
piece of charcoal, with wet, yellow intestines leaking out. It's pure
hell to be the collateral damage. But sit back and enjoy your war.
It's what you want.

===============

I T E M # 3 :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul79.html

Another United Nations War?
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used
by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In
going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push
Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN
authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution
was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed
regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a
congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore
was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for
U.S. security - and it was not fought through to victory. The
bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never
stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this
is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it's merely a
continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for
a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today
compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in
the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S.
has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I
contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical
military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars,
and that were rarely resolved.

Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties,
and over a trillion dollars in today's dollars spent. Korea is the
most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration
from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a
nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of
control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening
in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United
States and North Korea!

As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was
not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified
communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam
is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine.
We didn't disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far
no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two
countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No
United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well - even after
many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese
in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them
into compliance with Western demands.

But in this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United
Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The
administration now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it's
not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is
permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty. But no
mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a
UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S.
Congress.

Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us
what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to
pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it's ironic that we're making this
declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people
or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for
unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose
of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn't make any
sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that
authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with
the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still
lending credibility to the UN.

The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to
our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress. Those
who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a
useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this
juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to
the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might
come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not
aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint the
worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war,
which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi
oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens we could be looking at
another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous
spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further.

With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our
Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and
commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling,
dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our
membership in the United Nations.

February 28, 2003
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

==============

I T E M # 4 : Pax Americana Plot of Pearle, Wolfowitz, Cheney etc.

Recently, instead of "getting rid of Saddam Hussein", you may have
heard Bush use the term "regime change" when referring to Iraq. There
appears to be a good reason for this.

MacKay reports that a recently uncovered, secret blueprint for the
creation of a 'global Pax Americana' (American empire) was drawn up
for Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby
(Cheney's chief of staff), and Bush's younger brother, Jeb.

The document reveals that the Bush cabinet planned to attack Iraq to
get a "regime change", even before Bush officially took office in
January. 200l. If you don't believe this, you can be forgiven.

But the document also spells out something much more ambitious, and
sinister, than attacking Iraq---which already has a surplus of
domestic and foreign dissenters.

Drawn up in September, 2000, by the neo-con think-tank Project for the
New American Century (PNAC), the document, entitled "Rebuilding
America's Defences, Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New
Century (whew!), reveals that the Bush administration intended to take
control of the whole Gulf region, whether or not Saddam Hussein is in
power.

In other words, the stated objective isn't just to depose a dictator,
it's to establish an Empire, with "fighting and winning multiple,
simultaneous theaters of war as its core mission."

Dangerous idea? Read on.

The plan shows that the United States, for decades. has wanted to play
a more significant and permanent role in Gulf region "security." To do
that, the United States needed to put a larger American force in the
Gulf region, over and above any Iraqi threat.

Now, let me ask you this: Have we, or have we not, been hearing just
such rumblings lately from the administration? Like the need to deal
with "other enemies of democracy", such as Iran, Libya, Syria, perhaps
even Egypt and Saudi Arabia; all Arab states, and all mortal enemies
of Israel.

Waxing poetic, the blueprint for this global master plan then
describes the American forces used overseas as "the cavalry on the new
American frontier." As if imbuing world domination with visions of
John Wayne in a covered wagon will soften the harsh reality of some
American soldiers never coming home...

And there's more. The plan for U.S. domination of the world scene has
ramifications that go far beyond dethroning dictators and filling body
bags.

Here are just a few.

It mentions the UK as" the most effective and efficient means of
exercising American global leadership." (Which may explain Blair's
lapdog relationship with Bush.)

It demands American political leadership without the "interference" of
the United Nations. (Finally, admitting the UN's irrelevance for the
past 50 years.)

It requires keeping American troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, even
if they oppose it. (What are friends for?)

It means increasing American military influence in Asia, and a "regime
change" in China to a democracy (If we think we can budge China, let's
make it a Republic instead.)

It calls for American control of cyberspace to prevent use of the
internet by "enemies" of the U.S. (Personal opinion mail: here today,
gone tomorrow.)

It hints that the U.S. itself may develop biological weapons and
transform them from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
( Do as I say, not as I do.)

It pinpoints North Korea and some Arab states as dangerous regimes
which justify a world-wide, command-and-control center, with America
at the controls, of course. (We can't control ourselves, but
controlling the world is a breeze.)

Commenting on this report about U.S. plans for "empire" building, Tam
Dalyell, the Labor MP, father of the House of Commons, and a leading
rebel voice in England against war with Iraq, said this: "This is
garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks---men
who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of
war. Men like Cheney, who were draft dodgers in the Vietnam war.

"It's a blueprint for U.S. world domination, in a new world order of
their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans
who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labor
Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this
moral standing."

And in turn, this writer is appalled that cabinet members in an
American administration would even consider such an imperialistic
blueprint.

On the other hand, it suggests that our "need" to go to war is about
more than just oil or Israel. It's about oysters.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with
this notice and hyperlink intact."

================

I T E M # 5 :

Mr. Mohammed? Or another Bush-Blair propaganda fraud?
------

The Bush administration rushed to take credit for the Pakistani arrest
of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, never mind that he was reported to have
been killed over four months ago.

Now, CIA-fed news sites are blowing smoke, claiming 'conflicting
reports' about whether the US has him in custody or not. Uh huh.

ASIA TIMES, 10/20/2002: Ever since the frenzied shootout last month on
September 11 in Karachi there have been doubts over whether Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed head of al-Qaeda's military
committee, died in the police raid on his apartment.

Certainly, another senior al-Qaeda figure, Ramzi Binalshibh, widely
attributed as being the coordinator of the September 11 attacks on the
United States a year earlier, was taken alive and handed over to the
US. The latest information is that he is on a US warship somewhere in
the Gulf.

Now it has emerged that Kuwaiti national Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did
indeed perish in the raid, but his wife and child were taken from the
apartment and handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), in whose hands they remain.

Sources close to Pakistani intelligence agents say that the wife,
under intense interrogation, has revealed information that is likely
to lead to a new crackdown in Pakistan, as well as in Southeast Asia.

http://www.libertythink.com/

============================

I T E M # 6 :

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

US unveils aggressive strategy against Iraq --Senior officials at the
Pentagon say US and British forces have been attacking Iraqi military
installations in an aggressive shift in strategy in the no-fly zones
over the country.
'Six Iraqis die' in US-UK raids --Six Iraqis have been reported killed
and 15 wounded in an overnight US-British air strike that is being
described as part of an aggressive shift in policy.
lrp/mdr/CLG
http://www.legitgov.org/
Petition to Senate - Investigate inconsistencies of 9/11 official
story:
http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html

=======================

I T E M # 7 :

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=553

The Oil Monarchs: George W. Bush and his Royal Kin
By Christopher Bollyn - American Free Press

While President George W. Bush is portrayed in the mass media as the
chief architect of the plan to conquer Iraq, his family's intimate
connection with those oil-rich European royals who also support him is
seldom discussed.

On a daily basis the mainstream media presents expert opinions as to
who is behind the military campaign against Iraq and why. Lately there
has been a flurry of editorials seeking to debunk the notion that the
major British and American oil companies are behind the planned
conquest of Iraq and its rich oil fields. What is never discussed,
however, is the kinship between President George W. Bush and the
European royals who support the U.S.-led campaign against Iraq.

There are basically two schools of thought among those who do not
accept the official reasoning for war against Iraq. The first is that
the conquest of Iraq's oil resources is an agenda being pushed by the
major oil companies and their agents in the British and U.S.
governments. The second is that Israel and its supporters, seeking to
further the Zionist agenda, are the true architects behind the war of
aggression being planned against the most populous Arab state.

While these two theories are usually presented as being mutually
exclusive, the secret networks that exist between the government
leaders in the United States and Britain, "Big Oil" and Israel
indicate they are connected and appear to be part of a master plan.

The huge anti-war protests of Feb. 15 clearly demonstrated that a
significant majority, estimated to be 80 percent, of the people in
Europe are strongly opposed to war in Iraq. The largest protests were
seen in those nations that have allied themselves with the U.S. war
policy on Iraq: namely Britain, Spain, and Italy.

With so many Europeans opposed to war, the question being asked is:
"Who is supporting the Bush policy, and why?"

"Blair Petroleum"

Tony Blair, the British prime minister, is Bush's staunchest and most
visible ally in the campaign against Iraq. Blair has long taken an
aggressive position on Iraq and says it was the first thing he
discussed with the new president after Bush was declared winner of the
flawed election of 2000.

While Blair's intimate relationship with the Anglo-American oil giant
British Petroleum (BP) should be a matter of discussion in the context
of his war policy against Iraq, it is seldom mentioned in the main
steam British press.

Blair's "New Labor" policies are now more closely connected to both
Big Oil, particularly BP, and Israel, than they are with the British
working class. The close links between BP, which was originally known
as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. having been founded to exploit Iranian
oil reserves, and Blair's politics have led to the company being
dubbed "Blair Petroleum."

During his first term, Blair appointed then chairman of BP, Lord
Simon, to be trade minister in May 1997. A controversy surfaced when
it emerged that Simon still owned a considerable shareholding in the
company.

BP's current chief executive Lord John Browne, whose mother was an
"Auschwitz survivor," is also said to be "close to the prime
minister." Blair added a peerage to Browne's knighthood after he
helped end fuel protests in Britain.

Anji Hunter, Blair's former secretary and close friend, was said to
"be among New Labor friends" when she left government to take the
position as director of communications at BP in November 2001. Hunter
went to school with Blair and has worked with him continuously since
1986.

"There is a bit of a revolving door," says Norman Baker, a Liberal
Democrat member of parliament who has looked into the ties between BP
and the Blair government. The connections are probably more extensive
than with any other UK company, Baker said.

One of Blair's closest allies is Lord Michael Levy. Levy serves as one
of the most important fundraisers for the Labor Party and Blair's
unofficial envoy to the Middle East, according to Red Star Research of
London, which investigates the ties of Blair's New Labor to Big Oil -
and Israel.

Levy reportedly met Blair at a dinner party in 1994 held by Gideon
Meir, a senior Israeli diplomat, and became his tennis partner. Levy
was put in charge of donations to the 'private trust,' which funded
Blair's office before the 1997 election (which reached more than $10
million), and is now the chief fundraiser for the 'high value' donors
account at the Labor Party. He is reported to have raised $18 million
for the 'high value' fund before the 1997 election, and became known
as 'Mr. Cashpoint', according to Red Star Research.

King George

While President Bush's war policy is strongly opposed by the leaders
of Europe's largest republics, Germany, France, and Russia, he is
supported by those nations where royal families are still in power, or
close to it: Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, and Bulgaria. What the
U.S. mainstream media fails to mention is that he is actually related
to the royal families of those European states where his policy on
Iraq is supported.

As the media reported during the election of 2000, Bush is closely
related to every European monarch on and off the throne and has
kinship with every member of Britain's royal family, the House of
Windsor.

Saxe-Coburg Gotha is the true name of Britain's royal family, but the
name was changed to hide their German ancestry during the First World
War.

Bush has more ties to European royalty than other president to date,
having "blue blood" from both his paternal and maternal lines. His
mother, Barbara Pierce Bush, is related to European royalty through
the Pierce family, which also produced the fourteenth U.S. president,
Franklin Pierce (1853-1857).

Harold Brooks-Baker of London's Burke Peerage says Bush's royal
connections are startling. "Bush is closely related to every European
monarch both on and off the throne," Baker told American Free Press.

"They are cousins." Baker said when asked about the relationship
between Bush and the Bulgarian prime minister, Simeon Saxe-Coburg
Gotha, who visited the White House on Feb. 25. Gotha is the former
King of Bulgaria who was returned to power after decades spent in
exile.

About the apparent close relationship between Bush and the Spanish
king, Juan Carlos, Baker said: "They know they are related." Asked why
the media fails to report these family ties, Brooks-Baker said, "The
American public does not know who these kings are. Not one person in a
thousand has any idea who these people are."

"Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have an unusually large number of royal and
noble descents," Baker said during the election campaign of 2000. "In
point of fact, never in the history of the United States have two
presidential candidates been as well endowed with royal alliances."

There has always been a significant "royalty factor" in those who
aspired to the White House, with Presidents George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, among
some 30 other presidents, all boasting blue blood links.

Asked if the support of the European royals for Bush's war policy
could be attributed to the fact that these families are heavily
invested in the leading oil companies, Brooks-Baker said, "That's an
interesting question. Indeed, Royal Dutch Shell petroleum made Queen
Beatrix of Holland one of the richest women in the world. She owns
more land in New York and the United States than any other foreigner."

Queen Beatrix, the matriarch of the secretive Bilderberg group, is
like Queen Elisabeth of Britain and is not allowed to play a public
role in political matters. Behind the scenes, however, these monarchs
continue to exercise political influence.

Asked if he thought that kinship with the European royals was the
reason for their support of Bush's war policy, Brooks-Baker said: "I
don't think there is any question about it. These people are obsessed
with supporting relations. It has a great deal to do with it. They all
work together as one family."

http://americanfreepress.net

================

I T E M # 8 :

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31303

Deceived by the warhawks
Posted: March 1, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Š 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Now, thanks to a dynamite expose by WorldNetDaily's Sherrie Gossett,
we know that the warhawks and their media sycophants have been
deceiving us about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs for
at least the last seven years.

Gen. Hussein Kamal, director of Saddam's WMD programs [and also
Saddam's son-in-law] defected to Jordan in 1995, whereupon he was
extensively debriefed by the CIA and the Brits.

Separately, Kamal was interviewed by Rolf Ekeus, chairman of the U.N.
Special Commission on Iraq and Chief Inspector Maurizio Zifferero of
the International Atomic Energy Action Team, both established by the
U.N. Security Council to implement UNSC disarmament resolutions.

Newsweek has obtained the U.N. document, verified its authenticity and
reports in its current issue that Kamal told the same story to the CIA
and to the Brits.

Immediately after the Gulf War ceasefire, but before the U.N.
inspectors had arrived in Iraq, Kamal said he ordered the destruction
of all chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to
deliver them.

According to Newsweek, Kamal was "a gold mine of information. He had a
good memory and, piece by piece, he laid out the main personnel, sites
and progress of each WMD program." A military aide who defected with
Kamal supported Kamal's assertions.

By 1995, of course, UNSCOM and the IAEA already knew most of it, but
now they were having it confirmed by the Iraqi general actually in
charge of Iraq's WMD programs.

But, UNSCOM had to certify to the UNSC that the Iraqi WMD production
and destruction books balanced.

So, according to Newsweek, Kamal's revelations about the destruction
in 1990 and 1991 of all Iraq's WMD stocks were kept secret. Ekeus
hoped he could bluff Saddam into providing the necessary
documentation. But Saddam - even with warhawk guns at his head - has
not yet provided that documentation. The Iraqis claim it doesn't
exist, now, and perhaps never did.

In any case, there is no reason to keep Kamal's revelations secret any
longer. Especially since the warhawks continue to allude to them as
their justification for invading Iraq.

So, WorldNetDaily has gone far beyond Newsweek, actually publishing
excerpts from the "sensitive" UNSCOM-IAEA interviews.

Guess what. The UNSCOM-IAEA inspectors - and hence all U.N. Security
Council members - have known for at least four years that, as best the
U.N. inspectors could subsequently discover, Kamal did tell the truth,
when, in response to the question posed by UNSCOM inspector Nikita
Smidovich:

Smidovich: Were weapons and agents destroyed?

Kamal: Nothing remained.

Smidovich: Was it before or after inspections started?

Kamal: After visits of inspection teams. You have an important role in
Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very
effective in Iraq.

So, according to Kamal, himself, not only were all chembio "weapons
and agents destroyed", but U.N. inspectors had been "very effective"
in ferreting out what the Iraqis had done.

What have the warhawks been telling us?

That Saddam's chembio weapons and agents were not destroyed and that
U.N. agencies have been completely ineffective. Furthermore, Saddam is
such a smart donkey that U.N. inspectors will never find his WMD, no
matter how long they search.

Not content to simply trash and discredit U.N. agencies, the warhawks
have stooped to character assassination. The attacks on Hans Blix -
until 1997 the IAEA director general and now chairman of the U.N.
Monitoring and Verification Commission - have been especially vicious.

Why? In 1997, U.N. Security Council members had been informed by then
IAEA Director Gen. Blix that Iraq had never had nukes or the fissile
material to make nukes and no longer had the capability to even
produce weapon-usable fissile material.

Bummer. If Saddam doesn't have nukes, how can the warhawks ever
convince you that Saddam is going to nuke you in your jammies?

Well, trot out Khidir Hamza - who Richard Perle wants you to believe
had directed Saddam's nuke program - and have him charge on television
and before Congress that Blix is incompetent. Have him claim that
Saddam's nuke program has never ended.

What did Kamal have to say about Hamza and his charges?

"He is a professional liar. He worked with us, but he was useless and
was always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could not
deliver anything. Yes, his original name is Khidir, but we called him
Hazem. He went to Baghdad University then left Iraq. He is very bad. "

Hamza may have been useless to Saddam, but he has been very useful to
Richard Perle.

==============

What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet
by Dick Eastman
Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/
(beware the onslaught of pop-ups)
http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/dossier.php?dosnum=60
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htmhttp://www.
asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htm
=======

George W. Bush: "Alter Boy"
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
March 3, 2003

The Newsweek caption under an old picture of H. W. Bush's family attending
church says, "George Sr. once taught Sunday school and George W. was an
alter [sic] boy."

The spelling error is perhaps the only truthful thing in this article by
Howard Fineman (March 10,2003) which proclaims that the Bush presidency is
"the most resolutely faith-based" in modern times, "an enterprise founded,
supported and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God."

George W. Bush may still be an "alter" boy.

"Alters" are mind-controlled personalities. Illuminati families like the
Bushes subject their children to mind control. They worship Satan and
brainwash their children by subjecting them to severe traumatic experiences,
such as torture or witnessing the murder of a baby. At these times the mind
disassociates and splinters into different personalities that can be
programmed and recalled. These personalities are called "alters."
http://www.savethemales.ca/141002.html

Only a mind controlled "alter" could manage the brazen hypocrisy, deceit and
blasphemy required to identify his foul, murderous policies with the will of
God.

Boris Savinkov once explained how difficult it was to get a real Christian
to kill.

Savinkov was the leader of a Bolshevik terror squad responsible for the
deaths of dozens of high Tsarist officials. When he tried to make a
bomb-throwing terrorist out of former Tsarist officers he found they had
courage and fanaticism but were restrained by something else.

"From childhood they had been brought up in the Christian concept that "Thou
shalt not kill!" And although many of them were now hardened by years of war
and revolutionary violence, when it came to murdering someone in cold blood
something in them rebelled!" (Geoffrey Bailey, "The Conspirators" 1959,
p.74)

But George Bush is no Christian. Never was. He is an illustration of how the
Illuminati assume the mantle of Christianity to disguise their diabolical
intentions and discredit God. Iraq is about oil, Zionism and world tyranny.
Bush's pious drivel and Newsweek's revolting hosannas fool no one.

The whole world is appalled.
=========================

Everyman

unread,

Mar 4, 2003, 11:48:04 AM3/4/03

Pentagon-Attack Investigator FINISHES BUSH-BLAIR-SHARON CONSPIRACY-- Watch
them fall before an enraged human race

THe Anti-War Movement is now official divided into "Bolsheviks" and
"Mensheviks" over the Mass-Murder Frameup Issue -- Those who still talk of
Arab or Muslim "hijackers" and only of "prior knowledge" as the extent of
Bush-Blair culpability are to be scorned by all thinking men of good will
as the moral and intellectual equivalent of the coverup. You are a Dick
Eastman or a Ron Harvey -- there is no room for middle ground. Here's why:

==============================================

Here is the edited text of that world-order-shattering post:

In one stroke we prove that no Boeing hit the Pentagon.

Here is a perfectly drawn-to-scale model of the "official version."

(the photos in this series I will send upon request -- just send blank
letter with subject "Small Plane Photo Proof" to sil...@nwinfo.net )

Look at the size of the plane, and especially at the distance from engine to
engine with respect to the size and spacing of the windows on the Pentagon
wall (from window to window inclusive on the Pentagon is almost exactly 9
feet.) Note that the picture above shows the drawn-to-scale Boeing 757
airliner approaching the Pentagon with that buildings front wall at the
target site already collapsed -- remember, however, that on September 11,
2001, this wall collapsed upon the small hole made by the attacking
missile/jet a full 20 minutes after the attack.

Now with these comparative dimensions (window size and spacing versus
engine-to-engine width) in mind, examin at these pictures of the entry hole
made by the attacking missile and/or jet BEFORE the outer wall was brought
down preventing further pictures of this all-important evidence.:

The first picture locates the entry hole, and was taken only a few minutes
after initial penetration. The second is of the same hole ( note the
position with respect to the truck and the large cable spools and other
features) after fire fighters have put out the interior fire.

Now for the important part. In the enlargement of the second photo, below,
note that the hole is entirely beneith only two windows of the third story
of the Pentagon. This is consistent with the report of one witness who
exited his car and came to help survivors (a Catholic priest) who said that
the flames appeared to be "coming from only two windows" in the Pentagon
wall. Now, note especially, that exposed interior walls are visible behind
the hole at each side of it -- that is, interior wall is visible running
perpendicular to and adjoining the outer wall that has been pierced -- and
these interior walls have NOT been smashed or pushed in. The entry hole is
indeed only about ten feet (two
Pentagon window spacings) across -- only about one-third the width of hole
that would be needed to accomodate the span between a Boeing 757's massive
titanium engines -- the densest part of a Boeing 757.

Thus, beyond any doubt, beyond any hope of denial, the Boeing 757 never
entered the Pentagon. Flight 77 never entered the Pentagon. The official
story supported by top-down Administration authority and the corporation
mass-media and all traitorous disinformation agents and cowardly conforming
mouthpieces is now exploded.

So having read this and seen this incontrovertable and obvious proof you and
everyone have but three choices:

1. treason -- you don't want the truth out
2. cowardice -- you will let humanity go to hell rather than speak up with
this evidence
3. organization and action to get this truth about the mass-murder frameup
known and justice moving

The British "human shield" has come home with their tails between their
legs -- exactly what I would expect from the "Aftermath" e-list crowd that
passively reads and passes on information without making personal
declarations of their own conclusions, always keep their options opened in
case the wind blows uncomfortably unfavorably for anti-aggression
activism -- "Oh, I was just passing on the information, I never agreed with
it" etc. -- -- one goes only so far towards being fashionable you know --
no sensable man would stick his neck out if it really meant a confrontation
with established power however corrupt and criminal.

So what the hell kind of person are YOU going to be?
.
You now know for sure that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job.
There is not getting around that.

AND, now knowing the truth, you have the responsibility to further it,
because the fate of mankind for one or more generations is at stake -- and
how you do or do not respond is going to make a difference.

So what the hell is it going to be, buddy?

Everyman,

a political name for the views of

Dick Eastman
Yakima
Every man is responsible to every other man.

==============

Part 4: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)

Everyman

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 5:32:35 PM3/5/03

Harvard/CFR Diplomacy Wonk: mass-murder frameup co-conspirator Henry
Kissinger (1994) on the legal and diplomatic issues raised by the
Anglo-Israeli-French aggression in Suez (1956)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Someone wrote to an e-list asking if the USA had ever used its veto to halt
a UN intervention in a conflict, (it has not) which led me to pull down this
"reference" where I found the following. As you read Kissinger's account
and analysis, keep in mind that Sec. State John Foster Dulles (nothing like
his evil CIA brother) , after this great humanitiarian stand on SUez, soon
found himself dead and replaced by a more realpolitik yes-man; and that the
author of this account, Kissinger, as is so obvious in his analysis, has
always been the captive intellectual instrument of the Rockefeller and
Rothschild interests that placed him at Harvard and everywhere else he has
been since -- and that war-debt financing and war profiteering have been and
will always be the primary and biggest means of sequestering the world's
wealth for those interests. --DE)

Excerpts from Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1994) pp. 544-546

The United States was under no obligation to pus United Nations
deliberations at the extraordinarily rapid pace that it did, or to support
resolutions which ignored the sources of the provocation and focused
entirely on the immediate issues. The United States could have called
attention to all the various international schemes to insulate the operation
of the Canal, to the illegal Arab blockade of the Guld of Aqaba, or to
Nasser's encouragement of terrorist raids against Israel. Above all, it
could, and should have linked its condemnation of Soviet actions in Hungary.
By acting as if the Suez issue were entirely moral and legal, and as if it
had no geopolitical basis, the United States evaded the reality that an
unconditional victory for Nasser -- an outcome in which Egypt gave no
grarantees with respect to the operation of the Canal -- was also a victory
for a radical policy encouraged by Soviet arems and sustained by Soviet
threats.

The heart of the problem was conceptual. America's leaders put forward
three principles during the Suez crisis, each of which reflected
long-standing verities: that America's obligations toward its allies were
circumscribed by precise legal documents; that recourse to force by any
nation was inadmissible except when narrowly defined as self-defense; and,
most important, that the Suez crisis had provided America with an
opportunity to pursue its true vocation, which was leadership of the
developing world.

The first point was made in Eisenhower's address of October 31, in which
he threw America's full diplomatic weight against Great Britian and France:
"There can be no peace -- without law. And there can be no law -- if we
were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us --
and another for our friends." The notion that international relations could
be exhaustively defined by international law had roots deep within American
history. The assumption that America should act as the impartial moral
arbiter of the behavior of nations, unaffected by national interest or
geop[olitics or alliances, is part of that nostalgia. IN the real world,
however, diplomacy involves, at least in part, the ability to discriminate
among cases and to distinguish friends from opponents.

The strick constructionist view that the sole legitimate cause for war is
self-defense was put forward in December 1956 by John Foster Dulles, who
interpreted Article 1 of the NATO treaty as creating that obligation:

"...the point was that we considered that such an attack
under the circumstances would violate the charter of the
United Naitons, and would violate article 1 of the North
Atlantic Treaty itself, which requires all the parties to that
treaty to renounce the use of force, and to settle their
disputes by peaceful means. That is our complaint: that
the treaty was violated; not that there was no consultation."

Nobody had ever interpreted Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty in so
pacifist a way; no one would do so again. The idea that the charter of a
military alliance contained a binding obligation for the peaceful resolution
of all disputes was surely mind-boggling. In any event, the real issue was
not legal, but whether an alliance does not include the tacit obligation to
show some understanding for an ally's definition of its vital interests even
outside a strictly defined treaty arena, and perhaps a little compassion for
an occasional difference in judgements.

George Kennan and Walter Lippmann, the two great adversaries in America's
earlier debate over containment, clearly thought so. George Kennan urged
forbearance:

"We have fumbled on certain past occasions; and our friends
have not turned against us. Moreover, we bear a heavy measure
of responsiblity for the desperation which has driven the French
and British Governments to this ill-conceived and pathetic action."

Walter Lippmann went further and argued that America had a stake in British
and French success:

"The Franco-British action will be judged by the outcome. ...
The American interest, thought we have dissented from the
decision itself, is that France and Britain should now succeed.
However much we may wish they hjad not started, we cannot
now wish that they should fail."

The third premise of America's policy, its secret dream of emerging as
the leader of the developing world, proved impossible to fulfill. Richard
Nixon, probably the most sophisticated student of the naitonal interest
among AMerica's postwar leaders, placed America into the vanguard of the
anticolonial struggle on November 2, four days before the election when he
proclaimed:

"For the first time in history we have shown independence of
Anglo-French policies toward Asia and Africa which seemed to
us to reflect the colonial tradition. That declaration of inde-
pendence has had an electrifying effect throughtout the world.

In the light of Nixon's later pronouncements, it is hard to believe that
he was doing anything other than following instructions.

Yet that was not at all what actually happened. Nasser did not moderate
his policies toward either the West or toward its Arab allies. His radical
constituency would not have permitted him to admit that he had been saved by
American pressures even if he had been inclined to do so. On the contrary,
to impress that very constituency, he accelerated his attacks on moderate,
pro-Western governments in the Middle East. Within tow years of the Suez
crisis, the pro-Western government of Iraq was overthrown and replaced by
one of the most radical regimes in the Arab world, eventually giving rise to
Saddam Hussein. Syria too turned increasingly radical. Within five years,
Egyptian troops entered Yemen in what turned into a futile effort to
overthrow the existing regime. SInce, in the end, the United States
inherited the strategic positions abandoned by Great Britain, the full fury
of Nasser's radicalism was unleashed against America, culminating in the
break of diplomatic relations in 1967. ....

...The Suez crisis brought home to them [America's allies] that one of the
premises of the Atlantic Alliance -- the congruence of interests between
Europe and the United States -- was at best only partially valid. From this
point on, the argument that Europe did not need nuclear weapons because it
could always count on American support ran up against the memory of Suez ...

The Suez players were not alone in feeling the jolts of America's
disavowal of its closest allies. Chancellor Adenauer, as good a friend of
America as there was in postwar Europe, vastly admired Dulles. Yet even he
viewed America's Suez diplomacy as a potential precursor of some kind of
global arrangement between the United States and the Soviet Union for which
Europe would end up paying the price.

Adenauer happened to be in Paris on November 6, the day Edenand Mollet
decided they would have to yield to American pressures. According to French
Foreign Minister Christian Pineau, Adenauer said:

"France and England will never be powers comparable to the
United States and the Soviet Union. Nor Germany, either.
There remains to them only one way of playing a decisive role
in the world; that is to unite to make Europe. England is not
ripe for it but the affair of Suez will help prepare her spirits for
it. We have not time to waste: Europe will be your revenge."

==========

In one stroke it is proven that NO BOEING 757 HIT THE PENTAGON!!!

by Richard P. Eastman M.S., M.A.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Look at the size of the plane and note the distance from engine to engine
in relation to the size and spacing of the windows of the Pentagon (from
window to window inclusive on the wall is about 9 feet. Note that the

picture above shows the drawn-to-scale Boeing 757 airliner approaching the

Pentagon with that building's front wall around the crash hole already

collapsed -- remember, however, that on September 11, 2001, this wall

collapsed upon the too-small hole made by the attacking missile/jet a full

20 minutes after the attack.

[photo -- for a copy of this message with photos included, 1155 KB, write
to sil...@nwinfo.net ]

[photos supplied upon request, 1155 KB]

The first picture locates the entry hole, and was taken only a few minutes

after initial penetration. The second, below, is of the same hole ( note

the position with respect to the truck and the large cable spools and other
features) after fire fighters have put out the interior fire.

[photos supplied upon request]

[photo]

One more photo to reinforce the above evidence of the intact interior walls
on either side of the narrow outer attack=plane entrance hole:

[photo supplied upon request]

The Boeing 757 seats six across, has 1,951 sq ft of gross wing area, a wing
span of 124 ft (37.95 m) and weighs up to 240,000 lbs (108,860 kg) Also,
the wing is less sweep-back than other Boeing airliners, so that in a
collision with a flat surface, its engines would hit before the base of the
wing.

[photo]

So having see and understood this incontrovertable and obvious proof,
everyone has but one of three choices:

1. treason -- you don't want the truth out

2. cowardice -- you will let humanity go to Bush-Blair hell rather than

speak up with this evidence
3. organization and action to get this truth about the mass-murder frameup
known and justice moving

Let me know what you decide.

Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington 98908

(509) 965-4893

For 50 recent eastman articles click here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=73d08839
.0303040847.498f0666%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimage
s%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Dalt.conspiracy.america-at-war%2520
%26as_uauthors%3DEveryman%26lr%3D%26hl%3Den

Other 9-11-Pentagon information -- supplementary findings -- available at
these sites.:

=======

What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet

Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
Part 4: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html

http://www.koolpages.com/killtown/flight77.html
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html

http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/dossier.php?dosnum=60
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htmhttp://www.
asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htm

http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast

Everyman

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 5:33:53 PM3/5/03

Agence France-Presse: Israel caught creating fake al Qa'eda cell in Gaza
====================

Israeli agents accused of creating fake al-Qaeda cell

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/08/1038950271656.html

Agence France-Presse
By Sophie Claudet in Gaza City
December 9 2002
A senior Palestinian security official says his services have uncovered an
Israeli plot to create a fake al-Qaeda cell in the Gaza Strip, a charge
Israel has dismissed as absurd.
The head of preventive security in Gaza, Rashid Abu Shbak, said Israeli
agents posing as operatives of al-Qaeda recruited Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip.

"Over the past nine months we've been investigating eight [such] cases," Mr
Abu Shbak said.

His claims came after the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, said
al-Qaeda
militants were operating in the Gaza Strip and in Lebanon, raising fears of
an intensification of Israeli military occupations.

A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry branded the Palestinian claim
as
ridiculous and "some kind of propaganda campaign", adding that "the
Palestinian territories have become a breeding ground for terrorism".

"There is no need for Israel to make up something like this because [the
hardline Islamic movements] are all the same as al-Qaeda," the spokesman
said.

Mr Abu Shbak said three Palestinians used by Israeli intelligence had been
arrested, while another 11 were released "because they came and informed us
of this Israeli plot".

Mr Abu Shbak said his services had traced back to Israel mobile phone calls
and emails - purportedly from Germany and Lebanon - asking Palestinians to
join al-Qaeda. One email had even been "signed" by the al-Qaeda leader,
Osama
bin Laden.

"We investigated the origin of those calls and found out they all came from
Israel."

The Palestinians recruited were then paired, unbeknown to them, with Israeli
collaborators in Gaza, and received money and weapons, "although most of
these weapons did not even work".

The money was provided by "Palestinian collaborators with Israel" directly
to
the recruits or "was transferred from bank accounts in Jerusalem or Israel",
said Mr Abu Shbak, who did not dispute that as many as 11 Palestinians had
welcomed the call to join al-Qaeda.

"Those who accepted were mostly members of the military wing of Palestinian
organisations," he said, adding that although he could not say "there will
never be al-Qaeda here, but at least not for now".

The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, has called Mr Sharon's al-Qaeda claim
"a big, big, big lie to cover [his] attacks and his crimes against our
people
everywhere".

The Lebanese Government and Hezbollah have also dismissed the accusations.
Mr Sharon's announcement marked the first time Israel has officially claimed
that al-Qaeda was operating in the Palestinian territories, and came as a
surprise because the Gaza Strip is virtually sealed off by Israeli troops.

Israel has came under heavy international criticism for a raid on a Gaza
Strip refugee camp on Friday that left 10 Palestinians dead, including two
United Nations employees. The European Union and Arab states joined the UN
in
condemning the incursion into the densely populated Al-Bureij camp.

Agence France-Presse
This story was found at:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/08/1038950271656.html

==========================

What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet

by Dick Eastman

Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html

http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/ (beware
the onslaught of pop-ups)

http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/dossier.php?dosnum=60
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htmhttp://www.
asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htm

For recent eastman (a.k.a. Everyman, Le Permanent Marker) newsgroup messages
(containing important articles/excerpts of various writers) click here:

Everyman

unread,

Mar 6, 2003, 3:01:33 PM3/6/03

Contents:

1. Afghan war documentary charges US with mass killings of POWs

2. Japan atom-bomb survivors petition Bush against his A-bomb use threat

3. A Moslem comments on an aspect of Anglo-American "warfare" tactics/ethics

4. Anglo-American warhawk's "star-witness" defector from Huessain now says
all WMD were destroyed after all -- Straw, Pearle insist this "Makes no
difference"

5. Troops told war to start March 17, says paper --British troops based in
the Gulf had been told to prepare for an invasion of Iraq on March 17, the
Daily Express has reported.

6. Say the P-word and go to jail.

7. The coming war - in Washington

8. Arrest Me - George W. Bush is Out of Control by Rivers Pitt

This documentary was shown in Norway on the national network a few days ago,
prime time.
It was relatively convincing and shocking. I am also shocked that it has
been kept in the dark for 9 months after this article was printed. This is
certain to create major reactions.
Arno

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/afgh-j17.shtml

Afghan war documentary charges US with mass killings of POWs
Showings in Europe spark demands for war crimes probe
By Stefan Steinberg
17 June 2002

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

A documentary film, Massacre in Mazar, by Irish director Jamie Doran, was
shown to selected audiences in Europe last week, provoking demands for an
international inquiry into US war crimes in Afghanistan.
The film alleges that American troops collaborated in the torture of POWs
and the killing of thousands of captured Taliban soldiers near the town of
Mazar-i-Sharif. It documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of
Konduz, the Taliban's last stronghold in northern Afghanistan.
The film was shown in Berlin by the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism)
parliamentary fraction to members of the German parliament on June 12. The
following day it was shown to deputies and members of the press at the
European parliament in Strasbourg. After seeing the film, French Euro MP
Francis Wurtz, a member of the United Left fraction that organised the
showing, said he would call for an urgent debate on the issues raised in the
film at the next session of the European parliament in July. A number of
other deputies in the European parliament called on the International
Committee of the Red Cross to carry out an independent investigation into
the allegations raised in the film.
Leading international human rights lawyer Andrew McEntee, who was present at
the special screening in Berlin, said it was "clear there is prima facie
evidence of serious war crimes committed not just under international law,
but also under the laws of the United States itself."

McEntee called for an independent investigation. "No functioning criminal
justice system can choose to ignore this evidence," he said.

The Pentagon issued a statement June 13 denying the allegations of US
complicity in the torture and murder of POWs, and the US State Department
followed suit with a formal denial on June 14. Doran, an award-winning
independent filmmaker, whose documentaries have been seen in over 35
countries, said he decided to release a rough cut of his account of war
crimes because he feared Afghan forces were about to cover up the evidence
of mass killings. "It's absolutely essential that the site of the mass grave
is protected," Doran told United Press International after the screening in
Strasbourg. "Otherwise the evidence will disappear." Doran's call for the
preservation of evidence was echoed by the Boston-based Physicians for Human
Rights, which issued a statement June 14 urging that immediate steps be
taken to safeguard the gravesite of the alleged victims near Mazar-i-Sharif.
Late last year Doran shot footage of the aftermath of the massacre of
hundreds of captured Taliban troops at the Qala-i-Janghi prison fortress
outside of Mazar-i-Sharif. His film clips, showing prisoners who had
apparently been shot with their hands tied, ignited an international outcry
over the conduct of American special operations forces and their Northern
Alliance allies.

Doran's new film includes interviews with eyewitnesses to torture and the
slaughter of some 3,000 POWs. It also contains footage of the desert scene
where the alleged massacre took place. Skulls, clothing and limbs still
protrude from the mound of sand, more than six months after the event. The
film has received widespread coverage in the European press, with articles
featured in some of the main French and German newspapers (Le Monde,
Suddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt). Jamie Doran has also given interviews to two
of the main German television companies.

While the documentary has become a major news story in Europe, it has been
virtually blacked out by the American media. The UPI released a dispatch on
the screenings last week, yet the existence of the film has not even been
reported by such leading newspapers as the New York Times, the Los Angeles
Times and the Washington Post. The film and its allegations of US war crimes
have been similarly suppressed by the television networks and cable news
channels.
This reporter was able to view the 20-minute-long documentary in Berlin. In
the course of the film a series of witnesses appear and testify that
American military forces participated in the armed assault and killing of
several hundred Taliban prisoners in the Qala-i-Janghi fortress. Witnesses
also allege that, following the events at Qala-i-Janghi, the American army
command was complicit in the killing and disposal of a further 3,000
prisoners, out of a total of 8,000 who surrendered after the battle of
Konduz.
Afghan witnesses who speak of these atrocities are not identified by name,
but, according to the director, all those testifying in the film are willing
to give their names and appear before an international tribunal to
investigate the events of the end of last November and beginning of
December.
In Doran's film, Amir Jahn, an ally of Northern Alliance leader General
Rashid Dostum, states that the Islamic soldiers who surrendered at Konduz
did so only on the condition that their lives would be spared. Some 470
captives were incarcerated in Qala-i-Janghi. The remaining 7,500 were sent
to another prison at Kala-i-Zein.
Following a revolt by a number of the prisoners in Qala-i-Janghi, the
fortress was subjected to a massive barrage from the air as well as the
ground by American troops. The atrocities inside Qala-i-Janghi are confirmed
in the film by the head of the regional Red Cross, Simon Brookes, who
visited the fort shortly after the massacre. He investigated the area and
found bodies, many with their faces twisted in agony.
The American Taliban supporter John Walker Lindh was one of 86 Taliban
fighters who were able to survive the massacre by hiding in tunnels beneath
the fort . In one chilling scene in the film, we witness actual footage,
secretly shot, of the interrogation of Lindh. We see him kneeling in the
desert, in front of a long row of captive Afghans, being interrogated by two
CIA officers. The officer leading the interrogation is heard to say: "But
the problem is he needs to decide if he lives or dies. If he does not want
to die here, he is going to die here, because we are going to leave him here
and he's going to stay in prison for the rest of his life."
Massacre in Mazar then goes to describe the treatment meted out to the
remaining thousands of captives who had surrendered to the Northern Alliance
and American troops. A further 3,000 prisoners were separated out from the
total of 8,000 who had surrendered, and were transported to a prison
compound in the town of Shibarghan.
They were shipped to Shibarghan in closed containers, lacking any
ventilation. Local Afghan truck drivers were commandeered to transport
between 200 and 300 prisoners in each container. One of the drivers
participating in the convoy relates that an average of between 150 and 160
died in each container in the course of the trip.
An Afghan soldier who accompanied the convoy said he was ordered by an
American commander to fire shots into the containers to provide air,
although he knew that he would certainly hit those inside. An Afghan taxi
driver reports seeing a number of containers with blood streaming from their
floors.
Another witness relates that many of the 3,000 prisoners were not
combatants, and some had been arrested by US soldiers and their allies and
added to the group for the mere crime of speaking Pashto, a local dialect.
Afghan soldiers testify that upon arriving at the prison camp at Shibarghan,
surviving POWs were subjected to torture and a number were arbitrarily
killed by American troops.
One Afghan, shown in battle fatigues, says of the treatment of prisoners in
the Shibarghan camp: "I was a witness when an American soldier broke one
prisoner's neck and poured acid on others. The Americans did whatever they
wanted. We had no power to stop them."
Another Afghan soldier states, "They cut off fingers, they cut tongues, they
cut their hair and cut their beards. Sometimes they did it for pleasure;
they took the prisoners outside and beat them up and then returned them to
the prison. But sometimes they were never returned and they disappeared, the
prisoner disappeared. I was there."
Another Afghan witness alleges that, in order to avoid detection by
satellite cameras, American officers demanded the drivers take their
containers full of dead and living victims to a spot in the desert and dump
them. Two of the Afghan civilian truck drivers confirm that they witnessed
the dumping of an estimated 3,000 prisoners in the desert.
According to one of the drivers, while 30 to 40 American soldiers stood by,
those prisoners still living were shot and left in the desert to be eaten by
dogs. The final harrowing scenes of the film feature a panorama of bones,
skulls and pieces of clothing littering the desert.
See Also:
More evidence of US war crimes in Afghanistan: Taliban POWs suffocated
inside cargo containers
[13 December 2001]
The Geneva Convention and the US massacre of POWs in Afghanistan
[7 December 2001]
After US massacre of Taliban POWs: the stench of death and more media lies
[29 November 2001]
US atrocity against Taliban POWs: Whatever happened to the Geneva
Convention?
[28 November 2001]
US war crime in Afghanistan: Hundreds of prisoners of war slaughtered at
Mazar-i-Sharif
[27 November 2001]
US war crime at Mazar-i-Sharif prison: new videotape evidence
[11 December 2001]
Thousands of POWs held in appalling conditions in Afghanistan
[8 January 2002]

===============================
===============================

I T E M # 2 :

George Bush has warned that the US would us "overwhelming force". A group
of atom-bomb survivors from Japan caution Bush not to use nuclear weapons
and says that the introduction of nuclear weapons by the United States could
lead to their unlimited use worldwide. Countries with nuclear weapons would
feel unconstrained by the U.S. first use and other countries without nuclear
weapons would feel less constrained from using biological and chemical
weapons of mass destruction (the poor country's equivalent to nuclear
weapons).

http://pnews.org/NWO/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=
33

=========
=========

I T E M # 3 :

In response to the disclosure that the CIA Holds Khalid's Children 7, 9, In
Custody As Leverage a Moslem makes this remark:

"Didn't realise our 'moral' , 21st century Crusaders kidnapped children for
future use in extracting confessions from their parents. But of course our
righteous and democratically elected leaders are in direct communication
with God (see Newsweek story on the religiosity of Mr. Bush) and therefore
are exempt from the morality of us mortals. Hallelujah, you Crusaders of the
'Prince of Peace!' "

-- name withheld (writer's family may still be in the US)

===============
===============

I T E M # 4 :

Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed: Bombshell revelation from
a defector cited by White House and press; Straw and Pearle say this makes
no difference...
------
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

MEDIA ADVISORY:

Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed: Bombshell revelation from

a defector cited by White House and press

February 27, 2003

On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq
crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD
[weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist,"
the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who
defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had

destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned
missiles, as Iraq claims.

Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to
Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions
about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But
Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more
than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by
officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N.
inspections team known as UNSCOM.

Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its

chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them,"
Barry wrote. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks,
microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in
order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday

resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were

told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with

Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."

But these statements were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order to

"bluff Saddam into disclosing still more."

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow angrily denied the Newsweek report. "It is
incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue," Harlow told Reuters the day the report
appeared (2/24/03).

But on Wednesday (2/26/03), a complete copy of the Kamel transcript-an
internal UNSCOM/IAEA document stamped "sensitive"-- was obtained by Glen
Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who in early February revealed
that Tony Blair's "intelligence dossier" was plagiarized from a student
thesis. Rangwala has posted the Kamel transcript on the Web:

http://casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf>http://casi.org.uk/info/unscom95082
2.pdf

In the transcript (p. 13), Kamel says bluntly: "All weapons-- biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed."

Who is Hussein Kamel?

Kamel is no obscure defector. A son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, his departure
from Iraq carrying crates of secret documents on Iraq's past weapons
programs was a major turning point in the inspections saga. In 1999, in a
letter to the U.N. Security Council (1/25/99), UNSCOM reported that its
entire eight years of disarmament work "must be divided into two parts,
separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995,
of Lt. General Hussein Kamel."

Kamel's defection has been cited repeatedly by George W. Bush and leading
administration officials as evidence that 1) Iraq has not disarmed; 2)
inspections cannot disarm it; and 3) defectors such as Kamel are the most
reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons.

Bush declared in an October 7, 2002 speech: "In 1995, after several years of
deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected.
It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more
than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The
inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four
times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that
has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."

Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the U.N.
Security Council claimed: "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it
had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on
the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons. The admission only came out after

inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein
Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law."

In a speech last August (8/27/02), Vice President Dick Cheney said Kamel's
story "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the
result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself."

Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley recently wrote in the
Chicago Tribune (2/16/03) that "because of information provided by Iraqi
defector and former head of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, Lt.
Gen. Hussein Kamel, the regime had to admit in detail how it cheated on its
nuclear non-proliferation commitments."

The quotes from Bush and Powell cited above refer to anthrax and VX produced
by Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. The administration has cited various
quantities of chemical and biological weapons on many other occasions--
weapons that Iraq produced but which remain unaccounted for. All of these
claims refer to weapons produced before 1991.

But according to Kamel's transcript, Iraq destroyed all of these weapons in
1991.

According to Newsweek, Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in August
1995. If that is true, all of these U.S. officials have had access to
Kamel's statements that the weapons were destroyed. Their repeated citations
of his testimony-- without revealing that he also said the weapons no longer
exist-- suggests that the administration might be withholding critical
evidence. In particular, it casts doubt on the credibility of Powell's
February 5 presentation to the U.N., which was widely hailed at the time for
its persuasiveness. To clear up the issue, journalists might ask that the
CIA release the transcripts of its own conversations with Kamel.

Kamel's disclosures have also been crucial to the arguments made by hawkish
commentators on Iraq. The defector has been cited four times on the New York
Times op-ed page in the last four months in support of claims about Iraq's
weapons programs--never noting his assertions about the elimination of these
weapons. In a major Times op-ed calling for war with Iraq (2/21/03), Kenneth
Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that Kamel and other defectors
"reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear
program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and concealed than
anyone had imagined it to be." The release of Kamel's transcript makes this
claim appear grossly at odds with the defector's actual testimony.

The Kamel story is a bombshell that necessitates a thorough reevaluation of
U.S. media reporting on Iraq, much of which has taken for granted that the
nation retains supplies of prohibited weapons. (See FAIR Media Advisory,
"Iraq's Hidden Weapons: >From Allegation to Fact,"

<http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-weapons.html>http://www.fair.org/pr
ess-releases/iraq-weapons.html.) Kamel's testimony is not, of course, proof
that Iraq does not have hidden stocks of chemical or biological weapons, but
it does suggest a need for much more media skepticism about U.S. allegations
than has previously been shown.

=========
=========

I T E M # 5 :

Troops told war to start March 17, says paper --British troops based in the
Gulf had been told to prepare for an invasion of Iraq on March 17, the Daily
Express has reported.
=============

=============
I T E M # 6 :

>From the Reuter's release: "According to the criminal complaint filed on
Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A
Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall
in Guilderland, New York, near Albany...When Downs refused the security
officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he
was arrested and taken away in handcuffs...He could face up to a year in
prison if convicted."

Say the P-word and go to jail.

And, a few days ago, another lawyer was arrested during a college library
visit "when city police officers arrested him about 9 p.m. at the computer
terminal he was using, handcuffed him, and brought him to the Santa Fe, New
Mexico, police station for questioning by Secret Service agents...Andrew J.
O'Conner, 40, who was released about five hours later, said...the agents
accused him of making threatening remarks about President George W. Bush in
an Internet chat room. Admitting he talked politics face-to-face in the
library with a woman who was wearing a "No war with Iraq" button, O'Connor
recalled saying that Bush is "out of control."

=======
=======

I T E M # 7 :

The coming war - in Washington

Published at http://www.palestinereport.org on February 27, 2003.

by Mark Perry

SO MUCH of Washington runs on paper - or rather, on papers: there are
"Defense Planning Guidances," "National Security Strategy Studies," and an
entire host of memos that seem dependent on colors - white papers, for
instance, that result from the findings of "Blue Ribbon Panels" or, oddly,
"flimsy, buff and green" - the papers of the military decision-making
process.

Mostly, like the Mitchell Plan, the papers are passed around for a time and
then ignored. This is particularly true for Democratic administrations.
There might well be a natural law governing this that is the inverse of Sir
Isaac Newton's: the more papers a Democratic administration writes the less
weight they have. This was certainly true for the Clinton White House, which
produced more useless studies than any previous administration. That's not
true for the Republicans; the Republicans don't write many papers, but the
ones they do write actually count. As a corollary to Newton's law of gravity
Republican papers not only have weight, they will scare the daylights out of
you.

This is certainly true for a paper now circulating through policy circles in
Washington. This "5/21 Brief" (as it is called) was the result of a briefing
given by current Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on May 21,
1990 - ten years ago - when he was a lowly assistant, but kindred spirit to
then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. The reason that the paper has
gained such new attention is that it provides a guide to the current
administration's strategic thinking, including its current plans to invade
Iraq. The paper is old news, but unlike the papers of the Clinton years
(which represented a "hiccup in American history," in the phrase of one
administration official), this paper counts. Written by Wolfowitz and a team
of defense policy experts, many of whom now serve in senior positions at the
Pentagon, the paper recommends that the US take steps to ensure its
strategic dominance, including the use of unilateral military action to
project power. The paper says that instead of shrinking the US military (the
policy that was followed during the Clinton years) the nation should expand
its reach and funding - from 3.0 percent to 3.8 percent of US Gross National
Product. The increase in funding would be necessary to underwrite the new
bases for American troops, which would be dispatched to particularly
unstable regions to keep the peace and to "expand" and "shape" the "zone of
democracy."

Richard Haass, the State Department's head of policy and planning, and an
early critic of the Wolfowitz paper, provides a succinct view of Wolfowitz's
core beliefs: "Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your
own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way. If a government
fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal
advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone in your own
territory. Other governments, including the United States, gain the right to
intervene. In the case of terrorism, this can even lead to a right of
preventive, or preemptory, self-defense. You essentially can act in
anticipation if you have grounds to think it's a question of when, and not
if, you're going to be attacked."

This was a revolutionary doctrine, and one supported during the first Bush
administration by a coterie of conservative policymakers. But the paper
produced by Wolfowitz and his team was buried just after it was presented
because it causedsuch a stir in the public press. The overwhelming public
response was, in fact, quite negative - Wolfowitz and his team were
recommending unilateral American military action to a public that then
believed strongly (and still does) that the US should only act when its
interests are directly threatened, and then only in cooperation with its
allies. Additionally, while Wolfowitz and then-Secretary of Defense Richard
Cheney promoted the ideas contained in the paper to then-President Bush, the
ideas the paper espoused were lost in the hubbub over Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait. Indeed, the first Bush to serve as president was to give a talk on
rethinking American strategy on the very day that Saddam Hussein invaded
Kuwait.

But while the paper was sidelined, it was not forgotten. In the first days
of the new Bush administration, Wolfowitz and his allies at the Pentagon
revived their ideas and began to spread them to key officials in the State
Department and White House. They had a number of natural allies, including
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who serves as Vice President Dick Cheney's national
security advisor. Libby helped draft the Wolfowitz paper and has remained
one of its most outspoken and, as Cheney's deputy, most powerful advocates.

The group around Wolfowitz was slow to regain the kind of influence in the
new Bush administration that it had in the previous Bush administration, but
the events of September 11 gave them their opening. Just after the attacks
in New York and Washington, the Wolfowitz group lobbied heavily for an
adoption of their position as the official US national security strategy.
The battle was short-lived: just weeks after the New York and Washington
attacks the Bush administration adopted a paper called, simply enough, "The
National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The paper
revived all of the principles of the "5/21 Brief" including its core
principle - that while the US would attempt to recruit "coalitions of the
willing" in its global battle against terrorism it would, where necessary,
act alone.

"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security," the paper notes. "The
greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more
compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even
if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemies' attack. To
forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States
will, if necessary, act preemptively." The Wolfowitz team won other
victories - it convinced Bush's national security team that it needed to
work for "regime change" in Iraq and needed to increase the defense budget,
which has now been increased to exactly 3.8 percent of the US gross national
product.

This rewriting of national security policy did not go unnoticed. Two years
after the Bush administration published its new national security strategy
paper, John Ikenberry (a noted policy strategist at Georgetown University)
published an article in Foreign Affairs noting that the new "apocalyptic"
doctrine was being promoted by a core group of "neo-imperialists" who viewed
American power as "unconstrained by the rules and norms of the international
community" or international bodies, like the United Nations. "At the
extreme," Ikenberry wrote, "these notions form a neo-imperial vision in
which the United States arrogates to itself the global role of setting
standards, determining threats, using force, and meting out justice." The
label, "neo-imperialist" has stuck and, as Ikenberry predicted, a strong
counter to the neo-imperialist argument has emerged, in a group that is now
been labeled "the realists." While the response of these "realists" has been
long in coming, the opposition to the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz doctrine has
come not from the ranks of the Democratic Party, but from the ranks of the
moderate center of the Republican Party - from those who served the current
president's father.

The opening skirmish of this campaign took place on Friday, February 21,
when former national security advisors Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew
Brzezinski wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both men, highly regarded in Washington policy
circles (but up until this month loathe to take on the neo-imperialists in
public) have been expressing their reservations about the administration's
post-September 11 policies for well over a year. Neither believes in the
unilateralist bent of the neo-imperialists, and both have been privately
outspoken in what they see as the administration's mishandling of its
friendships in Europe and its penchant for the use of unbridled military
force. For both Scowcroft and Brzezinski, the decision to publish their
article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict came after weeks of
consultations with senior Republicans and Democrats no longer serving in the
government - as well as after long discussions with the current president's
father, who is said to strongly disagree with his son's policies but refuses
to critique them privately or comment on them in public. The article was
only written after both men decided that the administration's greatest
vulnerability is its unreflective support for Israeli actions in the West
Bank and Gaza, which both believe poses the greatest threat to gaining
worldwide acceptance for the global war on terrorism.

The February 21 article, "A Road Map for Israeli-Palestinian Amity," is
remarkable. Scowcroft and Brzezinski do not offer an open or outspoken
critique of American policy, but their viewpoint is a stark departure from
those held by Wolfowitz - and from his aid, Douglas Feith - who remain
Israel's staunchest allies inside the administration. While endorsing Bush's
vision for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, Scowcroft and Brzezinski make
it clear that they believe his call for new Palestinian leadership is
counterproductive. A resumption of the peace process, they say, should not
be "conditioned" on "the replacement of a particular individual." To do so,
they add, invites "resistance" to US goals "in the Palestinian population."
Scowcroft and Brzezinski go on to endorse a settlement based on "boundaries
approximating the pre-June 1967 borders," arrangements for Jerusalem that
"accommodate two separate sovereignties," a resolution of the refugee
problem that provides for "relief and justice" for them but without
upsetting the demographic balance in Israel, and a "protection regime" for
the holy places. Privately, the two are more outspoken: Scowcroft has told
associates that Bush's call for the replacement of Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat was "stupid," while Brzezinski has appeared on television programs
promoting the view that the US is in danger of promoting policies that
"could be confused with those of another nation."

The Scowcroft-Brzezinski vision is breathtaking. It not only marks a
complete break with the Bush administration's pro-Israel policies (and
confirms their view that Bush's call for a replacement of Arafat is
counterproductive), it marks a shift away from the Wolfowitz-Feith
worldview. It is, in fact, a denunciation of Wolfowitz's (and Dick Cheney
and Donald Rumsfeld's) view that Israel, like the United States, has the
right to intervene to protect its security because (following US doctrine)
the Palestinians support terrorism and, therefore, have ceded some of their
sovereign rights.

There is only one problem with the Scowcroft-Brzezinski article. It never
appeared. While Scowcroft and Brzezinski were told by Wall Street Journal
editors that the op-ed would run on Friday (a fact confirmed by the
appearance of the article on the website of the Council on Foreign
Relations - where it still appears under the head "Wall Street Journal
op-ed") the article did not appear in any of the newspaper's editions.
Editors of the Journal, it is rumored, told Scowcroft directly that they
thought the article was too controversial. The decision left both men
sputtering in anger, but confirmed to them what the rest of us have known
for some time - that there is an unofficial news blackout on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the media, to the point where those
advocates of even the most moderate two-state resolution of the conflict are
considered "supporters of terrorism."

In spite of this distinct chill, however, Scowcroft and Brzezinski have been
circulating their paper much as Wolfowitz first circulated his "5/21
Brief" - from hand-to-hand among good friends who agree with their position.
So it is that Washington's fax machines have been busily reproducing the
Scowcroft-Brzezinski conclusion: that finding a solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines of the Saudi proposal endorsing
United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 would do far more to "facilitate
international cooperation with the US in its war on terrorism" than an
attack on Iraq.

The impact of this opening skirmish in what promises to be a public war over
the administration's policies cannot be exaggerated. Even inside the
administration, battle lines are being formed over US post-Iraq policy. In
spite of the power of the administration's pro-Israel heavyweights (Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith) the outcome of the battle is not clear. The
neo-imperialists are not only taking stock of public opinion, which is
starting to show the first glimmerings of doubt over the Iraq adventure, but
they fear a public backlash over their unstinting support of Israel. In
addition, the government of Ariel Sharon has most recently made a number of
unpublicized but well-known foreign policy gaffes and, once again,
embarrassed itself with senior administration officials. The most recent
terrorism scare in the US - which saw hordes of people running to hardware
stores to buy duct tape and plastic bags - resulted from a "foreign
intelligence report" that said that the Al Qaeda network had targeted a
well-known and popular Jewish-owned resort in what one intelligence official
described as "a Bali-like bombing." US intelligence officials gave great
weight to the report because it was so highly detailed. But questions about
its veracity were inevitably raised and its source was brought to the US for
interrogation. According to intelligence officials, the Israeli official who
made the report failed a polygraph test. This, coupled with impatient public
statements from Israeli officials (including Zalmon Shoval, the former
Israeli ambassador to the US) over the timing of the US invasion of Iraq
("what are you waiting for?" Shoval was quoted as saying) have left American
officials wondering whether the Israeli government has any sense of how
delicate US public opinion can be.

In spite of all of this, however, the Bush administration is continuing its
march - or sprint - to war. The strategy it is pursuing was put in place ten
years ago by Israel's closest supporters. It is unlikely that now, with over
150,000 US troops in place, a war against Iraq can be averted. Nor, it
seems, will the Bush administration be deterred by mass demonstrations or
even a break in the Atlantic alliance.

There is always a chance, slim though it may now seem, that the US will do
what it has never done before - that it will pressure the Sharon government
to accede to direct negotiations with the Palestinians and the establishment
of a Palestinian state according to UN resolutions 242 and 338. Two weeks
ago, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice interrupted Douglas Feith
during a national security meeting at the White House with the words: "If we
need to know what the Israelis think, we'll call in the Israeli ambassador
for his views." Chastened, Feith returned to the Pentagon and removed the
Likud party campaign posters from the walls of his office.-Published
26/2/03(c)Palestine Report

©Palestine Report. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of
Palestine Report or Palestine Report Online content is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of Palestine Report.

==============
==============

I T E M # 8 :

http://truthout.org/docs_03/030503A.shtml
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Arrest Me
by William Rivers Pitt

George W. Bush is out of control.

I'll say it again.

George W. Bush is out of control.

I'm waiting for the black government cars to come squealing up in front of
my house, for the thump of leather on my stairs, for the sound of knuckles
on my door, for the feel of steel braceleting my wrists, for the smell of
urine in some dank Federal holding cell as I listen to questions from men
who no longer feel the constricting boundaries of constitutional law
abutting their duties.

Sounds paranoid, doesn't it? Straight out of the Turner Diaries, maybe.
Sounds like I'm waiting for the ominous whop-whop-whop of the blades on a
black helicopter churning the air over my home. Sounds like I'm waiting to
find a laser dot on my chest above my heart before the glass breaks and the
bullet pushes my guts out past my spine.

Crazy, right?

Ask Andrew J. O'Conner of Santa Fe, New Mexico if it sounds crazy. Mr.
O'Conner, a former public defender from Santa Fe, was arrested in a public
library and interrogated by Secret Service agents for five hours on February
13th.

His crime?

He said "Bush is out of control" on an internet chat room, and was arrested
for threatening the President.

Ask Bernadette Devlin McAliskey of Ireland if it sounds crazy. She was
recently passing through Chicago from Dublin, where she passed security,
when she heard her name called over a loudspeaker. When she went up to the
ticket counter, three men and one woman surrounded her and grabbed her
passport. McAliskey was informed that she had been reported to be a
"potential or real threat to the United States."

Bernadette Devlin McAliskey has spent the better part of her life struggling
for the Irish nationalist cause. She did not lob Molotov cocktails at
police. Instead, she became a member of British Parliament at age 21, the
youngest person ever elected to that post. In 1981 she and her husband were
shot by a loyalist death squad in their home. She has traveled to America
on a regular basis for the last thirty years, and has been given the keys to
the cities of San Francisco and New York.

Upon her detention in Chicago last month, McAliskey was fingerprinted and
photographed. One of the men holding her told her that he was going to
throw her in prison. When she snapped back that she had rights, she was
told not to make the boss angry, because he shoots people. "After 9/11,"
said one officer, "nobody has any rights."

"You've evaded us before," said the officer before McAliskey was deported
back to Ireland, "but you're not going to do it now." She never found out
for sure how she was a threat to the United States, and is currently filing
a formal complaint with the U.S. consulate in Dublin.

There are those who will brush these incidents off. Andrew O'Conner has
been an activist for years, and has not hidden his disdain for this looming
war in Iraq. Bernadette McAliskey is a world-famous fighter for her people.
Some will say the opinions and freedoms of people like this do not matter in
the grand scheme. Others will wave these incidents away as random examples
of thoughtless action by petty dictators who were foolishly given badges and
authority.

I don't.

It is ironic, in a grisly sort of way. Hard-right conservatives spent the
entirety of the Clinton administration baying to anyone fearful enough to
listen that the President was coming for their freedoms, that it was only a
matter of time before the Bill of Rights was destroyed. The myth of the
black helicopters, the apocalyptic views of the Turner Diaries, and a
smoking crater in Oklahoma City all testified to the brittle paranoia these
people promulgated in those years.

Now, those same people have representatives with parallel views on virtually
every domestic and foreign policy idea in control of the House, the Senate,
the White House, the Supreme Court, the intelligence services and the United
States military. These are the people who brought us the Patriot Act,
versions 1.0 and 2.0, the people who are responsible for the most incredible
constitutional redactions in our history.

Ask Mr. O'Conner and Ms. McAliskey about it. They can tell you what happens
to undesirables these days.

When you murder peaceful dissent in America, you murder America itself.
When you harass innocent people for their past and present views, you spread
fear within an already terrified nation. This is not about some fool of a
Secret Service agent jumping the gun on an innocuous online comment, or an
airline security officer with a penchant for bullyragging 55 year old women.
This is a failure from the top down, an empowerment - by the man charged
with defending our constitution - of lesser jackasses with large badges who
do not understand nor care for the importance of their positions. This is
about failed leadership, and the despoiling of everything that makes this
place precious and unique and sacred.

In other words, Bush is out of control.

Bush is out of control.

Come and get me.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books -
"War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The
Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He
teaches high school in Boston, MA.

Also in this week's issue: the Palestine Red Crescent Society provides
Palestinians with pamphlets on chemical warfare, and a Nablus father watches
Israeli soldiers kill his son in cold blood.

To subscribe to the full weekly email edition of Palestine Report, see
http://www.palestinereport.org for check and credit card subscription.

Palestine Report - Telling the story of one nation's search for independence
and justice.

[or is bush sr's alleged opposition just a good cop- bad cop tactic to
protect the dynasty and the club?]
===========================

Part 4: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

Steve

unread,

Mar 6, 2003, 3:31:30 PM3/6/03

Leading international human rights lawyer Andrew McEntee, who was
present at the special screening in Berlin, said it was “clear there is
prima facie evidence of serious war crimes committed not just under
international law, but also under the laws of the United States itself.”

McEntee called for an independent investigation. “No functioning
criminal justice system can choose to ignore this evidence,” he said.

------------

Trouble looks like being here.

Everyman

unread,

Mar 6, 2003, 3:57:22 PM3/6/03

Fundamental Jeffersonian Constitution Protection, Posse Comitatus
(superceded by unconstitutional standing armies) attacked as "more dangerous
than al Qa'eda" by Racketeer Junta!!

When I read of an FBI agent speaking of constitutional American posse
comitatus militias (the real ultimate force that upholds the constitution of
the US and its essential bill of rights against usurpation by abuse of
office) in the same breath as "terrorists" -- I knew at once that the FBI
are merely the hit-men "enforcers" of the Rockefeller-Rothschild
drug-currency-manipulation-drugs-monopoly-globalization-educational-dumbdown
-systematic-misinformation-911-mass-murder-frameup tyranny that has been in
control of this country since the days of post-Civil war reconstruction,
since the set-up of the Federal-Reserve-Income-Tax-Stooge-Senator enactments
of 1913 that made World War One a profitable certainty to war-debt merchants
and to munitions providers, both always playing both sides of the battle
lines -- a la Rothschild).

Now as the US is being conditioned by the Bar-Ilan-Madison-Avenue-Hollywood
mind warpers to accept dire need of the American people to burn the skin
off Iraqi children and maim, cripple and kill their fathers, uncles, big
brothers, sons, grandsons etc. -- to destroy their drinking and food supply
facilities, murder their populist leader (who had nothing to do with 9-11
etc. -- and who has been subject to endless US-Israeli misinformation so
that the American people commonly have a wholly inaccurate picture of who he
actually is and what he has and has not done -- that our deluded deluded
deluded people have been swallowing as they are fed day after day and hour
after hour the ignorant, belligerent lies from ignorant Wall Street
mouthpieces like Hannity, Limbaugh who now, through establishment money,
monopolize talk-radio airwaves.

But now the posse comitatus institution is the target of these thug traitors
within the Patriot Act and War On Terror double-think "peace-is-war"
"tyranny-is-freedom" dictatorship that the punk whose daddy bought him a
ball team to qualify him for the Presidency and to run the world roughshod
over every other government on earth and over his own people and
constitution -- al in the name of Jesus the Prince of Peace and of Zion
etc. for cripes sakes.

But read this:

"(a) The militia of the United States consist of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to
become, citizens of the United States. ...

(b) The calsses of militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of members of the militia who
are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
-- 10 United States Code section 311 (1983)

And this:

"The American tradition of an armed citizenry did not originate with the
need for pioneers to protect themselves from Indians or wild animals, let
alone from the "Wild West, every-man-for-himself myth'.Instead, bearing arms
was an essential element of the common law tradition that the early settlers
brought with them from England."
-- Dr. Joyce L. Malcom, Radcliff College and current fellow at
Harvard Law School.

And these:

"It's an old Swiss tradition that only an armed man can have political
rights."
-- Ernest Moeregli, Swiss Military Department

"The hope of the future des not rest, as commonly believed, in winning the
peoples of the "buffer fringe" to one superpower or the other, but rather in
the invention of new weapons and new tactics that will be so cheap to obtain
and so easy to use that they will increase the effectiveness of guerrilla
warfare so greatly that the employment of our present weapons of mass
destruction will become futile and, on this basis, there can be a revival of
democracy and of political decentralization in all three parts of the world.
-- Carroll Quigley, 1961

"Drawing heavily upon the libertarian thought of the English
commonwealthmen, colonial Americans believed that a republic's very
existence depended upon the character and spirit of its citizens. A people
noted for their frugality, industry, independence, and courage were good
republican stock. THose intent upon luxury lost their desire and then their
ability to protect and maintain a republican society. Republics survived
only through a constant protection of the realm of Liberty from the
ceaselessly aggressive forces of Power. Americans would remain a bastion of
Liberty, in stark contrast to the decadent and corrupt societies of Europe,
only so long as its people retained their virility and their virtue."
-- from William Marina, "Weapons, Technology, and Legitimacy: The Second
Amendment in Global Perspective (1984).

=====

Now for your daily history lesson:
--------

Who remembers, from their history lessons, the tyrannical "ALIEN AND
SEDITION ACTS" and the near revolution they generated?

From the Family Encyclopedia of American History by the Editors of Readers
Digest, 1975, i.e., before Readers Digest was bought out by Lawrence
Rockefeller to immediately fired most of the staff, tore out the populist
guts of that world0-renounded magazine and converted it into globalization
and dumb-down mouthpiece, apparently a meld of TV-Guide and People Magazine.
But this is a reference by the "old editorial team" and publisher of RD:

ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS (1798)

Intended to suppress conspiracies against and criticism of Federal
Government

Beset by increasingly violent criticism from the followers of Thomas
Jefferson, and by the propaganda activities of pro-French, anti-British
aliens, the Federalist-dominated Congress of 1798 passed four bills aimed at
the control of domestic dissent and conspiracy. The four measures, all
signed into law by President John Adams in 1798, were the Naturalization Act
(repealed in 1802), which extended the period of residence required for
aliens to attain citizenship from five to fourteen years; the Alien Enemies
Act, which was to have force for a period of only two years, and gave the
President the power to expel foreigners whom he judged dangerous; the Alien
Act and the Sedition Act, both also to expire after two years, which
forbade, respectively, treasonable conspiracies and any criticism of Federal
officeholders made "with the intent to defame" or to bring them "into
contempt or disrepute."

Ten Jeffersonian Republicans (no relation to the GOP,which came into
being in the 1850s), mostly newspaper editors, were convicted under the
Sedition Act and suffered heavy fines and imprisonment. One congressman,
Matthew Lyon of Vermont, was jailed for publishing a pamphlet criticizing
President Adams. The Republicans were quick to pounce upon these examples
of what they called the "Federalist Reign of Terror," charging the Adams
Administration with violating the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the
press. Republican-dominated legislatures in Kentucky and Virginia
(Jefferson's state) passed resolutions(the first written by Jefferson, the
second by James Madison) declaring the Sedition Act unconstitutional and
null and void within the boarders of those states. The principles espoused
in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions later bolstered the arguments of
supporters of state's rights.

The clamor against the ALien and Sedition Acts led to the collapse of the
Federalist Party, the election of Jefferson to the Presidency in 1800 and
Republican control of Congress. The Republicans repealed the Naturalization
Act and allowed the other measures to die at the end of the two-year lives
of the statutes. Only one statute passed with the ALien and Sedition Acts
remains on the books today -- the LOGAN ACT of 1798, which prohibits private
citizens from entering into negotiations with an enemy of the U.S. in time
of war. See John C. Miller: Crisis in Freedom and James M. Smith:
Freedom's Fetters.

=========

KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS:

(1798-1799)

Written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison/ Unsucessful attempt to strike
down Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.

In 1798 a Federalist-controlled Congress passed the Alien and Sedition
Actrs, the primary aim of which was to stifle a growing political oppostion
led by Thomas Jefferson. The Sedition Act's proscription of written or
spoken criticism of the Government virtually nullified the First Amendment
guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. Jefferson and his
followers -- unable to strike back through the Supreme Court, which was
manned by staunch Federalists -- chose to voice their opposition thrioug the
various state legislatures.

The Kentucky Resolutions were secretly written by Jefferson and passed by
that state's legislature in 1798-99; the Virginia Resolutions wre drafted
by Jefferson's ally James Madison and adopted in 1798. The documents called
upon all the states to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and
urged COngress to repeal them, on the ground that the Federalal Government
had been created by a "compact" among the sovereign states and therefore
possessed only those powers specifically delegated to it by the states.
The resolutions failed to bring about immediate repeal of the acts but did
serve to focus nationwide sentiment against them, and so helped assure
Jefferson's victory in the 1800 presidential election. Later, the
resolutions were used as a precedent by Jefferson's intellectual heir, John
C. Calhoun, when he proposed his Nullification Doctrine against the Federal
tariff act of 1828 which favored Northern Industrialists over other regions
of the nation.

=============================

All the above is to enable you to read the following, seemingly
"small potatoes" article in proper perspective:

THE MOST DANGEROUS EXTREMIST GROUP IN
AMERICA...IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER....

"Terrorism expert" identifies extremist groups in Minnesota
as more dangerous than al Qa'eda.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3734278.html

Expert identifies extreme groups in state
Randy Furst and Mike Kaszuba, Star Tribune

Published March 5, 2003 TERR05

A Hennepin County sheriff's official with expertise on
counterterrorism efforts urged Minnesota law enforcers
Tuesday to become aware of several right-and left-wing
organizations operating in the state.

"We are not calling any of them terrorists. We call
them domestic identified groups that may affect our
communities," Capt. Bill Chandler said after giving a
presentation to emergency management personnel on
"Understanding Terrorism in Minnesota."

Chandler, who heads the patrol division for the
Sheriff's Office and frequently gives training talks
on countering terrorism, offered details about the
number of militia and neo-Nazi groups in Minnesota.

He said that one group, Posse Comitatus, is "very
strong in Minnesota" and active in Stearns County, and
that two other organizations, the Animal Liberation
Front and the Earth Liberation Front, were more
dangerous in Minnesota than Al-Qaida.

About 160 law enforcement, fire and other emergency
officials from around the state heard Chandler's
seminar on the opening day of the annual Governor's
Emergency Management Conference at the Radisson Hotel
South in Bloomington.

Chandler said afterward that he was unaware of any
terrorist cells in Minnesota but that "there is a
financial network here that is supporting terrorism
overseas. It's a safe community. We can't let our
guard down because I know they're among us."

Chandler told the seminar crowd that there are six
neo-Nazi groups in Minnesota. He said there was a
"strong group in Minneapolis" and groups in Grove
City, Park Rapids and Hutchinson. He said one group,
the National Socialist Movement, has a national
commander in Litchfield.

Chandler said another neo-Nazi group, Aryan Nation --
which has been involved in hate crimes -- has a
presence in New Brighton and St. Paul. Two Christian
identity groups that are part of the radical right are
operating in Apple Valley and Albert Lea, he said.

Chandler also cited "neo-Confederate" groups, which he
described as much less violent.

Joseph Peschek, chairman of the Political Science
Department at Hamline University, said in an interview
that it appeared that authorities were painting
extremist groups with a very broad brush.

"You have groups on the left and right that use very
different tactics," Peschek said. "These may all be
radical or extremist groups, but their connection to
terrorism in any meaningful sense is a bit cloudy to
me."

Chandler said that 43 racist skinhead groups exist in
the United States, and that while there are no actual
groups in the Twin Cities, there are some smaller
groups and "wannabes."

Chandler also listed a number of antiracism action
groups that he said are violent, anti-government and
protest the Ku Klux Klan. He said they had connections
to Arise, a Minneapolis group that has affiliations
with anarchist organizations. There are no Klan groups
in Minnesota, he said.

Chandler said there are a number of militia movement
groups in the state that are extremely strong,
especially outstate. He said one group met with the
FBI and gave the agency information about its weapons.
He said the group told the FBI that when things go bad
in Minnesota, the FBI is welcome to join with them.

Chandler cited several left-wing groups, "mainly" of
anarchists who don't like the government or anything
that hurts the environment. He said the groups have
used "direct action," and he listed a Twin Cities
group that has national ties, the Ruckus Society.

He said the most dangerous groups, with a national
base, were the Animal Liberation Front, which supports
animal rights and damages property, and the Earth
Liberation Front, which has a "strong violence
component" and "doesn't care who they injure."

Chandler also mentioned "pro-life and pro-choice
movements" that he said have become more violent
because of actions on both sides. He did not give
details on the groups.

He said that a group at the University of Minnesota,
Students Against War, was organizing a walkout of
classes if war breaks out with Iraq, with plans to
leave cars in city intersections to create gridlock.

"You're kidding me? Wow," Nathan Mittelstaedt, an
organizer for Students Against War, said in reaction.
"It's pretty disheartening to be listed with some of
those groups. . . . I'm kind of shocked at this."

Mittelstaedt, a political science major, said the
group formed after the Sept. 11 attacks in response to
U.S. military action in Afghanistan. The group, he
said, generally draws 15 to 25 people to its meetings
and is part of a coalition organizing a student
walkout should U.S. forces invade Iraq.

Bob Cahill of Arise Bookstore on Lyndale Avenue S. in
Minneapolis said that the bookstore has rented space
to Anti-Racism Action (ARA), but that neither group
had terrorist links. ARA and (at least indirectly)
Arise Bookstore were named at Tuesday's meeting.
"Arise wouldn't align itself with any violent
tactics," he said.

"Any group like ARA, if they had a meeting here, they
wouldn't [represent Arise] . . . at all," he said.

-- The writers are at rfu...@startribune.com and

>mkas...@startribune.com.

Everyman

unread,

Mar 6, 2003, 7:09:20 PM3/6/03

http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=230&zoneid=2

THOMAS JEFFERSON CALLING: The time for revolution is now
By John Kaminski
March 6, 2003

THOMAS JEFFERSON CALLING: The time for revolution is now

By John Kaminski, sky...@comcast.net. Watch for John Kaminski's new book,
AMERICA'S AUTOPSY REPORT, to be published soon by Dandelion Books, for sale
at www.GoOFF.com.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all
experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils
are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people]
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." - two quotes from Thomas
Jefferson

Have you noticed? America is on the wrong side of every conflict in the
world.

America encourages slavery and economic exploitation, and opposes individual
rights and people's self determination - everywhere in the world. And now,
with its new hardcore police-state laws, even in America itself.

No more the land of the free and home of the brave. That's long gone. Now
it's the land of the financially pulverized and the home of grotesquely
overpaid executroids who will say anything for the right price. Lie to
anyone, friend or foe. Betray anyone for those thirty pieces of silver.
Bribe other countries in order to get them to do things that everybody
realizes are wrong. Poison its own soldiers because somebody makes billions
getting rid of nuclear waste. Even kill a lot of its own citizens with
medicines that are never tested, and protect the vicious felons who
distribute these poisons from shattered parents mourning their dead
children. Judasland, that's the America we have now.

Americans don't tell the truth to anyone, least of all themselves. And I
direct this at not just the government, but also at the American people.

Y'know, it's easy to say we've been victimized by bad schools and
coma-inducing TV, disgustingly manipulative movies, and a climate of elitist
intolerance reflected in one-sided media versions of history.

It's one thing to be deceived, but it's quite another not to have seen all
these crimes that have happened right in front our eyes since the Kennedy
assassination. I mean: How stupid are we?

How stupid are we to believe that on one day in 2001, we had no air defenses
for the entire Northeast region of the country? And that just happened to be
the day when "terrorists" decided to fly four big jetliners into national
landmarks. As Gerard Holmgren so eloquently said recently, how stupid are we
to believe a conspiracy theory as far-fetched as that, one that was
engineered by disaffected Arabs in a cave? See
http://www.911-strike.com/debunking.htm

So, yes, we can keep blaming our bad luck and lack of attention to political
reality, but let's not forget to blame ourselves in all this. And blame
ourselves right now for not already having stopped an entire Congress intent
on covering up the most important event of our lives, and then timidly
approving the wars of our new dictator who seeks to keep the population
deceived with one murderous escapade after another.

How stupid are we to believe all of it? Or any of it?

How stupid are we not to know the stock market crashed months ago and is
being propped up by the Plunge Protection Team?

How stupid are we not to know that nothing the Bush Administration says
remotely resembles an honest assessment of conditions in the world. All
those satanic shills say is designed to ease their task of stealing money
from people everywhere.

Recently many high profile Americans have been caught in embarrassing lies.
Although the media tries to cover them as best they can, more and more
people are noticing that everything the Bush administration says is a spin,
and none of it is an honest recounting of actual events.

If Powell and Bush are telling lies now about reasons to invade Iraq - and
getting caught at those lies regularly - how are we to know that they
weren't telling lies about the demolition of the World Trade Center, when it
was considered unpatriotic to question the official version of events?

If they're lying now, what kind of stupid do you have to be to believe they
were telling the truth then? Pretty stupid, is what I'd say.

I bet it's just hysterical when Poppy Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld get together
and laugh about how efficiently they've ripped off the American people.
Cheney can brag that Halliburton, through its Brown & Root subsidiary, had
made trillions off all these frequent U.S. military deployments in which his
company provides the crappy chow and the tossed-up buildings. With plenty
more of those lucrative military support contracts to follow in quick
succession. North Korea.

Philippines. Colombia. You pick the target.

And Bush 41 can laugh right back by bragging about how many anthrax tablets
and smallpox doses his new company Bioport has foisted off on the
government. It's doesn't matter that they'll never be used by anyone with a
scintilla of common sense. The deal is done and the money has been paid. If
anyone actually gets the shot, well, that's their tough luck.

For at least a century, the whole world has emulated America, presidents
instead of dictators, legislatures instead of secret police. Now America has
reverted to the secret police method. Woe to everyone if the world continues
to follow America's lead. With its cooked-book capitalism, where nothing is
the truth and all but richest suffer, America is leading the world over a
cliff, and pushing the world toward that precipice too with weapons that
couldn't be surpassed by the devil himself in their high-tech evil.

America stands for total corporate control with no discussion and no
dissension, and against meaningful self-expression and common sense ways to
ease the burdens of the less fortunate. Virtually no members of Congress
oppose open U.S. aggression in dozens of foreign countries. And neither, for
that matter, do many foreign leaders, our erstwhile allies, most of whom are
on the U.S. bribery payroll.

And America is raising its children in this manner, too, which is why you
see so few kids at peace demonstrations compared to the number of people
with white hair. Something to look forward to - a totally robotized next
generation. But this is far from the most disturbing trend in America today.

More importantly, America is against saving the environment, preferring
instead to just trash it and then try to make even more money off the
cleanup. Focused totally on the bottom line, America practices poisoning the
oceans and the jungles of the world on the theory that these places are far
away and don't pertain directly to immediate profits.

But almost all of these so-called leaders and a disturbing percentage of the
general population applaud these empty lies America uses to ravage the
planet. They listen to the TV fascists and believe what they hear. They see
themselves getting richer from these selfish, shortsighted policies, without
realizing they are becoming immensely poorer.

Most of the rest of the world is beginning to realize that America is
against what is morally right and sociologically sound, and in favor of what
benefits the its rich controllers at the expense of the poor, no matter how
many people these policies kill. In fact, since it happens in so many
countries, America seems to prefer policies that kill a lot of people.

Roll that over in your mind. America prefers killing large numbers of
people, the more different ways the better.

Afghanistan: 10,000 dead and more dying every day from incredibly high
levels of radioactivity that almost certainly came from the U.S. use of
nuclear weapons, which of course nobody will admit using. All of those
people were, of course, innocent of anything except trying to eke out a
hardscrabble living in a spot where a bunkerbuster bomb happened to be
dropped.

Iraq: 1.5 million dead in 10 years from illegal bombing by the U.S. and
Britain, but the truly heartrending part is all the children that have
needlessly died because sadistic sanctions kept basic medicines from doctors
treating kids with very ordinary illnesses. It is for this most Americans
deserve to go straight to hell.

Colombia: Now they drop the poison rain to get the peasants to move off land
that American corporations want to develop, a fine climax to 30 years of war
America has waged through its proxy goons while nobody in the U.S. noticed.

Remember: America has armed troops in 40 different countries, and all this
horrific stuff is going on there, too. How many Guatemalan peasants are
buried in the mud of unmarked graves because American corporations wanted to
prevent a "Communist" threat?

Remember: Bush set up a secret government and didn't even bother to tell the
Democrats. And now he laughs at millions of people opposing his policies in
the streets, and calls them "a focus group" not to be trusted.

America insists upon one set of permissive rules for itself, and another set
of restrictive rules for everybody else, which is why it refuses to allow
itself to be ruled by the auspices of any world court. This is clearly a
racist elitism, a plantation mentality, a neverending extension of the
continuing colonialist rape of the world.

America looks down its nose at the rest of the world. Any legitimately
unbiased world court would find America guilty of innumerable counts of
tyranny in a heartbeat. In fact, the list of indictable offenses, acts of
aggression, extortion, espionage, violations of the Geneva Accords and
crimes against humanity would probably occupy such a world court
indefinitely into the foreseeable future.

That day will come. When the playing field of the world gets leveled, as it
inevitably will, America faces and endless succession of war crimes charges
in just about every country on earth, from rapes in Okinawa to mass murder
by smallpox injection in the Congo.

Which is just what Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed was saying the
other day at the summit of Non-Aligned Nations in Kuala Lumpur. The
".uncertainties of today's world are due not to 'a clash of civilizations'
between the West and Islam, but to a revival of the old European trait of
wanting to dominate the world. The expression of this trait invariably
involves injustices and oppression of people of other ethnic origins and
colours. It is no longer just a war against terrorism. It is, in fact, a war
to dominate the world."

How many Americans have asked: What right does America have to say other
countries may not have weapons to defend themselves equal to what America
has? Did some God appoint America to rule the world? Are we to believe the
black quisling Condoleezza Rice when she says America has the best interests
of the world at heart?

Many Asians, wrote journalist Andre Vltchek, feel that it is not just the UN
that Bush threatens to make irrelevant. It is the entire world that is not
white, the entire world that strives to remain culturally different and
opposes the world order and one-way globalisation.

How could it be that a country that made its reputation on democracy and
individual liberties is now an inflexible totalitarian system bent on
bringing every person on earth under its oppressive fist, either through
irresistible bribes to corrupt leaders, outright invasions, or the
imposition of devastating financial shackles through that economic shell
game known as the International Monetary Fund?

It's a simple answer, really.

America has never been a legitimate democracy and is not one now. From many
of the founding fathers who argued against unbridled democracy during a time
where less than a quarter of its citizens were authorized to cast a vote,
through two centuries of continuing consolidation of power by corporate
interests, the legends that anyone can rise to be president or the U.S. is a
real system of one person/one vote have been exposed as populist myths,
imbedded in an entire curriculum of myths that have led the populace to
believe that America is an honest and just nation.

For many years, to those in other countries under the yoke of barbaric
dictators, the U.S. seemed - from far away - to LOOK like a democratic
system, with all its ceremonial rituals of supposedly representative
government, with its Constitution and Bill of Rights. But a closer look -
for most, limited to the writings of many poorly publicized and little known
social critics - has always revealed a superficial democratic sideshow
masking the same inhumane system of bribery and extortion that rules all
nations.

Now, once again, the world is being shown the real deal.

Once known as the world's greatest democracy, America still pretends to
preach a gospel of freedom, but look at its allies: blatant tyrannies which
survive on American payoffs and rob and kill their own people. These police
state allies are always headed by puppet dictators who are approved and
appointed by American business interests. Just look at proposed U.S. plans
for a future Iraqi "democracy," to be temporarily headed by a former
American general. Most Americans can't even recall the number of times the
U.S. has tinkered with Iraqi "democracy" in the past.

It's easy to see all this if you just look, but the vast majority of
American choose not to.

You simply have to observe how America must bribe its so-called allies to
get them to go along with repressive policies. America thinks it can buy its
friends. What a horrible price we shall all pay for this in the future.
Imagine the resentment building in every corner of the globe as people
realize they are not allowed to think for themselves in order to continue
receiving pathetic pittances of America's trickle down largesse. Ask the
once-middle-class families now living in the streets of Argentina about
this.

America attempted to solve the crisis in the Middle East by giving billions
of dollars to Egypt in exchange for a promise not to invade Israel. The
majority of Egyptians disagree with this policy, but Egypt's leaders have
instituted a police state that prevents people from expressing their own
beliefs. America funnels trillions to Saudi Arabia while a majority of that
country's citizens chafe under an inflexible, capricious dictatorship that
spends a lot of money in Monte Carlo.

This is the kind of "democracy" the U.S. now wishes to inflict on Iraq.
America wants to create another flunkie regime to do its bidding, another
fake democracy to advance the anti-democratic cause of American banks and
oil companies. Just like the fake democracy in America.

America has bombed Iraq for 13 years and claimed it is not at war. Now, it
prepares to obliterate the entire population of that country simply to steal
oil fields and provide a better supply of water for Israel. And to gain a
staging area for invasions of other countries.

America enthusiastically endorses the genocide of the Palestinian people
knowing full well Israel is an illegal entity forced on the indigenous
inhabitants against their will, just like many other Mideast nation-states.

America is now ready to invade Colombia after supporting the destruction of
the people for three decades so it can better control the importation of oil
and cocaine. This aggression will likely explode over the borders into
neighboring countries.

America uses business executives to bribe the people of Venezuela to
overthrow their own democratically elected government, and claims it is
advocating democracy.

America continues to support corporate-connected dictators is most Central
American countries, and resorts to mass murder when popular movements
agitate for justice for poor people. America is so proud of this
longstanding colonialist policy that it promoted one of the chief executors
of this strategy, John Negroponte, to U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,
sending a message to the whole world that it intends to treat all other
countries just Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador: either accept
corporate control over your slavery or you'll wind up face down in the mud.

America is sending troops to the Philippines to suppress a popular uprising
that seeks democratic control over a corrupt government that is totally
subservient to U.S. business interests. No wonder Muslim idealists want to
get rid of it.

America even manages to make the Taliban look good. The fundamentalist
Muslim fanatics had all but wiped out poppy production, but now, thanks to
the new American-backed government, under the tutelage of new Republican DEA
chief Asa Hutchinson, it's thriving and Afghanistan now the world's No. 1
producer of heroin that finds its way to the streets of Europe.

You can't argue that these international intrigues are necessary for
America's economic survival when $4.5 TRILLION has gone missing from the
federal coffers in Washington in just the last two years with no
explanation. The basic situation in Washington is that a cabal of petronazis
has managed to change all the laws in order to facilitate the greatest
robbery in human history, which is now underway.

I could go on, of course, but the questions I get most are: What to do?
Unfortunately, I keep coming with what not to do.

Don't send petitions to your elected representatives. Most of them are
involved in the robbery, and have no interest in liberating American
citizens from corporate totalitarianism because they making too much money
taking bribes. Even many of the ones who say they do really don't; they're
just placating voters. Ask the people who write letters to phony shills like
John Kerry and Diane Feinstein; they never get an answer that isn't some
kind of vacuous form letter.

Impeachment attempts? Give me a break. Same deal. Virtually the entire
Congress is on the take. Were any congressperson to back an impeachment, he
or she would be jeopardizing their own criminal income from the corporate
conspiracy. When the day of retribution comes, all elected representatives
and senators who either voted for the Patriot Act or took contributions from
Enron should automatically be thrown in jail, and held indefinitely under
terms of the Patriot Act for consorting with known terrorists (in this case,
George W. Bush and Kenneth Lay).

Still, in thousands of e-mails, that big question keeps coming: What will we
do to keep from becoming residents of Camp Ashcroft?

Well, here's your answer.

Overthrow the government - NOW.

We must overthrow the government. There is no other choice. Nothing else
will work. Could it be more obvious?

We can't use violence, because real humans would be crushed by all the
hellish weapons arrayed against the entire world by the military industrial
complex that has stolen all our money and erased all our rights under the
Constitution.

Besides, it is illegal under what's left of the Constitution to advocate the
VIOLENT overthrow of the government. And I would never dream of advocating
any such thing.

It is, however, patently legal and indeed our patriotic duty to advocate the
peaceful overthrow of the government.

We have to overthrow the government, just like Jefferson said, in a fit of
moral outrage, using every bit of our wits and our influence to put these
people who are in the process of destroying everything we hold dear in jail.
For a long time, if not forever.

We must demand the president and his evil entourage resign and present
themselves for criminal indictments before a newly constituted citizens
court that is not influenced by the big bucks of big business.

We need to restore America to the republic it was designed to be and the
democracy it claims to be.

What?! Are you going to wait for the next election? The elections are all
fixed by electronic voting machines and corporate media that actually change
the way people think.

The Congress must resign as well, and most of them are eligible for
indictment, too. Anyone who voted for the first Patriot Act without reading
must be charged with treason, for destroying our rights without cause, and
anyone who has ever taken a campaign contribution from Enron (or any of a
host of other criminal corporations) must be charged with corruption and
receiving stolen property, namely, the people's money.

And of course the entire judiciary must resign, and a new judiciary
reappointed by the new government.

All this doesn't have to happen all at once. That would probably be
unworkable.

Somebody else can figure out how to conduct new elections - without the
electoral college - later. The first thing to be done is to remove the
cancer immediately, before it's too late. There are enough responsible
people in America to decide democratically what kind of interim
administration should coordinate a transitional government until new
elections can be called.

There are also a very few responsible existing legislators like Ron Paul and
Dennis Kucinich who can help facilitate the transition.

There are those who would protest that this is too radical an idea, too big
to be considered, too shocking to ever gain a hold in the popular
imagination. But I submit there is nothing else to be done. We must demand
they resign and make it stick. Otherwise, we are lost. Because there is no
fixing this corrupt system. And to not fix it is to throw away the future of
the human species.

This is a preposterous idea, you undoubtedly sputter and fume. How could it
possibly work, you inquire incredulously?

Here's how.

Twenty million people converge on Washington and demand the resignation of
the entire government, that's how. I'd like it to be on July 4, 2003, but it
can't be, because all those phony politicos are out of town fishing or in
Vegas gambling our money away, or wherever.

We have to catch them actually in Washington, Congress in session, President
in the White House, Cheney in his bunker or wherever he actually hangs out.
Responsible representatives must serve them with subpoenas and arrest
warrants.

We have to mob our nation's capital with so many people that they will have
no alternative but to step down.

And there has to be so many people that they can't even contemplate
arresting anyone. I mean, where are you going to detain 20 million people.

Why 20 million? I don't know the right number, but I know one million isn't
enough, because there have been several million-person gatherings -
Farrakhan's, the Moms, the Christian guys - and they barely elicited a
ripple from the establishment.

So it has to be a number that will be absolutely impossible to ignore.
Twenty million, I figure, should do it.

Where would everyone stay? And what would they eat? I submit the
African-American community will take us in, assist us, lead us in
strategically positioning ourselves all over Washington so that the
disgusting perps can't get away. Plus, with such an outpouring of people
from all over America, I believe the cops would come over to our side, the
side of the people, against the side of the tyrants. After all, cops really
aren't tyrants; they're people too.

It's not impossible. Hell, they're are 20 million people in metropolitan New
York; there have to be 50 million in the greater Northeast alone. But if
this thing were really to come down, people would come from everywhere. The
U.S. population is 290 million. Hell, 20 million is less than 10 percent,
but I think it would be enough to get their attention, shut down the entire
Northeast Corridor and force the corrupt sociopaths to call it quits.

The reason I think this will actually work is the makeup of people I've seen
at protests all across the land. The protests have not consisted of a single
age, ethnic or religious group; not a single race or political splinter
group. There has been a tremendous cross-section of the American population,
and I think this augurs positively for 20 million to come to Washington and
simply demand that the criminals step down and submit to the charges of
people's warrants for treason and obstruction of justice, among many others.

Can we get 20 million? Maybe not. However, as conditions continue to
deteriorate in this country and more people find themselves kicked to the
curb after the stock market really crashes, I think it's realistic to expect
this many people to want to participate.

If we can't get 20 million, maybe 10 million will do. And if we can't get
enough to keep the cops from locking up all of us, well, then there was
never any hope anyway. We might as well be arrested on the streets of
Washington as wait in our homes for them to come and get us.

We use their own disgusting labels against them, categorizing politicians
like they're now segregating airline passengers into red, yellow, and green
classes. The green ones get to help us, the yellow ones get subpoenas and
the red ones go right to jail. We should let that fabulous class of black
rappers, who have been righteously commenting for so long on the infernos
that are our cities, do the categorizing.

Among the provisions in this operation to be designed would be a one-step
lockup process, much like they use for illegal immigrant roundups, that
would funnel the most egregious governmental criminals right into a holding
cell for a little diesel therapy. This group, of course, would include the
president and his cabinet.

All of these people need to be held under the provisions of the Patriot Act,
for which they themselves voted, which would deny them bond, access to
counsel, or family visits, until an investigation into their crimes was
completed. Yes, that could take a long time.

Think a revolution of unbridled moral outrage, really the only response that
is called for by caring humans in our present situation.

So, people have asked me what to do. This is what we must do.

And we need to do it while we still can, because if they pass many laws like
the two Patriot Acts, the opportunity to do it will be gone forever.

Let me ask you one question. Have you considered what will happen if we
don't do this? As dangerous as this idea is, it's more dangerous not to do.
They're already picking off people one at a time. A lawyer in New Mexico
gets busted for saying in a chatroom that Bush is out of control.

A guy in a bar in South Dakota gets three years in jail for telling a joke
about a burning Bush.

Those people languishing in Guantanamo for two years had nothing to do with
the Taliban and were rounded up by Pakistani police on a bounty system so
Rumsfeld could feel like a tough guy keeping innocent people in jail without
having to bring them to trial.

The long ago words of Ben Franklin are appropriate here: "We either all hang
together or we all hang separately." That's the way it is in a revolution.

As it stands now, America has no respect for anybody or anything, human or
holy. America doesn't even respect itself, because it's too busy screwing
people to steal their money and their resources.

The sad fact is - one which we will learn to our peril if not ultimate
destruction - is that you can't respect yourself if you don't respect
everybody else. So it's obvious America doesn't even respect itself anymore,
because it sure doesn't respect anybody else in the world.

America is at war with the entire world. And most Americans choose not to
believe it, even though it's happening right in front of their eyes. And as
we speak, Americans are becoming the real victims of a tyranny they have
permitted to grow to truly ominous proportions.

It's time to do something about it. Although massive logistical problems and
ad hoc legal procedures need to be developed, this would work, I think. And
Thomas Jefferson would like it a lot.

Everyman

unread,

Mar 7, 2003, 1:52:51 PM3/7/03

To my hostile jeering sections at
alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.gw-bush,uk.politics.misc,
uk.politics.parliament

I've had enough ridicule of all the peace movement as cowards and Jane
Fondas.

Get me a speedily processed passport and a plane ticket and I will
replace one of the departed human shields -- I'm sure Bush would help
expedite my challenge. I am serious -- and I will stand wherever the Iraqis
choose to put me -- leaving wife and three daughters to do it (because
I love humanity and care about the world my daughters will live in).

Who'll expedite this for me?

Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington

-----------------------------

"Everyone who did NOT vote for the tyrant (all 230 million of us) should
just go to
D.C. and demand in one voice that all of the Bush crew be removed. "

Think about this:

"If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty, are
they thereafter any the less slaves? If people by a plebiscite elect a man
despot over them, do they remain free because the despotism was of their own
making? Are the coercive edicts issued by him to be regarded as legitimate
because they are the ultimate outcome of their own votes?"
-- Herbert Spencer
==================

From: sil...@nwinfo.net (Everyman)

"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I'm sick of Ralph Nesbittr calling me a moron day after day in posts that
block people from getting the information that so much depends upon their
reading!

I sent full-time eastman-jeerer Ralph Nesbitt the photos that answer his
obstinate insistence that some
Moslem boys with box-cutter's got the two sky scrapers and the Pentagon.

In reply he merely said that if I ever mailed him at his e-address again he
would complain to my ISP and have me knocked off the internet again. (Yet,
Ralph is Cc'ing his insults all the time!!!)
He made no comment about the content of the photos, about what they proved
or did not prove.

Similarly the entire constant jeering section -- Don Ocean and Paul
Gooding, Nesbitt,
Angel Elf -- have presisted in attacking me personally over my offering (in
the latest turn my Pentagon findings must be rejected out of hand because I
have written on weather modification two years ago!) -- BUT REJECT MY
PENTAGON FINDINGS NEVER HAVING REQUESTED THE PHOTOS THAT I OFFER UPON WHICH
THE CASE IS BASED!!! (photos cannot be included in googlegroup newsgroup
postings) IN OTHER WORDS THEY MERELY PRETEND TO BE ANSWERING ME ON THE
MERIT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED -- THEY JUST SPEND DAY AFTER DAY, PAID BY
GOD KNOWS WHOM, WITH THEIR HANDS OVER THEIR EYES SCREAMING "NO, NO, NO!"
We have four stupid clowns for hire who have sold out their country; who
are working to keep information from every reader here -- like hit men who
don't "get sentimental" when they are doing a job becuase businesses is
business and they are, after all, PROFESSIONAL tomato throwers. But children
will be burned to death because of the work of Don Ocean in tamping down
those seeking to alert the population to the truth. Men will be blinded and
maimed because of Angel Elf -- who is glad because he is an Israeli Zionist
and the victims are just raghead Arab trash. ANd Paul Gooding, another
phony name with a carefully chosen honest ring to it. Probably Osean and
Gooding are Masons -- desensitized against any moral qualms in helping the
coverup of this mass murder and the destruction of the modern world for
finance capitalism and debt slavery.

Now to the business at hand:

=======

"Everyone who did NOT vote for the tyrant (all 230 million of us) should
just go to
D.C. and demand in one voice that all of the Bush crew be removed. "

-- Herbert Spencer

Do you believe the box-cutter conspiracy theory? (The boxcutters that
destroyed two skyscrappers and hit the Pentagon on the same day?)

PARANOID FANTASIES ABOUT SEPT 11 DISTRACT FROM THE REAL ISSUES

by Gerard Holmgren debu...@hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

This work may be freely copied and distributed without permisiion as
long as it not for commercial use. Please include the author's name,
the web address where you found it and the copyright notice.

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event
there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy
theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix" " The
Pope had John Lennon murdered ", "Hitler was half Werewolf", "Space
aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc. The bigger the event, the
more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which
circulate in relation to it.

So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned
their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there
is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager
to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has
attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is
that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded
by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation
other than that they "hate our freedoms."

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of
this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of
delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage
across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of
otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the
effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little
rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as
all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush
regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing
them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able.
Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider
trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior
of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of
the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other
documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the
conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab
hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and
fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours ,crashing them into
important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any
idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent
even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness,
and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly
gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated
stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article.
However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of
conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called
evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one
delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and
deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned
full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then
re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it,
thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the
fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see
any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over
the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of
guns,knives,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance
systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their
targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is
only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they
conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs
on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got
on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and
without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly
question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too
mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague
mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never
specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were
traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to
relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious
fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked
suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this
simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they
supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were
searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have
been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.
"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of
gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"
"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."
"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic
man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or
boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep
flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of
those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely
to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on
board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had
purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that
identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used
false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time ,the fruit loop is
in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead
of this annoying and awkward rational analysis.They will allege that
the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there!"
they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that
deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports
with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely
circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "Who
said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting
in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts
again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"
"You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And
so on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of
creative delusion , the rational sceptic will allow them to get away
with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what
further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid
story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely
incinerated the planes and all the passengers? " The answer of course
is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little
quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the
same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are
astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist.
The "improbability drive" , in which they decide upon a conclusion
without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually
speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable
co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each
event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens
(just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called
"Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with
the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question
of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the
pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot
has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a
hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the
conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible
hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of
threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after
they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of
the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the
hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point
in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the
services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the
planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and
certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their
steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their
psychotic hatred of "our freedoms" , it was their fanatical devotion
to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this.
Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay
peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking
and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving
their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behavior - and then
got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert
operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were
even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by
reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport.
We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for
us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to
Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the
unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and
skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have
done their flight training with these tools, which would be available
just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have
decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by
doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle
East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the
conspiracy theorist , too trapped in the constant rotation of the
mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even
semi-believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the
mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult
question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has
seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the
WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do
not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board,
and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the
exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is
a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point
decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep
the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew
up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly
combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosine,and which burns at a
maximum temperature of around 800 C has suddenly taken on the
qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65
tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that
size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the
melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion
temperature of kerosine - let alone the boiling point - which is what
would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons
of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each
gallon of kerosine.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely
dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their
answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer
pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically
insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosine,
something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered
by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never
before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into
nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies
upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than
life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.
"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact."
they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie."
"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact,
then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of
documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies ?"
At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will
narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into,
and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.
"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's
no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.
Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since,
and not vapourized into nothing.
"But not big planes, with that much fuel ", they shriek in hysterical
denial.
Or that much metal to vapourize.
"Yes but not hijacked planes!"
"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental
affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"
"Now you're just being silly".

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash
into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground,or
have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vapourize into nothing.
What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the
conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit
loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on
impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a
"well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have
nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced
themselves ( if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not
loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the
plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you
might care to mention. Round and round the fruit. loop...

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and
they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly
discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosine. They have to
explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant veritcal collapse of
both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is
to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the
buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosine.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of
thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly
destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in
violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only
consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65
ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at
2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's
steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down
the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I
was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which
suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something
which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who
didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem
for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand
gallons of kerosine is enough to
: completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft
: have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at
the impact point to melt steel ( melting point about double the
maximum combustion temperature of the fuel )
: still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and
start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

This kerosine really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that
those kerosine heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were
deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire
street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take
kerosine lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding
the lamp - the next - kapow! Vapourized into nothing along with with
the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly
stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly
created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning
kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the
skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC
was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not
particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building
of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious
suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the
steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and
twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet
fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the
structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws
of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling
object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically
impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors
smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy
theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the
morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those
dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were
able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a
speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been
meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally
designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the
impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at
school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for
why.
"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"
"No miss, the kerosine heater blew up and vapourized everything in the
street, except for my passport."
"You see sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my
homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and
mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their
science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosine was, according
to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims
can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000 C isn't
really required, 100C will generally do the job.) This is quite
remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature
of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA
will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an
Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it
can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the
missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of
the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to
a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly
claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified
from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the
plane. The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion maintain
these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one
identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending
upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story
you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon
really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the
Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space
inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a
similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object
which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle,
punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 ft diameter through three
rings ( six walls).A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide
collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy
theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of
125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane,
either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were
still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is
clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet
fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the
properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of
thermodynamics, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial
impossibility as well ? I would have thought that the observation that
a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without
leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science.
But to the conspiracy theorist, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts
with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it "must be wrong"
although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong
is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon
missile is mentioned.They nervously maintain that the plane was
vapourized by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as
evidence of this behavior. (That's a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an
insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last
mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so
small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up
outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 ft deep missile
hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the
building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the
building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the
wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off
and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the
building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its
belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing
alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from
an "irrecoverable angle." How they reconcile these two scenarios as
being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO
conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with
the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane
and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They
gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes.
Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to
the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his
perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting
from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical
Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the
extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused
detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was
perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in
"retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self
indulgence to go unchallenged.
Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a
more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11

Section 1: Air Force stand-down

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm

and had nothing to do with the attacks ?

3:6 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
3:7 http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm
3:8 http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm
3:9http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T/
still_alive__fbi_mixed_up_on_t.html
3:10http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm

According to this article
3:11
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021210/ts_nm/attack_germ
any_trial_dc_2

the FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the
passengers and crew. If they used gas they would have been affected

themselves - unless they had masks. The story gets better all the

time. They somehow got on board with masks, gas, guns,knives and
electronic guidance systems, in spite of being searched, didn't show
up on the airport security cameras, and were not on the passenger
lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented cars outside the

airport ( last minute brushing up on the way there, about how to fly

Section 4: More oddities

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3
5744-2002May17&notFound=true

4:9 http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html

4:10 http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/flight-93-shot-down.htm

4.11
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&
siteid=50143

seriously expect us to believe that more than a year later, they still

do not know who was responsible? Should not alarm bells have been
ringing BEFORE the attacks with these record volumes of trading?
If the executive director of the CIA had previously managed the firm
which handled much of the trade, are we seriously expected to believe
that he doesn't know who was responsible?

Suppresed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly Into The
CIA's Highest Ranks -- CIA Executive Director `Buzzy' Krongard Managed
Firm That Handled `Put' Options on UAL, by Michael C. Ruppert, 9 Oct
2001
6:1 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

Mystery of terror `insider dealers', by Chris Blackhurst, 14 Oct 2001
6:2 http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402

Profits of Death -- Insider Trading and 9-11, by Tom Flocco - Edited
by Michael C. Ruppert, 6 Dec 2001
6:3 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO112B.html

initial hole 12 ft wide, collapsing only about a 35 ft depth of the
outer ring of the building - and not leave any wreckage outside ?

Bush Family's dirty little secret: President's oil companies funded by
Bin Laden family and wealthy Saudis who financed Osama bin Laden, by

10:9 http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/Collapse_update.htm

towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled

============

http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/dossier.php?dosnum=60
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htmhttp://www.
asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htm

http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast
http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=3265

For recent eastman (a.k.a. Everyman, Le Permanent Marker) newsgroup articles

Everyman

unread,

Mar 7, 2003, 7:54:05 PM3/7/03

El Baradei: Proof Iraq Imported Uranium Was Fake --The head of the U.N.
nuclear agency said on Friday that the documents backing U.S. and British
allegations that Iraq had attempted to import uranium from Niger were "not
authentic."

If the frameup Saddam with fake uranium smuggling story to get war proves
what we already know, that frameup killings on 9/11/09 to get war was not
beyond their principles

-----------------

[Note: The CLG website is the true conscience of what will be the
post-globalism Democratic party. --Dick Eastman]

http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Breaking News:

Pittsburghers for Peace Art Poster Project: A group of activists in
Pittsburgh are using art to protest the war, creating a poster that draws on
artwork by children and professional artists. The CLG is working with the
group to help spread the anti-W-ar word. With your help, the project
planners hope to customize the poster for other cities.
http://www.legitgov.org/pittsburghers_for_peace_poster_030603.html

Bush: US in 'final stages of diplomacy' [When did the diplomacy start? We
must have missed that.]

ElBaradei: Proof Iraq Imported Uranium Was Fake --The head of the U.N.
nuclear agency said on Friday that the documents backing U.S. and British
allegations that Iraq had attempted to import uranium from Niger were "not
authentic."

Blix hails Iraqi cooperation --Only hours after the US dictator, George
Bush, threatened to push for a resolution authorising military action
against Iraq within days, the chief UN weapons inspector this afternoon
described Iraqi cooperation on disarmament as "active or even proactive". He
called for inspectors to be given more time.

Iraq carrying out 'substantial' disarmament, chief inspector says --Iraq's
destruction of its Al Samoud 2 missiles constitutes a "substantial measure
of disarmament," the chief U.N. weapons inspector reported to the Security
Council on Friday.

Inspectors report, Britain readies amendment --Powell: Iraq in 'category of
non-cooperation' --Chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed
ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council on Friday that they were making
progress, need more time, and have found no smoking gun in terms of weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.

Britain proposes March 17 deadline for Saddam --Britain and the United
States today proposed giving Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to comply with U.N.
inspections by March 17 or face war.

Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days --Despite a report from the
chief UN weapons inspector describing Iraqi cooperation as "active or even
proactive", America and Britain today pushed for a resolution giving Iraq a
maximum of 10 days to comply fully with UN demands to disarm.

U.S., Britain will give Saddam short deadline --The United States and
Britain will give Saddam Hussein a short deadline to comply with U.N.
inspections or face war and call for a vote early next week on the amended
resolution, diplomats said Friday.

Three-day warning, then war --Britain launched a final attempt last night to
secure United Nations backing for a second resolution as Dictator George W
Bush declared that the world had entered the "last phase of diplomacy" over
Iraq.

Bush: We will go to war against Iraq without UN --The United States is
prepared to go to war against Iraq on its own, Dictator George Bush told the
American people in a televised address early today. "We really don't need
anybody's permission," he said. [No, that's true. You can be a dictatorial
nutcase all on your own as you have continually proven, leading us down the
path to an insane and unjust war. --Lori Price]

'We don't need permission' --Dictator Bush said yesterday that he would
pursue "the last phase of diplomacy" to persuade a skittish U.N. Security
Council to help disarm Saddam Hussein, but vowed to act without its
approval, declaring that "when it comes to our security, we really don't
need anybody's permission."

Bush: U.S. May Act on Iraq Without U.N. --Dictator Bush, preparing the
nation for the possibility of war, said Thursday night the United States
will drive Saddam Hussein from power if it comes to war in Iraq - with or
without support from France, Germany and other skeptical allies.

With Stiff Resolve, Bush Says Iraq Will Be Disarmed --On the eve of a
crucial United Nations meeting, Dictator Bush reiterated his commitment
tonight to see Iraq disarmed, peacefully if possible but by force if
necessary, for the safety of the United States and the world.

Pentagon's Insane "Shock and Awe" Finally Gets Mentioned in The New York
Times --Top General Sees Plan to Shock Iraq Into Surrendering -- Military
officials have said the plan calls for unleashing 3,000 precision-guided
bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours of a short air campaign, to be
followed quickly by ground operations.

"Shock and Awe" --A U.S. war plan calls for the launch in March of three or
four hundred cruise missiles a day at the start of a war on Iraq, more than
were fired during the entire first Gulf War, according to a televised report
on Friday...CBS said the battle plan, called "shock and awe"... We call the
plan, "shock, awe, disgust and demonstrate criminal insanity." The time for
regime change in the US is long, long overdue. We are now faced with
silently sponsoring a violation of numerous international treaties and laws,
a violation of the national and international will of the vast majority, and
the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and others. Human shields or not,
the Bush regime is set to murder everything in its path. The endgame is not
even the important thing for them. Can Oil be enough to justify this
killing, even for such homicidal maniacs? Power has gone undergone an
unprecedented mutation, and merely wishes to extend itself without reason,
cause, or even ideological justification.

US troops 'pouring into Saudi Arabia' --Thousands of American soldiers are
pouring into Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of Iraq,
independent sources say.

U.S. Asks 60 Nations to Expel Some Iraqis --The United States has asked
about 60 countries to expel selected Iraqis who officials say are undercover
agents [?!?] possibly poised to attack American interests overseas,
officials said.

Halliburton wins contract on Iraq oil firefighting --A Halliburton Co.
subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root has won the contract to oversee any
firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a
Defense Department source said on Thursday. [The quintessential cui bono, in
a nutshell...]

Press corps doyenne gets no notice --A long-running Washington tradition
apparently ended last night when, for the first time in memory, the doyenne
of the White House press corps was not called on in a presidential press
conference. Syndicated columnist Helen Thomas, who has covered every
president since John F. Kennedy, was relegated to the third row in last
night's East Room event.

The Wall Street Journal spells it out: Turkey could lose "oil spoils" of
war --For all the denials in Washington and the corporate media, the looming
invasion of Iraq is all about oil and strategic control over the Middle East
and the wider Central Asian region. The Wall Street Journal, the voice of
American big business, declared as much in its March 4 editorial denouncing
the vote by the Turkish parliament to reject the use of the country as a
staging post for the US operation.

War would be illegal (Guardian) --letter to editor "We are teachers of
international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there
is no justification under international law for the use of military force
against Iraq..."

Letter to the CLG Editors: Perception and Action --by Skip Mendler "...here
we see a potential threat -- not of external physical attack, but of an
internal dismantling of our system of government. Not a threat against
American lives, but against American freedoms."
http://www.legitgov.org/essay_mendler_perception_and_action_030603.html

Anti-War T-Shirts Cut From TV Performance --The British Broadcasting Corp.
on Friday said shots of George Michael's backing musicians wearing anti-war
T-shirts will likely be cut from a television show.

Australian students protest in numerous cities and towns --An estimated
30,000 Australian school and university students took part in rallies and
marches on March 5 as part of the international "Books not Bombs" day of
action.

Students pack Capitol in their plea for peace (WI) For more than 20 minutes
early Wednesday afternoon, about 2,000 students filled the state Capitol
rotunda with defiantly deafening cheers.

Hillary given 'pink slip' for stance on Iraq war --Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton was handed a "pink slip" - a frilly piece of lingerie - yesterday
from an enraged group of female war protesters who told her to quit her job
because she was not doing enough to oppose military action against Iraq.

Keep Gays Out Of Military Colin Powell Says --US Secretary of State Colin
Powell says gays and lesbians do not belong in the military. In an interview
with the online teen magazine TeenInk.com Powel defended 'Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'.

Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base --'Blunt
force injuries' cited in murder ruling --Two prisoners who died while being
held for interrogation at the US military base in Afghanistan had apparently
been beaten, according to a military pathologist's report. A criminal
investigation is now under way into the deaths which have both been
classified as homicides.

Halliburton theft ups terror fears --Halliburton Co., the world's No. 2 oil
field services firm, said Thursday it has started a probe involving U.S. and
Nigerian government officials over theft of a radioactive device used at its
Nigerian operations. Vice pResident Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO of
Halliburton from 1995 to 2000.

North Korea says U.S. aims to attack --Pyongyang rips Bush's comments on
'military option' --North Korea said Friday that Dictator Bush signaled U.S.
plans to attack its nuclear facilities when he said he did not rule out
using military force against the North.

U.S. Expands Clandestine Surveillance Operations --The number of secret
searches approved by Ashcroft since the 9/11 attacks is triple those
authorized in the previous 20 years.

Schools Rallied to Cause of Homeland Security --The nation's education and
homeland security chiefs are giving schools new tools and money to help them
prepare for terrorism and other disasters. With war in Iraq appearing
imminent, many schools have grown jittery over how to protect students and
calm parents. [To relieve such jitters, see "Impeaching Bush" articles,
below.]

Poll: 'Unnamed Democrat' leads Bush --The "as-yet-unnamed" Democratic
presidential nominee has a slight edge over Dictator Bush according to the
latest national Quinnipiac poll.

CBO Projects $1.8T Deficit in Bush Budget --Dictator Bush's proposed new
round of tax cuts and the rest of his budget would produce unabated federal
deficits over the coming decade totaling a massive $1.82 trillion, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected on Friday.

Panel: Bush Plan Imperils Medicare --A committee of corporate executives and
a respected research group jointly warned yesterday that federal budget
deficits, coupled with Dictator George W. Bush's tax cut plan, threaten
Social Security and Medicare.

GOP Hid Insurance Firm Donations in Tight Races --Six state Republicans won
with cash funneled from 21st Century to local groups. With only days left
before the November election, state Republicans solicited nearly $1 million
from a Los Angeles insurance company and channeled it to key races around
California in a way that hid the source of the contributions.

Report: Gas Prices Headed For Record Levels --American motorists should
prepare to pay record gasoline prices in April, the federal Energy
Information Administration said Thursday. If a war in Iraq disrupts Middle
East oil supplies, prices will be even higher, the agency said.

Fed report: Almost zero growth --Underscoring the debilitating effect that
tensions with Iraq are having on the economy, the Federal Reserve released a
report Wednesday showing growth had stagnated in virtually every corner of
the country in the first two months of the year.

Companies slashed 308,000 jobs in February --The nation's unemployment rate
increased to 5.8 percent in February and companies across the economy
slashed 308,000 jobs -- the steepest one-month slide since hiring hit a
slump in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Mississippi House approves voter identification bill --Voters would be
required to show identification every time they go to the polls under a bill
passed by the Mississippi House, legislation some say could open old wounds
from the civil rights era.

Impeaching Bush (National Review) Over the past few weeks, some of the most
liberal members of the House have discussed the possibility of impeaching
Bush. Talks have intensified this week, lawmakers say, largely because war
with Iraq appears imminent. Impeachment Resolution Against President George
W. Bush --by Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law; View the Articles of
Impeachment, drafted by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

(From Thursday:) Troops told war to start March 17, says paper --British
troops based in the Gulf had been told to prepare for an invasion of Iraq on

March 17, the Daily Express has reported.

U.S. Orders Two Iraqi Diplomats to Leave --The United States has ordered two
Iraqi diplomats to leave the country, Iraq's U.N. ambassador said Wednesday.

Links to above stories and more articles are found on our website at:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Don Ocean

unread,

Mar 7, 2003, 8:45:08 PM3/7/03

Everyman wrote:

> To my hostile jeering sections at
> alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.gw-bush,uk.politics.misc,
> uk.politics.parliament
>
> I've had enough ridicule of all the peace movement as cowards and Jane
> Fondas.
>
> Get me a speedily processed passport and a plane ticket and I will
> replace one of the departed human shields -- I'm sure Bush would help
> expedite my challenge. I am serious -- and I will stand wherever the Iraqis
> choose to put me -- leaving wife and three daughters to do it (because
> I love humanity and care about the world my daughters will live in).
>
> Who'll expedite this for me?

Ummm? Can't we just shoot you here and save all the riggermerole?
But if you do go...Please take Jane Fodna with you..

Everyman

unread,

Mar 8, 2003, 7:35:52 AM3/8/03

1) Blix Text 3/8/03 2) Many speak out against "boxcutter" theory of
history; 3) WTC CEO's at Offut AFB -- then what happened? 4) Israel
(Weisglass) Seeks 400% Hike in US Aid; 5) Wellstone's death (scroll
down)
===============

> "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
> matter."

Perennial eastman heckler, "World'sNicestGuy" <ppgo...@rocketmail.com>
wrote

> > Bwahahahha! Tell you what, you crazy sumbitch. I'll bet
> > you ten thousand dollars that my real name is Paul Gooding.
> > Just come on down here to Phoenix, ...

Nice name. Good vibes. "Paul Gooding" is your name and you live in
Phoenix. Mine is Eastman and I live in Yakima. Guess, that ends that
topic.

You blame me for the confusion of Y2K? No one knew what would happen -- I
spoke only of precautions, not certainties -- like everyone else. (You
didn't put a little food and water aside? I wish I was that all-knowing and
confident.

I believe in weather modification -- an Israeli meterologist, two years
ago, was reading my stuff and was amazed that people in the US were not
aware that 22 percent of Israel's rainfall is the result of weather
modification. Your argument, viz.,

Eastman has written about weather
modification

Everyone knows that weather modification
doesn't exist and if it did the government
would have nothing to do with it.

Therefore Eastman must be wrong about
the Pentagon attack.

is not tenable.
==========================
==========================
==========================

Now to business:

The Blix Text, item #1, asking for more time and sighting progress is the
last article (a long one) at bottom.
==========

ITEM # 2

What people are saying about the "boxcutter" theory of history:

> Brian,
> " I can think of many ways computers could be used to fake the cell
> phone calls."
>
> Could you explain that? I for one, find the cell phone calls awfully
fishy. Especially that fact that the very first one we heard about, the
very first one which also established the idea of Muslim
hijackers with boxcutters, happened to be explained to us that very day by
none other than George W. Bush's own lawyer!
>
> Ostensibly, it was Barbara Olsen on Flight 77 who made the first known
cell call to her husband, Ted Olsen, one of the leaders of the "Get Clinton"
Arkansas Project, and the very man that argued Bush's (S)election case to
the Supreme Court, whereby they halted the Florida recount. I mean, c'mon!
Any one of the 270 million Americans we could've heard this from, and it's
Bush's own goddamn lawyer that first establishes the Arabs with knives on
the planes.
>
> So, how could the cell calls be faked?
>
> Tabby

There are computer programs that "translate" one voice pattern to that of
another's voice that are so good the people themselves can not tell the
difference. A less sophisticated method would be to tap the phone lines of
known passingers the week before the flights and get a feel for the word
patterns and the way certain frequently called persons relate and using this
to prepare a menu of responces.

The relatives can be fooled for short calls. The call to Ted Olsen probably
never took place. The one long call was to an MCI operator who did not know
the caller and did not record the call.

Brian W. Quig

=====

I think the reason the weapons -- beit knives, boxcutters, or "plastic CIA
knives" (Hehe) -- passed
through security so easily is because they never went through security in
the first place. When you think about it, something as big as 9/11 would
require an inside job (in more ways than one). I've heard the theory tossed
around before that the weapons could have already been placed either on the
planes or in secure areas of the airport by workers on the take. Certainly
makes sense why the gov't wouldn't want THAT type of info leaking. Hell,
insiders wouldn't even need to steal uniforms to pull that one off...

From the very start I said boxcutters were absurd inventions to confound
the common mind. For one thing they tend to break off and then leave the
hyjacker with no weapon at all. But none the less
those here with the unconscious habit of alibing for the government said
NO NO BOXCUTTERS MAKE A GOOD WEAPON.

==========

The perpetrators of these crimes would not leave anything to chance. There
are nylon knives which are not detectable with x rays that are awesome by
comparison. Ceramic surgical instruments would be even better. But
boxcutters are, as you say, a good way to really upset a big person.

I think everyone who reads this will be willing to accept that the idea of
boxcutters is an obvious fabrication. If the boxcutters are a fabriation
that implies that the cell calls are also fabrications.

It is also a good guess that the boxcutters were created to cover the ass of
the Bush connected airport security.

I can think of many ways computers could be used to fake the cell phone
calls.

Brian Downing Quig

===========

B> People getting stabbed for the first time often get paralyzed so a small
attacker can stab a large man fifty times. This happened at my high school
to our star pitcher, signed by the Mets, stabbed fifty times after being
paralyzed by the first poke with a three or four inch non-locking pocket
knife. A San Quentin inmate said he's seen the first stab wound paralyze a
lot of men, in a documentary on History Channel this week. Just a way of
leading up to saying "not so with box-cutters"!

Not so with boxcutters. Slash a big fellow and make him really upset. There
is the risk of encountering someone who has been hammered into bottom-line
over-ride mode, paving the way for boiling water and heavy purses and
piling-on. Little Mexican boys slash family members in the barn, a different
game of mumbledy-peg played as a child by a counsellor at one of M&M's DC
hostels. A man was trapped under a falling tree and sawed his leg off with a
Swiss army knife,
then crawled two miles to his car, and drove himself to the hospital.
Boxcutters? "Make my
day" one might say, then too much risk of a gang-bang pile-on with flailing
purses. Brian, I know you don't believe the real perps take
chances.

Brute force and martial biology training up the ante for the boxcutter
swordsmen, but if Atta lunched with Rudi Dekkers on a regular basis, up to
August 2001 when he wasn't supposed to be in Florida, and Air America's Pak
heroin junta gave Atta $100,000, those people don't leave anything to
chance. Boxcutters would be too risky, even in the hands of Bo Gritz.

Again I submit the idea that maybe boxcutters were invented to make airport
security linked to Bush and Kuwaitis a non-story.
==================

The World Trade Center CEO's were invited to Offut Air Force base for a
"charity event" on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and so missed an
uncharitable event in New York that day. Warren Buffet hosted. George Bush
arrived later that day -- but what happened after that???

Read this:

Kris,

Please tell us everything you know about this Buffett ceremony at Offutt.
Are you saying that Bush made some declairation regarding FEMA while
Buffett was present? This tends to look like other
prearranged events. Was Bush expected for this event?

Brian Downing Quig

In a message dated 3/7/03 6:19:15 PM, webfairy@t... writes:>
Once we're in "war" then Bushie can invoke his "War Powers" and turn his
attention on the only "terrorists" that crew has ever been interested in:
Honest people. They are already making noizes about dragging out Sidition
laws. Their war powers make it "legal" for them to bring on full
dictatorship.

FEMA was invoked in a "ceremony" on 9-11 at Fort Offutt in NE with Buffett
and friends also there.

It is still in effect.

He doesn't need any more war-powers. There are already the War on Drugs and
the War on Terroism.
=============================

If anyone has any legal docs that specifically note box cutters, or evidence
to the contrary, then by all means, please share. This has always puzzled
me.

B> Not a news account of box-cutters in a mossad furniture moving cover?

Well how about a knife collector's plastic "CIA knife"? Or...plastic guns?
Not in court docs though.

http://www.google.com/search?q=plastic+cia+knife
http://www.google.com/search?q=plastic+glock+airport
(allegedly detectible in publicly known configurations)

Wasn't it last week we heard about a Bush and Kuwaitis on board of airport
security at Dulles and Logan? Boxcutters make that a non-story. It couldn't
be plastic Glocks because gun control might divert the hounds from the
Afghan war vote.

==============

If Neil Bush and Kuwaitis ran airport security, that would explain
box-cutters right there, just so that connection would not be brought to
light by a media frenzy due to handguns getting through or AROUND airport
screening. So the truth is somewhere in between shadow puppets.

They wait for fog to cover smokescreen, then work to make any pendulum of
objective reaction swing too far, just as far or farther off the mark than a
simple naive acceptance of surface representations in the media.

==============
Note the difference between considering all possibilities rationally and
fixations on one wild theory. Intels love off the wall like they off the
map(Laos heroin labs, who dreamed?).

Anthrax was to extend and amplify 9/11 so people couldn't just take 9/11 in
stride as they should have. These little shadings are where the action is
in shadow projection, not in bold strokes from other planets, just
too-good-to-be-true catch-all sucker plays dividing the opposition by
slicing off support base.

==============
It is more probable that the government said boxcutters to make it seem that
hijackers went
through airport security, than that hijackers would really use boxcutters,
such a weak link in a long chain of preparation and effort. If that is the
case, hijackers could have used guns, whether they flew the plane or not,
and authorities made the boxcutter claim tocover another dimension of
stand-down and involvement.

===========

I T E M # 3 :

9-11 definitely had some Mossad involvement -- so our boys would kill Arabs
instead of their precious children being put at risk in such a deadly
ffair -- but it is not right that only some Americans discharge our debt
to Israel -- the taxpayer must take food from his other children's
ouths -- and, as Sharon has boasted to the Knesset -- "we control
America."

WIll a $400 percent increase be enough do you think? After all, these are
hard times.
----

Israel Seeks 400% Hike in US Aid

Tim Kennedy, strateg...@juno.com
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23322
Economically, the world is in a terrible shape: The American dollar is weak,
crude oil costs a record $40 a barrel and global stock markets have
experienced three years of decline, the worst since the recession after
World War II.

Like the rest of the world, Israel is also experiencing economic stagnation,
a decline worsened by a drop in tourism brought on by violence in
Israeli-occupied Palestine.

However, the impending war in Iraq may enable Israel to pull out of its
economic doldrums: Claiming the looming Iraq war has sapped its defense
budget, Israel is asking the United States for billions of dollars in direct
military aid and loan guarantees to help buttress its faltering economy.

Dov Weisglass, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, made
the request for more American money last week while on a three-day visit to
Washington. Weisglass seeks congressional approval of about $12 billion in
aid, in addition to the $3 billion given to Israel each year.

According to State Department sources, Israel seeks a minimum of $4 billion
in direct aid - mostly for its military - and $8 billion in loan guarantees.
The boost in aid represents an increase of 400 percent.

Insiders on Capitol Hill predict Israel will likely get all it asks. The aid
to Israel comes on the heels of a request by Turkey of more than $6 billion
in direct aid and $20 billion in loans as US forces prepare to use bases in
that country as a staging area for any attack on Iraq.

One of the strongest congressional supporters for increased funding for
Israel is Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who last week led a
delegation to Israel to talk with government officials about more American
aid.

"All the officials with whom we met are hopeful that they can get this
economic package," says Ros-Lehtinen, who sits on the House International
Relations Committee. "Israel is not economically self-sufficient and depends
on borrowing to maintain its economy."

Ros-Lehtinen predicts Israel's aid request will be granted, but it could
hardly come at a worse time.

"It comes at a difficult time for (the United States) because we are in a
deficit and have spent a lot on our own security," Ros-Lehtinen says. "But
it's important for us to come forth with this aid package because Israel
could bear the brunt" of a war with Iraq.

America's generous partnership with Israel has been consistently marred by
problems, including kickback scandals, graft, overpricing, and other forms
of financial abuse.

The most infamous scandal - the diversion of $12.5 million of foreign
military assistance by Israeli Air Force Brig. Gen. Rami Dotan - prompted
Congress to investigate how the Israeli Ministry of Defense (MOD) and
government handled American grant money.

In preparation for the hearings, the General Accounting Office (GAO) - the
auditing arm of Congress - prepared a comprehensive report entitled,
"Foreign Military Aid to Aid: Diversion of US Funds and Circumvention of US
Program Restrictions." The GAO study determined that the partnership is
rife with bribery, mismanagement and embezzlement.

"We learned that the Israeli government had an indication of problems in the
US-financed program," write the authors of the study. "(Yet when) we
requested to meet with government of Israel officials to discuss information
they have regarding the diversion of US funds and other abuses of the
assistance program, (they) declined to discuss the issues or allow our
investigators to question Israeli personnel."

A GAO auditor who spoke to Strategic Policy is "not encouraged that Israel's
corrupt financial practices will likely change....The influx of Russians to
Israel make this country only more corrupt, not less.

"Plus, it is not in anyone's interest in Israel to tell us honestly what
they do with our money... And there are very few people in Washington -
particularly this administration - who really care."

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO SENATOR WELLSTONE?

What happened to Paul Wellstone?
Jim Fetzer (Duluth READER WEEKLY 28 November 2002, pp. 18-19)
Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. Does anyone doubt that the Enron
debaclewas a conspiracy? or that 9/11 was a conspiracy? or that, when two
guys knock off a 7-11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy? All it takes
is two or more persons collaborating in the pursuit of illegal purposes,
which could range from murder and rape to treason and bribery. They aren't
always described that way or prosecuted under conspirarcy statutes. When
have you heard 9/11 depicted as "a conspiracy"?
Most American conspiracies are economic crimes depriving people of their
property rather than political crimes that deprive them of their lives. But
there are plenty of those, too. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was shot by
John Wilkes Booth, while his Vice President and Secretary of State were
simultaneously attacked. You can find photos of four of the conspirators
being hung from the same gallows at the same time.
The assassination of John F. Kennedy appears to have been a large-scale
conspiracy, involving elements of the Secret Service (setting him up), the
CIA/Mafia/military (taking him out), and the FBI (covering it up), which was
overseen by LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover. Evidence published in Assassination
Science (1998) and in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000) includes fabricated
X-rays, the substitution of another brain for that of JFK, and extends to
the alteration of photos and the Zapruder film.
Not every case involving the death of a famous person turns out to have been
as the result of a conspiracy. John-John's death piloting his own plane to
Martha's Vinyard accompanied by his wife and her sister, for example,
appears to have

1
Paul Wellstone: The Plot Thickens
Jim Fetzer (READER WEEKLY, 2 January 2003, pp. 16-18) In response to my
analysis of the Wellstone tragedy (READER WEEKLY, 28 November 2002, pp.
18-19) and related discussion of this event, I have received quite a few
emails, many of which have taken strong exception to the very idea that
George W. Bush could ever have been involved in something of this kind. My
suggestion that Republicans may have been motivated to take Wellstone out,
alas, is not mine alone. Michael I. Niman, a professor from Buffalo State
College, for example, whom I quote in my column, has raised the same
question. Control of the Senate was at stake, which is a serious business,
not only regarding
the President's policies--where I strongly suspect Wellstone would have
filibustered the corrupt "Homeland Security Act"--but also billions of
dollars in government contracts and appointments to the US Supreme Court. He
was a thorn in the administration's side. My approach, for those who missed
that column, has been to take this event and subject it to scrutiny from the
point of view of scientific reasoning. The most adequate model is that of
inference to the best explanation, which characterizes science as a process
or procedure involving four steps or stages, namely: puzzlement,
speculation, adaptation (of hypotheses to evidence, excluding those that are
inconsistent with the evidence and calculating the probabilities that
the remaining alternatives confer on the evidence), and explanation
(when the evidence warrants acceptance).

Paul Wellstone: more questions, fewer answers
Jim Fetzer (READER WEEKLY 9 January 2003, pp. 12-13)
As I explained in my last column ("Paul Wellstone: The Plot Thickens,"
Reader
Weekly, 2 January 2003), the most obvious possible explanations for the
crash
that killed Paul Wellstone, his wife and staff--such as mechanical problems,
pilot
error, and bad weather--cannot be sustained as likely. The King Air A100
turns
out to be a highly reliable aircraft with an excellent safety record; there
were two
pilots aboard, one of whom had the highest possible certification; and the
weather
was perfectly fine. (Take a look at the cover of the 2 January 2003 issue,
in case you
have any doubts!)
The latest explanation, published in the Star Tribune (29 December 2002), is
that
the pilots committed a blunder that turned into a stall, where airspeed had
dropped
to 85 knots. That theory does not withstand critical inspection, when the
pilots'
qualifications and the suitability of the weather are taken into account.
Indeed, with
this plane, a loud alarm sounds at 85 knots warning the pilot(s) that a
stall is imminent,
but leaving enough time to compensate. Experiments with these aircraft
indicate that
they only actually stall out below 70 knots.
This means other, less obvious, possible explanations have to be considered,
even if-
on moral, political, or personal grounds--we would prefer not to confront
them. These
include the possibility that the plane might have been disabled by a small
bomb, by a
canister of gas, or by an electro- magnetic pulse. The most salient feature
of the crash
is the loss of communication that occurred simultaneously with the loss of
control. This
is difficult to explain by other, less sinister, causes. Neither pilot
error, mechanical
problems nor difficult weather can explain it.
It would have taken only a moment to report, for example, that the plane had
come in

1
Paul Wellstone: why take him out?
Jim Fetzer (READER WEEKLY 16 January 2003, pp. 18-19)
In my last column ("Paul Wellstone: more questions, fewer answers", Reader
Weekly
9 January 2003, pp. 12-13), I explained how the FBI was on the scene of the
crash by
noon, as reported by St. Louis County Sheriff Rick Wahlberg. Which means
that, since
this contingent came from Minneapolis, it must have departed from the city
no later
than 9:28 AM to make it to Duluth around 10:50 AM and arrive at the scene by
noon.
Remarkable, considering the crash only occurred at 10:20 and was verified at
11:00.
These agents are truly special. Their powers of anticipation defy
explanation. Indeed,
Wellstone's plane only departed from St. Paul at 9:30! So they were heading
north to
cover a crash that had yet to occur at approximately the same time that the
plane they
were going to cover was taking off! Anyone with predictive abilities of this
caliber is
wasting their time with the FBI. They should be investing in stock, running
a betting
emporium or, better yet, picking tickets for the lottery. They would make a
bundle!
Of course, they might be making a bundle already. Who am I to say?
Shenanigans by
the FBI are nothing new. They knew that JFK had been killed by a lone
assassin before
the smoke had cleared in Dealey Plaza. That was in the past. More recently,
a St. Paul
man says the FBI set him up (Duluth News Tribune, 9 January 2003, p. 4C).
The victim,
who was born in India, claims they gave him a plane ticket to Hong Kong and
arrested
him there after engaging him in an alleged terrorist plot to trade drugs for
weapons.
I know enough about the FBI to find this claim highly plausible, especially
during the
reign of John Ashcroft, Attorney General extraordinaire, who specializes in
depriving

Paul Wellstone: the use of futuristic weaponry?
Jim Fetzer (READER WEEKLY 20 February 2003, pp. 16-17)
A recent Reader (16 January 2003, p. 4) included a letter to me from
John Ongaro, who described an unusual experience he had en route
to the funeral that Paul Wellstone had planned to attend when his
plane crashed, taking not only his life but the life of his wife, six of
his aides, and two pilots. The plane was highly reliable, the weather
was not a problem, and the pilots appear to have been well-qualified.
John's description of the weather (neither sunny and warm, but with
no freezing rain or snow, but generally cloudy, just above freezing,
and hazy with little or no wind), coincides extremely closely with the
depictions and photographs given by Steve Filipovitch and printed
in the Reader (2 January 2003, front cover and pp. 16-18). There is
no basis for early reports that freezing rain was a contributing factor,
as an earlier column has explained (28 December 2002, pp. 18-19).
These circumstances force us to take seriously possibilities we might
prefer not to confront on moral, political, or personal grounds. If the
more obvious hypotheses, such as mechanical problems, pilot errors,
and bad weather, cannot account for the evidence, then other, more
sinister, hypotheses require consideration, such as that the crash may
have been caused by a small bomb, a gas canister, or EMP weaponry.
Electro-magnetic pulse weaponry may initially sound exotic, but there
are reasons to take it seriously. Ongaro wrote to explain exactly what
what had happened to him. "Just a few minutes prior to reaching the
================

Israel Seeks 400% Hike in US Aid

Tim Kennedy, strateg...@juno.com
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23322
Economically, the world is in a terrible shape: The American dollar is
weak, crude oil costs a record $40 a barrel and global stock markets have
experienced three years of decline, the worst since the recession after
World War II.

Like the rest of the world, Israel is also experiencing economic
stagnation, a decline worsened by a drop in tourism brought on by violence
in Israeli-occupied Palestine.

However, the impending war in Iraq may enable Israel to pull out of its
economic doldrums: Claiming the looming Iraq war has sapped its defense
budget, Israel is asking the United States for billions of dollars indirect
military aid and loan guarantees to help buttress its faltering economy.

Dov Weisglass, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
made the request for more American money last week while on a three-day
visit to Washington. Weisglass seeks congressional approval of about $12
billion in aid, in addition to the $3 billion given to Israel each year.

Insiders on Capitol Hill predict Israel will likely get all it asks. The
aid to Israel comes on the heels of a request by Turkey of more than $6
billion in direct aid and $20 billion in loans as US forces prepare to use
bases in that country as a staging area for any attack on Iraq.

"All the officials with whom we met are hopeful that they can get this
economic package," says Ros-Lehtinen, who sits on the House International
Relations Committee. "Israel is not economically self sufficient and depends
on borrowing to maintain its economy."

Ros-Lehtinen predicts Israel's aid request will be granted, but it could
hardly come at a worse time.

America's generous partnership with Israel has been consistently marred by
problems, including kickback scandals, graft, overpricing, and other forms
of financial abuse.

"We learned that the Israeli government had an indication of problems in
the US-financed program," write the authors of the study. "(Yet when) we
requested to meet with government of Israel officials to discuss information
they have regarding the diversion of US funds and other abuses of the
assistance program, (they) declined to discuss the issues or allow our
investigators to question Israeli personnel."

A GAO auditor who spoke to Strategic Policy is "not encouraged thatIsrael's
corrupt financial practices will likely change....The influx of Russians to
Israel make this country only more corrupt, not less.

"Plus, it is not in anyone's interest in Israel to tell us honestly what
they do with our money... And there are very few people in Washington -
particularly this administration - who really care."

============

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin--

Lest we forget, merchants owe their allegiance to no nation.

--Thomas Jefferson--
==========================

B L I X T E X T 3 / 8 /03

============================================

AS DELIVERED
SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC
Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix
7 March
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6

Thank you, Mr. President,

Mr. President, for nearly three years, I have been coming to the Security
Council presenting the quarterly reports of UNMOVIC. They have described our
many preparations for the resumption of inspections in Iraq. The 12th
quarterly report is the first that describes three months of inspections.
They come after four years without inspections. The report was finalized ten
days ago and a number of relevant events have taken place since then.
Today's statement will supplement the circulated report on these points to
bring the Council up-to-date.

Inspection process

Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to
process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few
difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in
the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside
pressure.

Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks Dr. ElBaradei
and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in
resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings which we have had in
Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and
aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This
is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but
at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections
all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us
valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures and we would expect soon
to be able to add night vision capability through an aircraft offered to us
by the Russian Federation. We also expect to add low-level, close area
surveillance through drones provided by Germany. We are grateful not only to
the countries which place these valuable tools at our disposal, but also to
the States, most recently Cyprus, which has agreed to the stationing of
aircraft on their territory.

Documents and interviews

Mr. President,

Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to
provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes.
Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over
since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's Declaration
of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence. I hope that efforts in
this respect, including the appointment of a governmental commission, will
give significant results. When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for
it is above all credible accounts that is needed - or the proscribed items,
if they exist.

Where authentic documents do not become available, interviews with persons
who may have relevant knowledge and experience may be another way of
obtaining evidence. UNMOVIC has names of such persons in its records and
they are among the people whom we seek to interview. In the last month, Iraq
has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be relevant sources
of information, in particular, persons who took part in various phases of
the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons, and
proscribed missiles in 1991. This provision of names prompts two
reflections:

The first is that with such detailed information existing regarding those
who took part in the unilateral destruction, surely there must also
remainrecords regarding the quantities and other data concerning the various
items destroyed.

The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available it becomes
even more important to be able to conduct interviews in modes and locations,
which allow us to be confident that the testimony is given without outside
influence. While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to
request the presence of Iraqi officials, so-called minders, or the taping of
the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are
difficult to attain inside Iraq. Interviews outside the country might
provide such assurance. It is our intention to request such interviews
shortly. Nevertheless, despite remaining shortcomings, interviews are
useful. Since we started requesting interviews, 38 individuals were asked
for private interviews, of which 10 accepted under our terms, 7 of these
during the last week.

As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that
weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in
particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons.
The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections
have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile
production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops
have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment.
No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found. Iraq is expected
to assist in the development of credible ways to conduct random checks of
ground transportation.

Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq's programme for Remotely
Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data
being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various
models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.

There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed
activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any
underground structure suitable for the production or storage of weapons of
mass destruction. During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities,
inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible
underground facilities. In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was
used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical
or biological production or storage were found so far.

I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground transportation and for
the inspection of underground facilities, we would need to increase our
staff in Iraq. I am not talking about a doubling of staff. I would rather
have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect
than twice the number of expert inspectors to send.

Recent developments

On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become
more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new
light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current
quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible
progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you.

As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi
side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared
fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the
calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite
conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items
be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our
supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of
disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not
watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.

However I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction
work has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break.

Until today, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2
combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC
supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and
equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.

Two 'reconstituted' casting chambers used in the production of solid
propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased
in concrete.

The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further
investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile.

More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many
have been found to restate what Iraq already has declared, and some will
require further study and discussion.

There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of
uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which
were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a
disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the
past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight
complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other
complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The
investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the
determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be
followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of
how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters,
inspection work is moving on and may yield results.

Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the
amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if
the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to
be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation.
Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by
efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced.

With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify
a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of
1991.

Iraq has also recently informed us that, following the adoption of the
presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and mixed companies from
engaging in work related to WMD, further legislation on the subject is to be
enacted. This appears to be in response to a letter from UNMOVIC requesting
clarification of the issue.

Mr. President,

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression
that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an
acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by
how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is
not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has
cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is
required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be
seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more
direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did
regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted
in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection
rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by
the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament
issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4
months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate"
cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are
nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of
solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

Mr. President,

Members of the Council may relate most of what I have said to resolution
1441 (2002), but UNMOVIC is performing work under several resolutions of the
Security Council. The quarterly report before you is submitted in accordance
with resolution 1284 (1999), which not only created UNMOVIC but also
continues to guide much of our work. Under the time lines set by that
resolution, the results of some of this work is to be reported to the
Council before the end of this month. Let me be more specific.

Resolution 1284 (1999) instructs UNMOVIC to "address unresolved disarmament
issues" and to identify "key remaining disarmament tasks" and the latter are
to be submitted for approval by the Council in the context of a work
programme. UNMOVIC will be ready to submit a draft work programme this month
as required.

UNSCOM and the Amorim Panel did valuable work to identify the disarmament
issues, which were still open at the end of 1998. UNMOVIC has used this
material as starting points but analysed the data behind it and data and
documents post 1998 up to the present time to compile its own list of
"unresolved disarmament issues" or, rather, clustered issues. It is the
answers to these issues which we seek through our inspection activities, and
it is also from the list of these clustered issues that UNMOVIC will
identify the "key remaining disarmament tasks". As noted in the report
before you, this list of clustered issues is ready.

UNMOVIC is only required to submit the work programme with the "key
remaining disarmament tasks" to the Council. As I understand, several
Council members are interested in the working document with the complete
clusters of disarmament issues, and we have declassified it and are ready to
make it available to members of the Council on request. In this working
document, which may still be adjusted in the light of new information,
members will get a more up-to-date review of the outstanding issues than in
the documents of 1999, which Members usually refer to. Each cluster in the
working document ends with a number of points indicating what Iraq could do
to solve the issue. Hence, Iraq's cooperation could be measured against the
successful resolution of issues.

I should note that the working document contains much information and
discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 - including
information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less
information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of
paucity of information. Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed
the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this
period. It is further contended that proscribed programmes and items are
located in underground facilities that I mentioned, and that proscribed
items are being moved around Iraq. The working document contains some
suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled.

Mr. President,

Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work
programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It
will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;
it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and
verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also
describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, for
instance, for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and
suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks?
While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate
the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi
attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some
time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant
persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but
months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection
to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the
governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to
remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike
an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons
programme.

Thank you, Mr. President.

===============

What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet:

Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

Part 4: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

Everyman

unread,

Mar 8, 2003, 8:03:00 AM3/8/03

Extra!!!: WMDs (box-cutter type) found in Iraqi wearhouses -- Let the
slaughter begin!!!!!!!!! Not quite.
==================

1) Robert Fisk: US war plans are not helped by Blix

2) CIA 'sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details'

3) Related News (CLG)
=============================

Robert Fisk: US war plans are not helped by Blix
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=384956
08 March 2003

Oh, for the ice-cold Swedish eye on the Middle East. Ah, for the freezing
Scandinavian vision of truth. Hans Blix, everybody's headmaster, delivered
his school report yesterday with enough fairness to outrage both pupil -
Iraq - and parent, ultimately the US.

Yes, Iraq had provided the names of relevant scientists, but "only a few
documents had come to light - a disappointment". And on Iraq's destruction
of al-Samoud 2 missiles - a "substantial measure of disarmament" - a Swedish
bon mot. "We are not watching the destruction of toothpicks," Mr Blix said.
Toothpicks, indeed.

Words of truly Nordic neutrality followed: "reluctant co-operation",
"soberly judged", "immediate co-operation" (which was not obtained), "a
considerable volume of documents". The famous aluminium tubes turned out -
if one believes Mr Blix, and why not - to have nothing to do with nuclear
weapons (goodbye, the British intelligence file). And - if you believe
Mohamed al-Baradei, and again why not - quite a number of other US documents
are lies. But the words from this most intransigent of Swedes to most enrage
the warmongers were: "We intend to continue our inspection activities."

You could almost hear the roar of fury from the Americans. Saddam has lied;
the UN hasn't found the weapons. The UN doesn't know how to find them. Alas
for President Bush, the UN was urged to go to Iraq last year by ...
President Bush.

He thought Saddam would not allow inspectors to land in Iraq. Saddam let the
inspectors in - so the inspectors must now be trashed by Washington. Not an
easy task when Mr Blix - the archetypal, friendly Swedish bear - is in
charge.

The words were no help to US war plans. "Plausible ... verifiable ...
progress," he said of his mission. All words the US would welcome if they
wanted the inspectors to succeed. Hence the statement from Joschka Fischer,
the German Foreign Minister: "We see no need for a second resolution."
Which, of course, was the view of the French and the Russians - and Mr Blix.
So, Mr Blix, watch out.

Colin Powell didn't seem quite ready for the report, though there was plenty
of talk of "criminal evidence", of "lying and deceit", along with some new
phrases: "cluster of questions" and "tens of thousands [sic] of delivery
systems".

Yes, Mr Powell, who picked up the "toothpicks" metaphor, liked Iraq's
co-operation - he could scarcely say otherwise - but added he was "sorry to
learn that this is coming in a grudging manner".

The two words not mentioned were those of the countries whose people are
really killing each other: Israel and Palestine. Alas, that would have
muddied the waters - and introduced an element of reality to this frozen
debate at the UN.

Š 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

================

CIA 'sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
14 February 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=378163
Senior democrats have accused the CIA of sabotaging weapons inspections in
Iraq by refusing to co-operate fully with the UN and withholding crucial
information about Saddam Hussein's arsenal.
Led by Senator Carl Levin, the Democrats accused the CIA of making an
assessment that the inspections were unlikely to be a success and then
ensuring they would not be. They have accused the CIA director of lying
about what information on the suspected location of weapons of mass
destruction had been passed on.
The row is of heightened significance given the Bush administration's
preparations to argue later today before the UN Security Council that the
inspections have run their course and it is now time to move to military
action.
France, Russia, Germany and other members of the Security Council are likely
to back a counter-proposal to increase the number of inspectors, providing
them, if necessary, with the support of armed UN soldiers, as a means of
avoiding a military strike.
The accusation of US sabotage emerged from a series of Senate hearings on
Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, George Tenet, the CIA director, told the armed
services committee panel that the agency had provided the UN inspectors with
all the information it had on "high" and "moderate" interest locations
inside Iraq - those sites where there was a possibility of finding banned
weapons. But Mr Tenet later told a different panel that he had been mistaken
and that there were in fact "a handful" of locations the UN inspectors may
not have known about.
Senator Levin, from Michigan, responded by saying the CIA director had not
been telling the truth. Citing a number of classified letters he had
obtained from the agency, he said it was clear the CIA had not shared
information with the inspectors about a "large number of sites of
significant value".
He said the CIA had told him additional information would be passed to the
inspectors within the next few days.
Mr Levin pushed Mr Tenet on whether he thought the inspections had any
value. The CIA director replied: "Unless [President Saddam] provides the
data to build on, provides the access, provides the unfettered access that
he's supposed to, provides us with surveillance capability, there is little
chance you're going to find weapons of mass destruction under the rubric
he's created inside the country ... The inspectors have been put in a very
difficult position by his behaviour.
Mr Levin said later he believed the CIA had, in effect, taken the decision
to undermine the inspections. "When they've taken the position that
inspections are useless, they are bound to fail," he told The Washington
Post. "We have undermined the inspectors."
Mr Levin has raised his concerns with the White House. In a letter to
President Bush, the senator asked that America provide the inspectors with
as much information as available.
He wrote: "The American people want the inspections to proceed, want the
United States to share the information we have with the UN inspectors and
want us to obtain United Nations support before military action is used
against Iraq."

=========

OTHER NEWS FROM CLG:

http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

*Note: The CLG website is updated throughout the day, so check back often
for latest news.

===========

Terry Reed -- the face of satanic counterfeit -Christianity Zionism
warmongerism -- to take over Bush campaign.

Everyman

unread,

Mar 8, 2003, 5:05:21 PM3/8/03

The Dream In Flames

Brave American pilots will show Iraqi
children how it feels to be vaporized...

By John Kaminski
sky...@comcast.net

3-8-3

Dictator Bush and his wimpy quisling suckups at the
New York Times, CNN, and Fox have proved that Adolf
Hitler's strategy was right - if you tell a lie enough
times it soon becomes the truth in the public mind.

And we see how this technique has now come full circle
in this prerecorded nondebate about bombing Iraq into
a deeper level of oblivion.

Remember late autumn 2002, when from seemingly out of
nowhere Bush pulled the long-dormant Iraq issue out of
nowhere? At the time the U.S. media were awash in
stories about how many Americans would die from the
president's ill-considered order to vaccinate the
entire population for smallpox. That the president's
father had just acquired a substantial interest in the
company that was to make the vaccines never quite
managed to make the front page.

The unsolved anthrax murders had already dissapeared
as a story from the mainstream media, once the trail
of suspicion led straight to the U.S. government's
door. A permanent rigor mortis had already set into
the 9/11 probe and the unsolved sudden murders of more
than 3,000 Americans. But Enron and Halliburton's
troubles seemed to be percolating a bit, as many
business executives who had stolen millions from
innocent but greedy Americans seemed to be headed for
embarrassing questions in various courts. It was not
until later that a Bush-appointed appeals court
judge's order would take the heat off Cheney for
engineering that whole deal that stole billions in
energy costs from the people of California. Cheney
never liked California; he's a Wyoming boy.

What the criminal administration needed was a
distraction from all this consternation, and Iraq has
been that and more.

Now, not one of those overpaid media succubi who smirk
on the TV screen every night and tell you America is
going to win this war against Iraq has the gonads to
tell their dictator that his planned invasion of that
bomb-pocked nation breaks every law known to man and
signed by the United States: the Geneva Accords, the
Nuremburg agreements and every treaty civilized people
have endorsed since the Romans bugged out of Britain "
it is illegal to attack someone if they're not
attacking you. A pre-emptive war is not allowed by
civilized people.

Hey, why would they ask such a question? It's only the
reason why there's any peace in the world at all,
that's why. You don't go around gunning down your
neighbors because you think they're going to do
something bad to you sometime in the future. Only a
criminal psychopath would do something like that.

But the current president of the United States knows
something more than all the diplomats in human history
put together. After all, he says he's a religious man.
And Jesus did say he brought not peace but a sword.
That's George W. Bush's kind of religion. I'm sure you
could convince him that somewhere in the Bible it says
it's OK to obliterate anyone you suspect of having
weapons of mass destruction even though you can't
prove it. Wasn't that the rationale of the Biblical
Israelites when they wiped out all those other tribes?

Or if it's not in the Bible, maybe those sophisticated
designers of the Project for the New American Century,
the ones who wrote America needed "a Pearl Harbor-type
event" shortly before the World Trade Center came
crashing down, can get it put in. Maybe in a new
version of Deuteronomy 28:56-58, that part where God
says mothers will have to eat their own children if
they don't obey God's holy law, maybe Richard Perle
and Paul Wolfowitz can change that to it's OK to nuke
innocent families because their leader didn't obey
orders from their masters to give them all the oil
they wanted.

Probably most Christians wouldn't even notice the
change. It's all about the collection plate, anyway.

Or I guess some religious people like the singing.
Onward Christian Soldiers, marching off to war, with
the cross of Jesus, going on before. Amen.

I heard the crosses they're taking to Iraq are made
out of depleted uranium, too. A lot harder than gold.
They can really smite the enemy with them, just like
our drug czar, that Barry McCaffrey guy. You know he
used to be a general and he was in charge of the
operation that gunned down all those Iraqis trying to
run away from Kuwait after the first Gulf War. They
called it the "Highway of Death." A lot of American
pilots thought it was just like a shooting gallery at
an amusement park. I don't know if they got points for
it or not. McCaffrey became real famous for killing
all those people who didn't have a chance, driving
rusted-out trucks trying to escape American jets. He's
a true American hero.

Yep, America's really going to put on a show. The
American armed forces have the coolest high-tech
weapons ever, and they've been saying " especially
that Rumsfeld fellow " that they're going to use some
new weapons nobody's ever seen before. I'll bet
they'll be on TV, too. I wonder if CNN will make up a
jingle like "Showdown with Iraq" to go along with
Rumsfeld's plans to use "calmative agents" on the
population of Baghdad, so as to reduce the resistance
to American forces, y'know.

I can just imagine the new logo on Fox: "Gassing the
masses." The ratings will probably be good.

Calmative agents. I like that term. Just like the
Russians used on those Chechen terrorists who tried to
hijack that Russian theater awhile back. Just shot the
gas in there and they all went to sleep. I think
that's a big improvement in warfare, and Americans
should be proud to use stuff like that. I mean,
instead of dropping all these humongous bombs on
people and blowing them to bits, just spread a little
cloud of chemical smoke over them and put them all to
sleep. That's a real improvement in warfare, and
Americans should be real proud to use something like
that. It makes war a lot more civilized. Just put 'em
to sleep instead of blowing 'em to bits.

'Course the problem in Russia was that a lot of 'em
didn't wake up.

But there'll still be bombs. Plenty of bombs that
we'll watch on TV. Cameras right in the tips of the
bombs. Ride 'em right down to the target. See all
those buildings blow up. Cool. 'Course they don't show
the people being blown up. They won't show the searing
heat from those heralded U.S. laser-guided bombs
incinerating the crinkled skin of already-sick Iraqi
children. Try to imagine the sound that crackling
would make and think of something appropriate for a
U.S. military recruiting poster.

That wouldn't be right on TV. Hell, if you showed
that, bodies flying apart and heads being blown off,
the skin of little children crackling in flames,
people wouldn't want to go to war at all, would they?
Hell, we can't have that.

They also were going to use some kind of fancy bomb
that knocked out everybody's electronics in the area
it was used, but I think they ditched that idea when
they figured it would also probably make all their own
airplanes fall out of the sky.

But the best part, I think, the most effective form of
warfare, is the depleted uranium ammunition, the gift
that keeps on killing year after year after year.

Could anything be more illustrative of the top
leadership in America being completely and certifiably
insane than using ammunition that guarantees a bitter
harvest of disease and death among its own troops for
years to come. Consider the casualty factor from the
first Gulf War. Only 147 American personnel were
killed during combat, a substantial number of those
from accidental (we hope) friendly fire. But now, the
Gulf War death toll 13 years later is around 10,000
Americans (if you check around on the Internet), with
another 140,000 afflicted with really nasty diseases
that are passed to those wives and children who manage
to survive for any length of time.

Sure, you get the standard argument from the psycho
U.S. government that these maladies are caused by
other things, like the oil well fires (now alleged by
some veterans to have been set by American personnel)
and poison gas attacks. But the two main suspected
carcinogenic culprits continue to be depleted uranium
ammunition and strange vaccinations about which the
U.S. government never would say and won't to this day
what was actually in them. Go wave your damned
American flag about that one, buddy.

America kills it own soldiers just by using DU
ammunition. People get rich selling nuclear waste to
ordnance manufacturers. And American soldiers die
because of it. You can't deny it. There's too much
evidence, everywhere.

Now we must return to the lead of our story: lies told
often enough that they become the truth in the minds
of an addled and distracted populace that wishes the
whole story would just go away.

It is not Iraq that has weapons of mass destruction
and uses them against its neighbors. It is the United
States.

Compare the two nations. How many nations has Iraq
invaded under its present leadership?

Answer: Two. First Iran, with the eager backing of the
United States, which supplied it with chemical and
biological weapons (and now proposes to use the same
weapons to attack Iraq for using chemical and
biological weapons of mass destruction). Second,
Kuwait, which was stealing Iraqi oil, and anyway, the
claim that it is a part of Iraq is legitimate; Kuwait,
Iraq and Saudi Arabia were all created arbitrarily by
the oil companies (as was Saudi Arabia).

Then, how many countries has America invaded and used
weapons of mass destruction against during the same
time period.

Answer: Try 13. Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both
Lebanese and Syrian targets), Libya 1986, El Salvador
1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Iran 1987, Panama 1989, Iraq
1991-2000, Somalia 1993, Bosnia 1994, 1995, Sudan
1998, Afghanistan 1998, Yugoslavia 1999. (Thanks to
William Blum, "Rogue State.")

So when those mostly white men (they're all white at
heart) gather around the table at the United Nations
and make their judgment that Iraq needs to be invaded,
they're just pulling out the same story that the
Western powers have used ever since the Crusades were
started to go and loot the dark-skinned natives. The
lie is so colossal that it just makes me want to throw
up.

When Americans " otherwise intelligent and kind " say
Iraq should be invaded because they are connected with
the 9/11 attacks " there is no recognized shred of
evidence that this is so " it makes me want to throw
up as well.

And when the world's media feigns hysteria about Iraq
being a menace to its neighbors " at the same time
when not far away Israel is perpetrating one of the
great genocides in human history, the erasing of the
entire nation of Palestine, and because most
newspapers are owned by Jews, no one is saying a word
" it makes me want to ... well, you know.

The world is, in fact, mad. Willfully and deliberately
so.

People of principle need to assert themselves now. A
poison has spread around the entire globe. Every echo
of every thought emanating from virtually every radio
station, television channel and major newspaper
throughout the entire world (well, certainly the
Western world, anyway) is a lie. And for this lie,
thousands of people are being murdered every day.

The United Nations itself, consisting of
representatives of all the countries on Earth, looks
with favor on this newest lie, that Iraq is the threat
to the world and needs to be divested of its leaders
and its resources. So, the whole world agrees to
participate in this lie, presumably in exchange for
future political advantages from the aggressor
government that seeks, as is its usual custom, to
perpetrate this particular lie for its own
geopolitical and financial gain, yet couches its
motives in phrases of perfunctory and insincere
nobility.

The big news in this is that the whole world is
agreeing to participate in the slaughter of innocents
because the most powerful country wishes to perpetrate
its continuing campaign of dishonest, imperialistic
gambits in order to increase its wealth. There is no
other reason. The alpha dog wishes to destroy an
entire nation, and the subservient pups that all other
nations have become gather round, hoping to steal
leftover scraps from the slaughter.

In all this, where are the principles of a free
society of free people living in a free world? Where
is the compassion that supposedly distinguishes humans
from other animals? Where is the basic integrity of
members of any society who agree to be civilized and
not kill other people except in self-defense?

I'll tell you where they are. They're gone.

Of this event, our posterity will calculate the loss
of our humanity and our honor, but in sociological
terms, this complicity of the entire world to
participate in this latest vigilante lynching of Iraq
may well signal for us as a species the end of
evolution and the beginning of entropy ... and the
long, slow slide toward an ignominious extinction.

The future of the whole world is mortgaged to the
vicious caprice of the American police state. Honest
men cower in their castles and calculate the cost of
their betrayal of the human race. The dream is in
flames.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the coast of
Florida, and has a book coming out soon filled with
essays a lot likethis one.

http://www.rense.com/general35/bravr.htm

peace,
Tom

===============

What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet

Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
Part 4: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html
http://www.koolpages.com/killtown/flight77.html
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/dossier.php?dosnum=60
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htmhttp://www.
asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htm
http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast
http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=3265

For recent eastman (a.k.a. Everyman, Le Permanent Marker) newsgroup articles

Everyman

unread,

Mar 8, 2003, 5:19:09 PM3/8/03

1) Endangered-species truly independent jounalist John Kaminski; and
2) the heart cry of a mother, Rose King

The Dream In Flames

By John Kaminski
sky...@comcast.net

3-8-3

http://www.rense.com/general35/bravr.htm

peace,
Tom

===============

My fellow Americans,

Please allow me to express my middle class heart.
My eyes are filled with tears as I begin to write
this. I have been having nightmares since the speech
by the president, and my children are in a state of
sadness like never before. This world as we know it is
about to seriously change, and my children cry because
they know they may never again see the father that
reluctantly goes off to fight in a war for oil and a
globalist agenda. Many in the military, almost 40%,
are against this insane war and know that what they
are about to begin, is in reality the beginning of the
end.
I beg you all to look into the mirror and realize
that all you know, the families you love, and the
freedom to live in this peaceful world is about to
disappear overnight. When our soldiers begin to die in
a country that has never done anything to deserve what
is about to happen to it, you will feel my pain, and
sorrow knowing about the lives lost for no good reason
other than a globalist agenda being spearheaded by
this madman administration.
If the war and coming staged event goes according
to plan, you will know the wrongness of this action,
and it will be to late to do anything about it. You
will also realize that the globalist owned media has
led you all like sheep to the slaughter house with
lies and mis-information as you choose to remain
asleep even when the truth was presented to you from
other sources. And again it will be to late.
The lying Brokaws, Rathers, Hannitys, Laumbahs, and
O'Rileys via the weapons of CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC,
and various press corps like the cia operated
associated press have all been part of this diabolical
plan to keep the people in the darkness of ignorance.
I pity all those lying media people when their
neighbors discover what traitors to this country and
it's constitutional freedoms they have been daily by
the perpetuating and constant propagation of these
lies, and dis-informational psychological warfare
tactics aligned at the fine American people. It's been
the "keep the people blind agenda" for generations
now. Soon it will be to late to change it. Let those
with eyes to see, see, and let those with ears to
hear, hear.
The next plan of the globalists is to sponsor more
terror against you my fellow Americans both in
violence, and psychological warfare. This will insure
reason to go to war. When there is tragic havoc, the
riots will begin, which they want, and like the poor
Iraqi people the microwave towers that you are all
surrounded by, will then be turned against whole
cities of innocent Americans to bring them into
subjugation.
http://www.rense.com/general/nonleth.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/nwo.html
Then, the draconian Anti-American Patriot Act I,
Homeland Security Act, Model Health and Safety Powers
Act, Space Based Weapons Act, the potential senate
bill S-22, and other Executive orders will all be put
into effective placement after these planed events,
and then you will finally realize the horror that this
is now upon you all as you hear nothing but the
pre-programmed FEMA orders on every communication
device there is.
And I cry even more, because then it will be way to
late to try and speak up to cast your vote of the
soul. Your refusal to awaken is an automatic vote for
the anti-Christ that leads us all to doom, and not for
the Christ who might have saved many. Your inability
to awaken from the media produced brainwashing will be
the main reason for the coming of a potential "hell on
earth," and no matter how much eleventh hour praying,
and repenting you do, nothing will save you and your
families.
And then there was the sickening speech by Bush. In
the presidents scripted blabberings, and amongst the
many mistakes he made, at about 36 minutes into his
programmed babble, he was asked a question about
needing a UN resolution of approval for his false war.
He said "No," and went on to say, "Ah, secondly, I am
confident the American people WILL understand that
WHEN it comes to our security, um, ah, if we need to
act, we WILL act, and we really don't need the United
Nations approval to do so." He finished by saying to
the reporter that asked the question, "Mark, WHEN it
comes to our security, we really don't NEED anybody's
permission."
He is going to use a pre-planed event to go around the
UN process, and say, see, I told you so.
He has set up the press also, and I wonder if any
of them caught this from another scripted question he
was asked. The reporter asked him if he would give the
inspectors, humanitarian workers, and the press time
to leave before an attack.
He responded by saying. " The journalists who are
there should leave, if your going, and we start
action, leave." That was it! The warning, " if we
start action, leave."
Now you the press can see just how much your masters
love you.
Then later, a reporter asked him about the costs of
this coming war.
He responded by saying in his answer, "And we WILL
present it as a supplemental."
"We WILL present." This is a pre-conceived,
pre-planning to a request for money from congress more
than likely to be made after some incident happens
that he knows about already. He also said, "AT the
appropriate time, we WILL ask for a supplemental."
AT the appropriate time? Like he knows there will be
an appropriate time!
"We hope we don't have to go to war, but if we SHOULD,
ah, WE WILL present a supplemental." "But I want to
remind you, remind you of what I said before, there IS
a huge cost WHEN we get attacked, there IS a
significant cost to our society, first of all, there
IS the cost of lives." At the end of his answer he
says, " I SEE A GATHERING THREAT," and "that AT the
appropriate time Ed, you WILL KNOW the costs." He
goes on to mention the possibility of, "someone
lobbing a weapon of mass destruction on Israel." Is
this a hint of what is to come?
All this pre-conceived talk, and these certain
indications that he knows that there is a
cia-gov-globalist plan to bring on a Pearl Harbor type
event to galvanize the public opinion towards war with
Iraq. Martial law could also follow which will set up
the rioting.
I suspect that in the light of all the warnings we
have been given, something could happen this coming
week. This all sounds like a set up of the American
people for a pre-conceived event that he knows about,
and it could come on a date like, 3-10-2003, which
when added 3+1+0+2+0+0+3 equals 9. The traditional
number meaning completion, and like 666 when added,
also equals 9. 6+6+6=18, 1+8=9. It could mean the
completion and the New World Order's final move to
destroy one world, and begin a new one. And let's not
forget that most, if not all these gov sponsored
events have taken place around 9:00 o'clock in the
mornings.
And lastly, one more Big Bell that rings 'Set up'
is, Where is the military stragedy in a night vision
army beginning a military operation during a full
moon? They will be sitting ducks out there in the moon
lit deserts. Our soldiers are also now being shown
just how much their fearless leader cares for them in
this total disregard for their safety. Get rid of the
only army keeping this world free is the agenda of
these globalist madmen. Can't you see this people? I
cry even more for all those that blindly follow the
anti-Christ to their deaths.
All this is being said like he knows. He says all
this in a future tense, and not a past tense. Any
spiritually aware person can perceive his intentions
through all the skulldugerous rantings, and plainly
sense what is going on considering his past and
involvement in 911.
At the time of this writing, we still have peace. I
appeal to anyone in the Gov, the Military, or the real
good-guy Law enforcement community to go forth, and do
the right thing according to the laws we have in this
country that these tyrants have broken. There are many
they have violated just speaking constitutionally. All
of you have given an oath to protect the constitution
of these United States, as well as the country itself,
and if you ignore this evidence, as well as continue
to ignore the mountains of evidence that are out
there, then I will cry for you too and your families,
because in God' eyes, you have all helped this
anti-Christ plan to come to fruitation, and will be
found in complicity with this present insane asylum
administration.
I saw the head line, "President and entire cabinet
arrested," and the world rejoiced that finally, some
one in the REAL FBI, in combination with some REAL
honest Congressman and Senators, and some REAL high
ranking honest Military men all got together to end
this madness that is jeopardizing the world peace,
world stability, and the American, as well a other
world countries lifestyles. I beg you all to please do
something NOW before it becomes too late, and all
these set up's take place. Only a U.S. military coup,
and the exorcising and impeachment of this
administration by proper Law enforcement can save this
world now. Soon though, it may really be too late.
And I cry because I care for you all.
In the Chinese year of the sheep, or lamb, please
join me now in a prayer that seeks God's help to
attain these means NOW! Pray for hope, harmony, and
tranquility, understanding and healing for us all NOW.

Peace. Not just a concept.

I love you all,
ROSE KING.

> ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Two sons of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)
were arrested in southeastern Afghanistan (news - web sites) in a joint
operation involving Pakistani and U.S. forces, Pakistan's provincial
home minister Sanaullah Zehri said.

> "They were arrested from Rabat area in Afghanistan," he told The
Associated Press in a telephone interview. He did not identify the sons,
but said that seven other al-Qaida men were killed in the operation.

> Arrested were Saad and Hamza bin Laden, two of what are believed to be
14 to 18 sons of Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaida terrorist
organization. Saad is believed closely tied to the operations of
al-Qaida.

> In Washington, U.S. counterterrorism officials strongly disputed
reports saying bin Laden's sons were captured. They said they had no
information that would suggest any of the sons had been detained. > >
Zehri refused to say which military units were involved.

> "They were allied forces," he said, operating near Rabat in the
extreme southwestern tip of Afghanistan where it borders Pakistan and
Iran.

> Some sources claim Bin Laden has at least 23 children by several
wives. Saad is one the oldest, in his early 20s and has emerged as an
al-Qaida leader and one of America's top two dozen targets in the
network. Mohammed and Ahmed bin Laden also support their father's
efforts, U.S. officials say.

> Click here to read more:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859096/posts

Everyman

unread,

Mar 8, 2003, 11:33:07 PM3/8/03

From: "BRIAN DOWNING QUIG" <qu...@dcia.com>

Subject: PHONEY WAR!!

Everything I post is freely given.

So we see that European royality are all cousins. Bush has 32
presidential cousins. Everyone in the elite knows everyone else in
the elite.

So here is how history has worked. Let us say the king of France and
the king of England got together what would they talk about? This
perhaps.

King F: I am having terrible problems with my STINKING PEASANTS.
They do not want to work and pay taxes and my cost of soldiers used to
collect tax is killing me.

King E: I know what you mean. And the disrespect!! Just yesterday
some STINKING PEASANT tossed a rotten egg into my carrage!!

King F: I have a great idea!! You round up your STINKING PEASANTS
and I will round up mine and we will march them out onto a plain and
let the bastards hack the shit out of each other. Then your STINKING
PEASANTS will hate me and not you and the same for mine!!

King E: What a wonderful idea cousin!!

It is possible to use the names SADDAM and BUSH in this model.

Brian Downing Quig

=================

Rules For Resolving Constitutional Issues

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your
friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is
expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough
nor using cover correctly.

5. Move toward your attacker. Distance is your enemy's friend. (Slight
forward lateral and diagonal movements are preferred by some, while those in
a hurry to accomplish the mission unamiously choose the "Hey! diddle, diddle
... !" approach.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a
friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or
tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and
running toward the target.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more
dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

9.5. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel
pisses in the flintlock of your musket."

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to
beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should
be in FRONT of your gun.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep
your hands where I can see them).

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to
avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not
start with a "4."

God Bless America

Everyman

unread,

Mar 10, 2003, 4:53:17 AM3/10/03

Hey Dick:

This W is dangerous shit man! I mean, I knew it was bad, but this makes Oct.
1962 potentially look like a cake walk. I mean look at the strategic
interests Russia and China, not to mention France and Germany, have in Iraq
and the region. But no one is even talking about those implications. How
would W react if Russia staged Backfire bombers to Turkmenistan and upped
its strategic forces (ICBM) alert level, while China decided the time was
right to ready an amphibious attack force opposite Taiwan? Would that be
"showing their cards"? Please pass the article along. Thanks. I'll be in the
SF streets on the 15th.

Of God, and Man, in the Oval Office

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19122-2003Feb28?language=printer

By Fritz Ritsch

Sunday, March 2, 2003; Page B03

The National Council of Churches (NCC), together with a number of peace
organizations, recently ran an ad on CNN and Fox in which a bishop of the
United Methodist Church, to which President Bush belongs, criticized the
Bush administration's relentless war rhetoric. Going to war with Iraq
"violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ," said the bishop.

It may confound people that some mainline Protestant churches continue to
resist the president's call to arms. After all, it is couched in theological
language: The term "axis of evil" was coined to give the war on terrorism a
religious edge; President Bush speaks of giving the people of Iraq not
democracy, but freedom, harkening back to both the biblical Exodus and the
Civil War. "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war,"
he assured us after Sept. 11, "and we know that God is not neutral between
them." If God is not neutral, and the choices are so straightforward --
almost the literal embodiment of a spiritual battle -- it seems perverse for
mainline religious leaders to withhold support for war against Iraq.

NCC leaders were frustrated that the president had rebuffed their requests
to meet with him to discuss their views. The president apparently believes
that he can talk about theology from the bully pulpit without talking to
theologians. Which begs the question: When did the president become
theologian in chief?

The president used the words of a hymn, "There's Power in the Blood," to
strengthen the religious rhetoric of his State of the Union speech. He spoke
of the "power, wonder-working power," of "the goodness and idealism and
faith of the American people." The original words of the hymn refer to the
"wonder-working power" of "the precious blood of the lamb" -- Jesus Christ.
The unspoken but apparently deliberate parallel between Americans and Jesus
is disturbing, to say the least . The implication is that Americans are
generous -- like Jesus. And that we are innocent victims -- like the lamb of
God. In his February speech to religious broadcasters, Bush again expounded
upon America's virtues and implied purity, concluding, "We are a
compassionate country, and we are generous toward our fellow citizens. And
we are a courageous country, ready when necessary to defend the peace." In
both speeches, he used American virtues to segue into the reason that we
must confront the "evil" before us.

The hymn continues, "Would you over evil a victory win?" The road to that
victory is paved with American good intentions, the president suggests.
These American virtues will almost supernaturally imbue our military
ventures with righteousness -- and with victory.

Many parishioners at my small, inside-the-Beltway church, by contrast, do
not view themselves or the nation in such a saintly light. American
righteousness is by no means a sure thing to them. Nor do they view the
larger geopolitical and spiritual issues as so starkly black and white.
"When [Americans] invoke God to be a policeman, I find it inappropriate,"
said Bill Dodge. A victory over Saddam Hussein is not necessarily proof of
our unvarnished virtue, either on the world stage, or before God, many of
them say. It doesn't even look like a victory against terrorism. And Bush's
increasingly religious justification for war with Iraq is disturbing, even
frightening, to many. "It bothers me that he wraps himself in a cloak of
Christianity," said Lois Elieff. "It's not my idea of Christianity." To
them, Bush's use of religious language sounds shallow and far more
self-justifying than that of other recent political leaders -- including
Bush's father.

The most striking characteristic of the younger Bush's use of religion is
its relentless triumphalism. American triumphalism is nothing new, of
course. Many of the earliest Christian settlers were religious zealots who
viewed America as the New Zion, the Promised Land. Today's Americans,
whether overtly religious or not, are their spiritual heirs. In my
experience, secular Americans are as likely as religious Americans to
believe that we are the rightful beneficiaries of some kind of manifest
destiny.

But some on the religious right have built a theology around this hope. Many
of them believe that America will be at its best if its government submits
to their understanding of God's work on Earth. What they have longed for is
a Davidic ruler -- a political leader like the Bible's David, who will unite
their secular vision of the nation with their spiritual aspirations. All
indications are that they believe they have found their David in Bush -- and
that the president believes it, too.

Bush's religious supporters are his greatest cheerleaders. Rather than his
spiritual guides, they are his faithful disciples. He is the leader of the
America they think God has ordained. Contrary to popular opinion, the
religion that this group espouses is Triumphalism, not Christianity. Theirs
is a zealous form of nationalism, baptized with Christian language. The
German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was martyred by the Nazis,
foresaw the rise of a similar view in his country, which he labeled "joyous
secularism." Joyous secularists, said Bonhoeffer, are Christians who view
the role of government as helping God to establish the Kingdom of God on
Earth. He viewed this as human arrogance and a denial of God's sovereignty;
but joyous secularism has an appeal that crosses religious boundaries, and
now has added force in the United States because it has found its political
messiah.

In the aftermath of 9/11, people came to church in droves, looking for
larger meaning, and then they left again, frustrated. That's a problem
churches need to address, not least because our failure to give them what
they were looking for may have lent potency to presidential theology. When
people were searching for meaning, the president was able to frame that
meaning. In a nation of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In a secular
society, a president who can confidently quote scripture is that man.

The president confidently (dare I say "religiously"?) asserts a worldview
that most Christian denominations reject outright as heresy: the myth of
redemptive violence, which posits a war between good and evil, with God on
the side of good and Satan on the side of evil and the battle lines pretty
clearly drawn.

War is essential in this line of thinking. For God to win, evil needs to be
defined and destroyed by God's faithful followers, thus proving their
faithfulness. Christians have held this view to be heretical since at least
the third century. It is the bread-and-butter theology of fundamentalists,
whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

In contrast, the Judeo-Christian worldview is that of redemption. Redemption
starts from the assumption that all of humanity is flawed and must approach
God with humility. No good person is totally good, and no evil person is
irredeemable. God's purpose is to redeem all people. Good and evil, while
critical, become secondary to redemption.

While most Christian denominations do not reject war altogether, diplomacy
becomes integral to our understanding of the practical application of
redemption. War becomes the bluntest of blunt instruments because it can
never be fully justified. If I can't claim to be completely good, and no one
is so evil as to be irredeemable, what right do I have to kill?

Despite our secularism, the United States has rarely been so publicly and
politically "Christian" as it is today. Or perhaps it is because of our
secularism. We can no longer tell good theology from bad. We mainline
denominations need to take our share of the blame: For decades we took it
for granted that Christianity and citizenship were inextricably linked, that
American power was the natural outgrowth of American righteousness. For too
long we, too, preached American triumphalism. We did not remind people of
the overarching guidance God gives all people in search of redemption: the
necessity of the examined life. Ironically, our triumphalism may have fueled
America's secularism. With God on our side, there didn't seem to be much
need for self-examination and humility.

It is clear now that a sectarian Christian view of history, a dualism that
views war as a kind of redemptive purgative, is having at least some
influence on the administration's rhetoric. It is characterized by a stark
refusal to acknowledge accountability, because to suggest accountability is
to question American purity, which would undermine the secular theology of
"good versus evil" inherent in present U.S. policy.

The dominance of the religious right in political affairs makes it appear
that a Christian worldview dominates American politics. But if, as I
believe, this worldview is really American triumphalism, Christianity has
taken a backseat to joyous secularism. Within Christianity and Judaism in
this country there are denominations and branches with the philosophical and
institutional power and authority to challenge that triumphalism, but bold
stands such as the NCC's are still the exception.

With the political emergence of joyous secularism, the churches are
challenged to preach an alternative message: grace, hope and redemption --
the truth of Biblical faith. This is both our pastoral and our political
responsibility. In a nuclear age, American triumphalism is not only spiritua
lly bereft, it is, quite possibly, apocalyptic in its implications.

The Rev. Fritz Ritsch is pastor of Bethesda Presbyterian Church.

0 new messages