Eastman's guide to exposing the 9-11 mass-murder frameup to justify world-domination to an otherwise isolationist American public

[Le Permanent Marker]

I am Dick Eastman. I have been investigating the Pentagon attack
full-time since September 13th when I first became suspicious of
inconsistencies and improbabilities in the offical story as reported
in the major U.S. news media.

Perhaps the reader has already reviewed the case I have laid out
against the Administration in the Pentagon murders, a case prepared to
convince any impartial grand jury convened on the matter -- provided
our political system of impeachment and our criminal justice system
will
each move while there is still machinery able to convene and conduct
an
impartial trial. If so, scroll down to the articles that put the
attack into the larger context of a globalziation power play. Our
interest is not in the past, but in the future. Our concern is not
that real mass murderers are still running free, but that they are
still in control of world governments and are still bent on a series
of wars and "emergency measures" to secure them absolute dictatorial
creditor liquidator's control this planet and its inhabitants.

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

Flight 77 was the plane that flew over as a remote-controlled F-16
fighter crashed into the Pentagon (after firing a missile ahead to
soften the wall).

Of course discussants won't believe this at-first outrageous-seeming
claim until they have seen the evidence. And bno one will understand
why these steps were taken until they examine how the event ties in
with the bigger plan.

======

First, here is visual evidence and combined witness testimony (in
three
parts) that will convince any grand jury of the guilt of the U.S.
Administration in the September 11 killings. The case is built around
the Pentagon attack, because it is in that attack that "smoking-gun"
(i.e. incontrovertable, conclusive, and readily comprehended) evidence
was generated and discovered by American, French and British
investigators cooperating through the internet. THis is my summary of
those findings (for which I take full responsibility):

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

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

But once the fact of the mass-murder frameup has been established,
national attention must turn to view the larger context of
ruling-elite corruption in the world today. (Articles posted by me
here yesterday are a start in that direction.)

And here is more:

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

Three Vitally Important Items here!!!

=======
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_government&Number=3
87736&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=0

Filmmaker Discusses Odd Activities of Alleged 9-11 Ringleader
Suppressed
by American Media

American Free Press
January 6 & 13, 2003

Investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker, producer of the new video,
"Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus," was a guest on the Dec.
15
broadcast of Radio Free America, the weekly call-in talk forum
sponsored by
American Free Press with host Tom Valentine.

Joining Valentine as co-host for the evening was AFP Correspondent
Michael Collins Piper. The two discussed Hopsicker's shocking
discoveries -- outlined in his video -- that prove, beyond any
question, that the U.S. government has been officially covering up
explosive facts about the activities and associations of reputed 9-11
hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta.

Excerpts:

Valentine:
For all intents and purposes, as your research into Barry Seal has
shown, along with the work of many others who have dared to look into
the subject matter, the world's largest cargo airline has been run by
the CIA.
Intelligence officials have a definite link to this little Venice
airport, don't they? Some people would argue that it was "just a
coincidence" that Atta and the 9-11 boys would come there to learn to
fly.

Hopsicker:
It's beyond coincidence at this point. In fact, you'll even find that
the owner of the flight school in Venice, Wallace J. Hilliard, was in
business with a key figure in the Whitewater scandal, Truman Arnold, a
Bill Clinton crony from Arkansas who had been the finance chairman of
the Democratic Party.

Arnold's attorney in Whitewater was longtime Washington figure Richard
Ben-Veniste, who was just named to sit on the 9-11 investigation
panel. So, Ben-Veniste has ties to people he is supposed to be
investigating. So when you are talking, in this case, about the owner
of the "terror flight school" you are talking about a person that
anyone might naturally consider a possible suspect.

Hilliard, a 70-year-old multimillionaire health insurance executive
and a self-styled Mormon bishop, inexplicably went into business three
years ago with a Dutch native living in America, Rudy Dekkers, and
began buying flight schools which shortly thereafter were flooded with
Arab student pilots. Initially, I thought that Dekkers owned the
flight school. But Hilliard was always the true owner of the flight
school where Atta and one of the other 9-11 hijackers trained.

There was another hijacker who trained next door at the Florida Flight
Training Center which, coincidentally, you might say, is also owned
by a Dutch native.

It appears that Zaccarias Moussaoui who is scheduled to go on trial
for conspiracy in the 9-11 attacks was also here.

Valentine:
The federal authorities came in and grabbed up all of the records of
the flight school.

Hopsicker:
That's right. They flew them out on a plane that also had Jeb Bush
aboard.

Valentine:
The federal authorities told the local law enforcement authorities to
keep their noses out of the investigation, didn't they?

Hopsicker:
That's correct. I sat down with two Southern lawmen, a current sheriff
and his immediate predecessor. These two guys looked me dead in the
eye and said that, based on what they have seen with a lot of
CIA-connected covert operations in the area, the CIA was somehow
involved in, if not responsible for, the World Trade Center attacks.

You might expect some wild-eyed leftist radical to say that. But these
are two Southern sheriffs. They have spent years watching CIA
activities that they could not interfere with.

SKIP

Piper:
I'd like to make a comment about your video, "Mohamed Atta and the
Venice Flying Circus." I have to say it was riveting. There are a lot
of people who are looking into 9-11, focusing on various theories and
propositions that run contrary to the official government version of
the events.

However, what Daniel Hopsicker has done in this video has taken a very
specific set of circumstances and events linked specifically to the
people who are alleged by the government to have committed the 9-11
atrocity and has uncovered all of these remarkable facts -- not
theories. If you look at this aspect of the whole 9-11 story, the
portion that Daniel has assembled, and you see all the holes in the
"official" story in the context of what Daniel has presented, then you
know that there is a much bigger cover-up and a much bigger scandal
beyond what Daniel has covered.

Valentine:
Who are these Dutch fellows? How did they get involved?

Hopsicker:
That's the question. Who are these guys? Why were they training
hundreds of Arabs here in America to fly? There aren't that many
flight jobs in the Arab world, yet they were training hundreds of men
for only a handful of jobs. So something else was really going on. And
what they did simply did not make business sense. They paid twice what
the flight school in Venice was worth, clearly throwing around
somebody else's money.

If you were the CIA and you were running some secret operation in this
country and you wanted to create plausible deniability, then why not
bring in two Dutch men to come to the United States and run the flight
school for you?

It's a big story. I will tell you that I have just completed a
three-hour taped interview with Atta's American girlfriend.

Valentine:
I didn't even know that Atta had an American girlfriend.

Hopsicker:
Well, there you go again. You have to ask yourself why you didnâ?Tt
know that. Don't you think you would have seen a ton of stories -- at
least in the supermarket tabloids -- about this woman under titles
such as "I Dated a Terrorist." The truth is that this woman is in
hiding. I had to track her down and convince her to talk to me.

Valentine:
One would normally think that you can sell that to The National
Enquirer.

Hopsicker:
I donâ?Tt think they are interested.

Valentine:
No, they probably are not interested. I think the Enquirer is a front
for these operations, too. In fact, my colleague here, Michael Collins
Piper, did a pioneering story for the old Spotlight pointing out that
all of the tabloids are owned by one company -- most people don't
realize that -- which is controlled by a Wall Street banker named
Roger Altman, who, as a deputy treasury secretary under Bill Clinton,
was -- again -- a key figure in the Whitewater scandal.

Piper:
That's correct. The fact is that the tabloids have a long-standing
relationship with the CIA that goes back to the early years of both
the tabloids and the CIA itself.

Valentine:
So the tabloids probably won't be interested in any stories that might
implicate the CIA in any covert activities involving the circles
around Atta.

Hopsicker:
Atta's girlfriend was a pink-haired stripper. She lived with him for
two months before she kicked Atta out when she found a new boyfriend.
From what she described, we've been able to positively identify five
people who were close associates of Atta. I don't mean fellow student
pilots. I'm talking about people he went to meetings with. They are
all still alive and I will tell you this: they are not Arabs. They are
all Germans. Here's Atta, who spent eight years in a two-year urban
planning collegiate program in Hamburg, Germany. What was Atta doing
in German for all those years? Didn't anyone in Germany notice that
this foreign national had spent eight years in a two-year program? Of
course they did. Atta was an intelligence agent.

And from what his girlfriend told me. Atta was psychopathic enough to
have done what he is said to have done. And he did hate the United
States. I have no proof that he was the guy who flew into the World
Trade Center, but everything I have shows that he could have.

Valentine:
Does anyone really have any proof as to who the hijackers are who were
aboard those planes?

Hopsicker:
Not to my knowledge. I haven't followed that end of it.

Piper:
All we really know is that persons -- using the passports and
identities of foreign nationals, mostly Saudis -- were aboard those
ill-fated planes and that they spoke Arabic. But Israel's Mossad has a
long documented record of infiltrating Arab terrorist organizations
with Arabic-speaking Jews who pose as Arabs.

And it should be noted that even many Arabs had some real doubts about
whether Ramzi Yousef, who organized the first World Trade Center
bombing, was really even an Arab.

That fact is not very well known nor is it mentioned by people such as
Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch who is trying to connect Yousef and
Saddam Hussein to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Valentine:
What is this German connection?

Hopsicker:
I don't have the slightest clue. But then, again, speaking of the
Oklahoma City bombing, just ask yourself the question: Who was Andreas
Strassmeir, the German national, who was intimately tied to the
circumstances surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing?

Valentine:
Strassmeir was the close friend of self-styled "Southern rights
activist" Kick Lyons who played a part in the destruction of Liberty
Lobby, the populist institution that published The Spotlight.

Piper:
When you mentioned this German connection, I immediately thought of
Lyon's friend Strassmeir who -- although German and ostensibly a
"neo-Nazi" -- turns out to be quite fluent in Hebrew, the state
language of Israel. As much as it will surprise many people, the fact
is that Israeli and German intelligence are very, very tightly
interconnected, going back to the days of German General Reinhard
Gehlen (who became a U.S. asset after World War II and who worked
quite closely with the Israelis, a point that many people like to
forget).

And if you bother to look into the Lavon Affair of the 1950s, when the
Israelis plotted terrorist attacks against U.S. installations in Egypt
to be falsely blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, there were Germans
involved in that little venture.

Hopsicker:
Well, I will say this: I know some other things that I'm not telling
right now. There are ties to the former KGB in all of this. The KGB
has been around Hilliard's operation in Venice. I don't know why they
were there, but I know that Hilliard knew they were there. And not
just the KGB, there were individuals who flew for the Israeli military
who were there at the Venice airport.

Valentine:
How much do the local law enforcement authorities in Venice know about
all of this?

Hopsicker:
They aren't stupid. But there's a limit to what they can do. I
interviewed the local chief of police in Venice and he was totally
apologetic about what he was forced to allow to happen in his town.
The police were not allowed to touch Dekkers's operation at the Venice
airport. The Drug Enforcement Administration, for example, told the
police to stay
away. The airport had a "green light," whatever that means. The chief
told me that the Venice airport was the kind of place where it was not
unusual to see an American military helicopter touch down at three in
the morning and then take off again.

Valentine:
This sounds like the Mena, Ark., airport all over again.

Piper:
All of the facts that Daniel has presented in his video have been
suppressed by every newspaper in the world, except, of course, for
American Free Press. All of this information points to one thing:
that Atta was not just "working for Osama bin Laden," if he was even
working for bin Laden at all. Atta was moving in circles that were
under the discipline of the U.S. government's own intelligence
community.

Hopsicker:
I'll speculate for a moment: having spent a year in Venice on this
investigation, it looks to me as if one of two things was going on
here -- and frankly, I have no idea which is correct. Either the CIA
was running a covert operation and training hundreds of Arab pilots in
an effort to place human assets in bin Laden's organization or
somebody was trading oil and heroin for guns and training on the
southwest coast of Florida from 1999 to 2001.

I believe that the resignation of both Henry Kissinger and George
Mitchell, the co-chairman of the 9-11 probe, points to something
critical. I think that once the Iraqi war is over, there will be
renewed attention to what
happened on 9-11: who did it and why? I think Kissinger and Mitchell
quit because they are looking at something that is 10 times bigger
than Watergate.

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

Item Two:

Will Thomas Dick Eastman:

From: Will Thomas
To: Dick Eastman
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Thomas: Re: 9-11 Pentagon attack May I share these
conclusions with you?

Dear Dick,

Thank you for taking the time to forward this information to me. This
theory seems too complex and elaborate to me. Why hit the Pentagon
with a missle and not the WTC?

Also, what happened to the deceased passengers onboard FL 77? For this
theory to work - they would be talking about how their flight was
diverted after being blamed for the Pentagon crash. Or they were
presumably landed somewhere and executed and the plane destroyed.

Why go this trouble when the hijacked planes acheived their
objectives?

By the way, my book ALL FALL DOWN shows conclusively that the named
"suicide pilots" were not capable of flying Cessnas. They flunked out
of every flight school they attended. There is no way - no way - they
flew those heavy jets in maneuvers veteran airline captains would
never have attemped.

Please stay in touch.
----------------------

Reply:

Will, I am familiar with your findings about the pilots and accept
those findings on the basis of your arguments.

The planners knew that any crash into the wtc towers would be seen by
all. ANd we now know that top wtc CEO's were invited out that day by
Warren Buffet, to a party at an airforce bace where George Bush, later
in the day, would also be "hanging out" in the immediate attack
aftermath. Consider: under 3000 died at the World Trade Center when
on a normal day the number of people in the buildings in offices on
floors from crash levels to roof level would have meant that at least
10,000 would have died -- or more. The wtc was attacked because it
is the symbol of capitalism, of free trade and of globalization; but
equally certain, the men who planned it did so patting themselves on
the back for minimizing the loss of life -- such are the lifeboat
ethics of globalist realpolitik.

The Pentagon was attacked in the frameup because it is the symbol of
our nation's security -- and the American public were to be motivated
by the imposed perception that Arab Moslems around the world were now
a mortal threat to national security, to the lives of average
Americans.

A missile was used on the Pentagon because Donald Rumsfeld and other
assets had to be in the building when it was attacked. The attack
plane circled the building to be sure to hit the largely unoccupied
section then still under renovation -- if this renovation story is
true -- earlier we were told that this was Naval Intelligence and that
over a hundred were killed, now the figure is down to eleven dead
(minus the passengers of Flight 77 who also did not die in a crash
that day.)

Topography favored a concealed attack by a ground-hugging jet fighter.
Speed, stealth, precision and reliability were essential, as well as
perfect cover, perfect disguise of what was being seen by witnesses.

Until it crashed the killer F-16 would be interpreted by witnesses
as an interceptor in hot pursuit. Meanwhile Flight 77 was certain to
be viewed as the attacker since it approached from the west at a
higher altitude and caught most observers attention, distracting from
the killer jet appraoching from the northwest.

Since the killer jet and the Boeing reached the Pentagon target point
at the same moment, the Boeing was immediately lost as it past behind
the smoke and flame of the explosion -- and in six seconds it would
be over Reagan National airport, mistaken for routine airline traffic.
It would have been closer to the airport than to the Pentagon by the
time the sound of the crash reached the Capitol Building.

One of the big clues that led to the failure of the cover of the 9-11
frameup operation was that the witnesses divide into distinct groups
-- each group seeing a different plane -- once it is understood what
happened everthing
all evidence and witness testimony fits together. And the faked
evidence stands out like a polar bear in the Amazon. The fact is,
several witnesses saw both planes, one that hit and the one that
veered.

And we know from an actual video recording of the event, the only
recording the government has the world see, that the Plane that
crashed, the plane that approached horizontally at an elevation of
about 20 feet had the form of a fighter jet and not the long fuselage
and shiny skin of an American Airlines Boeing 757. (They thought the
fact that in the video frames only the tail fin is visible behind a
yellow stone pillar at the driveway -- that no
one would be able to recognize the plane. What a blunder someone made
there -- because for the tail fin to have appeared that size and for
the plane to have the proportions of a Boeing 757, the shiny aluminum
fuselage with the
red and blue stripes would have had to have been visible projecting
out from behind the pillar. And not only is there the missing
fuselage, but we also see clearly the unmistakable smoke trail of an
air-to-ground missile being fired by the attack plane (presumably to
loosen up the wall to ensure complete entry and concealment of the
F-16.)

Your finding about the pilots inability to fly the jets into the
Pentagon jibes with mine. But I will add that not even the capability
of the Boeing airliner for remote control flight was trustworthy
enough for the Pentagon attack. Perfect precision and reliability were
required to hit the building exactly at the point specified. Only the
modified F-16 could be reliable enough to conduct the attack, an F-16
equipped with the exact remote-control equipment that was stripped
off General Dynamic's experimental F-16 when that super-high-tech
plane was retired to the General Dynamics air museum in February of
2001.

So using the F-16 and having the Boeing fly over and land at Reagan
National was the easiest and safest way to hit the symbol of our
national security with minimum risk of unplanned deaths of Pentagon
personel.

May I recommend that you look at these web pages:

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

I have admired your journalism from the days when chemtrails were the
issue of primary concern. I hope you will keep up your steady fire on
our criminal elite until the job is done and we are free of them.

With warm regard,

Dick Eastman
Yakima

================
"'9/11'"
Facing Our Fascist State
By Don Paul

David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the
ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global
economy and manage the flow of its capital.. Rockefeller was born to
it, and he has made
the most of it.. Rockefeller sits at the hub of a vast network of
financiers, industrialists, and politicians whose reach encircles the
globe.. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy,
he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work.

- Bill Moyers in Bill Moyers Journal, "The World of David
Rockefeller," first broadcast in April 1980
The West thinks in terms of bringing advance and opportunity to such a
place. In actuality, we bring a cultural bankruptcy which will last
for many years. The Asmat, like every other corner of the world, is
being sucked into a world economy and a world culture which insists on
economic plenty as a primary ideal. - Michael Rockefeller, age 22,
third son of then-governor Nelson Rockefeller, writing in a letter to
his family from his studies among the Kurelu and Papaguan peoples of
New Guinea, just before his sudden death in 1961

The Buildings and Their Victims

I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get
in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there were bombs set in the building. - Louie Caachioli, New
York Fire Department, about the WTC's South Tower, People Weekly
9/24/01 It also may end up being a good investment. In the end, Mr.
Silverstein may wind up controlling 11 million square feet of
attractive, lower-rise modern space instead of 11 million square feet
of 30-year-old space in New York's tallest and most conspicuous
buildings.
- Real Estate Journal 1l/5/01

1. 2. 7 - All Fall Down

Here the going becomes most disturbing to me.

Here the horrors that facts suggest become most difficult for normal,
compassionate people to imagine, I think.
In examining the World Trade Center Buildings that fell on September
11 - Buildings 1 and 2, the WTC's Twin Towers; Building 7, the 47
stories of offices completed by Silverstein Properties in 1986 - and
in examining how they fell, we must at least register as individuals
the thousands of people who died on the WTC site that day. We must
enter into their experience if we're to gather what happened. We must
look at who died and who did not. I wrote earlier that the WTC North
and South Towers COULD NOT have fallen due to the causes (primary
among these causes: fire so hot it deformed steel) that Corporate
Government and Media stories have presented for the Towers'
"'pancake'" collapse.

You likely remember the depiction-cum-explanation that Networks and
newspapers repeated soon after ""'9/11.'"
It went like this. As the 767s struck their targets - AA 11 driving
into the North Tower's 90th floor and UA 175 hitting the South Tower
toward one corner around the 80th floor - each airliner exploded. The
ensuing flames of jet fuel created a white-hot inferno inside each
l10-story building. Fire blasted up and down elevator shafts. Fire's
increasing, unprecedented heat then turned to "licorice" the
structural steel beams and columns that stood as core and outer and
lateral supports of the Towers.

Thus weakened, the steel supports buckled, carrying concrete down with
them. One floor of each Tower fell into the next below. Then both fell
through the next floor below.

Then the three floors And so all of each Tower's floors collapsed in a
"pancake effect" of terrible, increasing impact. Each Tower's 100,000
tons of concrete, steel, plastic, wiring, and marble dropped like an
unpleating facade or straight-down Slinky, their weight pulverizing
into their foundations.

The British Broadcasting Company story of September 13 is typical of
this immediate depiction/explanation. It's titled "How the World
Trade Center Fell."

The BBC quotes "structural engineer" Chris Wise: '"It was the fire
that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive
those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning The columns would
have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would
have collapsed one on top of each other."'

Another BBC-quoted expert then echoes Chris Wise. "The buildings'
construction manager, Hyman Brown, agrees that nothing could have
saved them from the inferno. 'The buildings would have stood had a
plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it,' he said.

'But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid
melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand
that fire.'"

So there you have it. Two experts say two days after "'9/11'" that the
Towers' beams and columns did more than buckle - their structural
steel '"melted."'

How hot must steel be heated in order to melt?

Steel is 99% iron. According to chemicalelements.com, temperatures of
at least 2,795.0 degrees Fahrenheit are needed to "melt" iron. Even
hotter temperatures would be needed to "melt" the more fire-resistant
structural steel of the WTC Towers.

How hot, then, must steel be made in order for it to soften and warp
toward producing the "'pancake collapse'" that Networks and newspapers
have described? Temperatures of 1,022 degrees F. are needed to begin
to deform structural steel. As to the steel in the WTC Towers, a
report from the University of Sydney's Department of Civil Engineering
in Australia says: "Fireproofed steel is rated to resist 1,500 to
1,600° F."

The basic question then becomes: How hot can fire from jet fuel make
structural steel?

Corus Construction is a maker of car-parks in Europe. In order to be
sure its structures could withstand collapse from multiple gas tanks
exploding into flames inside a car-park, Corus tested steel against
fires from kerosene. (Jet fuel and kerosene are interchangeably alike
in their capacities for fueling and burning.)

Corus exposed steel to fire from kerosene over periods as long as one
hour in "Full scale fire tests" in the United States, United Kingdom,
Japan, and Australia. The highest temperatures these tests registered
were 644 degrees Fahrenheit for beams (Australia) and 680 degrees F.
for columns (United Kingdom).

The tests show us more exactly why the Towers COULD NOT have collapsed
due
to jet-fuel's fire.
Several other facts counter Corporate media's widespread
depiction/explanation of the "'pancake collapse.'"
*The South Tower was hit second and hit obliquely by the Boeing 767
that was United Airlines 175. Much of that airliner's half-full load
of fuel ignited outside the building,

The South Tower consequently suffered far less fire within its
structures.

And yet the South Tower fell in almost half the time after impact (53
minutes: 9:05 EDT to 9:58 EDT) as the North (101 minutes: 8:46 EDT to
10:29 EDT).

If fire's deforming steel was the cause of the two buildings'
collapse, the North Tower should have fallen first and in less time.

*Each Tower should have tilted sideways if its fall were undirected.
In particular the South Tower - hit around its 80th floor, about 10
stories lower than the North Tower - should have toppled toward the
corner where it
was hit. If they'd toppled sideways the Towers - each almost ź-mile
tall - would have
ruined much surrounding real estate. The Towers' collapse within their
foundations - per a perfect demolition - saved billions of dollars of
property from devastation.

*Networks' coverage of both burning Towers that morning shows the
smoke of fires turning from white to gray to darker shades as minutes
pass.

Such a change in the smoke of a fire indicates that the fire is
cooling, producing more carbon, because it's exhausting oxygen.

So: We see that the Towers' structural steel was cooling, contracting
less heat, at the time when each collapsed.
---------------
At the head of this section you've read one New York City
firefighter's recollection, less than two weeks after last September
11, of '"a bomb,"' that went off in the South Tower. Louie Caachioli,
51, was among the first firefighters to enter that building as it
burned overhead.

Caachioli told People Weekly: '"I was taking firefighters up in the
elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On
the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the
building."' Other survivors remember explosions inside the Towers.
Kim White, 32, worked on the South Tower's 80th floor. She told
People, ' "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to
sway. We didn't know what was going on. We got all our people on the
floor into the stairwell.. at that time we all thought it was a fire..
We got down as far as the 74th floor.. then there was another
explosion."'

Survivors also remember that instructions to stay in the buildings
were broadcast even AFTER each Tower was struck by an exploding
airliner.

Nancy Cassidy, 42, was personnel manager for the Mizuho Capital
Markets trading company on the South Tower's 80th floor. She fled her
office just after American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower
and she saw fireballs roil in that building next to her window. She
and about fifty others rushed down a stairwell.

Nancy Cassidy was quoted in New York's Newsday of 9/13/01. '"All of a
sudden you heard, 'Shhh,' she said. 'Everyone was quiet. That's when
they made that announcement: "Building One is in a state of emergency;
Building Two is secure. You're fine, you can return to your work
stations.""' I

Nancy Cassidy told Newsday: "It could be that because of that
announcement, some people from my company went back upstairs and now
may be gone."

In the North Tower employees were told to stay in their building even
as the Boeing 767 burned above them.
Newsday related: "Michael Cartier, 24, of Jackson Heights, said his
sister Michelle, who worked in Tower One told him that after the first
plane struck, 'People began to evacuate, but an announcement over the
intercom said everything was all right, no need to evacuate.'

"'If this is true,' Michael Cartier said, 'they told people to go back
to their desks. There should be an investigation.'" Tower One was the
North Tower.

Dan Baumbach, 24, a software engineer on the 80th floor of the North
Tower when he Boeing 767 struck his building, took off downstairs with
a group from his office. Newsday related: "But heading down the
stairs, he and four other co-workers suddenly came upon 100 others,
who were told by a building official, 'We'll get you out; be calm,
just stay here.'

"'There was no way we were going to stay there,' said Baumbach, 24,
who was then warned: 'You can try it, but it's at your own risk.'"

Many stayed. Baumbach did not.

At 10-story intervals, he had to walk through burning corridors.
Bizarrely, no sprinklers or alarms had been activated.

The lack of activation or alarm inside the Twin Towers may remind you
of the same lack of alarm or activation inside the Pentagon before
workers died there.

---------------
About 7 hours later on that day of horrors, WTC Building 7, the
47-story former headquarters of sunken junk-bond colossus Drexel
Burnham Lambert, the firm whose failure set off the $500-billion
Savings & Loan losses of the latter 1980s, collapsed.

WTC 7 was home to the Emergency Command Center or "bunker" that Mayor
Rudolph Giuliani had installed after an FBI-assisted bomb exploded on
February 20, 1993 in the parking-garage underneath Tower 2.

WTC 7 was also home offices of the CIA, the U.S. Department of
Defense, and the U.S. Secret Service.
Network coverage of the"'9/11'"morning shows an explosion smoking up
from WTC 7 even BEFORE the South Tower fell. The explosion was later
attributed to fires bursting out in the several huge tanks of diesel
fuel in WTC 7 that were there to serve in case of emergency (10,000
gallons for Giuliani's Command Center, 12,000 for the Smith Barney
investment-banking firm, and more: a total of 42,000 gallons.)

Coverage shows, however, no flames accompanying the first WTC 7
explosion: Only a cloud of white dust. Within minutes of the first
WTC 7 explosion, before either Tower fell, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and
close associates fled the "headquarters" they'd set up at 75 Barkley
Street. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the
World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter
Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we
could get out of the building."

How could anyone have foreseen a collapse that was otherwise said to
be unprecedented and unexpected? Who warned the Mayor whose
"'clean-up'" of New York City has often been compared to Mussolini's
of Italy? Why weren't firefighters inside or around the World Trade
Center also warned?

You may remember that 343 New York City firefighters died on the
"'9/11'" morning.

In August of 2002 the New York Times reported that two New York City
firemen, Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P.
Bucca, had reached the 78th floor, the Sky Lobby, of the South Tower
within a few minutes of that building's collapse.

"Once they got there," the Times piece recounted, "they had a coherent
plan for putting out the fires they could see and helping victims who
survived. At that point, the building would be standing for just a
few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the
floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of
fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them."

The occasion for the Times piece was release by the U.S. Justice
Department of a '"lost tape"' of communication between New York Fire
Department personnel that New York Port Authority Police recorded on
the morning of 9/11/01. The existence of this tape was revealed to the
NYFD last January, but the NYFD refused to pledge secrecy as to its
content. It was played on August 2, 2002 to sixteen survivors of NYFD
firefighters in a Manhattan hotel.

Orio J. Palmer's widow said: '"I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear
panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear
that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly."'

We know that WTC 7 was another valuable holding of Silverstein
Properties.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from
Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein
Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This
building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

"Broad Human Interest"

Other facts about the Twin Towers and "'9/1'" relate to that most
material of concerns: Money.
On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and
mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets:
The Twin Towers, World
Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and
400,000 square feet of retail space.

The partners' winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to
be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious
investment-bank that's the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller
family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long
influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85,
in the negotiations.

The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry
Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square
feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable
Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry Silverstein also
owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to
be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin.

Let's pause to scan this last sidelight. On September 16, 2001 Ernesto
Cienfuegos wrote in the Los Angeles newspaper La Voz de Aztlan: "In
July 1993, Harry P. Miller, a Vietnam veteran, filed a complaint in a
federal district court of New York against Larry Silverstein, the
owner of 'Runway 69,' a Queens dance club, that included as defendants
President Clinton and Colin Powell. The allegations of Miller's
complaint were that the named defendants committed or aided others in
committing illegal acts, including assassinations, over a twenty-five
year period, beginning amidst the Vietnam War, in furtherance of a
conspiracy to distribute Laotian heroin. He
asserted that the defendants were engaged in heroin trafficking and
that 'Goldfingers International,' a business that supplies nude
dancers to nude dance clubs, was laundering the proceeds of the
conspiracy through 'Runway
69.'" Now, given what's been shown so far even within the confines of
the short study you hold, is this association of Silverstein, Clinton,
and Powell fantastic or far-fetched to you?

We know from many sources - Alfred McCoy's The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia and Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics are rich in
documentation - that United States' intelligence services began to
smuggled
opium and heroin from Burma, Thailand, and Laos in the 1950s. Their
traffic especially expanded through Vietnam in the late 1960s/early
1970s. We know that tons of heroin flooded ghettos of black and brown
people in the U.S., depressing threats of revolution, at the same time
as 30,000 U.S. servicemen in Vietnam were addicted to heroin. As to
what's happening now, we'll soon see how important the laundering of
illegal narcotics is to the most central of U.S. financial
institutions, including Citigroup, the Chase Bank, JP Morgan Chase,
and the entire New York Stock Exchange.

For the 2001 Twin Towers' deal Larry Silverstein's main source of
promised financing came from a group headed by another realtor, Lloyd
Goldman, who also possessed enormous holdings in New York City. His
deal done, Larry Silverstein told the Real Estate Journal, an offshoot
of the Wall Street Journal: "'This is a dream come true. When we first
became associated with the Port Authority with 7 World Trade Center,
we looked at the asset of the World Trade Center with tremendous
interest. We will be in control of a prized asset. There is nothing
like it in the world,' he said."

Mortgaging for the winning bid came from the General Motors Acceptance
Corporation. General Motors, you may know, is another giant engine of
capital and oil that's for generations had the Rockefeller family
among its controlling investors.

---------------
We should here take a preliminary moment to note the history of some
ruling-class families of the United States. We should note just a
representative few of the appalling schemes and partnerships -
partnerships using Wars, Governments and fascists - by which these
families have profited in the 20th century. This precursor of a review
will help, I believe, our understanding of "'9/11.'"

We should then proceed to seeing how the World Trade Center got built.

Like their partners and/or relatives the Roosevelts, Duponts,
Harrimans, Warburgs, ... , the Rockefeller and Bush families are
long-time players for global power.

Let's start with one telling fact. Both John D. Rockefeller Jr.
(father of David and Nelson), and Prescott Bush, (grandfather of our
selected president and father of George Herbert Walker Bush),
materially aided the National Socialist Party of Germany, Hitler's
Nazis, in the 1920s and 19305 and into World War II through businesses
such as the Chase Bank and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Rockefeller)
and the Hamburg-Amerika Shipping Line and the Silesian American
Corporation (Bush).

The Rockefellers' Chase Bank solicited accounts in Nazi France as late
as 1944.

In 1941 Prescott Bush, a nominal Republican, and his partner W.
Averill Harriman, a Democrat, bought controlling interest in the
Silesian-American Corporation from their partner, Fritz Thyssen,
Thyssen the main financier of Nazis' seizure of power and author of a
book titled I Paid Hitler. The Silesian-American Corporation continued
to operate in Nazi-occupied Poland. Partly a mining company, the S-A
Corp. availed itself of the increasing, mostly Jewish slave-labor at a
nearby "'Camp'" known as Auschwitz. Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman
thus profited from said slave-labor till the S-A. Corp.'s assets and
those of other holdings of theirs (the Union Banking Corporation for
one) were seized under the United States' Trading with the Enemy Act
in 1942.

These few facts may help ordinary, intelligent and compassionate
people better understand what other facts about the construction and
destruction of the World Trade Center Towers suggest or mean. Later -
in "Lords of the 'New
World Order'" - we'll scan a history of U.S. ruling-class families
over a span of more than a century, beginning with the
Spanish-American War, focusing on members of the Bush and Rockefeller
clans. In 1952 Prescott Bush was elected to be a U. S. Senator from
Connecticut. For the next 8 years "Press" (so he was addressed in
1937 by his and Harriman's attorney with Nazis, John Foster Dulles,
the United States' Secretary of State between 1952-60) was a regular
golf partner of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the general who
commanded U.S. forces in Europe during
World War II.

During the exact middle of this decade, the 1950s, David Rockefeller,
the youngest son of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and the grandson of the
United States' first billionaire, became chairman of his family's
Chase Bank. David, born in 1915, already was known among his peers as
wonderfully capable. He was working with great diligence and industry
to make Manhattan south of Wall Street a new financial center of the
world. In 1956 he formed the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association,
packing it with financiers from old wealth such as S. Sloan Colt of
Banker's Trust, Henry S. Morgan of Morgan Stanley, and Robert Lehman
of Lehman Brothers.

By 1961 David, the youngest son, the banker and builder, had erected a
60-story headquarters for his newly merged Chase and Manhattan Banks
on a single block of Cedar Street. One Chase Plaza was the first
skyscraper in lower Manhattan in a generation. For it to flourish
optimally - for the whole new Manhattan of global financing and
projection that he envisioned to flourish optimally - David
Rockefeller needed a nexus of similar institutions nearby. He needed
... a World Trade Center - something that would outsize and outdo
other Centers that Rockefellers had previously built.

David's brother Nelson, born in 1908, the second eldest of five
brothers, had kindred ambitions. In 1958 Nelson was elected governor
of New York over W. Averill Harriman, the former partner, we know, of
Prescott Bush, George Herbert Walker, Adolf Hitler, and Benito
Mussolini.

This same year, David announced and the New York Times endorsed a
Lower Manhattan Plan that would put a World Trade Center on 20 square
blocks of the East Side, displacing the Fulton Fish Market and the
Washington Produce
Market.

In 1961 the WTC's prospective site shifted westward, as the State of
New York's Port Authority assumed control of the project and the Port
Authority acquired the Hudson Tubes that would subsequently transport
PATH trains to and from New Jersey. Sixteen square blocks that then
featured a bustling community of electronics' retailers ("Radio Row"),
restaurants, markets, and clothing stores, were to be razed for
"'redevelopment.'"

Other "'urban renewal'" would remove the Fulton Fish Market and the
Washington Produce Market from lower Manhattan. Shipping that employed
thousands of skilled laborers would also be taken away. Instead, New
York City would have a project of '"catalytic bigness"' (David
Rockefeller), the World Trade Center, in the district that was '"the
heart pump of the capital blood that sustains the free world"' (Warren
Linquist, David Rockefeller's
lead aide). Eric Darton's Divided We Stand, a book that's subtitled A
Biography of New York's World Trade Center, summarizes the final
development: "The project took seven years and a billion dollars to
build. It needed immense political muscle, supplied by David
Rockefeller at the Chase Manhattan Bank and his brother Nelson, then
governor of New York, who stocked one tower with state office workers
when the building failed to attract clients." Most vitally, risk-free
subsidization from the State of New York (Nelson was re-elected
governor in 1962 and 1966, outspending his opponents at least 2 to 1)
letm the WTC project push through economic ups and downs, lawsuits and
protests. State Supreme Court and City Planning Commission decisions
also furthered it. The one billion dollars was taken from public funds
without the public's authorization. As Mario Cuomo told a radio
interviewer in 1996 (when he was no longer governor of New York), a
Public Authority is '"something above democracy, absolutely, that's
why it was invented by politicians, to keep the people away from the
operation, and to insulate the politicians."'

Sixty-two workers died in accidents during the Twin Towers'
construction.

In 1973 Governor Nelson Rockefeller dedicated the new World Trade
Center and moved 20,000 New York State workers into the vacancy of
Tower Two.

In 1973, too, with the United States losing its war on the ground in
Vietnam, David Rockefeller, advised by future or then National
Security Advisors Zbignew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, founded the
Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission was like an
international version of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association. It
was also like a supranational version of the Council on Foreign
Relations that has shaped U.S. policies since the autumn of John D.
Rockefeller's and J. P. Morgan's generation - that is, the span
between World Wars I and II. Executives from Corporations, Government
and academia made up the Trilateral Commission along with European
nobility. Men from nations in the industrialized North (the U.S.,
Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada) dominated the
commission's membership. The Trilateral Commission divided the "'free
world'" into three regions for "'development.'"

David Rockefeller wrote then: "Broad human interests are being served
best in economic terms where free market forces are able to transcend
national boundaries." The Trilateral Commission's premise was,
however, a lie. The basic concept of "free market forces" is a lie -
another form of "Big Lie," whether it's voiced consciously or not.
"Free market forces" have nothing to do with the ability of Western
economies to take more each year in interest from Southern nations'
debts than the principal of said debt.

As capitalism depends on exploitation, money-lending and speculation
to sustain itself (through Banks, Exchanges of commodities and
stocks), it depends on brutal and material power (through legislative
bodies, Police, Sheriffs, and international Armed Forces) to carry on
its inequities.

The forced, worsening imbalance between Northern and Southern nations'
economies means that Southern nations' revenue from resources (oil,
bananas, bauxite, coffee, copper, diamonds, gas, gold ... manganese,
nickel,
titanium, zinc, ...) and their peoples' 12-hours-a-day labor are
ultimately cost-free to their exploiters. It means that these nations
and their peoples can never escape debt. That is, their people can
never escape the crushing, grinding, distorting pressures of poverty.

The supranational exploiters' methods are thus to me worse than local
mafias. The supranational exploiters and their means never let a farm
or shop or workers and families gain a penny or peso against debt.

They have old and new Laws on their side. Their methods of
loan-sharking, theft, and degradation are sanctioned by international
Agreements (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or G.A.T.T.,
the North American Free Trade Agreement or N.A.F.T.A.) that are never
put to a vote by the working people they affect.

Further, supranational groups (the World Trade Organization foremost)
have sought more and more to "transcend" any control by local or
national Governments.

These groups want to be a law among themselves.

They want, in fact, to return to a feudal order that will be extended
across continents.

Their intentions are at best arrogant and mistaken, blinded by their
removes from the poverty, suffering, and rebellion that their further,
depriving means - such as the International Monetary Fund's
"Structural Adjustment Programs" (SAPs) - engender in billions of
working families worldwide.

Their markets are NOT "free," their trade is NOT "fair," and their
"neo-liberal" New World is really an old one. Their world is of
neo-colonial imperialism: A New World for Corporate Empires.

David Rockefeller, for one, he who's now 86, he the "unelected if
indisputable chairman of the American establishment," he who still
sits "at the hub of a vast network of financiers, industrialists, and
politicians whose reach encircles the globe," he one of the most
capable, confident, and powerful beings of his generation, used the
same anti-democratic methods to get the World Trade Center built as
he's used to direct the course of all humanity over the past 50 years.

And yet his methods, his game, we'll see, isn't working for even his
grandchildren and their grandchildren.
[To be continued.]

========

Pentagon attack:

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

==========

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President
Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to
secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a
'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-
president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz
(Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis
Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding
America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New
Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative
think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The
United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in
Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq
provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime
of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US
pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping
the international security order in line with American principles and
interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the
future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to
'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'
as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on
the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier
document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must
'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our
leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and
efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the
USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in
the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well
prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase
the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may
lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process
of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and
the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the
internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing
weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological
weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says:
'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will
be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new
dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes
... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to
a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous
regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a
'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of
the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: '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.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- 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 Labour
Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this
moral standing.'

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

Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

[Le Permanent Marker]

Two articles and some important URLs:

== Happy Imbeciles At War ==
Massive U.S. military buildup, billions of dollars, a useless enemy,
and no one seems to know why

By Mark Morford

This is not a war. Iraq will not be a war. Do we understand this? We
do not seem to understand this. This is heavily corporatized power
brokers killing each other for oil and capital. Oh yes it is.

Let's be perfectly clear. You cannot have a war when the so-called
enemy has done nothing to provoke you and is absolutely no threat to
your national safety and has no significant military force and has
negligible chance of even setting off a firecracker near your own
overwhelming death machines, and whose only weapons of minimal
destruction are the rusty short-range warheads and biochemical agents
we sold him 20 years ago, and kept selling to him, even after we knew
he was gassing his own people.

You cannot have a war when there is nothing to fight against, when
it's essentially going to be a huge U.S. military stomping/bombing
exercise, when, just like Afghanistan, we stand to suffer zero U.S.
casualties (except for those we seem to kill ourselves), and we just
bomb and bomb and kill and kill and shrug.

Let us look closer: The U.S. buildup for war with Iraq is the biggest
in decades. The Iraq operation, in the words of Lt. Gen. Thomas
McInerney, will be "the most massive precision air campaign in
history," because, well, because we can. Because we want to annihilate
everything as fast and ruthlessly as possible, simply because the
longer such an operation takes and the more expensive and obviously
pointless it becomes, the more everyday citizens snap out of it and
begin to say, wait, why are we doing this again?

Saddam's meager military, let us be reminded, is a tiny quivering
fraction of what it was 10 years ago during Desert Storm, and even
then it took U.S. forces less than four days to almost completely
annihilate
it.

Now it's even weaker, due to ongoing sanctions and U.N. oversight and
a decade of continuous U.S.-led bombing raids on Iraqi targets you
never read about. Hell, this time we should have those thousands of
pesky Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians dead and slaughtered in a
weekend.

This is a Mack truck versus a Pinto. This is an F-16 versus a paper
airplane, a Tomahawk missile versus a spit wad. There is no contest.
"War" is exactly the wrong term. The U.S. attack on Iraq will be, of
course, a massacre. Go team.

Now let's say you sense this all to be true. Let's say you have a
queasy feeling deep in your gut as you realize no one is talking about
exactly
<i>why</i> we need to launch a second simultaneous war to go along
with
the unwinnable assault we're still running in Afghanistan.

Remember Afghanistan? Yes, we're still there, warring away. Bombing
and attacking and killing. Haven't caught a single al Qaeda leader of
note yet. That looks bad for Dubya. Killed a few thousand civilians
though. Shrug.

So, let's boil it down: Why go to war with Iraq? Can't find Osama, is
one reason. That looks bad. Really, really want to steal all that
delicious oil for ShrubCo, is another. Saddam is clearly a very bad
guy who kills his own people and snickers in America's general
direction, is a third. But then again, so are at least a half-dozen
other vile tyrants of the world. Volatile, nuke-ready North Korea?
Let's open some talks. Feeble, oil-ready Iraq? Let's massacre. Hmm.

Perhaps you wonder why no one is asking any of these questions, making
similar points.

Perhaps you wonder just where in the hell is the spineless major media
in all this, as they watch the chicken-hawk Shrubster himself, between
golf swings, announce how tens of thousands of American troops are
being sent to the Gulf alongside an enormous billion-dollar military
buildup and imminent gobs of heaping death raining down upon a paltry
oppressed nation and coming up next on CNN, we interview that dumb guy
from "Joe Millionaire." Perfect.

Perhaps you wonder where is the national TV coverage of all those huge
anti-war protests, hundreds of thousands of people, all over the
world, from Spain to Berlin to New York to San Francisco.

Perhaps you wonder where are all the "serious" journalists, the
risk-taking news agencies pointing up the absurdity of it all, the
imminent horror, the outrage. Could it be these news agencies are
owned by major conservative corporations? Could it be they're all
terrified of losing ratings, of saying something unpopular, of
invoking Cheney's wrath, of losing advertiser dollars and that
ever-precious, ever-dwindling dumbed-down audience? One guess.

And besides, who needs a reason for a massacre anymore? This is the
age of the preemptive-strike, screw-you Bush regime. Who needs, for
example, the Monroe Doctrine, that crusty old rag stating how America
will go to war only as a last resort, as a defensive measure, and
won't become embroiled in unwinnable foreign wars that are none of our
business?

Who needs every precedent ever set by international law? Who needs the
U.N. Charter? Who needs confused congressional approval? Who needs
ethical integrity?

Screw it all, says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his black eyes
gleaming like the devil's own golf balls. Let us become an
ever-more-hated rogue nation, attack whomever we want, whenever we
want, with no international support and much international disgust.
Let us squander, childishly, within months, the generous and
compassionate goodwill afforded our country by our international
allies in the wake of
9/11.

Let us wantonly kill innocent civilians and children and thousands of
Iraqi soldiers who, let us repeat, did nothing to provoke us. Shall
we?
Yes let's. Why? Shhh.

Let us be clear. Saddam is not a threat to the U.S., and never has
been.
He is merely yet another cowardly and murderous thug, much like the
countless other despots and autocrats, from Marcos to King Fahd to
Ariel
Sharon, the U.S. has added to its payroll when it served our needs,
and
whom we then backhand when we need economic stimulus, or when the
president needs a boost to his approval ratings, or when the corporate
pals of the Bush WASP mafia need more billion-dollar petrochemical and
defense contracts. Aha. Perhaps this is why.

We are, in short, going to attack and massacre Iraq for the oil
reserves, to protect America's corporate interests, to feed the
gaping
maw of the military-industrial complex. Same as it ever was.

But let us be perfectly clear: We are most definitely <i>not</i>
cranking up the appalling war machine for your sake, or for the
country's protection, or for our commendable standing among our
humanitarian allies.

We are not doing it to defeat terrorism (it will have the exact
opposite
effect), or to make the streets safer for our children, or because
they've found big scary WMDs (they haven't -- not a one) -- or even
for
Iraq's own good. And to believe we are is, quite simply, to be wholly
misinformed and openly, flagrantly, deliberately deceived.

Do we understand this? We must, we absolutely must, try and understand
this.

==================
(end)
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Smoking Gun

First, here is visual evidence and combined witness testimony (in
three parts) that will convince any grand jury of the guilt of the
U.S.
Administration in the September 11 killings. The case is built

around the Pentagon attack because in that attack "smoking-gun"

(i.e. incontrovertable, conclusive, and readily comprehended)

evidence was generated and was later discovered by American,
French and British investigators exchanging data and analysis
through the internet.

Here is my summary of those findings -- for which I take
full responsibility-- web space courtesy of the American Patriot
Freedom Network (APFN):

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

Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

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

Item #2:

The tide of public opinion is with us. You are not alone!

A Call to Conscience from Veterans
to Active Duty Troops and Reservists

(Started December 6, 2002) We are veterans of the United States armed
forces. We stand with the majority of humanity, including millions in
our own country, in opposition to the United Statesı all out war on
Iraq. We span many wars and eras, have many political views and we all
agree that this war is wrong. 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.

During the Vietnam War we were ordered to destroy Vietnam from the air
and on the ground. At My Lai we massacred over 500 women, children and
old men. This was not an aberration, itıs how we fought the war. We
used Agent
Orange on the enemy and then experienced first hand its effects. We
know what Post Traumatic Stress Disorder looks, feels and tastes like
because the ghosts of over two million men, women and children still
haunt our dreams. More of us took our own lives after returning home
than died in battle.

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.
donıt even believe their own President was legally elected?

Saddam is being vilified for gassing his own people and trying to
develop weapons of mass destruction. However, when Saddam committed
his worst crimes the U.S. was supporting him. This support included
providing the means to produce chemical and biological weapons.
Contrast this with the horrendous results of the U.S. led economic
sanctions. More than a million Iraqis, mainly children and infants,
have died because of these sanctions. After having destroyed the
entire infrastructure of their country including hospitals,
electricity generators, and water treatment plants, the U.S. then,
with the sanctions, stopped the import of goods, medicines, parts, and
chemicals necessary to restore even the most basic necessities of
life.

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.

There will be veterans leading protests against this war on Iraq and
your participation in it. During the Vietnam War thousands in Vietnam
and in the U.S. refused to follow orders. Many resisted and rebelled.
Many became conscientious objectors and others went to prison rather
than bear arms against the so-called enemy. During the last Gulf War
many GIs resisted in various ways and for many different reasons. Many
of us came out of these wars and joined with the anti-war movement.

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.

Resources: 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. (For information only, listed
organizations are not responsible for this veterans' statement.)

For questions, or for discharge or other GI rights information, visit:
www.girights.org

or call: GI Rights Hotline: (800) FYI-95GI Central
Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) (510) 465-1617 or (888)
231-2226, www.objector.org, in...@objector.org

VETERAN SIGNERS (name, branch, years): Anton Black, Navy, 1977-84;
Dave Blalock, Army 1968-71; Blase Bonpane, Marine Corps Reserve,
1948-50; Fr. Bob Bossie, SCJ, Air Force, 1955-59; Fredy Champagne,
Army, 1965-66; Rick Campos, Air Force, 1969-71; James M. Craven, Army,
1963-66; Carl Dix, Army, 1968-72; Barry Donnan, British Army, 1987-93;
Kenneth Dugan, Navy Corpsman, 1984-88; Jake Elkins, Marine Corps,
1965-69; Marcus Eriksen, Marine Corps Reserve1985-91; Joseph D.
Gervais, Navy; Todd Greenwood, Marine Corps, 1993-2001; Andres
Hernandez, Naval Reserves, 1979-85; Rodger Herbst, Army, 1969-71;
Robert Krzewinski, Navy, 1973-77; Marty Kunz, Navy, 1970-76; Ruth
McKenney; Rob Moitoza, Navy, 1965-71; Stan Nishimura, Army, 1964-67;
David Rees Morgan, British Royal Air Force, 1948-50; Wilson M.
Powell, Air Force, 1950-54; Jeff Paterson, Marine Corps, 1986-90;
Randy Rowland, Army,
1967-70; Darnell S. Summers, Army, 1966-70; Harold Taggart, Air Force,
1959-64; Joe Urgo, Air Force, 1967-68; David Wiggins MD, Army, Gulf
War; Mike Wong, Army, 1969-75; Howard Zinn, Air Force, 1943-45.

To Sign this Important Call Send Signature to or Contact Us at
Veterans
Call to Conscience (or VCC) 4742 42nd Ave SW #142, Seattle, WA,
98116-4553
www.calltoconscience.net, Stmtto...@excite.com

Forwarded by
Tony Lee

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

Perle : 'US Will Attack Regardless'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011203A.perle.attack.htm

Russian Warships on Standby to Sail to Gulf
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011203B.bu.warships.htm

Europeans Seek to Rein in American War Machine
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011203C.eu.rein.us.htm

North Korea Pulls Out of Non-Proliferation Treaty
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011203D.n.kor.out.npt.htm

The White House Plan: Tap Iraq's Oil
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011203E.wh.plan.oil.htm

BBC | 2001 G8 Summit: Genoa Police 'Admit Fabrication'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011203F.genoa.admit.htm
>
Cambodia, Wild West in the East
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011203G.cambodia.htm

[Le Permanent Marker]

Items spliced in haste. Sorry. (There's an anti-globalist
world-populist movement to stop the war plot, you know.)
----------------------------------------------

In Britain a YouGov poll indicates only 53% of the UK public would
back a
UN-endorsed attack, only 13% would support independent action by the
US and UK alone,while 32% oppose British involvement under any
circumstances.

While across the pond, 44% of Americans think that some or most of the
September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens (see below) showing they
have been lied to by a fraudulent misrepresenting govenrment and news
media. But even after being lied to (and deliberately mislead, which
is the same as lying) like this, two thirds of the American people
according sdtatistical analysis of this polling, still have the good
sense to oppose any form of unilateral invasion of Iraq.

I call that good news. Think what the numbers against involvement
would be if the misguided Amerciabn 44% had a chance to know what we
have learned about 9-11, our President and the discovered incentives
of those behind him.

The Bush administration is on thin ice -- the globalist conspiracy is
on thin ice -- we have no idea how very close we are to sweeping all
of blood-sucking globalization from the face of the earth.

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

I endorse World-Action as a remedy for mass-murdering and
world-plundering finance-capital globalism.
http://www.world-action.co.uk/index1.html

The smoking gun proof that the attack on the Pentagon was a frameup
deception by our own deviant ruling elite:

Flight 77 was not the jet that hit the Pentagon.
Here is evidence that will convince any grand jury:

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

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

Voices in the Wilderness UK , www.voicesuk.org
0845 458 2564/ 0794 7839992

Poll: Majority of US public oppose unilateral Iraq attack

A poll by The Princeton Survey Research Associates (1) shows that only
1/3
of the US public support a war on Iraq without UN approval and allies.
With UN Backing, 83 percent of Americans would support the war.
Frighteningly the poll showed that 44% of Americans think that some or
most
of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

The pollsters, who questioned 1,204 adults found that those who show
themselves to be most knowledgeable about the Iraq situation are
significantly less likely to back military action. "Knowledgeability"
was
assessed by asking them four reasonably easy to answer questions about
the
Iraq situation, eg "Have the Iraqis agreed to weapons inspections" and
grading them according to their responses.

Richard Byrne, of anti sanctions group Voices in the Wilderness (2)
said,
"This poll shows how important it is that people in Britain keep
pressing
our Government to withhold support for the US war drive. It also shows
the
poor information base from which so many Americans give their support
to
George Bush.If the US population were better informed, for example if
more
of them knew that Iraqis weren't among the September 11 hijackers, the
US
public's support for George Bush's terrorism would decrease. This
weekend
while we will be engaging in nonviolent direct action at the nerve
centre of
British planning for the war at Northwood in London (3), hundreds of
thousands of US citizens will march against the war in Washington DC.
British people need to stand shoulder to shoulder with US citizens
opposing
George Bush's war without end."

Contact 0845 458 2564/ 0794 7839992

(1) Source: Martin Merzer, "Poll: Majority Oppose Unilateral Action
against
Iraq", Knight Ridder Newspapers, 12 January 2003,
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4911975.htm
(2) Voice in the Wilderness UK campaigns for the immediate and
unconditional
lifting of economic sanctions on Iraq and opposes the war on Iraq.
They are
co sponsors of the Pledge of Resistance to the war on Iraq.
www.j-n-v.org
(3) See www.j-n-v.org for more info

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

Implications of action against Iraq
From Vice-Admiral Sir James Jungius

Sir, As the Prime Minister tries to rally the nation behind his policy
towards Iraq (report, January 9; see also letters, January 9, etc), he
continues to fail to produce any evidence of the existence of weapons
of
mass destruction. This inevitably leads to the suspicion that no such
evidence exists.

Even if the weapons do exist, where is the evidence of intent to use
them?
In the past 100 years Britain has never gone to war until faced with
an
overt act of aggression. War is too important and unpleasant a
business to
be undertaken on the basis of a hunch, however good that hunch may be.

Yours faithfully,
JAMES JUNGIUS,
Lawithick, Mylor Churchtown,
Falmouth TR11 5UE.
January 9.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-539091,00.html
====================================================

Blair to face war demo
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,873215,00.html
Stephen Khan, Scotland editor
Sunday January 12, 2003
The Observer

Prime Minister Tony Blair faces being confronted by 20,000 anti-war
demonstrators when he travels to Glasgow next month to speak at the
Labour Party's spring conference.
The party is due to be addressed by Blair on February 15, the same day
as a planned worldwide anti-war demonstration.

Organisers of the Scottish protest said it would be the largest such
march in Glasgow for more than a decade and made it clear they were
determined to disrupt the Prime Minister's visit.

Demonstrations have been called on the 14 and 15 of February in 11
European countries while peace marches and rallies are also being
organised for that weekend in the United States.

The main events in the UK was to have been a national demonstration in
London. But Blair's scheduled visit to Glasgow has shifted the focus
north, where the Scottish Coalition For Justice Not War is calling on
people to gather in Glasgow's George Square for a march on the
Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre (SECC), venue for the Labour
conference.

Strathclyde Police have as yet refused to grant permission for the
demonstration to stop at the SECC as planned, but Scottish Socialist
MSP Tommy Sheridan insisted that it was the right of anti-war
protesters to make their presence felt. 'It will make a mockery of
democracy if we are not allowed to march within shouting distance of
the SECC,' he said.

Rifts within the Labour Party on war against Iraq are likely to be
further exposed next week when a motion is tabled by SNP leader John
Swinney in the Scottish Parliament contesting any attempt to deploy
British forces for action without further recourse to the United
Nations.
===============

Fleet heads for Gulf as war threat intensifies

Downing Street says Bush is set on Iraq campaign
www.observer.co.uk
Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday January 12, 2003
The Observer

Tony Blair last night made clear that war with Iraq remained virtually
inevitable as President George W. Bush continued his inexorable steps
towards military conflict with Saddam Hussein.

As the aircraft carrier Ark Royal left Portsmouth yesterday, Number 10
officials told The Observer that military action is still 'more likely
than not' and that Britain would back America, which is still set on
war with Iraq.

Despite stressing that Bush would exhaust 'all avenues' with the UN
before he takes action, British and American officials sent out strong
messages that Saddam was facing military action if he does not agree
to disarm.

Ark Royal, the Navy's flagship, set sail for the Gulf with an
800-strong crew. The ship will head a 16-vessel naval task group on
exercises in the area, involving more than 8,000 Navy and Marine
personnel.

Rear Admiral David Snelson, the commander of UK Maritime Forces,
stressed yesterday that the move did not mean the force was committed
to operations against Iraq, but added: 'There is no doubt that British
forces are ready if they are needed.' It will be the biggest
deployment of British military forces since the Gulf war.

Ark Royal's departure came as the US Defence Secretary, Donald
Rumsfeld, gave the green light to the deployment of nearly 35,000
American troops, the single biggest order since the Pentagon began to
build up its forces in the Gulf last month.

The troops, who will leave over the next fortnight, will bring the
US's total strength in the area to more than 100,000 by the end of
January. They include two amphibious task forces, each 7,000 marines
strong.

Number 10 and MoD officials said reports last week that the chances of
military action had receded were 'wide of the mark' and that Hans
Blix, the head of the UN weapons inspection team, would begin
'building the pressure' on Iraq over the next fortnight.

The process will start with an official visit to European capitals at
the end of this week. Blix will meet Blair in London on Friday, where
he will be shown new intelligence material on Saddam's biological and
chemical weapons.

Number 10 also said it had evidence that the UN team's work in Iraq
was being bugged by Iraqi intelligence services. 'We know he [Saddam]
has got weapons of mass destruction,' said one Number 10 source.

'If Blix finds anything, then that will be a breach of the [UN]
resolution. If Blix's work is frustrated, then that will also be a
breach. Saddam has to actually disarm or we take action. We are still
clear where we are going.'

Blix will also visit Paris and Brussels before flying on to Baghdad,
where he will tell the Iraqis that he expects them to be 'more
pro-active' in co-operating with the inspections.

In a minute of the statement Blix made to the Security Council, in
which he had admitted he had found no 'smoking gun', he said Saddam
still had 'dark corners and caves' that he had not revealed.

Blix will also announce that high-altitude reconnaissance planes will
start flying over Iraq as part of the inspection process. Number 10
believes that the increasing capability of the UN team will mean that
they will find evidence that Saddam is in breach of UN resolutions.

'Let's not forget that the UN inspectors only started using
helicopters last week,' the Number 10 official said. 'They have only
been there for a few weeks and Saddam has become very practised at
hiding what he has and moving it around very quickly. He will only be
able to keep that up for so long.'

Blix's next report, on 27 January, will be an 'update' on the
inspections process and is unlikely to reveal an immediate breach by
Iraq. Government officials are now looking towards the Blix report on
1 March as the possible trigger for military action, believing that
the UN weapons inspection team will become increasingly frustrated at
Saddam's lack of co-operation.

================
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,873602,00.html

==================
> I believe, however, that such clues were purposefully left behind
> precisely to misdirect the 'conspiracy' crowd -- to encourage fingers to
> be pointed towards Israel, rather than towards Washington. These 'clues'
> are, in other words, deliberately planted disinformation intended to
> create a false evidence trail. More obvious as disinformation are the
> theories that attempt to point the finger at, rather preposterously,
> China."

I agree that 9-11 was not an Israel caper, just as the Afganistan
conquest
wasn't really America and Americans.

Sharon is a Mason. Merchant bankers are the only ones who think on
this
sale and with this regal indifference to the death and suffering
caused the
little people under their feet.

9-11 , of course, had to be designed by a committee -- different
interests
were involved and there had to be something for everyone involved for
them
to go along.

afganistan pipeline (the Taliban had been against it

re-opened opium flows to supply CHinese heroin sales world-wide and
laundering of proceeds into investment banks that bankroll the CHinese
"industrial miracle"

removal of white elephant skyskrapers, insurance (U.S. insurance
premium
payers) to bankroll the new structure

40 billion for the CIA, NSA

new power for the bureaucracy (Patriot Act, Homeland Security)

Zionists -- wipe out all power in Arab hands so that Israel can
dictate
from total dominance rather than dicker and compromise with their Arab
cousins.

Military-industrial complex -- swallows up the entire "surplus and
lots
more"

Merchant bankers and the bond holding class: wars always require more
national debt

Democrat-Republican monolithic "bipartisan" politicians: distract
blame for
the new economic depression and the total decimation of the middle
class and
skilled blue-collar

Big financiers under investigation for gold price fixing -- have all
evidence, records, investigators killed in North Tower and Building #7
demolition (not the airline crashes) -- bombs going off on the 23rd
floor of
the North Tower even before the South Tower was hit.

Big corporation heads under investigation for illegal involvement in
oil
swapping between Iran and Kazakhstan -- records destroyed and
investigators
killed.

People put in harms way to get them, in particular, out of the way.
Microbiologists and disease control experts on Flight 77. THe head of
security who had an important job that I forget.

China, gets not only its opium supply for its biggest source of
investment
capital -- but they also see destroyed all power in the hands of
neighboring
Moslem nations and the hunting down and killing of all Moslems who
would
support captive Moslem peoples subjugated by the Han -- or more
accurately
by the criminal Triad Princelings who control the new slave-labor
corporation with the phony name "People's Republic of China."

Bush, for popularity as a wartime president. And to do his daddy
proud.

There are just a few off the top of my head that I am confident of
...

But over all of these is the master hand of the big merchant banking
houses,
with Richard Pearle their agent, their new "Bernard Baruch" -- the
Rothschilds, ROckefellers, etc. seeking ultimately what Rockefeller
called
(at a Bilderberg meeting ten years ago, a world run without
"autodetermination" (that's "freedom" to you and me) under the control
of
"intellectuals and investment bankers" (picture Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Henry
Kissinger, Pearle, Wolfowitz, etc. working for the Rothschilds,
Warburgs,
.... down to the Rockefellers, Harrimans, etc. -- I don't pretend to
have
an accurate picture of who these people are or their relative rankings
or
whether, even, if the biggest names are even known to any of us
little-people investigators.)

===========
1. Richard Perle is the ringleader of the war movment.

2. For Perle, it's all about Israel and Jewish nationalism, not about
oil or the American interest.

3. Perle has been suspected of being an Israeli spy in government
circles for decades now.

4. The American media, unlike the European media, are bending over
backwards to keep the spotlight off Perle in the current war campaign.
Clean Break paper of 1996, written for Benjamin Netanyahu? -- the
American big media have never heard of such a thing. Let's not go
there -- that would be "anti-Semitic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2652895.stm

The head of the US Defence Department policy board, Richard Perle,
told the BBC that United Nations inspectors currently scouring Iraq
had no chance of finding weapons because they had been hidden.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei said on
Monday that inspectors needed "a few months" to decide whether or not
Iraq had a secret weapons programme.

Baghdad denies it has banned weapons, but the US is building up its
forces in the Gulf to back its threat of military action unless Iraq
disarms.

Weapons inspectors are due to report to the UN Security Council on 27
January.

An unnamed senior figure in the US administration - correspondents say
at cabinet level - has told the Washington Post newspaper that 27
January will be the start of a final phase leading to decisive action.

The comments appeared to contradict Secretary of State Colin Powell
who said last week that the day should not be regarded as a time of
reckoning.

Mr Perle told the BBC's The World Today programme that Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein was already in material breach of UN Security Council
resolutions because he was hiding weapons that he was required to
surrender.

"I don't see how the inspectors have a reasonable chance of finding a
small object in a large space," he said.

"We are talking about stocks of chemical and biological weapons -
possibly work on nuclear weapons - and this can all be done in any one
of several million structures in Iraq.

"Unless the inspectors know exactly where to go, the chance that they
will find anything is practically zero.

"It seems to me that either Saddam will turn over these weapons at the
very last minute or there will be military action."

Mr Perle said the evidence against Iraq lay in the discrepancy between
the amount of weapons known to have been produced and what has so far
been destroyed.

"We must assume that what is unaccounted for is hidden," he said.

The Washington Post article quoted the senior US figure as saying that
Iraq would not be in the clear even if inspectors failed to find
banned material.

"What we're saying is that with the Iraqi record, there is a
presumption of guilt and not innocence," the official said.

"The idea that the inspectors have to find something, or that we have
to show them where to go to find something, is incorrect."

Inspections continue

Mr ElBaradei, speaking in Paris, was responding to an earlier
statement from an IAEA spokesman that a credible inspection of Iraq
would take about a year.

"We need to take a few months... how long depends on the co-operation
of Iraq," he said.

"There is an understanding in the Security Council that 27 January is
an update report."

He added: "There is a great deal of anxiousness that we need to finish
our job, our mission, as soon as possible."

In Iraq, UN inspectors visited at least six more sites on Monday,
including a missile factory at Faluja, west of Baghdad, and two
science faculties in the capital.

Mr ElBaradei and chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix are due to visit
Baghdad next weekend to discuss gaps in Iraq's arms declaration.

Weapons experts from the IAEA and the UN Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission (Unmovic) have made hundreds of visits since
returning to Iraq in November.

Military build-up

The BBC's Pentagon correspondent, Nick Childs, say that the rapid
acceleration of American military build-up in the Gulf gives the
impression that war is a lot closer.

Large numbers of marines are included in the latest deployments -
precisely the kind of forces needed to launch a rapid attack.

A senior Pentagon official told the BBC the US could have about
150,000 personnel in and around the Gulf by the end of next month.

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

Warren Buffett, who skolnick has asserted many times is a cia money
launderer.- invited several World Trade Center CEO's (i.e., people
who aren't "nobodies") -to a party at Offutt AFB held, before the
attacks, on September 11, 2001.) Thus the planners of the 9-11
frameup think they are generous good guys after all -- which only
makes the people angrier. (Bush also ended up at Offutt AFB that
day!!!! (Not that we need any further evidence!)

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

Subject: Re: [Aftermath] How is Mr Blair to save face?

> perhaps some pressure on The City -- why demonstrate against government
> when capitalism is calling the shots, when it is the merchant bankers and
> corporation CEOs who compress Mr. Blair and extrude him in any direction
> they choose -- when they see the risk of loss to themselves outweighing even
> the trillions they hope to gain from Iraq oil and Central Asian "great
> game" dominance -- you will have to treat Mr. Blair for the bends, the
> relief of pressure will be so marked and sudden.
=================

People in the Pentagon do not believe the official story but they
do not know what to believe. Many are familiar with my theory
and none of the questioners are rejecting it out of hand. This
from a British source I trust who was told this by British
intelligence people.

I agree with Bob about the kerosene.

We know from the nature a plane crash that a second
explosion is inconsistent with a plane that smashes
into six concrete walls, one after the other. The fuel
(not yet ignited) would have been spread on the floor
of the first ring.

I have not heard of a blast five minutes later.

We know that the outer wall collapsed about
twenty minutes later and that that is totally unaccountable
except as the result of deliberate demolition (various
theories exist explaining how this was done) -- but the purpose
of collapsing that outer wall was two fold, 1) to keep people on
the lawn from seeing in the hole, and 2) to end the taking of
pictures of the hole that was far too small for a Boeing 757
to have gotten through. (Look at the photos I offer at APFN,
a collection that makes this point best of all. Those windows
are only 10 feet apart, certainly not as much as 15 feet apart.

Fyi, Bob, the first photo was taken 10 minutes after the crash,
after men in white shirts and black ties were already running
around the lawn with pieces of debris in their hands -- at least one
of which, we must surmise, was putting down and not picking up.
(I have a picture of two these guys, but it does not add to the
argument -- and I do not want to give the impression that these
two guys were not just doing their job of clearing debris -- these
two may not be the guys who planted the piece.)

Very glad to see Brian and Bob giving this the critical but
open-minded
examination it needs -- thats all I have ever wanted from e-list
discussants.

Dick Eastman
Yakima

[Le Permanent Marker]

Newsgroups: alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.gw-bush,talk.politics.mideast,alt.disasters.aviation

"Paul Gooding" <ppgo...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message news:<enJR$Y1uCHA.1552@cpimsnntpa03>...

> Downright gleeful, there, Dick .... you know, accusing
> scores, probably hundreds of people you don't even know
> of mass murder .... having a great time, aren't
> you?

Then how dare I accuse Pol Pot's soldiers; or Mao's,
or Stalin's, or Adi Amin's henchmen who also are "hundreds
of people I don't even know?" Does a detective have to personally
know a killer before he can issue an accusation -- and would
having a single day of golf together provide sufficient personal
knowledge to qualify?

Gee -- I never thought of that!!! I don't know Richard Pearle
personally!! I don't know Rumsefled, or Ari or George or Dick
Cheney!!! How DARE I accuse them simply because I have redundently
sufficient, compelling, incontrovcertable evidence that will convince
any impartial grand jury.

Look at what you are saying Gooding, and what it reveals about you.
You are saying that I should hold my tongue because I don't know the
suspects -- Did you say that about O.J. Simpson (who is innocent, by
the way!) -- you see, Gooding, you are the kind of man who is used to
shuting his mouth to get ahead, and your "you-don't-even-know-them"
rationalization is probably the excuse you have given yourself
throughout your career for not being a whistle blower, for being a
yes-man to some dirty dealings that you chose -- by an act of will --
not to draw conclusions about.
I have proven their crime and their complicity -- and you criticize me
for not backing off because I don't personally know the killers??? DO
YOU EXPECT THOSE WHO DO KNOW THEM TO TURN THEM IN??? -- FOR EXAMPLE,
THEIR HIGH-DEGREE MASONIC BRETHREN????? NOW I SEE HOW DEVIANT ELITES
BRING ROT TO THE TOP AND WHY IT NEVER GETS CLEANED UP!!!

End of chat. Now to business:

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

How Did those WTC Buildings Collapse?

by Scott Loughrey, Baltimore Chronicle

The Washington Post recently (and casually) reported (1/3/03) that the
ownership of our nation's media and entertainment industries is
becoming more even more consolidated than they are today. FCC Chairman
Michael Powell is determined to relax the restrictions which control
how much investment in media and information immense corporations like
AOL-Time-Warner can make within individual markets. It has long been
the opinion of this writer that media concentration is the Number One
problem facing this country. People who dispute this idea always point
out that the Internet is a source of information for those who
(rightly) avoid the mainstream. However, the Bush right-wing faction
(as opposed to the right wing faction that deplores government
interference with liberties) is planning an attack on the freedom many
of us associate with the "information superhighway" as you read these
words.

With a more concentrated media comes the prospect that serious lines
of inquiry will not be pursued in a timely fashion to correct
problems. For example, what really happened on 9/11/01?

What follows is a cursory examination of some of the many issues that
a growing number of people have with what we've been told happened
that day. These conversations are taking place on the Internet
exclusively because neither the mainstream nor the established left
media are giving these ideas much attention. In the case of the
latter, the failure of left-stalwarts such as Z Magazine (to name one)
to discuss these matters is attracting hard criticism (link) from
well-respected intellectuals.

Let's start with the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers. How did
they collapse? The explanation so far (link) is that the temperature
from the burning jet fuel of the two planes was sufficient to weaken
the steel trusses supporting both buildings. This made their
collapsing "inevitable." End of story.

However, a lot of people are wondering (link) why both buildings
collapsed so neatly. Why were there no major amounts of debris in
contact with neighboring buildings?

Other questions include:

How were the laws of physics changed to permit the heat from the
burning jet fuel to fatally weaken buildings constructed of
150,000-200,000 tons of steel?

(pictures not included in newsgroup posting -- go to the BC site)

Why did the South tower collapse, since most of the jet fuel
apparently was ignited in the fireball accompanying Flight 175s crash?

Why did the sections of both towers that were above the fires
disintegrate as soon as they collapsed rather than landing as large
blocks? (Both buildings collapse from top to bottom very similarly to
what demolition experts call a "smooth wave.")

Why did World Trade Center 7, which wasnt hit by an aircraft or
falling debris, collapse at all? (Video) Apparently it is the first
large building in history that completely disintegrated from a fire.

To add further fuel to the raging discussion, the WTC changed
ownership just eleven weeks before the towers went down. In addition,
we've been recently informed that key surveillance tapes and
maintenance logs were destroyed in the disaster (link). Finally, the
speed with which Controlled Demolition Inc. removed and shipped away
the debris is drawing criticism. CDI is reportedly the same firm that
also swiftly removed the debris from the Oklahoma City bombing.

These unexamined questions are festering like an open wound. If our
"free press"—whatever its political bent might be—cannot bring itself
to ask what really happened on 9/11/01, or to intelligently refute the
explanations offered by others, then it risks seeing a repeat of
tragedies on that scale. And it also risks becoming increasingly
irrelevant.
===================

I T E M # 2 :

DICK EASTMAN AND RON HARVEY -- EXIBITION MATCH:

---

Full-time Eastman debunker, Ron Harvey is back for more:
--------

Ron Harvey writes:

> Eastman says]Riskus was not to the south of the event.
>
> As I have already pointed in message #2642 to the Yahoo 'Frameup'
> list and subsequently, again in message #2752 to that list, Riskus
> was to the NORTH of the event. The B757 therefore approached towards
> him from his right, past the Navy Annex, not from behind him.
> Seems rather to be a complete waste of time to attempt to get
> any matters of fact of any sort across to him.
> How many months was it before he backed down on his
> ludicrous 'plane approached from 90 degrees' supposition?

I have proven that Riskus was south of the crash point when he
saw the plane go by. His first photo is taken from near his car in
the northbound lane of Washington Blvd, southwest of the crash point.
We can then follow his trail of photographing locations as he walks
northeast towards the crash, crossing the northbound lane he had been
driving on, walking
toward famous tree. (write to me for these eas...@bentonrea.com --
about 800 KB for the Riskus series) In fact in his first photo,
taken from the northbound Washington Blvd. lane, Ruskus is clearly
south of the heliport mini-tower which is perhaps a hundred feet
south of the crash point. (I can get that distance as exact as you
want if anyone care to make it an issue -- I just don't like these
little farts of Ron Harvey's controlling all my time!) Finally, we
have Riskus's last shot, taken, again, from a northbound lane, this
time from his car (as he departs) -- and this last photo IS taken from
north of the crash -- we see the smoke from the Pentagon on the right
of the picture, we also see the headlights of the car that is
following him on the left -- yes, the headlights, of the car behind
him, proving that he is driving away from the crash in the Pentagon
west wall, Riskus still northbound on his way to
get his photos on line asap (which he did within an hour of the
crash).

So, Ron Harvey, do you want me to download to these e-lists the whole
Riskus series for everyone to see? I'd be most happy to do so.

Ron, you aren't very interested in Iraq, or war, or the foreign
policies of Bush
or Blair, or the threat of terrorism, or any other theory of the
Pentagon
besides mine, are you?

Who (what institution) has signed the checks of your income during the
last
year.

Ron, you were once a big noise pushing the global warming on the UK
greens lists, suddenly you have a new job debunking me, and you
haven't sounded like a green or an environmentalist ever since as you
have devoted hundreds of manhours with vast connections getting you
pictures and witness accounts that no one else can match -- would you
mind explaining how you did that, Mr. Harvey, man of mystery?

You also posted to APFN as "Anonymous" and gave deliberate
misinformation
about the weight of a Boeing 757 in a discussion about melted
aluminium, saying it weighs 38,000 pounds when in fact it weighs more
than 80 tons!!!-- and when you gave yourself in your hidden identity
-- everyone recognized your
various characteristic peculiar phrasings, you admitted that it was
you -- yet you call me a liar -- and you call me "dumb and blind",
but "liar?" (I'm still waiting for the basis of
this accusation!) -- and a "moron" and "too boring to read ..
ZZZzzzzzz...."
and you have always claimed that you have "fully answered Eastman's
charges" in
some past posts -- which are always wild goose chases. ( You have
never made an argument that I have not answered -- unless to forums
where you know I am not subscribed.) And I have been blocked from
visiting "dragonslair" website and ransacking the fraud I am sure is
there.

You, backed by all the biggest pinheads at MI6 (what else can I
conclude
but that you are part of the disinformation wall protecting the
Anglo-American deviant ruling-class mass-murder frameup) fall flat on
your face and keep coming back, like this time -- why?

Anyway I am ready to send to everyone the pictures that prove my point
(some are already on already the APFN pages), to Aftermath UK, and to
all of my other regualr e-lists and 9-11 investigator confreres --
should you choose not to recover from your amnesia about what has
already been proven.

THe good news for you Harvey is that you will probably not be
extradited and
hanged as you deserve. It looks like the US is going to send its
remaining
armed forces and reserves to the Middle East where they will all be
blinded
on the battlefield with technology that the US developed and discarded
but
which Israel stole and gave to China (the Triad Princelings who
control the Chinese people as the CFR controls the US). The Chinese
PLA, few have been remarking, have been building a big force, much
bigger than ours, in the Middle East. I expect they will join the
fray and decimate our (blinded) soldiers, provided the Masonic New
World Order does not just gas them after assigning them where to stand
to receive it. Then the totally disarmed West Coast of the US will
suddenly be swarming with Chinese and North Korean soldiers, some who
are now in Mexico, some now infiltrated into the US and about fourteen
or fifteen divisions (Chinese "human-wave"battalians) who will fly
over here in the Boeings we've sold them.

And the internet resistance in the US of which I am a part. Well, Ron
--
one EMP attack will knock out all of our computers and phones -- we
will
be a bunch of individuals each with hundreds of aquaintences across
the
world whom we cannot contact, only able to talk to the family next
store
and others in our neighborhoods who have no idea what we are talking
about.

Th Rothschild's populist problem, the Rockefeller's populist problem,
Bush's populist problem, Blair's populist problem and even Ron
Harvey's
populist problem will then be taken care of.

So relax, Ron. Your side has won.

But one more trivial point -- (I like to have the record straight --
you know for future history when civilization starts up again!) You
say:

> Seems rather to be a complete waste of time to attempt to get
> any matters of fact of any sort across to him [ to Eastman].
> How many months was it before he backed down on his
> ludicrous 'plane approached from 90 degrees' supposition?

Ron, Old Top, here is what really happened in the famous
"Angle-of-Attack Debate" -- in the beginning all the major media and
the
first internet investigators were showing a Boeing making a 90 degree
approach -- I accepted that as well-established fact, simply on the
basis
of the "herd can't be wrong." I even argued that since the lamp posts
90
degrees in front of the crash site were not knocked down, that a
Boeing
could not have been used in the attack!!! (Did my early argument,
based on
incorrect information from bews media and internet, give your bosses
the
idea to have you argue from the poles downed by the F-16, poles that
at the
time neither I nor anyone else on the internet knew about???)

At any rate, soon the hole in the C-ring was introduced -- and I
assuming
that the everyone was correct about the 90 degree approach of the
attack
plane (I could not tell from the just the visible tail fin in the DoD
security video recording of the attack exactly at what angle the
plane
approached its target.) -- I at first argued that the hole must have
been
made by some other cause - that the engine that punched through C-ring
could
not have gone that far astray from a straight 90 degree entry.

THen you showed up with your poles. At first I asked you to send me
pictures of the downed poles. You were vague on the number of poles
down.
You sent pictures of bushes near the freeway saying "See, there should
be a
pole standing there." Of course that, coming from a man who started
right
off calling me a clown and a liar vexed me enough not to take your
claims
seriously -- although I took your probable intent very seriously (and
still
do) --

ANd whenI asked for pictures of the downed poles you sent me the
picture of
the taxi cab with a broken windshield, BUT NOT THE PICTURE OF THE SAME
CAB
SHOWING THE POLE SITTING IN FRONT OF IT -- in other words, you --
the man
with all the pictures -- were showing me pictures that you knew did
not make
your argument -- you wanted me to be unconvinced about the existence
of the
downed poles to the northwest of the crash (what else can I conclude)
-- you
wanted me to become maximally committeded to a position that was wrong
so
that you could discredit everyithing I was saying on the basis of that
one
error (even though the error was a reasonable on given the information
I had
and the information you were with holding -- but when I finally
searched
around for all the pictures I could find to disprove you I discovered
on my
own the pictures that proved a northwest approach --AND WITHIN ONE
HOUR OF
THE DISCOVERY I SENT OUT A MESSAGE: " HARVEY RIGHT ABOUT THE POLES"

But now, Ron, I see that the media and the witnesses were right --
that the
Boeing did approach from due West, while it was the killer jet, the
600 or
700 mph F-16 that brought down the poles (undented -- they were
snapped by
the hurricane pressure leveraged against the bolts at their bases --
except
for one that was topped at the connecting bolts -- at least the three
poles
that I have pictures of -- I still take your word for it that there
were
five poles downed (although I would not recommend to other
investigators
that they trust you without checking on their own -- the fact is it is
not
relevant whether 3 or 5 poles were downed -- what matters is that the
downed poles and the hole in the C-ring establish a path of appraoch
from
the northwest for the killer plane.

BUT NOW WE KNOW THERE WERE TWO PLANES. The killer jet that downed the
poles
in an approach from the northwest at incredible speep and power being
poured
on -- and Flight 77, the Boeing 757, which did fly by 100 feet from
Riskus,
at an altitude of perhaps 80 to 150 feet , while Riskus was standing
southwest of the crash point on Washington Blvd northbound (where the
gardener, cutting grass at Arlington National Cemetery immediately
west of
Riskus, saw the plane fly, as he says, "over my head."

So I was right. There was a 90 degree approach and a 45 degree
approach --
and the paradox is resolved -- there were two planes, each with a
different
angle of approach.

The details are meticulously worked out for whoever wants to go over
them at
web pages APFN has generously made available to me for my complete
writeup
of progress notes to date. There are aerial photos and Riskus's
pictures so that the reader can pinpoint his exact location and
distance
from the crash, the poles etc. Everything is there to make the case
and to
answer everything that is on any other 9-11 or Pentagon attack site.

So, come on, Ron Harvey, make my day, ask for the photographs by
Riskus that
establish where he was and where he went. (And you British who pay
for your
downloads -- blame Ron Harvey (and the pinheads of MI6?) for my having
to do
so.) Please make my day, Ron.

Finally, have you appeared at this moment with this frivolous
objection of
yours simply because I have been discussing the role of Masons and
other
secret societies in creating the secretive and
amoral-absolute-cult-loyalty
environment that was necessary for the 9-11 mass-murder frameup plot
to have
been hatched? I am always suspicous of a man who knowingly steps into
a
meatgrinder -- you must have alterior motives -- you wnat to distract
me --
I bet I'm right on this -- but it is merely educated speculation --
not
rock hard findings like those I make abvailabe at APFN:

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

Who will bet against the assertion that Ron Harvey is a Mason?

Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

----- Original Message -----
From: <tw4...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "Eastman" <eas...@bentonrea.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: What convinced Eastman that Flight 77 was not the
killer --
Primary Research Associates raises this argument (and is answered)

>
> What it takes to convince the deaf dumb and blind need not concern
> us so much.
>
> "...RIskus was south of the Boeing, he saw the port side,." wrote
> D.E.
>
> But no, Riskus was not to the south of the event.
>
> As I have already pointed in message #2642 to the Yahoo 'Frameup'
> list and subsequently, again in message #2752 to that list, Riskus
> was to the NORTH of the event. The B757 therefore approached towards
> him from his right, past the Navy Annex, not from behind him.
> Seems rather to be a complete waste of time to attempt to get
> any matters of fact of any sort across to him.
> How many months was it before he backed down on his
> ludicrous 'plane approached from 90 degrees' supposition?
>
> As to the persistent allegation of planted evidence we have yet to
> see a sensibly thought through thesis as to how exactly that would
> possibly have been achieved.>
> For how much longer is all this nonsense to go on for?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron Harvey
>
>
>
> --- In Septembe...@yahoogroups.com, "Eastman" <eastman@b...>
> wrote:
> > Part 3 What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the killer jet, by
> Dick EastmenSubject: What convinced Eastman that Flight 77 was not
> the killer
> > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:16:16 -0700
> > From: "Brian Downing Quig" <quig@d...>
> > Organization: PRIMARY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
> > To: cia-...@yahoogroups.com, bushco...@yahoogroups.com,
> apfn@a...
> >
> > >Dick Eastman,
> > >
> > > Let me see if I am following your argument.
> > >
> > > If we stand facing the front of a plane or ship the starboard is
> > > to our right and port is to our left. Right? So this piece of
> > > skin from the PENTAGON PLANE was found on the port side of the
> > > crash? But you say it could only have come from the starboard
> > > side of the plane.
> >
> > In bringing up this planted piece -- you are defending the coverup
> > "evidence", you are not looking at the evidence I used to make the
> > case -- you are NOT addressing the proof which is based on the
> video camera
> > of the event, on the too-small hole, on the visible and distinctive
> smoke trail
> > of a missile being fired, on the white-hot explosion, on the
> diverging witness
> > accounts, on other factors unrelated to this planted false-evidence
> fragment.
> >
> > But let's talk about what you want to talk about:
> >
> > Starboard side of the plane, where the piece came from, is the
> > right side of the seated pilot in the cockpit -- the port is on his
> > left. You really confuse things putting it your way -- such as
> > your right is on my left when I face you. (Of course there was
> > no Boeing that crashed -- the real Boeing flew over the
> > crash and it did not loose any of its starboard skin when it did
> so.)
> >
> > The piece came from the starboard side, where their is extra
> > space following the letter "n___" and the starboard side was
> > facing north (imaginary pilots right side, remember) as the plane
> >
> > > But then you show an image of the port side with the letter
> > > superimposed which includes the door which clearly shows
> > > enough space to accommodate the debre!
> >
> > The piece of debris imposed on a picture of the starboard side,
> silly.
> >
> > Here is the starboard side (notice the "n___" , and the "[]"
> represents
> > a door in the plane.
> >
> > - - - --------------------------------------------
> > aft []American__ [] > nose
> > - - -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Starboard is the side on the seated pilot's right. If this was the
> Boeing approaching the Pentagon the debris would have been planted on
> the port side (south of the crash into the West wall).
> >
> > Here is the port side (not enough room for the "n__" to fit) which
> > faced south
> >
> > -------------------------------------- - - -
> > nose < [] American[] aft
> > ---------------------------------------- - - -
> >
> >
> > The coverup operatives planted the piece on the south lawn (which
> > was the port side of the two planes as the approached the Pentagon
> > target.) RIskus was south of the Boeing, he saw the port side, the
> > side with no extra space between the "n" and the door near the wing.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > > Does this not undermine your case? It looks to me like
> > > this debre is from the port side of the crash.
> >
> > I hope you see now that it does not. But even if the piece of
> debris
> > were planted by an intelligent and competent crew of false evidence
> > planters -- the fact that the Boeing landed at Reagan and that an
> > F-16 crashed into the Pentagon is established by multiple other
> > evidence -- direct witness testimony, a video recording of the
> > event that shows enough of the attack plane to eliminate the
> > possibility of a Boeing, and the missile smoke trail that
> establishes
> > that the wall was softened before the collision in order that the
> > entire F-16 would be sure to go through and be out of site.
> >
> > > I agree with you that there are many unexplained things about the
> > > PENTAGON CRASH. I just feel that a preponderance of evidence
> > > supports the theory that FLIGHT 77 did crash into the PENTAGON.
> >
> > Some times our feelings deceive us -- and certainly I cannot argue
> > with your feelings. As for myself, I am not really a know it all --
> I had doubts,
> > but I kept digging and listing to all critics and investiagting all
> that they
> > dished out until the overwhelming evidence from every angle all
> supporting
> > the killer F-16 and decoy Boeing 757 thesis remained as the only
> explanation
> > that fits the facts, all of the facts.
> >
> >
> > But I applaud your work since it is something which can be
> > checked by all the next time they board an AMERICAN AIRLINES 757.
> >
> > I did. ANd I also supplied photos to prove the point right in the
> APFN
> > account. Here is the port side of two sister ships:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Also check this which shows both sides from the top:
> >
> > http://www.airliners.net/open.file/183568/M/
> >
> > So Brian, we have to ask why would the Dept of Defense
> > have felt the need to put a fake piece of a Boeing
> > on the lawn if a real Boeing had crashed there.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian Downing Quig
> >
> >
> > Richard Phillip Eastman
7 7 7
>
>

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

Terms and Conditions - Posting Style Guide - Posting FAQ
©2002 Google

[Le Permanent Marker]

"DickEastmanFanClub" <ppgo...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> The point is that you are making grotesque and shocking accusations of
> heinous crimes .... and you are clearly enjoying the hell out of it. Sorry,
> I don't see the happy aspect. What am I missing?

The mass-murder of those wtc workers they did not invite out to party
with Buffet (see below) that day was a grotesque and shocking deed, it
was a heinous crime. Your inference from my posts to Don Ocean -- a
skilled
internet interference-runner for the coverup -- requires theatrical
posturing -- don't think their is real enjoyment in my taunts -- if I
did not
respond like that to their mockery I will be perceived as not having
human qualities, and that would alienate readers from what I have to
say -- men in trenches taunt those behind enemy lines -- that does
not mean they enjoy the war, the trench, the killer, the work to be
done. Why do so many of you hecklers call people "fuckwits," "morons"
etc. -- because you have been taught in training that freeping and
baiting is the best way to derail an opponent's thinking and to
diminish him in the eyes of those he is appealing to with his message.

And you, Goodling -- you went to the trouble to devise the mocking
name
"DickEastmanFanClub" for your attack -- you yourself know how deadly
serious you were when you carefully chose that handle -- I am the
same. Yes, I am a
propagandist, I propagandist with the truth trying to break through
the wall of interference runners the mass-murderers in New York,
Washington, London and Tel Aviv have set up to keep the truth from
hanging them all.

Their deeds are grotesque,shocking,heinous -- and so is anyone who
would try to shift claim to those labels upon the one seeking to bring
the PROVEN PERPETRATORS to justice. I hope you got that.

Now to business:

----- Original Message -----
From: Eastman
To: HouseofChing ; fra...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [frameup] time to step it up a notch

Many things to share -- but first this which is personal and more
hope-instilling than exhortatory.

Cen, I have not been following the discussion referenced, but I read
your response "time to step it up a notch" and was especailly struck
by this statement -- which is the heart of truth to me and of hope.

"...people seem to do their best under stress. i know why now.
because their subconscious is fighting to stay alive. when in all
reality; the reason we are in this mess in the first place; is because
of the lack of learning what our subconscious has the potential of
awakening us to."

The subconscious (whether you believe in a 'holy spirit" from heaven
or not) is in you, it knows more than your pencil line of
consciousness and it works on the real problems while the conscious
mind piddles

in the early 1950's when a child I slept with my five-year-older
brother -- who after a while forced/cajoled me to do things -- but
my subconcious mind blanked those out of my mind until exactly the
night before I was married -- think what it saved me from.

I do not sit down and take a piece of paper and list evidence and
start making deductions a la Sherlock Holmes -- first of all I am too
lazy and I don't have enough confdence that I could come up with
anything worthwhile -- but my subconscious!!! most of my best posts
seem to be fully in my mind when I wake up -- look back and see how
many were dashed off of 5:00 am.

I get up and then have to put down what I have realized or I can't get
back to sleep. And I only know rest after getting a letter our.

And now I read that you too are familiar with this experience.

And the ironic thing is that I was trained in Psychology to be a
behaviorist, (knowing B.F.Skinner, invited to study at Harvard by
Richard Hernstein -- but I went for economics instead at Texas A & M)
-- yet the subconscious is verbal and symbol maniopulating behavior
that we cannot see or hear or consciously think -- it is smarter than
us and it is on our side and it is always, I think, good -- and I
would like to think: "of GOD."

[Let me ramble: One mind, the mind of Christ whose mind is one with
the Father --Allah -- in perfect submission (in Arabic the word is
Islam), to do the will of the Father -- no longer slave to the world,
the flesh and the devil.
[Yes there is a lot of cultural baggage in my wording -- lots of
historical determinism, saying what I have been taught to say -- but
the subconscious teaches and it edits the teachings I have receved
from others. And you can
take it or leave it.]

Now to business:

Tim Luckhurst says that the BBC is exercising thought-control over the
extent of legitimate debate
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-01-11&id=2669
------------------

Tony Blair pronounces Iraqi claims of Anglo-American oil motives "pure
conspiracy theory"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,875173,00.html

Must be about all those ICBMs with multi-targeted H-bomb warheads that
Saddam has aimed at all our chruches and bowling allys, right?

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

World Trade Center Demolition (outstanding!)

http://nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm

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

I am also talking to Bob who knows survivors who were at the Pentagon
telling an explosion five minutes after the crash there (and many
minutes before the collapsing of the outer wall that hid the too-small
hole there.) This explosion was heard and there was significant new
interior damage in areas that were not touched by the initial crash.

"Another person walked through halls and offices to leave,

then outside decided to go back in since it was no problem
to get around and said as the other man that there had been
no fire or explosion, so he went back in to aid co-workers.
Then there was fire, smoke, major structural damage of
the areas which had been solid and smoke-free. He had
to go down into Metro to escape again. That confirms
with demolition causing major structural damage many
minutes after impact
-----------------

The second wealthiest billionaire in the UNITED STATES has allot of
explaining to do. Executive jets do not track commercial aircraft.
How can it be that NORAD does not make a 911 showing but this private
jet does?

This is one of the most important insights into the basic architecture
of the 911 crimes. This alone could unravel these heinous crimes.

Clearly Buffet's MITRE has the technological know how to pull off
remote piloting of the 911 planes as well as the capability of
shooting down FLIGHT 93. One engine of 93 was found six miles away
from the crash site. All of the professional liars of major media
expect us to believe that this engine bounced along the ground for
those six miles!! Buffet's jet seems to be the only culprit for the
FLIGHT 93 shoot down.

Government plans to use Flight 93 cockpit tapes in Moussaoui trial
Associated Press

Published Aug 9, 2002

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- Jurors in the trial of accused Sept. 11
conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui will be drawn back to the day of the
attacks through videos of the burning and collapsing World Trade
Center and family pictures of victims.

The pictures would be augmented by dramatic cockpit voice recordings
from United Flight 93, as passengers apparently tried to wrest
control of the aircraft from hijackers, prosecutors said Thursday.
The plane crashed in Pennsylvania, killing 44, including the
attackers.

Additional recordings would be played from the cockpit of an
executive jet that tracked Flight 93 on Sept. 11, according to
written proposals subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Leonie
Brinkema.

``The government intends to introduce relevant portions of the
videotapes and photographs during both the guilt and penalty phases
to describe the murders at the WTC,'' the government pleading said.

``This will be particularly important during the penalty phase,''
when prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty. The government said
it would introduce photographs of the victims, numbering more than
2,800 from the World Trade Center alone, to show the jury ``who was
murdered instead of merely hearing statistics.''

Moussaoui is representing himself and will have an opportunity to
reply.

Edward MacMahon, part of a court-appointed defense team that remains
in the case over Moussaoui's objections, questioned the fairness of
the strategy.

``I'm hopeful there's some limitation on how much of this evidence
they'll be allowed to be put on,'' he said in an interview. ``The
loss is very real and gut-wrenching. But it doesn't change the fact
that Moussaoui was in prison Sept. 11 and had been there almost a
month.''

Moussaoui was taken into custody in August for immigration violations
after employees at a Minnesota flight school became suspicious of his
conduct.

Last month, the French citizen, 34, tried to plead guilty to
conspiracy to commit terrorism. Moussaoui withdrew his plea after
Brinkema refused to accept it without an admission of complicity in
the attacks.

Prosecutors asked the judge to allow a veteran police detective to
introduce photographs and videotapes of the New York attacks, saving
the need to call numerous witnesses. Detective James Wheeler, of the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was at the twin towers
when the hijacked planes crashed into them and worked to save himself
and rescue others.

The New York images would be especially important in the penalty
phase, since the government said it wanted to prove the crime was
committed in ``an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner in
that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victims.''

The nature of the crime would constitute an ``aggravating'' factor
that could convince a jury to approve the federal death penalty.

The government said it would play the cockpit voice recordings from
Flight 93 and the executive jet in open court, but asked Brinkema to
keep both recordings and their transcripts from dissemination outside
the courtroom.

An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private
business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93
belonged to the company.

The official, who asked not to be identified by name, said the
company was asked not to comment on the Sept. 11 flight but would not
say who made the request.

There were 2,823 people killed in New York on Sept. 11 and 189 at the
Pentagon in addition to the 44 on Flight 93.

Meanwhile, Moussaoui's court-appointed lawyers asked Brinkema for a
two-month postponement of the Sept. 30 trial date. They said the
volume of material turned over by the government makes it impossible
to be ready by the original date.

The ``standby'' lawyers were told by the judge to prepare Moussaoui's
defense in case she decides to revoke his right to represent himself.

The latest handwritten motion by Moussaoui, released Thursday,
requested access to the ``standby'' lawyers' secure Internet site,
which contains their trial preparation work. The lawyers favor giving
Moussaoui access, without allowing him to connect with any other
Internet address. ``Grand nanny Leonie Brinkema must order Uncle Sam
to leave Moussaoui surf the secure internet,'' Moussaoui said. ``Cave
in Afghanistan are not equipped with ... internet connection and
laptop so the U.S. government should be able to manage the traffic.''

Separately, the government opposed a Moussaoui request for access to
classified evidence.

``Restrictions on the dissemination of classified information to an
admitted al-Qaida member and avowed jihadist such as the defendant
protect both valid national security and public safety interests,''
the prosecutors said.

Moussaoui has admitted he belongs to al-Qaida but has denied a role
in the attacks.

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

It looks like the US is going to send its remaining armed forces and
reserves to the Middle East where they will all be blinded on the
battlefield with technology that the US developed and discarded but

that Israel stole and gave to China. The Chinese, no one has noticed,

have been building a big force, much bigger than ours, in the Middle
East.
I expect they will join the fray and decimate our (blinded) soldiers,

provided the New World Order does not just gas our sons and daughters

after assigning them where to stand to receive it. Then the totally

disarmed West Coast of the US will suddenly be swarming with Mainland
Chinese and North Korean soldiers, some now in Mexico, some now in the
US and about fourteen or fifteen divisions (those human-wave PLA
battalions) who will fly hear Boeings we sold them.

And the internet resistance in the US of which I am a part --well, one

EMP attack will knock out all of our computers and phones -- we will

be a bunch of individuals each with hundreds of aquaintences around
the world whom we cannot contact and left only able to talk to the
family next store who won't at first know what we are talking about.

Th Rothschild's populist problem, the Rockefeller's populist problem,

GW-Bush's populist problem, Blair's populist problem, Sharon's and the
China Princeling's populist problem (remembert, Islam is the populism
of Asia) and even the populist problem of the hecklers working these
newsgroups will all be taken care of in the next war -- America's
last.

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

thanks dick, at least someone out there is paying attention.

good luck all

[Le Permanent Marker]

"Wooster, I'm going to twist your head off and make
you eat it." -- Stilton Cheeseright

Before we get to whether Ron Harvey has made good
on his make-or-break claims that 1) witnesses Steve Riskus
saw AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, bring down the lamp posts,
and 2) that National Cemetery gardener Omar Compo
was not on cemetery grass as Flight 77 flew over
his head while he was cutting grass -- here, first, is THIS
further corroboration of the two-plane (Killer jet and Boeing)
explanation sent by Eric from www.sweden.com:

"They are intelligent planes and they have software limits
so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. ... their
flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers... They are
limited to approximately 1.5 g's -- military personnel have
calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and
seven g's in its final turn."
http://www.sweden.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=4536

And while considering this fighter-jet maneuverability impossible
for a Boeing, readers should keep the following too-often-forgotten
consideration in mind as they evaluate my conclusions on APFN:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/temoins_en.htm

Danielle O'Brien, air controller at Washington's Dulles airport, from
where
American Airways flight 77 took off, explained that the craft that hit
the
Pentagon had the speed and maneuverability of a "military plane". Her
account was published on the ABCnews site and used on the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association site. We reproduce an extract of it
here:

« I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the
southwest of
Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed . I had literally a blip
and
nothing more. »

O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he
saw it
too.

« I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House', »
recalls Howell. « I was yelling . 'We've got a target headed right for
the
White House!' At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was
headed
straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which
covers the
White House and the Capitol.»

« The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all
thought in
the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that
that was
a military plane » says O'Brien. « You don't fly a 757 in that manner.
It's
unsafe. »

« The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away » says O'Brien, « and it
was
just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west . Our supervisor
picked up
our line to the White House and started relaying to them the
information,
[that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound
toward your
vicinity, 8 miles west. »

« And it went 'six, five, four', And I had it in my mouth to say,
three, and
all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a
sense of
relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in,
scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we
sat
back in our chairs and breathed for just a second », says O'Brien.

But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree
maneuver.

« We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we
waited.
And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear
what's
happened, », says O'Brien. « nd then the Washington National [Airport]
controllers came over our speakers in our room and said,'Dulles, hold
all of
our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.' »

===========
OK now back to offical story defender, Ron Harvey of London who alone
claims that witness Steve Riskus states that he saw the American
Airlines
Boeing 757 knocking down the lamp posts (which I say it could not do,
since
it was over the cemetery, whereas a second sneak-attack jet is
responsible
for the downing of those poles and for the crash.) And that the
Cemetery
gardener was not in the cemetery as the plane flew over his head while
he was mowing grass.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Harvey" <tw4...@softhome.net>
To: <Aftermath-11-...@yahoogroups.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:50 PM
Subject: [Aftermath] [frameup] Re: Olive branch: hey! Ron Harvey is
right about ....

> Dick Eastman puts the plane over the Cemetery, The witnesses did not.
> No matter how many times you care to lie about it, Steve Riskus has
> clearly stated that the B757 hit lamp poles before hitting the
> Pentagon. Ergo wrong trajectory to pass over the Cemetery.

Readers will please note this significant concession from Ron Harvey,
his take-credit-for-it way of agreeing we me that if Flight 77 was
over
the cemetery, as I conclude it was, then it could not have knocked
down the
lamp posts in a straight-line approach to the Pentagon outer-wall
entry hole and and the sixth-wal exit hole in the C-ring of the
concentrically ringed Pentagon (_A-ring is the inner ring, E-ring
is the outer ring). Thus Harvey is conceding what I first asserted,
when he says: "...hit lamp posts before hitting Pentagon ... ergo
wrong trajectory to pass over the Cemetery." Thank you for that,
at least, Ron. (Note: Ron means, of course, "path" and not
"trajectory" -- guided self-propelled flying objects to not have
"trajectories," which is a gunnery term for the course of a fired
projectile that is a function of weight, velocity, angle of fire, wind
etc. -- but we know what he means.)

But even though Harvey is now agreeing with my physics and geometry,
he still rejects the broader conclusion that there must have been two
planes,
in favor of the official story, on the basis his unsubstantiated claim
that Riksus
says that he saw the Boeing knock down lamp posts. I have not seen
Riskus
saying this. I have not seen this claim on any other 9-11
investigators websites
or correspondence -- no one but Ron Harvey has ever raised this
objection,
which, if it were true would indeed be the coup d'grace for the two
plane theory.
(When I say two plane theory I am referring to the killer jet and the
Boeing 757
Flight 77 -- I am not referring to a helicopter or a C-130 that are
also reported
to have been in the general vicinity at the time, although the C-130
is reported
to been seen following the Boeing before the crash -- which means it
was higher
up and behind the Boeing (and those who were looking at the C-130
would
certainly have missed the ground-hugging approach of the killer jet
(still most
likely a modified F-16).

So where is Riskus statement. I am, so far, inclined to believe
Riskus's account,
BUT I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS FROM HIM, NOR HAVE I HEARD
ANY OTHER INVESTIGATOR OR COVERUP PROPAGANDIST MAKE
THIS CLAIM ABOUT RISKUS. I told Riskus that if he can provide the
quote and the source, or the url with this statement on it that that
would be
a significant point in favor of the anti-two plane argument -- BUT
WE ARE
STILL WAITING FOR IT. DOES HE HAVE IT AND IS DESIRING ME
TO GET FRUSTRATED AND CALL HIM MORE NAMES BEFORE HE
PRODUCES IT OR IS HE UNABLE TO PRODUCE IT AND SO HAS
TAKEN UP OTHER HOBBIES?????

ALSO, after four days Ron Harvey has still not backed this claim:
>
> "The gardener" presumably refers to Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, who
> was cutting the grass on the other side of the road.
> You can see where this was in contemporaneous photos.
> The grass is strewn around on the flyover ramp road.
> Ergo, not in the Cemetery.

College freshmen are impressed with the word "ergo" when they
first hear of it in Intro Philosophy -- but I always thought of
Harvey
as sophomoric.

You make some boasts and some accusations below, Harvey.
Why not give these some credibility by giving us the Riskus
statement and the Campbo statement that will prove me wrong
and vindicate all you have ever said. It will be a significant
contribution to a very important question -- and it will put me
in my place for good (I don't think I will be able to recover
if you can produce even one of these pieces of evidence. Seriously.)

Many respectable people who are on your side desperately need this
information so they can use it against the likes of rude common bloaks
like me. So, govnah, let's what you bloody got is wha I say, I does.)

> I provided an abundance of demonstration, web pages full of
> pertinent extracts from witness reports, all fully referenced.
> In return you Mr. Eastman stubbornly neglected to
> acknowledge the work, with no link to my pages ever provided
> in any of your various messages, and it was all too often obvious
> that you'd never even bothered to examine pertinent items even
> after they were pointed out to you. I do not therefore desire
> now to entertain any further disingenuity in that respect.
> For as far as I am concerned you are a great deal worse than a
> complete waste of time.
>
> I do not trust you and I shall continue to caution others not to.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron Harvey, London, UK.

Dick Eastman's complete analysis of the Pentagon Attack:

[Le Permanent Marker]

On of my major arguments has just been discredited.

Riskus, I have just been shown, does claim that the Boeing he was
watching hit lamp posts.

This calls my work into question -- presenting contradictions that I
cannot resolve

I am no longer certain -- but the video camera and the small hole of
the attack tell such a different story that I must conclude that
either Riskus is lying or the video camera scenes are doctored fakes.

I am no longer confident of my conclusions -- the investigation is
not closed after all -- THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE IS NOT SMOKING GUN
EVIDENCE AFTER ALL -- IT IS MERELY EVIDENCE THAT WARRENTS MORE
INVESTIGATION BY QUALIFIED IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATORS.

All of my arguments and data still are valid -- but no longer should
they be consider conclusive given this unresolved counter indication.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

Ron Harvey is right about reports of Steve Riskus claiming to have
seen light posts knocked down.

----- Original Message -----
From: <tw4...@softhome.net>
To: <fra...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: [frameup] Re: NEW PENTAGON INFO IN BRIEF & Anybody seen Ron
Harvey? Tell him Dick Eastman is lookikng for him about words he put
in the mouths of Riskus and Omar Campo.

>
> "...Ron Harvey of London who alone claims that witness Steve Riskus

> states that he saw the American Airlines

> Boeing 757 knocking down the lamp posts .." ???
>
>
> This is absurdly, annoyingly tedious.
>
> Will Mr. Eastman perhaps be honest enough at least to tell us on
> how many previous occasions I have urged him and others to give Steve
> Riskus himself a hearing in a recorded interview he gave to a French
> journalist? After all this time, and all this trouble, has he still
> not yet bothered to listen to it? The item is available here:
>
> http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/490/Riskus2.ram
>
> e.g.
> "... It was coming like at tree level probably 20 feet off the
> ground, It was knocking over light poles as it came in towards the
> building, and it stuck the building right near the ground. So it was
> really low. ... "
>
> The same is also confirmed here:
>
> http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/s11-media/et7.jpg
>
> i.e.
>
> "I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the
> building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof
> first... It hit the roof first... It hit dead centre on the side... I
> was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that i could see
> the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the
> building... .. It was not completely level but it was not going
> straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It
> knocked over a few light poles on its way...
> I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane.
> I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle...
> I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have
> those turbine engines on the wing.. and yes, it did impact the
> Pentagon... There was none of this hitting the ground first crap I
> keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... there
> is no doubt about that... When i got to work I checked ot out."
>
> Q.E.D.
>
>
> Ron Harvey, London, UK.
>
>
>
> --- In Aftermath-11-September-2001@y..., "Eastman" <eastman@b...>

> wrote:
> > "Wooster, I'm going to twist your head off and make
> > you eat it." -- Stilton Cheeseright
> >
> > Before we get to whether Ron Harvey has made good
> > on his make-or-break claims that 1) witnesses Steve Riskus

> > saw AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, down the lamp posts,
> > and .... etc.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> frameup-u...@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[Le Permanent Marker]

New info re: Pentagon attack at
http://www.koolpages.com/killtown/

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

Opposition to a possible war in Iraq has come from an unlikely source
- the US military itself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2663191.stm

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

The System Can't Be Fixed
Commentary By John Kaminski
sky...@comcast.net
1-18-3

Our future is a dark age of vicious guards and powerless prisoners,
unless ...

Our president is a criminal, if not surely guilty, at least chargeable
for the following offenses:

Military desertion, cocaine smuggling, conspiracy to destroy American
landmarks, conspiracy to commit mass murder in New York, Washington,
Pennsylvania and Afghanistan. And treason, for sure.

Willful and deliberate destruction of the U.S. Constitution. Accessory
to the theft of billions of dollars in the savings and loan debacle
engineered and/or condoned by his father. Corruption for making
repeated and continuing governmental decisions to enrich his relatives
and friends. Obstruction of justice, innumerable counts, for blocking
investigations into crimes that cost the lives of thousands of
American citizens.

Kidnapping and torture, for putting thousands of innocent people in
jail without trial and denying them their Constitutional rights, as
well as killing some. Illegal persecution of racial and ethnic
minorities. Accessory to obstruction of justice for allowing the U.S.
vote system to be commandeered by criminals who can rig the vote
without being detected. Complicity in the assassination of a political
rival.

If we had a real attorney general who represented all Americans rather
than only the rights of the wealthy, he would investigate these
charges, and convene a legitimate invesitigation into the suspicious
atrocities of 9/11/2001. But as he was appointed by the same man who
is charged with committing all these crimes, no investigation is
likely. In fact, the attorney general himself is probably guilty of
many of the same charges as the president, as he is conspicuously
involved in so many of the instances of obstruction of justice.

So, there is no chance that the sitting government is going to act on
these obvious crimes, since the entire government is polluted by
conspirators of the same political party who are beholden to the
criminals who gave them their jobs. This deadlock also applies to
virtually all of the judges in America, since most of them have been
appointed by the same manipulators and their like-minded predecessors,
who must promise to condone this corruption before they are ever
appointed to the bench in the first place.

And even the legislative branch is subject to the same polluting
influences, since it costs millions to achieve these posts and once
elected, collusion in the secret and criminal activities of the power
elite is essential to advancing one's career.

As preposterous as it sounds, the entire Congress (excepting a dozen
or so idealists) needs to be dismissed and indicted for its corrupt
actions. That says something about the direction our future must take
if we are to actually be free.

We are supposed to have a two-party system in America, but it has been
apparent for some time that the differences between the two parties
are wholly cosmetic. An analysis of the recent vote on making war
against Iraq is instructive, as only eight senators opposed it,
despite the complete absence of hard evidence that Iraq should be
invaded at all (something the rest of the world knows well, but that
the American people choose not to know). The opposition included seven
Democrats and one Independent, but the vast majority of Democrats
supported the Republican president's position, even though it was
clearly a lie. The situation is identical when it comes to the
Israelis' continuing theft of the Palestinians' homeland.

Similar outcomes were recorded in the votes for the Patriot Act and
Homeland Security bill, two legislative monstrosities which
effectively curtailed most of the privileges recorded in our
Constitutional Bill of Rights, which had remained essentially
unmolested for two centuries.

These votes clearly indicate there is no genuine opposition party in
the United States, only a false opposition whose differences with the
party in permanent power are pretty much meaningless.

This is evident in the opposition party candidates who speak not of
changing the current criminal system but only of modifying procedures
in trivial ways that would give no relief to the beleaguered citizenry
but only enrich their corrupt friends instead of the other guy's. Look
hard at the principal candidates for the 2004 opposition presidential
nomination: a member of the same college fraternity as the current
president, and two partisan advocates of immoral support for a foreign
power that is a principal abettor of tyranny in the world. This is no
opposition, only another flavor of the same oppression. Thus, there is
no reason to expect any kind of change after the next election. To put
it more clearly, there is no reason to vote at all.

In short, there is no place for the average American citizen to turn
for relief. This terminal disease of political corruption extends
downward through the states, counties and muncipalities, where all
elective offices are occupied by people able to pay their way into the
ruling system, through alliances with corrupt judges and party bosses,
with all machinations based on bribery and deception. Perhaps this is
what America has always been " that's a long argument " but there is
no argument that this is what America is now: a perverted cesspool of
political payola.

Members of both parties were involved in the pivotal decisions of the
past half-century that allowed the destruction of America's
manufacturing base and the widespread practice of financial deception
to cheat legitimate investors out of their hard-earned money. The
coming impoverishment of the United States is a bipartisan
achievement, but only insofar as the policies of both parties have
been consistently to take the short-term profit and feed it quickly to
elite investors and their political minions rather than to invest it
prudently in the continuing well-being of the American economy. The
flight of industry beyond our borders is chief testament to this
policy, and the reason why, when this country goes broke beyond any
solution the fast-talkers can fabricate, there will be no fixing the
problem, and no ready solution to a chaotic poverty that will sweep
the land.

This is the real reason why Ashcroft is talking internment camps, why
people are fearful of boxcars with seats in them, and new, barbed-wire
enclosures that are supposedly springing up all across the land. The
current president is trying to blackmail us into war by insisting the
economy needs the boost of a military extravaganza to replenish its
treasury with the varied industrial activity that wars always bring.
Since World War I, this is a tried-and-true method of reinvigorating
the economy. But once we realize the principle means trading millions
of foreign lives simply to resuscitate our bank accounts, the true
cost of this political principle will surely be our souls.

And, judging by America's stances in the world today, this is a price
that we " willingly or unconsciously " have already paid. America has
lost its soul. Once a beacon of freedom, justice and equality, it is
now a blinking neon sign on Skid Row advertising high-interest loans
to Third World countries that can never finish repaying them.

We traded our soul when we bribed all those other countries to let us
obliterate Afghanistan. There was no real reason to do it, other than
to add another layer of deception to the 9/11 caper, to improve
political conditions for an oil pipeline, and to put us in better
position for when we decide to invade Iran, or Russia, or Saudi
Arabia, or Pakistan, or all of the above. There was no real reason to
kill all those people except to facilitate additional revenues for
military support companies owned by Bush's friends. That's how he's
improving our economy, by improving HIS economy and letting a few
pennies trickle down here and there.

By allowing this criminal president to get away with his antisocial
behavior, the American people don't realize that they are only
bringing on for themselves what they are now approving for inhabitants
of less fortunate countries like Iraq. Sooner or later, the petronazis
are going to run out of foreign patsies to bomb, and are going to turn
their guns inward. It's inevitable, and to some extent, it has already
happened, in terms of the abolition of the most of the civil rights we
have been accustomed to all our lives.

By acquiescing in the criminal bullying of the rest of the world by
the mega-might of the American military machine, we are sending a
clear signal to the tyrants in Washington and Tel Aviv that we will
tolerate any atrocity as long as our gas prices stay low and our TV
schedules are not interrupted. Any day now, you'll begin to notice
that the criminal atrocities of the power elite are creeping closer
and closer to home.

But don't worry. There'll be TV in the camps, I'm told. But only one
channel. And guess who'll be on.

The current system absolutely cannot be fixed. No amount of
petitioning, protesting, having meaningful conversations with the few
remaining compassionate members of Congress (an endangered species if
there ever was one), or writing letters to newspapers that don't care
will have any effect. They have no effect now, other than to massage
the egos of the deluded activists making the effort.

No amount of maverick candidacies, third party movements or
political-issue crusades is going going to stop this military
juggernaut from turning the world into an armed camp (it is already,
in case you haven't noticed) where citizens will be herded into
"debtors" camps. Many will be eliminated by vaccination programs,
although as the insurance industry collapses, medical care will no
longer be available to anyone but the super rich. Already, our schools
are assuming the appearance of military indoctrination centers that
preach that the poor are evil. Drugs and electronic conditioning will
make it easier to turn these elite students against their fellow human
beings.

The world is devolving into a universal system of guards and
prisoners, and you get to choose which one you will be on the basis of
how steadfastly you adhere to the party line. Already, there is
nowhere to escape as satellites can access every square inch of the
planet, and gun-toting politicians in every single country are ready
and willing to turn you in to the thought police because the bounties
for such apprehensions are already very lucrative.

This is what will happen if the current system is allowed to remain in
place. The alternatives are almost as scary. Whatever happens is going
to involve massive dislocation and death, because people in all the
industrialized countries are simply not equipped to survive when their
support systems break down. People who live in underdeveloped
countries are actually better equipped to survive, because they live
closer to nature and are less likely to lose their livelihoods in the
event of worldwide economic collapse, which, by the way, is imminent.

Yet, breaking down the support systems is exactly what must happen if
legitimate freedom is ever to be regained. It is the support systems
that enslave us and keep us dependent on our corporate keepers. We
need to eat food we grow in our backyards, not buy from supermarket
chains. We need to be able to complain to our government face-to-face,
not have to write a letter to Washington, or some other capital that
doesn't care. We need to be able to teach our children what we think
is important, not what some overpaid consultant in a big city deems is
necessary to turn our kids into the next generation of corporate
slaves.

We have, over the last century, traded our freedom for that illusory
curtain of security that we thought would allow us to live our lives
in peace and freedom. Little did we know that this curtain was wholly
predicated on the ability and willingness to make war. And now we are
beginning to learn that our freedom, all this time, was really a kind
of slavery.

Now we find ourselves in a situation that is little better politically
than landless serfs were in the Middle Ages at the mercy of their
whimsical lords. We have our own lords, and they don't mind killing us
and anybody else if we interfere with their moneymaking operations.

If we keep the system, we keep our chains, we keep our right, if we're
lucky, to have lucrative job as long as we say the right thing, and
ignore it when our government decides it must slaughter a large bloc
of hapless peasants because they are interfering with access to a
valuable natural resource. We can't keep the system and remain free.

The price of either path will be painful.

Assuming you ever get the chance, which will you choose?

In regard to the charges against George W. Bush listed at the top of
this article:

Military desertion? See http://www.awolbush.com/ or
http://www.wearepower.org/pipermail/natlpower/2002-October/000556.html

Cocaine smuggling? See http://www.umsl.edu/~skthoma/offline9.htm

Conspiracy to destroy landmarks and commit mass murder? How about
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm to pick the best of
many stories like this.

Treason? http://bush-treason.blogspot.com/

Accessory to the theft of billions of dollars in the savings and loan
debacle? See http://www.thetip.org/art_146_icle.html and
http://www.campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

Enriching his friends?

http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm ,
http://www.bushwatch.net/bushmillions.html and
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/other_more.asp

Obstruction of justice?
http://members.tripod.com/~RedRobin2/index-93.html

Illegal jailings? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/pows-m31.shtml
and http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin2/thoughts/comment020128.asp

Computerized election vote fraud?
http://www.talion.com/vote-rigging.html

Assassinating a political rival?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5351.html and
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29.shtml

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

GREATEST RED FLAG OF PENTAGON ATTACK !!
That alleged Dulles flight controller said she
saw the plane make a "right" or clockwise
turn over the Pentagon. Transcription error?
Maybe she meant right over as in directly
over?

-Bob

No. The plane was OVER the PENTAGON in that it was higher. It is
interesting that the plane turned RIGHT and flew 270 degrees instead
of turning LEFT and flying 80 degrees especially in light of the
danger from the anti missile batteries John Judge noted on the roof of
the PENTAGON. If there were real terrorists in that plane they would
be fearing immediate death at any second and the failure of their
mission.

By far the greatest RED FLAG about this PENTAGON "attack" is the
avoidance of the offices of the JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF for a far more
difficult insignificant unoccupied section of the PENTAGON.

Only the simplest of minds would suggest that any of this was a matter
of last minute choice.

To me this looks like the PENTAGON is attacking their own building and
those planning the affair added the 270 degree circle as shear
showmanship as they knew there would be no effort to shoot down the
plane.

Brian Downing Quig

--- In cia-...@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <recbo@n...> wrote:
> The tape said 1060 was 25 miles from 93, within
> visual range.
>
> I just wonder about Cleveland seeing that far on
> radar. That might mean FAA is all inter-connected
> by fiber like DC area Potomac Valley TRACON
> which connects Dulles, Andrews AFB, BWI, and
> Reagan National. Or one fighter in the air could
> extend Cleveland's range, or one CIA bizjet if so
> equipped.
>
> I don't see a parallel implication but air national
> guard units from hundreds of miles away were
> called up late and flew slowly, instead of toprung
> reserve units which get newest avionics and
> weapons before active duty overseas units. So
> why Cleveland instead of Pittsburgh or even
> Potomac Valley TRACON, just more cover for
> Andrews AFB and Dulles excuse-making?
>
> That alleged Dulles flight controller said she
> saw the plane make a "right" or clockwise
> turn over the Pentagon. Transcription error?
> Maybe she meant right over as in directly
> over?
>
> -Bob
>
> http://www.noplanetb.org
> http://www.thugsanon.org
> http://www.MIBskinnyties.US
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: better_off_said <better_off_said@y...>
> To: cia-...@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 11:43 PM
> Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] Re: FL93-FBI is silent, fueling "shot down"

rumors 9-11
>
>
This is a great article Webfairy.

It's my belief that the unidentified aircraft seen circling the area
was the ExecuJet 956 (whose CVR will be played in the Moussaoui
trial).
>
I found it interesting that none of the witnesses in the article saw a
commercial airliner circling the area, however. It stands to reason
the people who reported seeing the mysterious aircraft circling the
area after the crash certainly would have seen AA 1060
as well (although the absence of their accounts does not negate its
prescence).

I'm also wondering if anyone remembers some of the first images to
come out of the crash site in Shanksville. One of the first pictures
of the smoking wreckage, which was both aired on television and posted
on media web sites, clearly showed a house in the background of the
crash site. Interestingly enough, that very same picture reappeared
in the press later on, but cropped, and without the house in the
background. ("House? What house? Oh, hehe, that was a block of
cheese...") (If home) the occupant(s) of that house had a ring-side
seat, but where is their testimony of what they heard or saw?

I also found the mention of Three Mile Island as a possible target
VERY interesting. This is the only article I've read since 9-11 that
mentioned the possibility the nuclear facility was Flight 93's
intended target. It makes sense, however, considering the locale of
the plane and the potential damage it would have caused.
Interesting...

Philadelphia Daily News

We know it crashed, but not why
FBI is silent, fueling "shot down" rumors
By WILLIAM BUNCH (15 Nov 12001)

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising.

"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a
missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of
hundred yards. . This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's
heard
them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what
he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very,
very close."
>
SHANKSVILLE, Pa. - Ernie Stuhl is the mayor of this tiny farming
borough that was so brutally placed on America's psychic map on the
morning
of Sept. 11, when United Airlines Flight 93 slammed nose-down into
the edge of a barren strip-mine moonscape a couple of miles outside
of town.

A 77-year-old World War II veteran and retired Dodge dealer, he's
certainly no conspiracy theorist.

And, when you ask Stuhl for his theory of what caused the jetliner
to crash that morning, he will give you the prevailing theory - that
a cockpit battle between the hijackers and burly, heroic passengers
somehow caused
the Boeing 757 to spiral out of control. "There's no doubt in my mind
that they did put it down before it got to Washington and caused
more damage," he
said.

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something
surprising.

"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a
missile,"
Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred
yards. . This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard
them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he
knows about that
morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close."

If the mayor of Shanksville still seems conflicted about what caused
the crash of Flight 93 two months ago, he is hardly alone. As the
initial shock of Sept. 11 wears off, the crash some 80 miles east of

Pittsburgh, and what caused it, is beginning to emerge as the
greatest mystery from the worst terrorist attack in American history.

No one has fully explained why the plane went down, or what exactly
happened during an eight-minute gap from the time all cell phone calls
from the plane
stopped and the time it crashed.

And the FBI, which assumed control of the probe from the
NationalTransportation Safety Board, refuses to release data from
either of the critical "black boxes," the cockpit voice recorder and
the flight data recorder.

Citing the ongoing war on terrorism, the FBI says it can't say when it
will release the data - or indeed, if it ever will.

"It's evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation," an FBI spokesman
in Pittsburgh, Jeff Killeen, said last week.

This week, the nation was rocked by another jetliner crash - American
Airlines Flight 587 in New York - and the difference in the way the
probes
have been handled is remarkable. In the latest crash, federal
officials released detailed information about the cockpit voice
recorder in less than 36 hours.

In the case of Flight 93, both the FBI and the nation's air-defense
agency - NORAD - have said the aircraft was not shot down.

Said Killeen: "The evidence points to activity on the plane itself -
and not elsewhere."

While almost all of the attention given Flight 93 has focused on the
bravery of the passengers, the question of why it ultimately went down
is not academic. To win the war on terrorism, some say America and its
government must continue to occupy the moral high ground - and the
failure to release the data in the face of lingering rumors poses a
credibility risk.

Predictably, the lack of official information has given rise to a
flurry of debate on America's channel for unofficial news: the
Internet.

Already, there is a Web site (www.flight93crash.com) that summarizes
everything known about the crash. And while much of the mainstream
media has lost interest in the story, articles suggesting that the
government shot down Flight 93 and has lied about it have flourished
on left-wing Internet sites and publications.
Of course, in 2001, Internet conspiracy theories are hardly shocking.

What is surprising is this: Go to Shanksville and the surrounding farm
fields where people actually saw or heard the jetliner go down at
roughly 10:06 that morning and there are a number of people -
including witnesses - who also think that Flight 93 was shot down, or
at least aren't ruling it out.

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in
Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she
heard an airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since
she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily
News. "I heard two more booms - and then I did not hear anything."

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down,"
insists Temyer, who said she has twice told her story to the FBI.
What's more, she insists that people she knows in state law
enforcement have told her the same thing, that the plane was shot down
and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining
why there was a wide debris field.

But an eyewitness, Linda Shepley, said she had an unobstructed view of
Flight 93's final two minutes and has reached the opposite conclusion.
She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left, at a low
altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly
dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth.

"It's not true," said Shepley of the persistent rumors. "If it had
been shot down, there would have been pieces flying, but it was intact
- there was nothing wrong with it." So what are the clues that have
prompted the crash of Flight 93 to remain a lingering mystery? *
THE911 CALL. At 9:58 a.m., roughly eight minutes before impact, a 911
emergency dispatcher in neighboring Westmoreland County took a call
from a frantic passenger who said he was locked in the bathroom of
Flight 93 and that the plane had been hijacked. The caller said there
had been an explosion aboard the plane and there was white smoke.

Authorities have never explained the report, and the 911 tape itself
was immediately confiscated by the FBI.

* THEDEBRIS FIELD. The reclaimed mine where the plane crashed is
composed of very soft soil, and searchers say much of the wreckage was
found buried 20-25 feet below the large crater. But despite that,
there was also widely scattered debris in the immediate vicinity and
further afield. Considerable debris washed up more than two miles away
at Indian Lake, and a canceled check and brokerage statement from the
plane was found in a deep valley some eight miles away that week.
* THEMYSTERY PLANE. Many people in the Shanksville area, including
some interviewed by the Daily News, saw a fast-moving, unmarked small
jet fly overhead a very short time after Flight 93 crashed. Several
days later, authorities said they believe the plane was a Falcon 20
private jet that was
headed to nearby Johnstown but was asked to descend and survey the
crash site. Yet officials have never identified the pilot nor
explained why he was still airborne roughly 30 minutes after the
government ordered all aircraft to land at the closest airport.

* THEENGINE. While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane
was mostly obliterated by the roughly 500 mph impact, they also said
an engine - or at least a 1,000-pound piece of one - was found "a
considerable distance" from the crater. Stuhl, the Shanksville mayor,
said it was found in the woods just west of the crash. That
information is intriguing to shoot-down theory proponents, since the
heat-seeking, air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 would
likely target one of the Boeing 757's two large engines.

* LOCATION OF F-16S. From Day 1, the government has given conflicting
accounts about the exact whereabouts of three North Dakota Air
National Guard F-16s, assigned to national air defense, based at
Langley Air Force base in Virginia and scrambled at the height of the
attacks.
Just a few days after the crash, a federal flight controller told a
Nashua, N.H., newspaper that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of the
hijacked United jet, following so closely that it made 360-degree
turns to stay in range. "He must have seen the whole thing," an
unnamed aviation official said.

No one would argue that two months after Flight 93 tumbled into a
Pennsylvania hillside killing all 44 aboard that there is more that we
don't know about what happened in the flight's final minutes than we
do know.

We don't even know for sure where the four hijackers were going.

Based on the plane's general course, the conventional wisdom is that
Flight 93 was headed toward Washington and a strike on the White House
or the Capitol. But last month, the widely respected Times of London,
quoting U.S. intelligence sources and noting the plane's low altitude
and erratic course, suggested the real target might have been one of
the state's nuclear power plants. At 500 mph, the Three Mile Island
plant, near

Harrisburg, was about than 10 or 15 minutes away.

Whether it was hero passengers or an F-16 fighter pilot who wanted the
hijacked jetliner to come down away from a populated area, they did an
amazing job in picking Shanksville.

The nearest sizable town, Somerset, is 10 miles away on winding
back-country roads - where a visitor encountered as many dead raccoons
as vehicles. Nestled along a creekbed in the rolling Allegheny
foothills, Shanksville is a small cluster of red-brick homes and
flag-draped front porches.

The only commercial enterprise, a convenience store called Ida's, also
rents videos and has the only ATM for miles around. What happened
here on Sept. 11 is already the stuff of American legend - especially
the battle cry of passenger Todd Beamer, whose overheard command of
"Let's Roll" is on bumper stickers and has even been adopted by
President Bush.

Four Middle Eastern hijackers sought to carry out their plan even
though the mostly empty plane, bound from Newark, N.J., to San
Francisco, had left the airport 42 minutes late because of mechanical
problems. The delay meant that passengers - who phoned family members
and operators on their cell
phones - learned of the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon and knew that their only option was to fight the hijackers
for control of the
plane.

The almost irrefutable evidence is that a group of burly and heroic
male passengers - including Beamer, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick, Tom
Burnett, and Lou Nacke - did just that. In the only piece of
information from the cockpit voice recorder that has filtered into
news reports, anonymous sources told USA Today last month that there
is evidence of a struggle toward the end of the doomed flight. But
the cell phone calls from the passengers all stopped about

9:58 a.m. - roughly the same time that the caller to 911 in
Westmoreland County stated there had been an explosion.

The plane didn't come down until 10:06 - leaving an 8-minute gap of
unaccounted for air time, and thus a great mystery. The commonly
accepted view, that a chaotic cockpit struggle caused the downing, is
certainly a plausible explanation for the crash - but it doesn't
address the issue of how.

Who was at the controls for those final eight minutes? Would a
hijacker deliberately crash the plane during such a battle? What
rudders or
other controls could have been set off, either in a scuffle or by
accident, that could cause the highly automated jet to crash?

Many of the answers - if not all - should be contained on the black
boxes recovered shortly after the crash. Without that data, however, a
number of aviation experts contacted by the Daily News were reluctant
to speculate.

"Those are the things that would answer those questions - without
those I don't know how to answer," said Carl Vogt, a former chairman
of the National Transportation Safety Board and now a Washington
attorney.

When Flight 93 came down, the eyewitnesses seem to agree on a few
basic facts - that the Boeing 757 was headed south or southeast very
fast, that it was flying erratically or banking from side to side,
that its right wing dipped steeply down and that the jetliner came
down at close to a
90-degree angle. A number of people quoted right after the crash said
there
were strange noises, that the engine seemed to race but then went
eerily
silent as the plane plummeted.

The plane seemed to be fully, or largely, intact. "I didn't see no
smoke, nothing," said Nevin Lambert, an elderly farmer who witnessed
the crash from his side yard less than a half-mile away.

Lambert also said he also later found a couple of pieces of debris,
one a piece of metal, less than 12 inches across, with some insulation
attached.
To those who are debating the causes of the crash, the debris is
particularly significant because heavier farflung debris would suggest
that
something happened to cause the plane to break up before it hit the
ground.

Authorities also sought to explain why a number of residents saw a
small, unmarked jet circling over the crash site shortly after.
Workers at
a marina saw it, and so did Kathy Blades, who was in her small summer
cottage about a quarter-mile from the impact site.

Blades and her son ran outside after the crash and saw the jet, with
sleek back wings and an angled cockpit, race overhead. "My son said,

'I think we're under attack!' " She said she was so shocked by the
crash she can't say exactly how long after the impact it was.

A few days later, the FBI offered a possible explanation for what
the witnesses saw. Authorities said that a private Falcon 20 jet bound
for nearby Johnstown was in the vicinity and was asked by authorities
to descend and help survey the crash site. But the authorities didn't
identify the
owner of the jet, nor explain why it was airborne some 40 minutes
after the Federal Aviation Administration ordered all planes to land
at the nearest airport.

So where was the U.S. air defense at 10 a.m. - 72 minutes after the
first
plane struck the World Trade Center and about a half-hour after air
controllers and United started to suspect that Flight 93 had been
hijacked?

At 9:24 that morning, the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD)
ordered three F-16s from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to
scramble. They were airborne at 9:30. It's not clear how close any of
the planes were to Flight 93, although Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz said a few days later on TV that "we were already tracking
that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania."

Vice President Dick Cheney said later that President Bush authorized
the military to shoot down any civilian plane that did not respond to
air-traffic control and appeared to be a threat. The order is said
to have come before Bush left Florida, which was at 9:58 a.m.

The commander of the North Dakota Air National Guard, which was
handling air defense out of Langley that morning, later told the New
York Times that the unidentified pilots received a harrowing order.

"A person came on the radio," Major Gen. Mike Haugen said, "and
identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, 'I
want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "

What happened in those final 8 minutes?

Most Americans are quite comfortable with the conclusion that the
struggle between the passengers and the hijackers caused the crash of

Flight 93.
Roxanne Sullivan, who lives at the end of Skyline Drive in Shanksville
and helped erect and maintain one of the memorials, says she has
absolutely no doubt that's what happened. How does she know?

"Right here," she said, thumping her heart.

Not all her neighbors are so convinced.

"I think it was shot down," said Dennis Mock, who was not an
eyewitness but lives closest to the crash site on the west side.
"That's what people around here think."

Until the FBI decides to release the flight data, there will be little
to convince him or his neighbors otherwise.

[Le Permanent Marker]

Listening to a critic:

From: "ralph-nesbitt" <ralph-...@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Le Permanent Marker" <eas...@bentonrea.com>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Le Permenant marker Was Re: 911 is about economics,etc
etc etc
>
> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Le Permanent Marker" <eas...@bentonrea.com>
> Newsgroups:
> uk.politics.crime,nyc.politics,alt.fan.howard-stern,uk.current-events.genera
> l,alt.conspiracy,alt.disasters.aviation
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Le Permenant marker Was Re: 911 is about economics,etc etc etc
>
> > Ange...@AngelFire.com (Angel Elf)New info re: Pentagon attack at
> > http://www.koolpages.com/killtown/
> >
> The above site is another "Fabricated Crock of B/S". Yesterday you posted an
> admission that you had finally been convinced your allegations regarding the
> Pentagon/United Flt 77 incident of 9/11 are unfounded & without basis. Now
> today you repost a similar "Fabricated Crock of B/S", which is as "Far
> Fetched", if not more so, than yours.
>
> Why do you continue to make a"Fool" of yourself by posting/referencing these
> "Fabricated Crocks of B/S" to ADA?
> Ralph Nesbitt
> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Ralph,

You have to admit that that is one clean lawn.

In hard science, when new evidence comes up that overthrows a working
hypothesis
that experimenters were feeling very confident about, one doe not
typically shut down
the entire research laboratory -- rather, one "goes back to the
drawing board" a little
wiser than before.

What I said, or meant to say if I did not convey that to you, was that
my evidence
no longer is "smoking gun" that will, as I had been saying, "convince
any impartial
grand jury."

The fact that Riskus is reported to have seen poles being knocked down
by an
AA Boeing 757 -- flatly contradicts my two-plane-two-path theory that
had
the killer jet downing those poles as it came from the southwest and
the 757
coming from the west. That is reason for a jury to have reasonable
doubt about
the claims I was making.

I have decided to start with a blank page and to work with those I was
fighting
with -- with a misplaced Don Quixote attitude -- which is practically
all of the
other 9-11 investigators I know.

I would like to proceed with old enemies involved in the thinking and
hypothesis
testing and evidence researching -- Sarah Roberts -- whom I have
verbally
scratched at for so long she wears pot holders when responding --
yet real
science only progresses between an investigator and his most competent
researcher critic. (No one trusts science that is unopposed -- just
as no one
trusts establishment news media that is unopposed, all taking the
exact same
position for war and misreporting the size of anti-war demonstrations
etc.)

Anyway, I was once a Republican -- I was co-chairman for the
Young-Voters
for the President in 1972 for the Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose area. I
was
for Ike, Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, -- then I broke,
following
Buchanan, and voted Buchanan, Buchanan, Buchanan in all primaries and
Presidential elections. It is not that I don't believe the
small-town mid-Western-type
Republican verities -- it is that I believe the investmant bankers
(organized crime
commanding trillions!) has bought out the top of the party and filled
all key
positions with compliant crooks bent on middle-class plunder.

I find that many "leftists" that Hannity and Rush deride -- are men
exactly like me-
and I know market economics better than either of those jokers (I have
two
years towards the doctorate from Texas A & M) -- I've been a Milton
Friedman monetarist much longer than a populist.

Now, I have written this long letter to you -- so please explain what
these letters
mean: FD/CFR/ARFF is it fire department / council on foreign
relations /
association of retired fire fighters -- is does that middle one
stand for
something else like "Conservative Firemen Rock"

Back to the Pentagon investigations.

New information has also come up, that I did not share with the
newsgroups --
that a business jet -- which fits the exact description given by some
of the
witnesses (a plane that would not hold more than 12 passengers etc.)
-- may have been involved.

There are other hypotheses that must be evaluated now that my
"darling"
is in the box. One I am most curious about is the possibility that
there
were projections -- some kind of holograph that does not require a
screen.

I am also cruious about the video tape the nerdciites has been
insisting
was faked, but that I always discounted -- not wanting to give up
the hardness of it as evidence, perhaps.

Anyway Ralph -- I have admitted I don't have the smoking gun --
that all I still have is a hypothesis with weaknesses in a field of
hypotheses being offered by others that in some ways are more
promising candidates for being proven to be the truth.

I invite you to join in a new objective fair non-political
non-partisan
search for what really happened -- present your hypothesis or
understanding of the events and why you hold them and let us
as two men of good will, respecting the facts, seeing the truth,
letting the chips fall where they may after we are really sure --
that the plane was indeed a Boeing or it was some other plane
or some kind of a projection etc.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

[ib1]

On 18 Jan 2003 22:58:31 -0800, eas...@bentonrea.com (Le Permanent
Marker) wrote:

>One of my major arguments has just been discredited.

there was an article in ..

i believe .. as i can not specifically recall the exact magazine ..

a canadiain newspaper magazine .. an article by a lawyer who claimed:

" that he would and could guarantee that he would get anyone off on a
murder charge .. if they would fallow his instructions "

his instructions were:

that the murder must take place at " noon "
i believe it was .. on a very busy downtown intersection in broad day
light .. with a large number of eye witnesses ..

i also believe .. he was speaking from toronto ..

with the essential case being:

that due to the degree and amount of conflicting evidence from
eyewitness testimony that the case would be won ..

the idea that the case can be and is dismissible on the evidence of
one eye witness's testimony .. especially given the size and
importance of what is at stake here ..

i believe is unreasonable ..

especially in my opinion .. when you simply compare the size and mass
of the fireball of the same size aircraft hitting the WTC .. as in the
image on the cover of the NewYork Times ..

i also believe that there is a significantly difference to fireball
from the explosion of large amounts of jet fuel and from that of
exploding ordinance ..

one i believe to be evident here ..

[c.j.]

ib1 <ey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4l7p2v45sdboabcbt...@4ax.com>...

Can you find one ATC at the local airport or at Andrews Air force Base
that saw a plane fly towards Washington and then vanish at the right
time and if you can find one you should find a few from each site,
after all, most of these people had a 40+ minute notice of the events
at the WTC. I have seen gov. pictures of the Pentagon impact, they
were all doctored and the plane was far to big to of made such a small
hole, the flash colours in the pics are to hot for a plane, more like
some sort of weapon.
You should take great care in the Quest for witnesses, most of those
on the grasse knol all died in unusual ways.
Non of the events on that day make little sense and Dubyas constant
attempts to stop or slow the investigations makes me wonder all the
more.
www.copvcia.com
www.bilderberg.org
www.infowars.com
www.emporers-clothes.com

[Le Permanent Marker]

carl_s...@talk21.com (c.j.) wrote in message news:<e515557a.03012...@posting.google.com>...

> > i believe .. as i can not specifically recall the exact magazine ..
> > a canadiain newspaper magazine .. an article by a lawyer who claimed:
> >
> > " that he would and could guarantee that he would get anyone off on a

> > murder charge .. if they would follow his instructions "

>

> Can you find one ATC at the local airport or at Andrews Air force Base
> that saw a plane fly towards Washington and then vanish at the right
> time and if you can find one you should find a few from each site,
> after all, most of these people had a 40+ minute notice of the events
> at the WTC. I have seen gov. pictures of the Pentagon impact, they
> were all doctored and the plane was far to big to of made such a small
> hole, the flash colours in the pics are to hot for a plane, more like
> some sort of weapon.
> You should take great care in the Quest for witnesses, most of those
> on the grasse knol all died in unusual ways.
> Non of the events on that day make little sense and Dubyas constant
> attempts to stop or slow the investigations makes me wonder all the
> more.
> www.copvcia.com
> www.bilderberg.org
> www.infowars.com
> www.emporers-clothes.com

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

These are very good points, gentlemen.

Have you noticed that those who are so certain that
this theory or any 9-11 frameup theory is wrong are
not basing their position on any investigation that
has ever been conducted. This means that they are
denying the validity of investigations merely on
the basis of their impressions of the event gathered
from instant news reporting and instant analysis by
corporations interested in ratings and sponsors.

At any rate, here are four articles mixed with
urls for many more.

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

LISTEN UP, SOLDIER
YOUR COMMANDERS OPPOSE THIS WAR

By: Justin Raimondo
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/raim012003.shtml
You're an American GI, and you signed up because you love your
country, you want to defend it, and you also want to improve the
quality of your own life in a dead economy. You're willing to fight
anywhere they send you, obey orders like a good soldier, and you think
the antiwar movement is completely full of it. As war looms on the
horizon, you are rarin' to go – but how come your commanders and
officers aren't? A recent article in Time magazine informs us:

"As many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a
pre-emptive war with Iraq. The reasons aren't surprising: the U.S.
military is already stretched across the globe, the war against Osama
bin Laden is unfinished, and even if the march to Baghdad goes
quickly, a long postwar occupation looks inevitable. The military's
assessment of the chances of success are less optimistic than those of
the Administration's theologians."

The grunts, as usual, are just following orders. They accept what they
hear in the news media about the antiwar movement as a bunch of nutjob
lefties and feel-good pacifists. But what about their own officers,
who have doubts about the crazed strategy being touted by the War
Party as the key to success in Iraq? Are they pacifists? I don't think
so. So listen up, soldier. Forget the antiwar movement, and listen to
General Anthony Zinni , the Marine Corps commander and former chief of
the Central Command, who says:

"Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate
right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion,
Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all
see this the same way. It might be interesting to wonder why all the
generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in
anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's
usually the way it is in history."

Time magazine devotes a lot of attention to the new, "streamlined"
plan for an invasion of Iraq that Defense Secretary Donald "Know it
all" Rumsfeld is trying to shove down the throats of the boys in the
Pentagon, who don't like it much. Retired Army General Norman
Schwarzkopf, who led the first Gulf War, says he is "nervous" about
the control Rumsfeld is exercising over the buildup. "It looks like
Rumsfeld is totally, 100%, in charge," says Schwarzkopf. "He seems to
be deeply immersed in the operational planning – to the chagrin of
most of the armed forces.". Rummy the dummy wants to do it with as
little as 50,000 soldiers, and "no more than 100,000." The Rumsfled
plan is to zoom straight to Baghdad after a mere 7-day bombing
campaign, a "quick victory" scenario that angers many in the Pentagon.
They see him as the instrument of the civilian leadership who devise
"heroic" scenarios that they are expected to somehow pull off. Retired
General Merrill McPeak, formerly the Air Force Chief of Staff during
the last Gulf war, is frankly p'oed:

"Rumsfeld is running this on a very short string. I'm sure that's a
source of frustration for Tommy Franks, but this is a Rumsfeld show.
He's really running this buildup, hands on the throttle and steering
wheel. If I were there, I'd be contemplating resignation daily."

You can bet he didn't say this lightly. As a lifelong soldier, and a
loyal one, General McPeak's concern for the welfare of his own
soldiers, as well as his country, overcame his natural tendency to
simply go along with the commander-in-chief and his civilian advisors.
But what has McPeak and a lot of the brass up in arms was summed up by
General James L. Jones, four-star commander of the Marine Corps. As
the pro-war Brits over at the Telegraph reported:

"One of America's most senior generals has condemned as 'foolish'
plans backed by leading Washington hawks to topple Saddam Hussein by
using special forces in a repetition of the tactics that succeeded in
Afghanistan….

The "quick victory" scenario is politically plausible, which is why
the civies are for it. Get it over and done with, it'll be a
"cakewalk" says the War Party. But does the Rumsfeld "Gulf war lite"
plan make military sense? Here's General McPeak:

"Afghanistan was Afghanistan; Iraq is Iraq. It would be foolish, if
you were ever committed to going into Iraq, to think that the
principles that were successful in Afghanistan would necessarily be
successful in Iraq. In my opinion, they would not."

Oh, but what does a Marine commander know about it? After all, McPeak
is only the supreme allied commander of NATO. What is that compared
to, say, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the political appointees in DoD who
has been pushing hard for war – and never served a day in his life,
except in thinktanks and government, along with all the rest of the
pencil-necked geeks gunning for war?

Time reports that the higher you go up in the military ranks, the more
mutinous the grumbling gets:

"There are hundreds of one-star generals and action officers who
complain that Rumsfeld's not listening to the military."

Hundreds! But why isn't he listening to them? What's up with this rush
to war?

The reason is simple: it's politics. The President needs to get this
over with before election season rolls around, or else do what the
whole world is telling him to do: let the UN inspections proceed. But
that process that could last as long as a year. The War Party is
pushing for unilateral American action now, because of politics, not
only in the U.S. but in Israel.

The extremist Likud government of hard-liner Ariel Sharon is in
political trouble, and even if he overcomes the effect of the recent
scandals and retains the office of Prime Minister, his government is
going to be very shaky, and even further to the right. The political
price exacted by small but influential ultra-nationalist parties in
Israel for their support is a campaign of stepped up repression
against the Palestinians, including the idea of "transferring," i.e.
ethnically cleansing them. Such a monstrous deed could only be pulled
off, however, if a larger war obscured its ugliness, and buried it
amid a catalogue of similar horrors throughout the region.

We hear much about weapons of mass destruction supposedly in Saddam
Hussein's possession. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he
does have them. With a range of 420 miles max, Iraqi missiles would be
no threat to Peoria, but Tel Aviv might see some action. That 's
another reason why Rummy wants to go charging into Iraq outnumbered
eight-to-one, before the bombing campaign has time to take out all of
Iraq's major military assets (including chemical and biological
weapons): the possibility that, early on in the war, the Iraqis will
attack Israel.

Why are the politicians playing with soldiers' lives, expending them
like chips in a high-stakes game of poker? In a word: Israel. It's the
key to the President's re-election campaign, which will be dependent
on a core base of Christian fundamentalists who will do anything Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson tell them to do. They are fanatical heretics
who have gone off the deep end and believe that Israel's plight
foretells the end of the world. This is a good thing, they say,
because it heralds the Second Coming of Christ. Meanwhile, however,
Israel must be totally supported, no matter what crimes Israeli
soldiers are ordered to commit.

Look, religion is a private matter, and everybody's free to have their
own, but when the quirks of money-crazed and otherwise deluded
preachers start determining national policy – especially foreign
policy – we have a problem.

Israel's amen corner in the U.S. has found powerful allies in the
President and his Svengali, Karl Rove, but here's a question you ought
to be asking yourself: how come U.S. soldiers have to be fighting wars
on Israel's behalf? Don't we already give those guys billions of
dollars every year? Why can't they take on Iraq, a dilapidated
fourth-rate military power? Israel's nukes should be enough to deter
Saddam in the same way Stalin and his heirs were deterred all the
years of the cold war.

Listen, soldier, you signed up to defend America – not Israel. Is it
disloyal to suggest that this war is unwise and not in American
interests – or are the warmongers the real traitors, who put Israel
and not America first?

I know you would die to defend America. But, say, soldier, do you
really want to die for Israel – so that Ariel Sharon and his nut-job
Likud party can stay in power?

I didn't think so.

So what can you do about all this? It's simple. This war hasn't
started yet, and there are enough people steamed up about it –
including your own officers – that it might not happen after all. You
may not know it, but you have the right to speak out, to spread your
views, because you're – still – an American citizen. Sure, the
Clintonistas tried to take away your right to vote in the last
election, and you're just expected to shut up and follow orders. But
they can't shut down your brain. And they can't prevent you from
surfing the internet, getting information, and networking with people
of like-minded views. They can't legally stop you from speaking out,
when the time for it comes.

They say a great many of those heavy biological warfare suits you'll
be expected to throw on at a moment's notice are defective, and also
that that they can't even ensure you against penetration by toxic
poisons. Do you really want to die a horrible death while some
civilian fool quails about the glorious "liberation" of Iraq?

It doesn't have to happen.

This war is not about defending America. It's about making Israel the
dominant regional power in the Middle East – and Osama bin Laden the
spiritual and political leader with the most power in the Muslim
world. If somebody wants this war more than Ariel Sharon, then that
has got to be the man responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on
America. In the first five minutes of Gulf War II, Bin Laden will see
the ranks of his underground armies swell with waves of fresh
recruits.

Listen, soldier. You have a stake in all this, the biggest stake of
all. No one has more of a right to speak out than you. Listen to your
top commanders, to the brass with the experience and the inside
knowledge about what's really going on. They are speaking out against
this madness, and you must follow them into battle – or else surrender
your fate to chickenhawk civilians with a dubious agenda. The choice
is yours.

Colonel David Hackworth, the war hero and military columnist, put it
well:

"Should the president decide to stay the war course, hopefully at
least a few of our serving top-uniformed leaders – those who are now
covertly leaking that war with Iraq will be an unparalleled disaster –
will do what many Vietnam-era generals wish they would have done:
stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about
another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black
wall. Or even worse."

If you are in the military, and want to organize discreetly but
effectively against this needless war, you can help spread the message
of the patriotic peace movement in the ranks. Don't worry, you aren't
alone: the voices of military dissent are already rising. Your voice,
when it is raised, is going to carry real authority. People will
listen: and that's what the warmongering civies are so afraid of.

MILLIONS PROTEST AGAINST U.S. WAR ON IRAQ
http://www.InformationTimes.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InfoTimes/message/1539
http://topica.com/lists/infotimes/read/message.html?mid=1711761178

500,000 Anti-War Americans March in Washington DC
200,00 Anti-War Protesters Demonstrate in San Francisco
Millions More Protest Across the World Against U.S. War on Iraq
http://www.InformationTimes.com

by InternationalANSWER.org
http://www.InternationalAnswer.org

Resist US Plan of Mass-murder in Iraq!

Justice-loving people throughout the world are today outraged by the
arrogant swagger of the power holders in the United States. As ever
increasing numbers of people are coming to oppose and protest against
the slaughter plan of innocent people in Iraq, George W. Bush and his
cronies have lately been attempting to fool the very gullible and the
ignoramus by stating that war with Iraq is only a "possibility" and
"not an inevitability." This, even as the world watches the US (and
its sole all-the-way backer, Britain) daily mount their massive and
awesome killing machines and intensify their war preparations in the
Gulf States and in Turkey!

The people of Iraq, our brothers and sisters in that land, have
endured untold suffering. More than a hundred thousand were killed
during the aerial bombardment by US and its allies in the 1991 Gulf
War. Since then they have died from starvation, malnutrition, and from
diseases, even easily preventable ones, as a result of US dictated
United Nations sanctions. About half a million babies and infants were
murdered by these sanctions alone. The US has on several occasions
blocked attempts by other nations to have those vicious
killer-sanctions lifted. Hence the deaths continue. What sin could
these babies, children and the elderly have committed to deserve such
horrendous deaths?

Moreover, the United States unleashed its deadly weapons of mass-
destruction, such as uranium-containing bombs on both civilians and
soldiers in Iraq. Surely, these and the saturation bombing alone the
US carried out in Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2001 are
war-crimes of unparalleled magnitude in recent memory. In the 1960s
and 1970s the US armed forces perpetrated heinous crimes against the
Vietnamese people and the other Indo-Chinese people. And they still
stink in the nostrils of decent people everywhere, but eventually the
US had to run from the battlefields with its tail between its legs
like a beaten dog. Do the rulers in Washington remember any of these?

This coming war will not be simply part two of the Gulf War. Its
designs are a great deal grander. Its not just about grabbing Iraqi
oil, important as this is for US imperialism. Its about which
imperialist powers will get a share of the loot and which will not,
and on whose terms. This war is about world domination - George W does
not even try to hide his greed nor his fond dream of global domination
under his Bushy tail. Thus he reminds the world as never done before
that imperialism means war.

Regardless of the findings of the UN inspectors for "weapons of
mass-destruction," the US is intent on visiting Iraq with death and
destruction yet again. The excuse for this would be "regime change."
While the people of the world, as well as the Iraqi people, look
forward to great changes in the world, what right has the greatest
mass-murderers world has ever seen to change the regime in Iraq or
elsewhere? What comes to everyone's mind is the task that cry out to
be done - and urgently - is regime and system - change in the United
States themselves! Great - and revolutionary - changes - are indeed
taking place before our very eyes. In South Asia, the people of Nepal
have risen up like a mighty hurricane, determined to overthrow the old
and oppressive system and remake social relations on new foundations.
Today, the lessons of China, Vietnam and Indo-china, the lessons of
people's war to defeat imperialism are taught us by the people of
Nepal. Here, the US seeks to prop up a decrepit and decadent regime (a
monarchy) by arming it to its teeth.

World People's Resistance Movement (Benelux) : wprm...@yahoo.com
Nepalese People's Progressive Forum : npp...@hotmail.com

13 January 03

PHOTOS of Anti-War March in Washington DC
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/011903j18rpt.html

PICTURES of Anti-War Rallies in the USA and Around the World
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

Anti-War Statements
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=20

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,864387,00.html

While Washington hawks depict a war against Iraq as achieving
security
of oil supplies, Western oil companies are worried about the
short-term danger and the supposed long-term benefits of
intervention.

Left-wing critics in Britain depict the proposed invasion as an oil
war. Former Cabinet Minister Mo Mowlam has called it a 'war to secure
oil supplies' as a cover for a war on terrorism. And the fact that
President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have both been
enriched by oil companies raises suspicions about their motives for
war.

But oil companies have had little influence on US policy-making. Most
big American companies, including oil companies, do not see a war as
good for business, as falling share prices indicate; while the
obvious
beneficiaries of war are arms companies.

Western oil companies have differing attitudes. The French want to
maintain their special relationship with Iraq, while seeking links
with
Iraqi opposition leaders who may form a post-war government.

The Russians are performing a more difficult balancing act. Worried
that their previous friendship with Saddam might exclude them from a
post-war share-out, they have sought assurances from Washington in
return for their diplomatic support for a war. But Saddam has
counter-attacked by cancelling the Russian contract for developing
new
oilfields.

The British believe they are specially entitled to share in the
development of Iraqi oil supplies. BP (then known as Anglo-Persian)
was
involved in the discovery of oil after the British and the French
invented Iraq as a separate state, carved out of the Ottoman Empire
in
1920.

But BP is worried about being displaced by US companies. As Lord
Browne, its chief executive, said in October: 'We would like to make
sure, if Iraq changes its regime, that there should be a level
playing-field for the selection of oil companies to go in there.'

The Americans, if they won the war, would be in the strongest
position
to insist on access to Iraqi oil and exploration. But they cannot
ignore the interests of the Iraqi opposition. The State Department
has
convened a working group on oil and natural gas in Washington this
week. It will include representatives of Iraqi groups and the US
Energy
Department, which will present proposals to a transitional
government.

A State Department spokesman said: 'There is a misconception that the
US is trying to orchestrate the post-Saddam oil market in Iraq.
That's
not at all what we are doing.' But European companies fear the
Americans are trying to do just that, while using the promise of
future
oil supplies as leverage to ensure support for the war.

James Woolsey, former CIA director, has explained: 'The French and
Russians should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq
towards decent government, we'll do our best to ensure the new
government and American companies work closely with them.'

Some companies are worried that the opportunities for developing
Iraqi
oil will lead to a free-for-all. 'I've had one opposition leader
offering a commission in return for access to oil,' said one oil
executive. 'I showed him the door, but there will be many more.'

Many neo-conservatives in Washington are indicating they want the US
intervention to go beyond Iraq; and to redraw the diplomatic map of
the
Middle East. They look to a realignment of US foreign policy, to
intervene in both Iran and Saudi Arabia, ensuring both the security
of
American oil supplies, and the security of Israel.

Above all, they see the development of Iraqi oil as lessening US
dependence on Saudi Arabia, which they see as a dangerous source of
future terrorists.

The oil companies are much less confident that this escalation will
protect supplies. Shell and Exxon-Mobil have made huge investments in
natural gas in Saudi Arabia, which could be at risk in a
confrontation
with the Saudi government. All oil companies in the Middle East would
face a more dangerous political climate, caught between the
American-Israeli intervention and nationalists fearing reversion to a
neo-colonial system.

Oil companies dread having supplies interrupted by burning oilfields,
saboteurs and chaotic conditions. And any attempt to redraw the
frontiers could increase the dangers in both Iran and Iraq, as rivals
seek to regain territory.

Hawks in Washington believe military intervention could bring about
the demise of Opec (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries),
thus cutting oil prices. But collapsing prices would be devastating,
not only for regional producers, but for Russia, which depends on
exporting oil for its economic survival. A low oil price would
massively increase unemployment and poverty in producing countries.

Saudi oilmen recall how George Bush Snr, when he was Vice-President,
was so concerned about the declining oil price that he visited Saudi
Arabia to persuade its government to restrict production. After a
war,
Bush Jnr might need to repeat the exercise to try to stabilise the
market; but the Saudis might be less willing to help him out.

Bush insisted last week that America must become less dependent on
foreign oil producers 'who don't like America'; but last month the US
Department of Energy forecast that, by 2035, 51 per cent of world
production would come from Opec - compared with 38 per cent today.

When Anthony Eden invaded Egypt in 1956, with France and Israel, he
claimed to be defending British interests - without consulting the oil
companies which opposed the invasion. The Suez war proved a great
setback for BP and Shell, which faced angry nationalist reactions
throughout the Middle East, while the Americans made the most of
their
advantage.

Many oil executives now fear a war against Iraq could have more
dangerous repercussions; if it goes wrong, they will be among the
first
to blame the governments that launched it.

· Anthony Sampson is the author of 'The Seven Sisters' about the oil
industry.

Mass Protests Against War on Iraq in Canada
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/cana-j20.shtml

Protestors Flood Arab, Islamic Capitals; Slam U.S. War Plans
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030118022740142
http://islamonline.net/English/News/2003-01/17/article11.shtml

India, Kashmiri Leaders Oppose Military Attack on Iraq
http://islamonline.net/english/news/2003-01/19/article17.shtml

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday January 21, 2003
Tony Blair today refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in a
conflict
against Iraq, as MPs grilled the prime minister for two and a half
hours on
the subject of Saddam Hussein.

The prime minister said Britain and the US would deal with the threat
from
Iraq by "any way necessary".

Appearing before the liaison committee, made up of select committee
chairmen and women, Mr Blair told Iraq it could not play "hide and
seek"
with weapons inspectors and reiterated his belief that it was "highly
desirable" to have a second UN resolution authorising military action.

Speaking on the day that peace protestors will lobby parliament, he
refused
to be bound by the need for further UN backing and insisted that
sceptical
public opinion could be won around to back a war.

Mr Blair said the allies would respond "in any way we thought
necessary" to
any Iraqi threat to use weapons of mass destruction against their
troops.

Asked if that might include a warning to Saddam that non-conventional
weapons - such as nuclear bombs - could be used against him in the
event of
such an attack, Mr Blair said: "It is best to say that we are aware of
the
potential of that threat and we would deal with it in any way that we
thought necessary.

"But I don't think it is wise for me to get into speculating as to
exactly
what we are doing about it."

Americans Launch Pre-Emptive Strike Against War on Iraq
http://islam-online.net/english/news/2003-01/18/article13.shtml

The Bogey Man of Anti-Americanism
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1005

Rebel Without a Clue
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1004

The system can't be fixed. Our future is a dark age of vicious guards
and powerless prisoners, unless ... By John Kaminski,

Our president is a criminal, if not surely guilty, at least chargeable
for the following offenses:

Military desertion, cocaine smuggling, conspiracy to destroy Aerican

So there is no chance that the sitting government is going to act on

these obvious crimes, since the entire government is polluted by
conspirators of the same political party who are beholden to the
criminals who gave them their jobs.

This deadlock also applies to virtually all of the judges in America,

after the next election. To put it more clearly, there is no reason to
vote at all.

In short, there is no place for the average American citizen to turn
for relief. This terminal disease of political corruption extends
downward through the states, counties and muncipalities, where all
elective offices are occupied by people able to pay their way into the
ruling system, through alliances with corrupt judges and party bosses,
with all machinations based on bribery and deception. Perhaps this is

what America has always been--that's a long argument--but there is no

that we--willingly or unconsciously--have already paid. America has

Any day now, you'll begin to notice that the criminal atrocities of

the power elite are creeping closer and closer to home. But don't
worry. There'll be TV in the camps, I'm told. But only one channel.
And guess who'll be on.

The current system absolutely cannot be fixed. No amount of
petitioning, protesting, having meaningful conversations with the few
remaining compassionate members of Congress (an endangered species if
there ever was one), or writing letters to newspapers that don't care
will have any effect.

They have no effect now, other than to massage the egos of the deluded
activists making the effort. No amount of maverick candidacies, third
party movements or political-issue crusades is going going to stop
this military juggernaut from turning the world into an armed camp (it
is already, in case you haven't noticed) where citizens will be herded
into "debtors" camps.

Many will be eliminated by vaccination programs, although as the

insurance industry collapses, medical care will no longer be available

to anyone but the super rich. Already, our schools are assuming the
appearance of military indoctrination centers that preach that the
poor are evil.

Drugs and electronic conditioning will make it easier to turn these
elite students against their fellow human beings. The world is
devolving into a universal system of guards and prisoners, and you get
to choose which one you will be on the basis of how steadfastly you
adhere to the party line.

Already, there is nowhere to escape as satellites can access every

Treason: http://bush-treason.blogspot.com/

Accessory to the theft of billions of dollars in the savings and loan

debacle: See http://www.thetip.org/art_146_icle.html and
http://www.campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

Enriching his friends: http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm ,

http://www.bushwatch.net/bushmillions.html and
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/other_more.asp

Obstruction of justice:
http://members.tripod.com/~RedRobin2/index-93.html

Illegal jailings: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/pows-m31.shtml
and http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin2/thoughts/comment020128.asp

Computerized election vote fraud:
http://www.talion.com/vote-rigging.html

Assassinating a political rival:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5351.html and
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29.shtml

Who's to Blame in Venezuela?
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1003

Redemption
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1002

Six Men Identified by FBI as Dead Hijackers are ALIVE
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td4/24s-c-6men.html

Seven out of "19, 9-11 Hijackers" are Still Alive
http://www.InformationTimes.com

Huge Protests for Peace
Tens of thousands in S.F. demand Bush abandon war plans
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0119-01.htm

AXIS PRAXIS

by Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker, Jan 13, 2003

A not completely crazy case can be made that the most influential
thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of
George W. Bush during its first two years was not one of the
familiar members of the gold-shielded Praetorian Guard -- not Dick
Cheney or Colin Powell, not Condi or Rummy, not Tenet or Wolfowitz
-- but, rather, a forty-two-year-old Canadian named David Frum.
During Year I of Bush II, Frum was a White House speechwriter.
Although he left the job only ten months ago, his memoir of those
distant days has already been written, edited, and printed, and,
as of this week, is in the stores. (The revolving door used to turn
with stately languor. Now it comes equipped with a tachometer.) In
the book, he writes that when drafting duties for last year's State
of the Union Message were being doled out, his assignment was "to
provide a justification for a war," specifically a war with Iraq.
After much cogitation, he hit upon the idea of likening what the
United States has been up against since September 11, 2001, to the
villains of the Second World War. The phrase he came up with was
"axis of hatred." Higher-ups changed this to "axis of evil," to
make it sound more "theological." Although Frum initially intended
his "strong language" to apply only to Iraq, Iran was quickly added.
(You can't have a single-pointed axis.)

North Korea was an afterthought. It got stuck in at the last minute,
but Frum doesn't quite explain how or why. Perhaps it was meant to
echo the global span of the original (Baghdad-Tehran-Pyongyang
equals Berlin-Rome-Tokyo). Perhaps it was an application of the
rhetorical Rule of Three (our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred
honor; of the people, by the people, for the people; blood, sweat,
and tears). Perhaps it was the product of intoxication brought on
by an excess of moral clarity. Most likely, it was simply oratorical
affirmative action, bused in to lend diversity to what would
otherwise have been an all-Muslim list. One thing it was not was the
product of careful policy deliberation. It had not been, as they say,
staffed out. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, the State
Department's East Asia hands learned about it only hours before the
speech, and they were not happy. Secretary of State Powell, who
almost certainly agreed with them but is ever the good soldier, told
them to suck it up: "These are the President's views. It's his
speech, so salute and follow."

As a rhetorical flourish, the axis of evil soared like an eagle. But
in retrospect it more closely resembles a turkey, and the inclusion
of North Korea, in particular, has begun to look uncannily like a
chicken that in recent days has come home to roost. This is of a
piece with the whole of the Bush Administration's Korea policy,
which, from the beginning, has been a fairly comprehensive botch.
The Clinton Administration, at its beginning, hadn't done much
better; in 1994, it nearly stumbled into war with North Korea. But,
thanks to some timely threats issued by the Defense Secretary at the
time, William Perry, and to some diplomatic privateering by Jimmy
Carter, the year ended with the signing of the so-called Agreed
Framework, under which, in return for various political and economic
goodies, Pyongyang put its most dangerous possession -- some eight
thousand spent nuclear fuel rods, easily convertible into weapons-
grade plutonium -- in a storage facility watched by United Nations
cameras and inspectors. By the end of the Clinton years, with a new
South Korean President, Kim Dae Jung, vigorously pursuing a Willy
Brandt-like "sunshine" policy toward the North, the Pyongyang
regime was almost frantically signalling not only its eagerness to
get more goodies but also its readiness to make more concessions.

Under Bush, matters Korean headed rapidly downhill. When Kim Dae
Jung visited Washington, six weeks after Bush took office, Bush
humiliated him (and embarrassed Powell) by withdrawing American
support for the sunshine initiatives. Before September 11th, when
the Administration's foreign-policy obsession was missile defense,
it almost seemed to welcome the prospect of a nuclear-armed North
Korea. Kim Jong Il's "rogue state" provided a convenient rationale
for deploying the only kind of A.B.M. system that might be
politically and diplomatically salable and technically even
marginally feasible: a very limited one, based in Alaska and not
overtly aimed at neutralizing China's deterrent. The Bush national-
security team had little use for the Agreed Framework -- how could
a pact cooked up by Clinton, Carter, and Communists be anything
but a mini-Munich? -- and allowed it to languish. Nor did the
Administration, many of whose members date from the previous Bush
regime, seem to understand that this is not your father's Seoul:
far from being the dictatorial client state of Cold War times,
South Korea is now a vibrant democracy, with notions of its own.
Then came the axis-of-evil speech, and then, in October,
Pyongyang's astounding admission that it had been violating the
Agreed Framework by running a secret uranium-enrichment program,
which triggered a cutoff of Framework-mandated fuel-oil supplies.
Finally, two weeks ago, North Korea kicked out the U.N.
inspectors, capped the U.N. cameras, and announced that it would
begin making plutonium from the spent fuel rods.

The Administration takes the view that the essence of the crisis
-- or "serious situation," as Powell prefers to call it -- is
simple: North Korea has blatantly violated the Agreed Framework
and is now committing nuclear blackmail. All true. Still, given
the recent record -- including the President's eagerness for
"regime change" elsewhere in the A. of E. and Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld's pointed reference to America's ability to
fight two regional wars at once -- the Pyongyang regime's
paranoia may not be wholly delusional. On a more mundane level,
it's also true that the first of the Framework's four points
called for the United States to provide, by this year, two
light-water reactors (the kind that are impractical for making
bombs), capable of nearly doubling North Korea's electricity
supply, and that its second point called for moving toward
"full normalization of political and economic relations."
Neither has been done. This doesn't mean that the two sides
are equally culpable in any moral sense. There is a difference
between failing to build power plants and threatening
annihilation. But it does mean that there is, or ought to be,
room for negotiating the peaceful diplomatic settlement that
President Bush and Secretary Powell have spent the last week
insisting can be reached.

What's a superpower to do? The problem -- in the words of
Kurt Campbell, who worked on the issue in the Clinton Defense
Department and is now a program director at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies -- is that "Korea is the
Land of Lousy Options." America's main goal -- and China's,
and South Korea's -- must be to prevent North Korea from
following through on its threat (implied but not yet explicit)
to convert the fuel rods, which would allow it to build as
many as a half-dozen bombs within months. (For technical
reasons, Pyongyang's uranium-enrichment mischief is nothing
like so threatening.) War? Not a good idea, even though the
offending facility itself could be quite easily "taken out."
North Korea has a huge Army and enormous quantities of
artillery pieces, many of which are aimed at Seoul. That
Army could be defeated, but it could not be prevented from
inflicting mass destruction, with or without weapons of that
name. Isolation and sanctions, the Bush Administration's
initial idea? The first would be redundant, the second both
cruel and ineffective; and neither could even be properly
tried without the coöperation of Beijing and Seoul.

That leaves diplomacy, the worst choice except for all the
others. Unfortunately, by withdrawing the threat of force
and ruling out, at least for now, the possibility of direct
negotiations, the Administration has dropped both its biggest
stick and its tastiest carrot. But it can rely on the help of
China, Japan, and South Korea, all of which have a powerful
interest both in reducing the nuclear threat from North Korea
and in guiding its ultimately doomed regime toward a peaceful,
as opposed to a catastrophic, demise. In any event, the Bush
Administration is now trying to defuse the situation it did
so much to create. After bingeing on moral claret, you might
say, the Bush people are sobering up with some strong black
Kofi.

It's a bitter draught, and not just because what the Bushies
are now doing is mortifyingly similar to what the Clintonites
did nine years ago. It's also bitter because, for negotiations
to work, North Korea must eventually be offered inducements --
must be paid blackmail, if you like. And it's bitter, finally,
because the Administration now has to explain why it treats
Iraq, which is crawling with U.N. inspectors, so differently
from North Korea, which has kicked them out. North Korea is
sui generis. Unlike Iraq, it has no economic resources, no
ideological allies, no recent record of cross-border aggression,
and no territorial ambitions. In a narrow military sense, North
Korea is no less dangerous. It has proved its willingness to
sell missile and other nuclear-related paraphernalia to
unsavory characters around the world. But its vulnerabilities
are different. Its government is evil -- that's for certain.
But one axis does not fit all.

Labor Movement Lines Up Against Possible Iraq War
Among reasons is fear economy to be overlooked
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0119-03.htm

Time To Stand Up Against Bullying War Talk
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0119-02.htm

'Oil Lobby Determined to Have Its War' in Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0119-05.htm

Let's Opt Out of Absurd War with Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0119-04.htm

Bush's Policy on Iraq Labels U.S. as 'Belligerent Bully,' U.S.
Veteran Democratic Senator Robert Byrd Says
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0118-01.htm

Attack Iraq? NO!
Doubters Must Push Hard for Peace
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0119-06.htm

Human Peace Sign from Antarctica
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0119-02.htm
Global Protest Delivers a Resounding 'No!'
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world stage mass
demonstrations against conflict with Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0119-04.htm

Nuclear Murder
America's Atomic War Against Its Citizens and Why It's Not Over Yet
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0629-09.htm

7. Draft Resolution to Impeach George Warmonger Bush
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html

--> Millions of World Citizens March for Peace
http://www.counterpunch.org/hughes01182003.html

How the Slave Press Downplayed the Protests
Deceptions and Illusions
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen01182003.html

When Bush First Vowed to "Take Out" Saddam...December 1999
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold01172003.html

Why Does President Bush Want to Drop Bombs on Innocent Iraqis?
http://www.InformationTimes.com

Not All White House Reporters are Mercenaries of the Slave Press
http://www.InformationTimes.com

White House Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer
http://www.InformationTimes.com

Viewpoints of the Government of Iraq
http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm
http://www.uruklink.net/eindex.htm

January 4, 2003
Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory
Bush's Armageddon Obsession, Revisited

by MICHAEL ORTIZ HILL

"We are lived by forces we scarcely understand," wrote W.H. Auden..
What forces live us now as America again torques toward war?

George W. Bush is certainly the plaything of such forces as the
geopolitics of oil but it seems that he is susceptible to other even
darker archetypal concerns. Let me be blunt. The man is delusional and
the shape of his delusion is specifically apocalyptic in belief and
intent. That Bush would attack so many vital systems on so many fronts
from foreign policy to the environment may seem confusing from the
point of view of realpolitik but becomes transparent in terms of the
apocalyptic worldview to which he subscribes. All systems are supposed
to go down so the Messiah can come and Bush, seemingly, has taken on
the role of the one who brings this to pass.

The Reverend Billy Graham taught Bush to live in anticipation of the
Second Coming but it was his friendship with Dr.Tony Evans that shaped
"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188267023X/counterpunchmaga
Bush's political understanding of how to deport himself in an
apocalyptic era. Dr. Evans, the pastor of a large Dallas church and a
founder of the Promise Keepers movement taught Bush about "how the
world should be seen from a divine viewpoint," according to Dr. Martin
Hawkins, Evans assistant pastor.
S.R. Shearer of Antipas Ministries writes, "Most of the leaders of the
Promise Keepers embrace a doctrine of 'end time' (eschatology), known
as 'dominionim.' Dominionism pictures the seizure of earthly
(temporal) power by the 'people of God' as the only means through
which the world can be rescued.....

It is the eschatology that Bush has imbibed; an eschatology through
which he has gradually (and easily) come to see himself as an agent of
God who has been called by him to 'restore the earth to God's
control', a 'chosen vessel', so to speak, to bring in the Restoration
of All Thingss." Shearer calls this delusion, "Messianic leadership"--
that is to say usurping the role usually ascribed to the Messiah.

In Bush at War Bob Woodward writes, "Most presidents have high hopes.
Some have grandiose visions of what they will achieve, and he was
firmly in that camp." "To answer these attacks and rid the world of
evil," says Bush. And again, "We will export death and violence to the
four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation." Grandiose
visions. Woodward comments, "The president was casting his mission and
that of the country in the grand vision of Gods Master Plan."

In dominionism we can see the theological source of Bush's monomania.
Not to be distracted by the fact that he lost the popular election by
a half a million votes, that the Joint Chief of Staff at the Pentagon
were so concerned about his plans to invade Iraq that they leaked
their unanimous objection, that he has systematically alienated much
of the world, that roughly seventy percent of Americans remain
unconvinced of the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and the same
percentage object to war if there will be significant American
casualties--none of this is in the least relevant. He believes his
mandate toward action is from God.

As humans we live within stories. Some stories, like apocalypse are
thousands of years old. The scriptured text that informs Bush
understanding of and enactment of the End of Days (Revelations 19)
depicts Christ returning as the Heavenly Avenger. Revelations is the
only New Testament book that justifies violence of any kind, and this
it takes to the limit: Christ himself the agent of mass murder.

"I saw heaven open and there before me was a white horse who is called
Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war...He is
dressed in a robe dipped in blood and his name is the word of
God...Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down
the Nations. And I saw an angel standing in the sun who cried in a low
voice to all the birds flying in midair--come gather together for the
great supper of God, so you may eat the flesh of kings, generals and
mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people,
free and slave, small and great."

Such is "the glory of the coming of the Lord." Truth, carnage, and the
ecstasy of vultures. In a ruined world the Messiah slays the
antichrist and creates "a new heaven and a new earth." The dead are
judged, the Christians saved and the rest damned to eternal torment.

The New Jerusalem is established and the Lord rules it "with an iron
scepter."

It is not inconceivable that Bush is literally and determinedly drawn,
consciously and unconsciously, toward the enactment of such a
scenario, as he believes, for God's sake. Indeed the stark
relentlessness of his policy in the Middle East suggests as much.

It dishonors the profundity of the Christian tradition if one doesn't
note that Revelations has always been a rogue text. Because of its
association with the Montanist heresy (which like contemporary
fundamentalists took it to be literal rather than allegorical) it was
with great reluctance that it was made scripture three centuries after
the death of Christ. Traditionally attributed to St. John, most
Biblical scholars now recognize its literary style and its theology
has little in common with John's gospel or his epistles and was likely
written after his death. Martin Luther found the vindictive God of
Revelations incompatible with the gospels and relegated it to the
appendix of his German translation of the New Testament instead of the
body of scripture. All the Protestant reformers except Calvin regarded
apocalyptic millenialism to be heresy.

But Revelations is also a rogue text because it is unmoored from its
origins, which are far from Christian. It is a late variant on a story
that was pervasive in the ancient world: the defeat of the wild and
the uncivilized by a superior order upon which a New World would be
established. Two thousand years before Revelations depicted Christ
slaying the antichrist and laying out the New Jerusalem, Marduk slew
Tiamat and founded Babylon.

This pagan myth recycled as a suspiciously unchristian Biblical test
found new credence in the 19th century when John Darby virtually
revived the Montanist heresy of investing it with a passionate
literalism. Given to visions (he saw the British as one of the ten
tribes of Israel) Darby left the priesthood of the Church of Ireland
and preached Revelations as both prophecy and imminent history. In
this he inaugurated a lineage in which Bush's mentors, the Reverend
Billy Graham and Dr. Tony Evans are recent heirs.

Revelations is much beloved by Muslim fundamentalists and like their
Christian compatriots they also thrill to redemption through
apocalypse. Jewish fundamentalists of course do not believe in
Revelations but have nonetheless made common cause with the Christian
Right. "It's a very tragic situation in which Christian
fundamentalists, certain groups of them that focus on Armageddon and
the Rapture and the role of a war between Muslims and Jews in bringing
about the Second Coming, are involved in a folie a deux with extremist
Jews," said Ian Lustick, the author of For the Land and the Lord:
Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition
(and yes it is a single tradition) is being led by its fringe into the
abyss and the rest of us with it.

The world has been readied for the fire but the critical element is
the Bush Administration. Never in the history of Christendom has there
been a moment when this rogue element has carried anything like the
credibility and political power that it carries now.

[Le Permanent Marker]

Dick,

"I have been reading a few postings with interest.
Some of a few facts that have been missing from a lot of these
discussions is that, for instance in the Pentagon matter, should a
number of things happen in a 757, certain other things happen
automatically.

In all civil Transport Category aircraft, whenever the aircraft is put
into certain configurations, all kinds of warning and override systems
operate. These are mandatory requirements and all checked pre-flight
before every flight to ensure their operation. This is why civil
aviation has such a high safety standard and performance.

Fly too slow without flap and leading edge high-lift devices extended or
with the landing gear retracted and the computer system will advance the
thrust levers to ensure the aircraft maintains sufficient flying speed.
Fly too low without having the aircraft in the landing configuration
(i.e. gear and flaps down) and the Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) will remind you in a very loud synthesised voice which conveys
greater urgency the longer the condition persists without correction.
Computers will take over and fly the aircraft out of trouble if the
system is not purposely disabled. Purposely disable the system and
operation of the aircraft becomes restricted.

One problem with the theories of the control of the aircraft being taken
over by external sources, such as in "Global Hawk", is that pilots are
trained to deal with all probable emergencies and have various ways in
which they can disable electrical systems and/or redirect power supplies
by pulling circuit breakers and fuses. Loss of control over flight
management systems is a probable emergency pilots are trained for. I
seriously doubt that an aircraft would be approved to fly if the crew
could not maintain onboard control of the aircraft in the event of
electrical system/computer malfunction except in extreme circumstances
such as complete loss of all electrical and hydraulic power. If an
external source took control it would have to do so through the
aircrafts own systems and the pilots would know their systems were still
capable of operation and could isolate the problem.

Most pilots are critical analysts who realize they may have to deal with
very unusual circumstances at some time, and know their aircraft systems
back to front so they can take care of such events.

A pilot without many years of experience on a type will not know the
minor intricacies of how to deal with system problems.

Flying a 757 at high speed close enough to the ground to collide with
the Pentagon building, without knowing how to disable the aircraft
systems, is quite laughable. To do it and hit the building with any
accuracy would take a pilot trained on and experienced on the type. 300
tonnes of inertia has to be controlled in anticipation, at high speed.
In the WTC events the only system that would warn of the approaching
towers would be the GPWS and that could be disabled with the pulling of
a circuit breaker. The pilots may not have bothered disabling it because
t would have only sounded for a few seconds at the most just prior to
collision. The aircraft would otherwise be in normal flight according to
the systems, flying straight and level or maneuvering at high speed.
Amateur pilots hitting the WTC? Possible. Amateur pilots flying a 757 at
high speed into the Pentagon building? Not likely and highly improbable."
================

xxxxxxxxx--------------
Airline Transport Pilot (retired

"just came over to your site from Joyce Riley's and have found your site to
be very interesting. I don't know if this would be helpful and I haven't had
time to check on it myself, but I have heard froma former Air Force officer
that there wsa a secret investigation going on into Georgy Bush's fianncial
dealings around the world, and because of the threats from unknown soureces,
the evidence was moved to the Pentagon and away from the federal court
building. According to this source, thos files were secured in the part of
the building that got hit on S-11.

Great site!

By the way, my cousin is a United Airlines pilot and says that a 757 flying
at the rate of speed that that plane was supposed to be would have left
debris in all directions for at least an eighth of a mile and the explsoion
from the gas would have taken a much greater area of the Pentagon before
firefighters could do anything. you can confirm this withother pilots, but
because of the safety systems onbaord a 757, there is no way that that plane
would have been able to get near the Pentagon. The moment it got to close to
any ground object, the fly by wire computer would have taken over and taken
the plane back up to an alitutde that was safe and would have sent an
automatic alert to FFA that the pilot was flying too close to the ground.

Having worked on a military base as a security guard working for Wachnhut I
have been around many of the planes our military uses and am unfortunately
familiar with aircraft accidents (having seen one myself). I don't believe
that a 757 did that kind of damage just from what I have seen aircraft do on
impact.

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010917/aw48.htm
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
=============================================

"Fairfax County's Urban Search and Rescue Team sent two ten-person
squads into the Pentagon to search for survivors and to assess the
damage. About 70 members of the team, staffed with paramedics,
doctors, engineers and search dogs, headed to the scene at 1 p.m. The
specially trained unit, one of two in the United States, has
previously responded to bombings in Oklahoma City and Nairobi, Kenya,
and also to earthquakes in Turkey, Taiwan and Armenia."

That's a "special" team all right!
==================

Office of Naval Intelligence personel killed in the Pentagon attack
=========

And at least two
of
> the people listed below were ONI intelligence officers:
>
> Lt. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, NC
> Capt. Gerald F. DeConto, 44, Alexandria, VA
> Capt. Robert Dolan, 43, Alexandria, VA
> Cmdr. William Howard Donovan Jr., 37, Nunda, NY
> Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn
> Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth
> Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, NE
> Lt. Michael Scott "Scotty" Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, LA
> Lt. Commander Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, New Jersey
> Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, of Mingoville, PA
> Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Gaithersburg, MD
> Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Alexandria, VA
> Cmdr. Dan Shanower, 40, Naperville, IL
> Lt. Cmdr. Otis Tolbert Jr., 39, Lemoore, CA
> Lt. Commander Ronald James Vauk
> Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32
==================

I can't verify anything in a legal sense. The Lt. told me that 'X'
told him..so it is all hearsay. The Washington Post article is
January 20, 2002, and probably easily verifiable.

Lt. Vreeland gave clues that his main
contact/control was Jack Punches. From the memorial pages:
U.S. Navy Capt. (Ret.) Jack Punches worked in the Pentagon as
deputy head, Navy Interagency Support Branch.
He earned a B.S. degree from Missouri University, an M.S. from the
Naval War College and an M.S. from Salve Regina in International
Relations. Designated a Naval aviator in 1975, he was assigned to NAS
Jacksonville, Fl. After three deployments he served as an instructor
pilot. In 1982, he reported to VPU-1 (Special Projects) in Brunswick,
Me. After two years of intelligence duties, he reported to the Navy
War College. After graduation, he served as a maintenance officer. He
joined the Fleet Logistics Support Squadron in Sicily as the
executive officer in 1989. He assumed command of VR-24 in 1991 and
deployed to Saudi Arabia in support of Operations Desert Storm/
Desert Shield. In 1992, he reported to United Command as chief,
airborne operations. In 1995, he became head of Navy Counterdrug in
the office of Chief of Naval Operations and special assistant to the
Under Secretary of the Navy. In 1996, he served as deputy director,
Operations and Interagency Support division. He retired in 2000 and
worked for Blue Stone Consulting of Alexandria, Va. Later that year
he returned to the Navy as a senior civilian employee at the Navy
Interagency Support Branch...
:::::::::

Note, 1995, "head of Navy Counterdrug in the office of Chief of Naval
Operations." The CNO then would have been Adm. Boorda (and Lt.
Vreeland supposedly an operative.) According to the Lt., Jeremy
Boorda was extremely displeased with the CIA using his naval ships
and submarines to smuggle drugs. Beyond that President Clinton had
some very shady dealings with the Chinese that may have qualified as
treason. If so the investigation would be the CNO's responsibility.
Vreeland, who considered both Clinton and Bush Sr. to be criminals,
described Boorda as "not a bad guy".

My *guess* for the other contact was:
::::::
CDR William H. Donovan, Jr., USN
CDR Donovan was assigned as the OPNAV N-513 Strategy & Concepts
Action Officer. His prior assignments include VP-11, VP-31, Naval
Post Graduate School, CVN-73, VP-1, and OPNAV N-512 (Policy and
Doctrine).
:::::::
Another possibility is:
::::::
Otis V. Tolbert
U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Otis V. Tolbert, 38, wrote intelligence
briefings for the chief of naval operations in the Pentagon...
::::::
or, another intelligence briefer but lower ranked:
::::::
LT Jonas P. Panik, USN
LT Jonas was assigned as the Flag Intelligence Briefer, Chief of
Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP). His prior assignments
include Office of Naval Intelligence and VP-46.
::::::::

The most mysterious death in the Naval Command Center on 9/11 was Lt.
Darin Pontell, but at 26, he only graduated as an Intel officer in
1998. From Carol Valentine:
DARIN PONTELL CALLS HOME FROM THE GRAVE According to the Washington
Post, January 20, 2002, "The Last Watch," (front page, Style
section), the entire chain of command of the super secret Chief of
Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP) were killed in the
September 11 attack on the Pentagon. One of the victims was Darin
Pontell, who worked in CNO-IP. The Post reported that two days after
the attack, Darin's parents were still hoping Darin was alive. Here
is an excerpt from "The Last Watch," Washington Post, January 20,
2001, pg.F1. "'Where'd I put my cell phone? Where is it?' Marilyn
Pontell, Darrin's mother, grew frantic looking for her purse. Her
Nokia was chiming 'Take Me Out to the Ball Game.' "Marilyn would be
sick if she missed that call. Maybe it was news about her son. maybe
it was Darin himself. "Two days later, Marilyn and Gary Pontell still
hoped their youngest boy had been spared. Gathered at Darin and
Devora's apartment in Gaithersburg on Thursday afternoon, they could
barely process the idea that he was dead . . . "Navy officials gave
garbled reports: One person said someone who looked like Darin walked
from the scene. Somebody else claimed he was working far away, in the
A-Ring. An officials said they couldn't find his Acura Integra in the
Pentagon lot ... "The Nokia sang again, then silence. Too late. when
she finally got to the phone, Marilyn scrolled through the menu. One
missed call: 1:57 p.m. No message. But the incoming number was
clearly identified. It was Darin's. "My God, maybe he was alive. "For
five more days, they waited. On Sept. 18, the Navy informed the
Pontells that Darin's body had been positively identified. His cell
phone was never returned to the family. They presume it was never
found. Perhaps the flip-phone had somehow dialed Marilyn's number
when the rubble shifted. But didn't all cell phones have to be turned
off upon entry into the CNO-IP [Chief of Naval Operations
Intelligence Plot]? "The FBI offered a one-word explanation for that
call: 'anomaly.'"

--- In cia-...@yahoogroups.com, "better_off_said
<better_off_said@y...>" <better_off_said@y...> wrote:
> --- In cia-...@yahoogroups.com, "Vigilius Haufniensis"
> <thehatefulnerd@c...> wrote:
> > I know what you think of Lt. Vreeland but you might want to
> consider
> > > this info caveat lector: that the area precisely hit included
the
> ONI
> > > people and evidence remaining from Adm. Boorda's aborted revolt
> of
> > > 1995 *against* octopus tentacles in the upper echelon of the
> gov't.
> > > Later an article on a naval widow in the 'Style' section of the
> > > Washington Post--presumably less 'filtered' than the front
> section
> > > (?)-- mentioned that the entire 'chain of command' of the CNO-IP
> > > (Chief of Naval Operations-Intelligence Plot) had been killed
on
> > > 9/11. Maybe the target wasn't so 'insignificant'?
> >
> >
> > can you verify either of these claims?
> > thanks
> > vigilius haufniensis
>
> Can't verify LDay's claims, but here are some names for you. They
> can be confirmed through the Dept. of Navy, or from their web site
> (they have a memorial section for those lost on 9-11).
>
> I'll leave you to decipher the veracity and relevance of LDay's
> claims as it pertains to Adm. Boorda, however, he is correct about
> the plane hitting the ONI side of the Pentagon. And at least two
of
> the people listed below were ONI intelligence officers:
>
> Lt. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, NC
> Capt. Gerald F. DeConto, 44, Alexandria, VA
> Capt. Robert Dolan, 43, Alexandria, VA
> Cmdr. William Howard Donovan Jr., 37, Nunda, NY
> Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn
> Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth
> Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, NE
> Lt. Michael Scott "Scotty" Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, LA
> Lt. Commander Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, New Jersey
> Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, of Mingoville, PA
> Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Gaithersburg, MD
> Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Alexandria, VA
> Cmdr. Dan Shanower, 40, Naperville, IL
> Lt. Cmdr. Otis Tolbert Jr., 39, Lemoore, CA
> Lt. Commander Ronald James Vauk
> Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32

[Le Permanent Marker]

O'Neill is right and wrong. It's not about oil -- its about
destroying the people's USA

=========

Brendan O'Neill of the Christian Science Monitor (the "religion" of
this
magazine is a shell, a flase front -- it is the newspaper of the CFR,
certainly not mostly read by "Christ Scientists" -- a very tiny
religious
group in the US)

Look at this quote from Brendan:

"For many in the antiwar movement, the idea that the 'Bushies' plan
to invade the Gulf to get their greasy hands on more oil has become
an article of faith, an unquestionable truth repeated like a mantra.
...

" Many antiwar protesters want to blame corporate America
as the driving force behind war. They argue that faceless
profit-makin' businessmen pull the strings of oil-lovin' politicians.

"But this sounds more like a conspiracy theory than a considered
political opposition to war. What about other, genuine reasons
for opposing military intervention - the fact that it overrides nation
states' sovereignty, that it often disregards peoples' democratic
rights, that it can destabilize regions further?" (end quote)
-------

I could not help asking myself why O'Brian uses "conspiracy theory"
as a pejorative, and why he believes conspiracy theories are not
"considered." Does he think men holding power do not
conspire about things that they know the public would be enraged
about if they knew? Does he think that leaders acting in secret
are prevented from shaping policy to serve private interest rather
than the public weal? DOes he believe that the men who claw their
way to the top in government and business are moral easy-going
fair people like you and me who got where they are through
their virtue and humanitarian vision and superior service?

DOes he really think that investment bankers give two cents for
a "nations state's sovereignty?" Is he not aware that nation-state
sovereignty is the enemy of investment bankers, totally useless
except insofar as they can sign on the bottom line for big
crippling loans that will have to be paid by taxing the populations
for generations to come?

What straw-man arguing this is! What compartmentalization and
trunkation of the anti-war position. How much do they pay a
man to write yes-man lap-dog yapping lies like that?

But O'Neil is right about one thing -- oil is only one consideration.
But O'Neil is clueless as to what the BIG OBJECTIVE really is.

The Caligula Twins Bush-Blair hold a position that is too irrational
to
be sincere -- which means something extremely evil and vengeful is
afoot.

How do I tell you this?

I've mentioned the $2 trillion per year (bigger than the UK GDP)
heroin revenues of Afganistan oil. I've mentioned the acretion
of power to the Bush regime, not unchecked by the limitations
of a constitutional republic. I've listed 14 motives. But them all,
is the investment-banking power's ties to Chinese princleings,
the heirs of Zhou Enlai, and to his Sun Tzu strategy to dominate
the world ("in 50 years" he told Nassar in 1953.)

It involves "gaining control of the Princes of other lands" -- which
is what Bill CLinton and GWBush and his administration are.
(Yes, none of Bush's top men and women are Chinese -- but
do not forget that Israel and China have been low-key close
allies since they were both created in the late 1940's -- and
both were variants of Marxism that broke from the Stalinist
"revisionism" and continued to have close relations even during
the thickest of the cold war -- Mossad spies turning over
the neutron bomb and endless other secrets to China. While
Israel's ties to the US have been that of a parasite pretending to
be benign -- it extracts wealth and uses our sons and daughters
to kill unwanted Moslems in the Mideast while they sit back
and make mouthings of "you'd better do a good job, or we
are going to have to go in and show you how" etc. -- as is again
planned for this new round of extinguish the Ishmaelites.

China.

While the Chinese philosopher wrote of practice that
would make people happy, Sun Tzu saw order and
economics only as a means of waging war, of conducting
smart warfare.

Sun Tzu and Zhou Enlai believed in waging war
most tenaciously in an environment of "no war" --
warfare so subtle and all-encompassing that the
defenders of the enemy state will not have a clue that
major defeats are being inflicted in time of peace.

Twenty H-bombs could not have weakened the
US military as much as the disarmament of the US West Coast
and the reduction of the US military and naval forces by over
a third. Nor could 500 successful bombing raids have
reduced the US arsenal as much as the two Bush's and Clinton
did in wasting million-dollar weapons against the mountains
in the Balkans and in Afganistan and against cheap little radar
dishes and machine gun nests in Iraq's "no-fly free-killing" zone.

Last time the US military went to the Gulf its soldiers
contracted diseases that have ruined their lives at home --
that weakened them for the next conflict.

ANd we know that the Chinese have put a military force
in the Mideast that is much larger than what we are about
to deploy.

We also know that in an age of information warfare and the
electromgnetic pulse weapons that knock out all communications
and radars -- that the US military -- has managed to destroy
independent thinking in the battle field, it has centralized
warfare so that it is conducted from Langly Virginia (CIA
headquaarters) rather than generals on the field -- master
provision against another Douglas MacArthur but also
suicidal provision for the war environment we face --
whereas the Chinese military is not dependent on EMP-
vulnerable communications and command systems.

Today there are no Sinologists worthy of the name -- all
are hired yes-men doing Beijing's PR (or else they can't
even visit China!). So I recommend three older books
that give the best picture of what we are up against.

Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung
by H.G. Creel (Chicago:; University of Chicago Press, 1953)

and

The Chinese Machiavelli; 3000 years of Chinese Statecraft
by Dennis and Ching Ping Bloodworth (New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1976)

and

Psycho-Chemical Warfare; The Chinese Communist Drug
Offensive Against the West by A. H. Stanton Candlin
(New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1973)

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
==============

Excerpts from other's recent messages to e-lists:

China did purchase from the Russians several years ago a
very large vessel by the name of Varyag. It is a carrier and is now
in
China's naval shipyard at Guangzhou, near Hong Kong, where it is under
tight
security. Workmen are busy at work on this giant 67,500 ton vessel
developing it for military purposes.
The Soviets claimed that the vessel was capable of carrying and
launching up
to 60 jet fighters. The Varyag is 5,000 tons lighter than the U.S.
carrier
Theodore Roosevelt and has a flight deck of 999 feet, compared to the
Roosevelt's 1,092 feet.
This is the first one of this size I have read about that China owns.
They
might own 50 for all I know.
Thought you might like to know.
Terry

FW: CHINESE WAR PREPARATIONS

I should like to add this comment to what is presented below. Between
4 and
5 years ago I watched a film documentary regarding the Chinese war
machine.
Even then, they had a TWO HUNDRED MILLION MAN standing army.
Correct...not 2
million... 200 MILLION. History has proven, no army of that size
"stands"
for very long.

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

One of my worst fears is the implementation of the PACT that Russia
and
China signed a few years back to remove the United States as a world
super
power. Do you think Russia and China are smart enough to use Iraq as a
decoy
to lure America to one area, thus abandonding its homeland / base for
an
invasion to foreign forces? Do you think it's necessary to put 90% of
our
nation's war capabilities in one region just to blow-up a few camel
jockeys?
Did America not learn a lesson from Pearl Harbor not to put huge
forces in
one area? It seems as though America's borders are left unguarded and
unprotected intentionally.

==================
Subject: CHINESE WAR PREPARATIONS

Chinese war preparations

a.. Civil defense drills began in major Chinese cities around July
2000.

b.. Chinese military commanders have been told that nuclear war with
America could begin at any time.

c.. China has been developing and deploying new road-mobile long range
missiles like the DF-31 and DF-41.

d.. China is modernizing its navy, purchasing advanced Russian
warships and missiles capable of sinking U.S. carriers.

Using the money that they are making from America, with the most
favoured
nation status, whilst making Americans unemployed - JAH.

e.. China has been rapidly building a large store of advanced nuclear
warheads.

f.. China has positioned bases to block the main western entry point
into the Pacific, and has acquired indirect control of the
Panama Canal through front companies.

g.. China has formed military ties with Cuba and Venezuela.

h.. China has also penetrated Sudan, and is spreading missile and
nuclear technology to rogue states in Africa and the Middle
East.

i.. China has massed troops, aircraft, ships and missiles opposite
Taiwan.

j.. China has engaged in war exercises during which U.S. forces in the
Pacific were targeted by Chinese forces.

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

Recently Hendrik Hertzberg wrote the following in
The New Yorker (Jan 13, 2003):

"A not completely crazy case can be made that the most influential
thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of
George W. Bush during its first two years was not one of the
familiar members of the gold-shielded Praetorian Guard -- not Dick
Cheney or Colin Powell, not Condi or Rummy, not Tenet or Wolfowitz
-- but, rather, a forty-two-year-old Canadian named David Frum.
During Year I of Bush II, Frum was a White House speechwriter.
Although he left the job only ten months ago, his memoir of those
distant days has already been written, edited, and printed, and,
as of this week, is in the

stores....................................In

..........

Under Bush, matters Korean headed rapidly downhill. When Kim Dae
Jung visited Washington, six weeks after Bush took office, Bush
humiliated him (and embarrassed Powell) by withdrawing American
support for the sunshine initiatives. Before September 11th, when
the Administration's foreign-policy obsession was missile defense,
it almost seemed to welcome the prospect of a nuclear-armed North
Korea. Kim Jong Il's "rogue state" provided a convenient rationale
for deploying the only kind of A.B.M. system

.........

The Administration takes the view that the essence of the crisis
-- or "serious situation," as Powell prefers to call it -- is
simple: North Korea has blatantly violated the Agreed Framework
and is now committing nuclear blackmail.

========

One must realize two things. North Korea is not a rogue nation. It
is China's puppet -- and a "black box" where secret doings can be
conducted in perfect secrecy of the world's most overtly ruthless
totalitarian state. North Korea has the second largest army in the
world (Viet Nam the third).

I am certain that since the "official reasons" for Bush's antagonism
of North Korea are too absurd to be taken seriously (and do not
think that GW Bush would go against the advice of Cheney, Rice,
Rumsfeld and Kissinger, Pearle and Powell if they happened
ever saw things differently and approached him in a group of two
or three) -- we must assume that the policy is a rational one, but
a rational one that is at odds with what you and I would deem
desirable
goals.

I am thinking that Bush's goal was to antagonize all three of the
East Asian totalitarian land powers -- to whip their peoples into
a frenzy of anti-Americanism to motivate them to take measures
against the United States in due season.

ANd what prevents most of us from seeing this obvious motive,
is the incorrect assumption that Bush is on our side and not
working for hostile internaitonal economic and political interests
against us.

[Le Permanent Marker]

Riskus tells me he did NOT see the Boeing knock down those lamp poles.
He places Boeing only 100 feet from him when it crossed Washington
Blvd.
----------

We have been given wrong information about what Steve Riskus saw.

When I was maintaining that Riskus saw the Boeing pass within 100 feet
of him as it crossed Washington Blvd. while he was north of the
Pengaon -- one of the many would-be debunkers declared that Riskus
saw the Boeing knocking down lamp posts that this investigator was
caliming was brought down by a different aircraft, by the killer jet.

It turns out that the would-be debunker's claim is inaccurate. Steve
Riskus has responded to my inquiry and gives an account that is
exactly in keeping with my original description and explanation.
Riskus does not say he saw a second jet -- nor would we expect him to
have seen it, but he does put the Boeing closer himself (100 feet)
than to those lamp posts and he does confirm that the plane appeared
to go "straight in" when asked about the angle of approach. (My
explanation involves a 90 degree approach (from the west) for the
Boeing and a 45 degree approach (from the southwest) for the killer
jet.

When Ron Harvey claimed that Steve Riskus saw the poles knocked down
by the
Boeing he was making a claim that flatly contradicted the diagram
shown below:

But it turns out that Riskus does not contradict this account. Riskus
did not
see the poles knocked down by the Boeing. He only noticed downed
poles
as he drove past them later, AFTER taking his pictures and getting
back into
his southbound car. In other words, if there were two planes, Riskus
could
not say which one hit the poles. And that is not all.

EAST
NORTH SOUTH
NW WEST SW

CENTER OF PENTAGON
-------------X---C-ring engine exit----------(Pentagon West Walls
inside rings)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
wall
---------------------------------------------------------------------wall
--------------------------------------------------------------------
wall
-----------------------------X--crash entry------------ Pentagon West
Wall (exteriror)
heliport
[ ]


tree x
x x downed lamp
posts
X Riskus x point 100 feet from Riskus x x
..........washington blvd.
southbound).........................................
northwest of crash southwest of
crash
Boeing came from here Killer Jet from here

ARLINGTON CEMETERY

Riskus also states that the plane was only 100 feet from him as
it crossed the road in front of his car. He also states that the
plane appeared to himn to hit straight on (at a 90 degree angle) --
which would have to be the case if the plane passed only 100
feet in front of him while he was still about 100 feet north of
the crash -- whereas the poles were southwest of the
crash and several hundred feet south of Riskus.

Riskus does not confirm my theory by any means. But since'
Riskus did not see the poles being downed by the Boeing, as was
claimed by Harvey, he hasn't supplied contradiction of the
theory either. As of now the two-approaching-planes theory
is back on top of the heap.


Q: Were you on Washington Blvd, southbound, and north of the crash
point when you saw the Boeing cross your path?

Riskus: I was heading south from the memorial bridge towards 395

Q: If you were north of the building and heading south in you car the
building would be on your left.

Riskus: I did see the plane approach from the right and cross in
front of me and crash into the building

Q: You are reported to have been as close as 100 feet to the plane
(which 2/3 of the length of a 757.) Where was the plane when it was
this close to you?

Riskus: the plane was right in front of me

Q: How high was the Boeing from the ground when you first saw it?

Riskus: i dont know the exact height i would guess about 20 to 30 ft
from the ground

Q: Was it moving horzontally all the time?

Riskus: it appeared to be moving horizontally

Q: You are reported to have said that the engines were silent. Did
it seem to you that they were turned off completely -- that the plane
was gliding?

Riskus: i never said the engines were silent

Q: Did it appear to you that the plane was actually over the cemetery
at any time?

Riskus: No.

Q: Did the plane come down the Columbia Pike, flying over cars? Did
it appear to
fly over the Naval Annex?

Riskus: i guess it could have flown over the naval annex. from my
vantage point i cant really tell

Q: Could you see the Annex from where your car was stopped?

Riskus: once my car stopped i could see it

Q: If you did see poles going down as others report -- how many did
you see?

A: i didnt see poles actually being struck but i saw them down as i
drove away

Q: Do you remember the big 7' -high cabal spools in front of the
crash point -- did the
plane seem to go over those or pass by them to one side?

A: i dont remember seeing cabal spools at the time

Q: Did you see a wing drag or the generator near the crash point get
hit?

A: i dont know what wing drag is and i didnt see a generator

Q: Do you remember a white flash when the plane hit? Did it resemble
the
explosion in the first frame of the security camera video recording
that was
released in March 2002?

A: i didnt see a white flash

Q: As you recall -- at what angle to the wall did the plane hit?
(perpendicular being 90 degrees)

A: i dont think i had the best point of few to see the acctual angle.
It looked like it went straight in but then again the pentagon isnt
flat against the highway...i really dont have any way to tell for sure

Q: Who were the first people you saw arrive on the lawn? Do you
remember anything about debris?

A: the first and only person i saw arive was a police car. as i was
driving a way a few moments later people from the navel annex were
running over. i didnt pay attention to debris but small debris fell
from the sky after the explosion. it sounded like hail hitting my roof

Q: Did the FBI or any government agency call you or call on you
afterwards? What were they most interested in knowing or in telling
you?

A: much to my suprise.. still to this day no one from any police, fbi
or government angency has contacted me. Even the news agencies were
not really interested in my photos. I notified the ap about them right
away and they never even said anything about them.

[Origin Unknown]

Dunno if anyone has seen this before.. but it does pose some very
interesting questions.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

"Le Permanent Marker" <eas...@bentonrea.com> wrote in message
news:46277f76.03012...@posting.google.com...

[David]

President George W. Bush is an OUTSTANDING LEADER! You can make some of
the people happy some of the time but not all of the people happy all of the
time. There will always be a wiener out there somewhere, complaining.

[Origin Unknown]

*wonders what the weather is like on David's planet ....

"David" <Da...@notgoingtosay.com> wrote in message
news:t7ucnZno3bs...@comcast.com...

[Le Permanent Marker]

Sweet Jesus!!! GW's brother Marvin Bush on board and major sharholder
in Securacom Kuwaiti-backed firm handling security for wtc, Dulles
Airport and United Airlines 1995-2001 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

=========

The planes that hit wtc were United Airlines planes. They were remote
controlled.

Flight 77, which was part of the masterful deception in the attack on
the Pentagon,
took off from Dulles.

This impossible 6-part coincidence links another Bush to the 9-11
mass-murder frameup.

Dick
==========================

Vol. 9, No. 2021 - The American Reporter - January 20,
2003

SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11
SECURITY

by Margie Burns

Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided
security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles
International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to
United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a
private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to
a brother of President Bush and the Bush family,
according to records obtained by the American
Reporter.

Two planes hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001 were United
Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles
International Airport; two, of ocurse, slammed into
the World Trade Center. But the Bush Administration
has never disclosed the ties of a presidential brother
and the Bush family with the firm that intersected the
weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush,
was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when
most of the work on the big projects was done. But
White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly
disclosed the company's part in providing security to
any of the named facilities, and many of the public
records revealing the relationships are not public.

Nonetheless, public records reveal that the firm,
formerly named Securacom, listed Bush on its board of
directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm,
now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling,
Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes
federal clients. Bush is no longer on the board.

Marvin Bush has not responded to repeated telephoned
and emailed requests for comment on this story.

The American Stock Exchange delisted Stratesec's stock
in October 2002. Securacom also had a contract to
provide security at Los Alamos National Laboratories,
notorious for its security breaches and physical and
intellectual property thefts.

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the
company had an ongoing contract to handle security at
the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings
fell down." Yet instead of being investigated, the
company and companies involved with it have benefited
from legislation pushed by the Bush White House and
rubber-stamped by Congressional Republicans.
Stratesec, its backer KuwAm, and their corporate
officers stand to benefit from limitations on
liability and national-security protections from
investigation provided in bills since 9/11.

HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., a reinsurance
corporation on whose board Marvin Bush sat as director
until November 2002, similarly benefits from terrorism
insurance protections. (Bush's first year on the board
at HCC coincided with his last year on the board at
Stratesec.) HCC, formerly Houston Casualty Company,
carried some of the insurance for the World Trade
Center. It posted a loss for the quarter after the
attacks of Sept. 11 and dropped participation in
worker's compensation as a result. Bush remains an
adviser to the chairman and the Board of Directors, as
well as a member of the company's investment
committee.

The former CEO of Stratesec is Wirt D. Walker III, who
is still chairman of the board. Although he has also
been the managing director of KuwAm for several years,
Walker states definitively in phone interviews that
there was no exchange of talent between Stratesec and
KuwAm during the World Trade Center and other
projects.

As Walker put it, "I'm an investment banker." He
continued, "We just owned some stock." The investment
company "was not involved in any way in the work or
day-to-day operations" of the security company. He
explained clearly and pleasantly that there was no
sharing of information or of personnel between the two
companies.

In December 2000 - when the outcome of the U.S.
presidential election was determined - Stratesec added
a government division, providing "the same full range
of security systems services as the Commercial
Division," the company says. Stratesec now has "an
open-ended contract with the General Services
Administration (GSA) and a Blanket Purchase Agreement
(BPA) with the agency that allows the government to
purchase materials and services from the Company
without having to go through a full competition."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S.
Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of
Justice," in projects that "often require
state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or
high-risk government sites." In 2000, the U.S. Army
accounted for 29 percent of the company's earned
revenues, or about $6.9 million.

The White House opposed an independent commission to
investigate 9/11 until after the terrorism insurance
protections and protections for security companies had
safely passed Congress. It has also quietly intervened
in lawsuits against United Airlines in New York,
brought by relatives of the victims.

Marvin Bush joined Securacom's Board of Directors in
1993, as part of new management hired when the company
separated from engineering firm Burns and Roe. The new
team was capitalized by KuwAm, the D.C.-based
Kuwaiti-American investment company. Bush also served
on the Board of Directors at KuwAm, along with Mishal
Yousef Saud al-Sabah, Chairman of KuwAm and also a
Director on Securacom's (Stratesec's) board.

The World Trade Center and the Metropolitan Washington
Airport Authority - which operates Dulles - were two
of Securacom's three biggest clients in 1996 and 1997.
(The third was MCI, now WorldCom.)

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security
companies which separate the function of consultant
from that of service provider. The company defines
itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end"
security services, including everything from diagnosis
of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to
installing video and electronic equipment. It also
provides armored vehicles and security guards.

When, following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
Center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
began its multi-million-dollar, multiyear revamping of
security in and around the Twin Towers and Buildings 4
and 5, Securacom was among numerous contractors hired
in the upgrade.

The companies doing security jobs received due mention
in print, in security industry publications and
elsewhere. The board membership of a son of former
President Bush went unnoticed, at least in print.

According to SEC filings, Securacom/Stratesec acquired
the $8.3 million World Trade Center contract in
October 1996. The project generated 28 percent of all
revenues for the company in 1996. SEC filings indicate
that revenues from the World Trade Center project
commenced in 1996 at $1.6 million, peaked in 1997 at
$6.6 million ($4.1 million in the first half), and
diminished in 1998 to less than $1 million.

A key concept in security is "access control." In
hindsight, as the security industry's reportage on the
World Trade Center precautions makes clear, further
attacks would have to come from the air.
Unfortunately, such detailed reports did not convey
that message at home. Nobody thought outside the box
enough to deduce that a jumbo jet could overcome even
the extraordinary controls at the World Trade Center.
With 20-20 hindsight, it is obvious that the intricate
procedures in the building's lobbies and on its
perimeters were useless in trying to stop a 767 loaded
with jet fuel.

Barry McDaniel, CEO of the company since January 2002,
declines on security grounds to give specific details
about work the company did at the World Trade Center.
According to McDaniel, the contract was ongoing (a
"completion contract"), and "not quite completed when
the Center went down." The company designed a system,
but - as he points out - that obviously "didn't have
anything to do with planes flying into buildings."

The key words "access control" are less feeble and
irrelevant, however, in regard to airports and
airlines. Had the hijackers failed on the ground, they
would have lost their airborne weapon.

Two of the hijacked planes were United Airlines
planes, and another took off from Dulles
International. Two hit the Twin Towers, leading to a
collapse of both buildings that killed nearly 3,000
people.

McDaniel makes clear that Securacom's contract with
United Airlines was a single-site contract, in
Indianapolis (at least five years ago), and not local.
The work was finished several years before he joined
the board, and was not in or near Washington.

The Dulles Internation contract is another matter.
Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive
airport," according to security consultant Wayne
Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to
its location, size, and the number of international
carriers it serves.

Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that
for one company to handle security for both airports
and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate
for a security firm serving international facilities
to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company:
"Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the
contract would have been more closely scrutinized.

As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a
security contract, you know the inner workings of
everything." And if another company is linked with the
security company, then "What's on your computer is on
their computer."

In this context, retired FAA special agent Brian F.
Sullivan is angry, and eloquent. "You can have all the
security systems in the world, but the people behind
the systems make the difference." The Bush
administration, says Sullivan, "spit in the faces" of
the victims' families, in pushing for last-minute
protections for foreign-owned security companies (in
the Homeland Security bill). Sullivan points out that
"not one single person" in an upper-level position has
lost a job as a result of 9/11, "not in the FBI, CIA,
FAA, DOT." As he sums up, "No accountability, no
progress."

Stratesec got its first preventive maintenance
contract with Dulles Airport in 1995, generating $0.3
million that year. The Dulles project generated
revenue of $1.2 million in 1996, $2.5 million in 1997,
and $2.3 million in 1998, accounting for 22% of the
company's revenues in 1996 and in 1998

Like other specialists, Professor Dale B. Oderman of
Purdue University's aviation technology department,
concurs that Dulles "was considered a very high
profile target" as the primary international airport
near the nation's capital. It serves as port of entry
to about 15 international airlines as well as serving
eight of the 11 major us passenger carriers. In
comparison, Reagan Airport hosts only Air Canada from
outside the U.S., and Baltimore-Washington Airport
hosts about a half dozen."

Stratesec did not handle screening of passengers at
Dulles. According to a contracting official for the
Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, its
three-year contract was for maintenance of security
systems: It maintained the airfield access system, the
CCTV (closed circuit television) system, and the
electronic badging system.

In 1997, the World Trade Center and Dulles accounted
for 55 percent and 20 percent of the company's earned
revenues, respectively. The World Trade Center and
Dulles projects figured largely in both Securacom's
growing revenues from 1995 to 1997 and its decreases
from 1997 to 1998.

Stratesec continued to refer to "New York City's World
Trade Center" as a former client through April 2001.
It listed Dulles Airport and United Airlines as former
clients through April 2002.

As with the World Trade Center - which also had
electronic badging, security gates, and CCTV - the
ultimate problem with Dulles' security controls was
not the controls themselves, but that they could be
sidestepped. All the hijackers had to do was buy a
ticket. As former FAA special agent Sullivan comments,
"If they [attackers] knew about the security system,
they knew how to bypass it."

One obvious question for investigators is how much
potential hijackers could have known about the
security system.

From 1993 to 1999, KuwAm - the Kuwait-American
Corporation -- held a large and often controlling
interest in Securacom. In 1996, KuwAm Corporation
owned 90 percent of the company, either directly or
through partnerships like one called Special
Situations Investment Holdings and another called
"Fifth Floor Company for General Trading and
Contracting." KuwAm owned 31 percent of Securacom in
1998 and 47 percent of Stratesec in 1999. It currently
holds only about 205,000 shares of Stratesec; Walker,
KuwAm's managing director, holds 650,000.

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's
board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final
reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June
2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's
Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his
stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had
options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually.
In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per
share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records
since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.

Stratesec and KuwAm were and still are intertwined at
the top. Walker, while a principal at Stratesec (a
director since 1987, chairman of the board since 1992,
and formerly CEO since 1999), was also on the board of
directors at KuwAm and is still managing director
(both since 1982). Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah, the
chairman at KuwAm, also served on Stratesec's board
from 1991 to 2001. Walker and Al Sabah had major stock
holdings in each other's companies. The sons of both
also held shares in the two companies.

Stratesec, which currently lists 45 employees, hired
KuwAm for corporate secretarial services in 2002, at
$2,500 per month.

For several years, Walker has also been chairman and
CEO of an aircraft company, Aviation General, about 70
percent owned by KuwAm.

The Saudi Arabian embassy, the Kuwait embassy, and
KuwAm have office suites in the Watergate complex,
where both Stratesec and Aviation General held their
annual shareholders' meetings in 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Bush was reelected to his annual board position there,
across the hall from a Saudi Arabian Airlines office.
(This year, the companies' shareholders meetings
switched to the fifth floor, in space also hleased by
Saudis and Kuwaitis.)

Incidentally, Saudi Princess Haifa Al-Faisal had her
checking account at Riggs Bank, which has a large
branch in the Watergate. Given that Jonathan Bush, the
president's uncle, is a Riggs executive, it is
difficult to understand any obstacle for American
authorities pursuing the recently reported "Saudi
money trail." The princess's charitable activities
were processed through Riggs, but attention focused on
the Saudis seems not to extend to the
politically-connected bank they used.

McDaniel was asked in a brief telephone interview
whether FBI or other agents have questioned him or
others at Stratesec about the company's security work
in connection with 9/11. The concise answer: "No."
Asked the same question regarding KuwAm, Walker
declined further comment, and referred a reporter to
the public record.

According to a spokesman in an FBI regional office,
since October 2001, "the investigation [of 9/11] is
being coordinated at the national level, directly from
the White House." If so, you'd think that an
administration that could seriously consider
infiltrating American mosques would ask a few
questions closer to home.

But the suggestion is inescapable that any
investigation into security arrangements preceding
9/11, at some of the nation's most sensitive
facilities, has been impeded to this day by narrowly
political concerns in the White House.

Margie Burns is a Texas native who now writes from
Washington, D.C. Email her at
margie...@verizon.net.

Copyright 2003 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All
Rights Reserved.

http://www.american-reporter.com/2021/3.html

peace,
Tom

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

Dick Eastman analysis of Pentagon attack.
The only completed investigation of 9-11 that has
reached a firm and definite conclusion:

[Le Permanent Marker]

"David" <Da...@notgoingtosay.com> wrote in message news:<t7ucnZno3bs...@comcast.com>...

> President George W. Bush is an OUTSTANDING LEADER! You can make some of
> the people happy some of the time but not all of the people happy all of the
> time. There will always be a wiener out there somewhere, complaining.

Yes, he does stand out. And he does make "our betters" (the top .5
percent)very very happy and much better off.

However, I know what would make a lot of people in the country and the
world a lot happier than they have reasonable prospect of becoming
under the new Caligula.

Now to business:

BUSH TEAM CONSIDERING TACTICAL NUCLEAR STRIKE TO ENSURE RUMSFELD'S
PROMISED 7-DAY VICTORY.

January 25, 2003
http://www.legitgov.org/

-- BREAKING NEWS AND COMMENTARY--
Links to these and other stories are found on our website at:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news


"This is the worst president [sic] ever ... He [GW Bush] is the worst
president [sic] in all of American history." --Helen Thomas.
Pittsburgh, PA -- Pittsburgh Regional Antiwar Convergence - Join
Thousands January 24-26th in Pittsburgh for a regional peace
convergence. Pittsburgh will take to the streets in the largest local
peace mobilization in almost 30 years! There is now a major "day of
action" planned for Jan 25th and 26th in Pittsburgh. This is being
organized as part of the regional convergence encompassing a diversity
of tactics. Groups are coming from throughout Western Pa and beyond to
take part in what many feel will be a important event in course of our
opposition to war. Marches-street theatre-concerts-parties-educational
events-mass rallies-and more are planned. The culminating event of the
Regional Anti-War Convergence on the weekend of January 24-26, 2003
will be a die-in in the middle of Fifth Avenue, near the Software
Engineering Institute (corner of Fifth and Craig) in Oakland.
Participants in the die-in will wheel into the street a ten to twelve
foot puppet of George W. Bush holding a missile in one hand and an oil
can in the other. For info: http://www.organizepittsburgh.org/
Members and Supporters of the CLG who are planning to attend on Sunday
at 12:00 Noon, please contact prot...@legitgov.org to make
arrangements for meeting. For the most complete listing of peace and
ant-W-ar protests on the web, visit our Peace Protests page at:
http://www.legitgov.org/peaceprotests.html. To send us information on
upcoming events for posting, send email to: actio...@legitgov.org.

U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq "As the Pentagon continues
a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf, it
is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in a
war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst."

The Nuclear Option in Iraq --by William M. Arkin "One year after
President [sic] Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea the 'axis of
evil,' the United States is thinking about the unthinkable: It is
preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq."

Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage "They're calling it "A-Day," A
as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers
unable or unwilling to fight. If the Pentagon sticks to its current
war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between
300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq."

Pentagon eyes mass graves Option would fight contamination after
bioterror deaths "The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or
biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass
graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an
option being considered by the Pentagon."

Michael Ruppert claims the illegal attack on Iraq will be when the
Dictator addresses the nation on Tuesday night. "Serious international
developments are indicating that the first stages of the U.S. invasion
of Iraq will begin unilaterally no later than next Wednesday and most
likely as the President [sic] delivers his State of the Union address
to Congress on Tuesday night."

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. All despite the lack
of evidence of WMDs, and now even after a good report card from the UN
inspectors.

A million refugees if hostilities begin "A confidential internal
United Nations report prepared last month estimated that a US-led war
would create nearly one million refugees needing outside resettlement
and 7.2 million people displaced internally, millions of whom could
later swell the ranks of refugees."

Saddam has done 'quite satisfactory' job in cooperating with nuclear
agency; Washington mulling more inspections "The head of the U.N.
nuclear agency will tell the Security Council on Monday that Saddam
Hussein has done a 'quite satisfactory' job of cooperating with
inspectors in some areas but that they need more time to complete
their search."

Saddam Showdown: Has Bush Been Backed into a Corner? --by Paul Strand
"The Bush administration insists Iraq is hiding weapons of mass
destruction. But does it really know for sure? And if it does, why
doesn't it show everyone the proof? And has the UN, along with nations
like France and Germany, backed the Bush administration into a corner
by demanding more inspections? "

Continued Arms Inspections Get U.S. Nod Troop Deployment --Timetables
and Drive to Build Support Temper Bush's Desire to Act --"While making
clear it believes Iraq has already violated last November's U.N.
Security Council resolution, the Bush administration will acquiesce to
continued U.N. inspections there, at least for the next several weeks,
according to U.S. and diplomatic sources."

US govt tells expatriates to prepare to evacuate in any emergency
--The US government is advising its expatriate citizens around the
world to be prepared for emergency evacuations from their country of
residence, in the event of war, natural disasters or other unforeseen
circumstances [?!?], a senior State Department official said.

U.S. Coalition for War Has Few Partners, Troop Pledges "The Bush
administration has asked 53 countries to join the United States in a
military campaign against Iraq, but so far the 'coalition of the
willing,' in President [sic] Bush's phrase, consists of a handful of
countries and even fewer commitments of troops, officials and
diplomats said yesterday."

White House Warns Iraq That 'Time Is Running Out' --The White House
warned Iraq today that "time is running out," while European leaders,
concerned about a growing rift with the United States over a possible
war in Iraq, spoke out in an effort to calm the war of words between
Washington and Paris and Berlin.

US issues fresh Iraq warning --The White House has issued a warning to
Baghdad that what it called its refusal to allow private interviews
with Iraqi weapons scientists was "unacceptable" and might bring war
closer.

Canadians training for post-Saddam Iraq --Hundreds of recruits arrive
at base in Hungary to be part of CIA-backed 'liberation' force
--Security is extremely tight at this NATO base in southwest Hungary
now that the first Iraqi opposition volunteers [?!?] have begun
arriving for military training. It is expected that, over the next six
months, nearly 3,000 expatriate Iraqis, including several Canadian
recruits, will be organized into the nucleus of a post-Saddam army.

Congress must control spending to pay for war: Bush "President [sic]
George W Bush on Saturday said that the US Congress must control
public spending to help pay for any war on Iraq as well as his new
$674 billion economic plan."

U.S. policies on terrorism, Iraq criticized at global conference
"Attorney General John Ashcroft clashed with Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir bin Mohamad on Friday at a global conference marked by sharp
and widespread criticism of U.S. policy on terrorism and Iraq."

Marketers face tough task of selling Bush to Britain --The "Brand USA"
marketing machine is targeting Britain... With polls showing that only
15 per cent of Britons would support a campaign in Iraq without United
Nations approval, the White House thinks the situation is serious.

Saudi Oil Minister Says No Shortage of Oil "Saudi Oil Minister Ali
Naimi said on Saturday there was no shortage of oil in the market
despite fears of war in Iraq and there were no grounds for prices to
be as high as they now are."

AIDS, Famine Kill 2,500 Zimbabweans Every Week, UN Envoy Says "About
2,500 people die every week of AIDS in Zimbabwe as a food shortage
worsens the impact of the disease, said Stephen Lewis, the United
Nations' special envoy for HIV-AIDS in Africa."

White House adviser reportedly will resign "Richard Clarke, a
blunt-spoken White House adviser who raised warnings about Islamic
terrorism and biological weapons years before they became nightmare
headlines, will resign from government soon, people familiar with his
plans said."

Sen. Clinton: Homeland security a 'myth' --Sen. Hillary Clinton,
calling the nation's homeland security a "myth," Friday proposed
remedies to beef up resources deemed necessary since the September 11
terrorist attacks on the United States.'

Bush, GOP failing to protect cities, Baltimore mayor says "Baltimore
Mayor Martin O'Malley took President [sic] Bush and the Republican
Party to task Saturday for failing to provide cities with funds to
protect against terrorist attacks."

FBI Taps Campus Police in Anti-Terror Operations --Student, Faculty
Groups Fear a Return of Spying Abuses Against Activists, Foreign
Nationals --"Federal authorities have begun enlisting campus police
officers in the domestic war on terror, renewing fears among some
faculty and student groups of overzealous FBI spying at colleges and
universities that led to scandals in decades past.

FBI enlisting campus police officers "As part of the war on terror,
the FBI has begun enlisting officers from campus police departments in
colleges and universities throughout the US, raising fears of spying
among faculty and student community."

CU Hospital decides against giving smallpox vaccinations "The
University of Colorado Hospital has joined a dozen others around the
state in deciding not to participate - for now - in the government's
plan to vaccinate teams of health care workers against smallpox."

No Rush For First Smallpox Vaccines "With three of the most
photographed vaccinations in medical history, Connecticut on Friday
became the first state to launch its smallpox inoculation program for
health care workers."

Judge kills ex-soldier's anthrax-vaccine lawsuit "A precedent-setting
lawsuit by a former Army private who refused an anthrax vaccination
was dismissed Friday by a judge who nevertheless warned that the
military shouldn't use its soldiers as guinea pigs for the unproven
vaccine."

Karl Rove: The president[sic]'s man behind the scenes "He [Rove] also
rejected a journalist's suggestion that Democrats are 'cowed, confused
and incoherent,' and predicted that the party's nominee next year will
give Bush a close run, more akin to the overtime [s-]election of 2000
than the Reagan landslide of 1984.

Wellstone memorial fund halved "Senate Republicans have reneged on
spending $10 million for a St. Paul community center to honor the late
U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn."

Bush's prescriptions proposal already has GOP, Democrats worrying
"Although he won't officially roll it out until Tuesday, President
[sic] Bush's ambitious proposal to offer senior citizens subsidized
prescription drugs already is drawing heavy fire from within his own
party and from Democrats."

Unborn Victims of Violence Act Introduced in Senate --Far-right
Republicans in the US Congress continued their attack on abortion
rights last week with the introduction of the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act in the Senate.

CLG's Political Education page has been updated! Abortion in American
History --by Katha Pollitt

Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush --by Francis
A. Boyle Professor of Law January 17, 2003 "... in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship
upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means
of 'a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations' against the Constitution
since September 11, 2001."

Impeachment: The Only Path toward Peace? --by Marta Steele --A new
impeachment movement is stirring, in the wake of 9/11, as we recover
from our shock and grief to the realization that, as even veteran
White House journalist Helen Thomas admits, the "worst 'president' in
history" is in office. A new impeachment movement, led by Professor
Francis Boyle and former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, is stirring
even as we all brace ourselves for another violent response but
proceed nonetheless.

The Case to Impeach President Bush --by Eric Zuesse "A strong
prima-facie impeachment case exists, to the effect that President
[sic] George W. Bush introduced a certain special-interest provision
into the Republican House's Homeland Security bill that was recently
passed by Congress, and that the President did it specifically as a
favor to an important contributor, as his payoff for a bribe."

Links to these and other stories are found on our website at:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

(Full List of Actions, Click Here) For listings by state, check the
Actions Forum.
***Please contribute today***Please go to our home page at
http://www.legitgov.org and contribute via PayPal or by check. The
contribution links are toward the bottom of the page, or you may click
here: (http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#contribute). Please help
with as much or little as you can. Thank you very much! Order "Bush
Atrocities" T-shirts (http://legitgov.org/T_shirts.html), which helps
support the CLG.

Address to receive newsletter:
clg_newslett...@mlm.legitgov.org
Address to not receive newsletter:
clg_newslette...@mlm.legitgov.org
(or, pls. write to: sig...@legitgov.org and I can add your name to the
roster. If you have any problems w. your receiving this newsletter,
pls. write to: sig...@legitgov.org as I can manually delete names from
the roster.) --lrp/mdr/CLG

[Le Permanent Marker]

The first pig made his policy of straw, the second pig made his of
twigs from the Bushes but the third asked:

would Jesus conduct this foreign policy?

would Washington?

or Jefferson?

would Lincoln?

what has globalization done for you?

what have the oil corporations done for you?

what have the heroin and opium and cocaine druglords and
the bankers who do their laundery done for you and for your
community?

is this war etc. to defend your freedom?

with the Patriot Act?

with the Homeland Security Act?

I have concluded that Freemasonry and Zionism,the top elite figures
within each, is organized crime of the most ruthless and sociopathic
and sadistic and consciously evil variety.

I say that this treason against mankind needs to result in
revolutions all around the world -- like those revolutions against
the international-elite's Treaty of Ghent following the defeat of the
French Revolution for Liberty, the Brotherhood of Man, and Egalitarian
Laws and Government -- but all of those 1848 revolutions were
crushed by the Rothschild-owned European governments of the time --

may we have better luck this time around.

My God has sent us the Prince of Peace -- yet I see no way but for
His followers to support these coming revolutions in Britain, Germany,
Israel and the US against this perverse profit-driven killer's
machinery.

Dick Eastman

[Alexander Baron]

In message <46277f76.03012...@posting.google.com>, Le
Permanent Marker <eas...@bentonrea.com> writes

>Sweet Jesus!!! GW's brother Marvin Bush on board and major sharholder
>in Securacom Kuwaiti-backed firm handling security for wtc, Dulles
>Airport and United Airlines 1995-2001 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>=========
>
>
>The planes that hit wtc were United Airlines planes. They were remote
>controlled.

Flown by Billy Tracy from Planet O'Gara perhaps, who was taking time out
from ripping whores in the north of England.
--
Alexander Baron - exposing liars and scumbags regardless of race, colour,
religion or creed since 1991.

http://www.abaron.demon.co.uk/

[Le Permanent Marker]

Does Tony Blair have any idea what the flies are like that feed off
the dead?

By Robert Fisk
Published on 26 January 2003

LONDON, 26 January 2003 - On the road to Basra, ITV was filming wild
dogs as they tore at the corpses of the Iraqi dead. Every few seconds
a ravenous beast would rip off a decaying arm and make off with it
over the desert in front of us, dead fingers trailing through the
sand, the remains of the burned military sleeve flapping in the wind.

"Just for the record," the cameraman said to me. Of course. Because
ITV would never show such footage. The things we see - the filth and
obscenity of corpses - cannot be shown. First because it is not
"appropriate" to depict such reality on breakfast-time TV. Second
because, if what we saw was shown on television, no one would ever
again agreeto support a war.

That of course was in 1991. The "highway of death," they called it -
there was actually a parallel and much worse "highway of death" 10
miles to the east, courtesy of the US Air Force and the RAF, but no
one turned up to film it - and the only true picture of the horrors we
saw was the photograph of the shriveled, carbonized Iraqi soldier in
his truck. This was an iconic illustration of a kind because it did
represent what we had seen, when it was eventually published.

For Iraqi casualties to appear on television during that Gulf War -
there was another one between 1980 and 1988, and a third is in the
offing - it was necessary for them to have died with care, to have
fallen romantically on their backs, one hand over a ruined face. Like
those World War I paintings of the British dead on the Somme, Iraqis
had to die benignly and without obvious wounds, without any kind of
squalor, without a trace of shit or mucus or congealed blood, if they
wanted to make it on to the morning news programs.

I rage at this contrivance. At Qaa in 1996, when the Israelis had
shelled Lebanese refugees at the UN compound for 17 minutes, killing
106 civilians, more than half of them children, I came across a young
woman holding in her arms a middle-aged man. He was dead. "My father,
my father," she kept crying, cradling his face. One of his arms and
one of his legs was missing - the Israelis used proximity shells which
cause amputation wounds - but when that scene reached television
screens in Europe and America, the camera was close up on the girl and
the dead man's face. The amputations were not to be seen. The cause of
death had been erased in the interests of good taste. It was as if the
old man had died of tiredness, just turned his head upon his
daughter's shoulder to die in peace.

Today, when I listen to the threats of US President George W. Bush
against Iraq and the shrill moralistic warnings of British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, I wonder what they know of this terrible reality.
Does George, who declined to serve his county in Vietnam, have any
idea what these corpses smell like? Does Tony have the slightest
conception of what the flies are like, the big bluebottles that feed
on the dead, and then come to settle on our faces and our notepads?
Soldiers know. I remember one British officer asking to use the BBC's
satellite phone just after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. He was
talking to his family in England and I watched him carefully. "I have
seen some terrible things," he said. And then he broke down, weeping
and shaking and holding the phone dangling in his hand over the
transmission set. Did his family have the slightest idea what he was
talking about? They would not have understood by watching television.

Thus can we face the prospect of war. Our glorious, patriotic
population - albeit only about 20 percent in support of this
particular Iraqi folly - has been protected from the realities of
violent death. But I am much struck by the number of letters in my
postbag from veterans of World War II, men and women, all against this
new Iraqi war, with an inalienable memory of torn limbs and suffering.

I remember once a wounded man in Iran, a piece of steel in his
forehead, howling like an animal - which is, of course, what we all
are - before he died; and the Palestinian boy who simply collapsed in
front of me when an Israeli soldier shot him dead, quite deliberately,
coldly, murderously, for throwing a stone; and the Israeli with a
chair leg sticking out of her stomach outside the Sbarro pizzeria in
Jerusalem after a Palestinian bomber had decided to execute the
families inside; and the heaps of Iraqi dead at the Battle of Dezful
in the Iran- Iraq war; and the young man showing me the thick black
trail of his daughter's blood outside Algiers where armed men had cut
her throat.

But George Bush and Tony Blair and Dick Cheney and Jack Straw and all
the other little warriors who are bamboozling us into war will not
have to think of these vile images. For them it's about surgical
strikes, collateral damage and all the other examples of war's
linguistic mendacity. We are going to have a just war; we are going to
liberate the people of Iraq - some of whom we will obviously kill -
and we are going to give them democracy and protect their oil wealth
and stage war crimes trials and we are going to be ever so moral, and
we are going to watch our defense "experts" on TV with their bloodless
sandpits and their awesome knowledge of weapons which rip off heads.

Come to think of it, I recall the head of an Albanian refugee, chopped
neatly off when the Americans, ever so accidentally, bombed a refugee
convoy in Kosovo in 1999 which they thought was a Serb military unit.
His head lay in the long grass, bearded, eyes open, severed as if by a
Tudor executioner. Months later, I learned his name and talked to the
girl who was hit by the severed head during the US air strike and who
laid the head reverently in the grass where I found it. NATO, of
course, did not apologize to the family. Nor to the girl. No one says
sorry after war. No one acknowledges the truth of it. No one shows you
what we see. Which is how our leaders and our betters persuade us -
still - to go to war. (The Independent)

Copyright © 2003 ArabNews All Rights Reserved. Forwarded for your
information.

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

Jan. 24 (EIRNS)--KARL ROVE HAS HIT THE PANIC BUTTON, AND IS
PRESSING BUSH TO GET THE IRAQ WAR OVER WITH--FAST. A well-placed
Washington source reported on Jan. 23, that Karl Rove is one of
the driving forces behind the past week's insane acceleration of
the drive towards a final showdown with Saddam Hussein as early
as possible.

According to the source, Rove hit the panic button
after reviewing the most recent polling data, showing that
support for the Iraq war is collapsing fast among American
voters, and that there is a growing sense that the President is
fixated on Iraq--to the point of ignoring other major crises,
including, first and foremost, the collapse of the U.S. economy.
According to the source, Rove has told Bush that he must
reach a resolution of the Iraq conflict as soon as
possible--either by going to war or by some other means--so the
Presidency can be refocussed on these other problems, before Bush
falls into a trap that he won't be able to get out of before the
2004 elections.

Compounding the mess is the fact that the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, according to the source, last week read the Riot Act to
Rumsfeld, warning that they oppose a rush to war in Iraq, and
favor pursuing all alternative means of disarming Saddam.

They bluntly told Rumsfeld
that they view Bush as "inexperienced and ill-advised" on Iraq.

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

Flight 77 was not the jet that hit the Pentagon.

Here is evidence that will convince any grand jury:

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

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

800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours "The US intends to shatter
Iraq 'physically, emotionally and psychologically' by raining down on
its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days. The Pentagon
battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out
power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad." (Pssst! Don't
tell China-North Korea!)

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

Iraq and a hard place

Tensions are mounting elsewhere

Leader
Saturday January 25, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,882044,00.html

With Iraq grabbing all the headlines, it is far too easy for the
international community, insofar as that concept remains a valid one
in
these schismatic times, to take its eye off the ball. The US has
already
been accused of doing just that over North Korea, with the result that
Pyongyang's latest piece of nuclear gamesmanship, set in train last
autumn,
has escalated into a full-blown crisis. After all the main regional
powers -
Japan, Russia, China and South Korea - had been sucked into this
policy
vacuum, to no appreciable effect, a distracted Washington was forced
to
reclaim the initiative this week. Unfortunately, its decision to
eschew
bilateral and regional talks and take the dispute to the UN security
council
presages a possible further escalation of tensions - and more UN
splits.
Pyongyang says the imposition of economic sanctions would be an act of
war.
Moscow and Beijing may try to block such measures if the US proposes
them.

A similarly dangerous deterioration can be seen in relations between
India
and Pakistan. It had been hoped that the crisis that followed the
December
2001 terror attack on the Indian parliament, which led to border
fighting
and the deployment of over a million troops, was abating. After last
year's
relatively violence-free elections in Indian Kashmir and the return of
parliamentary politics in Pakistan, there was a clear opening for
resumed,
substantive bilateral talks. That this opportunity has been squandered
is
due in part to a lack of sustained international pressure from the US,
but
also from Britain. Again the Iraq crisis is partly to blame. Instead
of
pursuing his earlier initiatives in Islamabad and Delhi, the foreign
secretary, Jack Straw, has, for obvious reasons, been spending more
time in
places such as Ankara and Tehran. In the meantime, and in the absence
of
dialogue, disputes over Kashmir, spying, and mutually threatening arms
build-ups (such as India's £1.9bn arms deal with Russia) are again
intensifying.

All the principal issues that so exercise the western powers in
respect of
Iraq - weapons of mass destruction, proliferation, disarmament,
terrorism,
human rights and wider threats to regional stability - are active
ingredients in the simmering conflict between nuclear-armed India and
Pakistan. And, as with North Korea, the potential for real, anytime
disaster
is much greater. Even before war in Iraq begins, the collateral damage
is
already considerable - and is growing.

[Le Permanent Marker]

I. Why were 5 hijackers together in an apartment right next door to
National Security Agency Headquarters for several weeks --

II. Fisk: Two Anglo-American War Propaganda Deceptions: 1)
President Heussein is Hitler; 2) It's not about oil

-------------------
(From Aftermath-11-September yahoogroup)

Robert Fisk: The wartime deceptions: Saddam is Hitler and it's not
about oil

27 January 2003
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=373102

The Israeli writer Uri Avnery once delivered a wickedly sharp open
letter to Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister who sent his army
to defeat
in Lebanon. Enraged by Begin's constant evocation of the Second World
War
-
likening Yasser Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in his Berlin bunker in
1945 - Avnery entitled his letter: "Mr Prime Minister, Hitler is
Dead."

How often I have wanted to repeat his advice to Bush and Blair.
Obsessed with their own demonisation of Saddam Hussein, both are now
reminding
us of the price of appeasement. Bush thinks that he is the Churchill
of
America, refusing the appeasement of Saddam. Now the US ambassador to
the
European Union, Rockwell Schnabel, has compared Saddam to Hitler. "You
had
Hitler in Europe and no one really did anything about him," Schnabel
lectured
the Europeans in Brussels a week ago: "We knew he could be dangerous
but
nothing was done. The same type of person [is in Baghdad] and it's
there that
our concern lies." Mr Schnabel ended this infantile parallel by adding
unconvincingly that "this has nothing to do with oil".

How can the sane human being react to this pitiful stuff? One of the
principal nations which "did nothing about Hitler" was the US, which
enjoyed a profitable period of neutrality in 1939 and 1940 and most of
1941
until it was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. And when the
Churchill-Roosevelt alliance decided that it would only accept
Germany's unconditional surrender - a demand that shocked even
Churchill when Roosevelt suddenly announced the terms at Casablanca -
Hitler was doomed.

Not so Saddam it seems. For last week Donald Rumsfeld offered the
Hitler of
Baghdad a way out: exile, with a suitcase full of cash and an armful
of
family members if that is what he wished. Funny, but I don't recall
Churchill or Roosevelt ever suggesting that the Nazi führer should be
allowed to escape. Saddam is Hitler - but then suddenly, he's not
Hitler after all. He is - said TheNew York Times - to be put before a
war crimes tribunal. But then he's not. He can scoot off to Saudi
Arabia or Latin America. In other words, he's not Hitler.

But even if he were, are we prepared to pay the price of so
promiscuous a
war? Arabs who admire Saddam - and there are plenty in Jordan -
believe Iraq
cannot hold out for more than a week. Some are convinced the US 3rd
Infantry
Division will be in Baghdad in three days, the British with them. It's
a fair bet that hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqis will die. But in
the civil unrest that follows, what are we going to do? Are American
and British troops to defend the homes of Baath party officials whom
the mobs want to
hang?

Far more seriously, what happens after that? What do we do when Iraqis
- not ex-Baathists but anti-Saddam Iraqis - demand our withdrawal? For
be
sure this will happen. In the Shia mosques of Kerbala and An Najaf,
they
are not going to welcome Anglo-American forces. The Kurds will want a
price
for their co-operation. A state perhaps? A federation? The Sunnis will
need our protection. They will also, in due time, demand our
withdrawal. Iraq
is a tough, violent state and General Tommy Franks is no General
MacArthur.

For we will be in occupation of a foreign land. We will be in
occupation of Iraq as surely as Israel is in occupation of the West
Bank and Gaza. And with Saddam gone, the way is open for Osama bin
Laden to demand the
liberation of Iraq as another of his objectives. How easily he will be
able to slot Iraq into the fabric of American occupation across the
Gulf.
Are we then ready to fight al-Qa'ida in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan
and
Pakistan and countless other countries? It seems that the peoples of
the Middle
East - and the West - realise these dangers, but that their leaders do
not, or do not want to.

Travelling to the US more than once a month, visiting Britain at the
weekend, moving around the Middle East, I have never been so struck by
the absolute, unwavering determination of so many Arabs and Europeans
and
Americans to oppose a war. Did Tony Blair really need that gloriously
pertinacious student at the Labour Party meeting on Friday to prove to
him what so many Britons feel: that this proposed Iraqi war is a lie,
that
the reasons for this conflict have nothing to do with weapons of mass
destruction, that Blair has no business following Bush into the
America-Israeli war? Never before have I received so many readers'
letters expressing exactly the same sentiment: that somehow - because
of
Labour's huge majority, because of the Tory party's effective
disappearance as
an opposition, because of parliamentary cynicism - British democracy
is
not permitting British people to stop a war for which most of them
have
nothing but contempt. From Washington's pathetic attempt to link
Saddam to
al-Qa'ida, to Blair's childish "dossier" on weapons of mass
destruction, to the whole tragic farce of UN inspections, people are
just no longer fooled.

The denials that this war has anything to do with oil are as
unconvincing as Colin Powell's claim last week that Iraq's oil would
be held in
trusteeship for the Iraqi people. Trusteeship was exactly what the
League of
Nations offered the Levant when it allowed Britain and France to adopt
mandates in Palestine and Transjordan and Syria and Lebanon after the
First World War.
Who will run the oil wells and explore Iraqi oil reserves during this
generous period of trusteeship? American companies, perhaps? No,
people are not fooled.

Take the inspectors. George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
and now, alas, Colin Powell don't want to give the inspectors more
time.
Why not, for God's sake? Let's just go back to 12 September last year
when
Bush, wallowing in the nostalgia of the 11 September 2001 crimes
against
humanity, demanded that the UN act. It must send its inspectors back
to Iraq.
They must resume their work. They must complete their work. Bush, of
course, was hoping that Iraq would refuse to let the inspectors
return.
Horrifically, Iraq welcomed the UN. Bush was waiting for the
inspectors to find
hidden weapons. Terrifyingly, they found none. They are still looking.
And
that is the last thing Bush wants. Bush said he was "sick and tired"
of
Saddam's trickery when what he meant was that he was sick and tired of
waiting
for the UN inspectors to find the weapons that will allow America to
go to
war. He who wanted so much to get the inspectors back to work now
doesn't
want them to work. "Time is running out," Bush said last week. He was
talking about Saddam but he was actually referring to the UN
inspectors, in
fact to the whole UN institution so laboriously established after the
Second
World War by his own country.

The only other nation pushing for war - save for the ever-grateful
Kuwait - is Israel. Listen to the words of Zalman Shoval, Israeli
Prime Minster
Ariel Sharon's foreign affairs adviser, last week. Israel, he said,
would
"pay dearly" for a "long deferral" of an American strike on Iraq. "If
the
attack were to be postponed on political rather than military
grounds," he
said, "we will have every reason in Israel to fear that Saddam Hussein
uses
this delay to develop non-conventional weapons." As long as Saddam was
not
sidelined, it would be difficult to convince the Palestinian
leadership that violence didn't pay and that it should be replaced by
a new
administration; Arafat would use such a delay "to intensify terrorist
attacks".

Note how the savage Israeli-Palestinian war can only - according to
the Shoval thesis - be resolved if America invades Iraq; how terrorism
cannot be
ended in Israel until the US destroys Saddam. There can be no regime
change for the Palestinians until there is regime change in Baghdad.
By going
along with the Bush drive to war, Blair is, indirectly, supporting
Israel's
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (since Israel still claims to be
fighting America's "war on terror" against Arafat). Does Blair believe
Britons haven't grasped this? Does he think Britons are stupid? A
quarter of the British Army is sent to fight in a war that 80 per cent
of Britons
oppose. How soon before we see real people power - 500,000 protesters
or more in London, Manchester and other cities to oppose this folly?

Yes - an essential part of any such argument - Saddam is a cruel,
ruthless dictator, not unlike the Dear Leader of North Korea, the
nuclear
megalomaniac with whom the Americans have been having "excellent"
discussions but who doesn't have oil. How typical of Saddam to send
Ali "Chemical" Majid - the war criminal who gassed the Kurds of
Halabja -
to tour Arab capitals last week, to sit with President Bashar Assad of
Syria and President Emile Lahoud of Lebanon as if he never ordered the
slaughter of women and children. But Bush and Blair said nothing about
Majid's
tour - either so as not to offend the Arab leaders who met him or
because the
link between gas, war crimes and Washington's original support for
Saddam
is a sensitive issue.

Instead, we are deluged with more threats from Washington about
"states that sponsor terror". Western journalists play a leading role
in this
propaganda. Take Eric Schmitt in The New York Times a week ago. He
wrote a story about America's decision to "confront countries that
sponsor terrorism". And his sources? "Senior defence officials",
"administration officials", "some
American intelligence officials", "the officials", "officials",
"military officials", "terrorist experts" and "defence officials". Why
not just
let the Pentagon write its own reports in TheNew York Times?

But that is what is changing. More and more Americans - aware that
their President declined to serve his country in Vietnam - realise
that
their newspapers are lying to them and acting as a conduit for the US
government alone. More and more Britons are tired of being told to go
to war by
their newspapers and television stations and politicians. Indeed, I'd
guess
that far more Britons are represented today by the policies of
President
Chirac of France than Prime Minister Blair of Britain.

© 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

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

ITEM #2:

Why were 5 hijackers together in an apartment right next door to
National Security Agency Headquarters for several weeks??? --

Received (excerpted):

Tom Carver of the BBC discovered that five of the hijackers lived in
a motel directly outside the front gates of the NSA, a place which
doesn't officially exist and doesn't even appear on most maps. The
chances of that being a coincidence are astronomical x 10 power
astronomical.

Only a handful of people in the entire world would have any chance of
recognising Al Queda terrorists, so they find a motel next door to
where they work, the United States National Security Agency !!!!!
These guys were being put up by the NSA, no question in my mind at
all, the smokiest of smoking guns

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/20337
91.stm

"Nineteen men armed only with box-cutters and their fanaticism
successfully hatched a plot totally unnoticed by America's $40bn a
year intelligence-gathering machine.

They succeeded because they lived and worked, not in the shadows
where spies operate, but in full view.

In fact, one of the most bizarre ironies of all this is that five of
the hijackers lived in a motel right outside the gates of the NSA.

Early on the morning of 11 September, when Hani Hanjour and his four
accomplices left the Valencia Motel on US route 1 on their way to
Washington's Dulles airport, they joined the stream of NSA employees
heading to work.

Three hours later, they had turned flight 77 around and slammed it
into the Pentagon. "

--- In cia-...@yahoogroups.com, [SB]------ wrote:
---
what 'rummy' left out of the parade article is that we _already
have a seucrity agency which IS directly responsible for protecting
american soil_- the NSA. (only we aren't supposed to know of its'
existence)
this agency was responsible and this agency failed miserably- and
heads should be rolling!

unless the 911 operation was an inside job.
that is the ONLY answer that explains why heads weren't
rolling after 911!

> ----------------
>
> Flight 77 was not the jet that hit the Pentagon.
> Here is evidence that will convince any grand jury:
>
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
>

> Dick Eastman

> Yakima, Washington
> Every man is responsible to every other man.

[Le Permanent Marker]

"Count 1" <Omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b146f1$v2e35$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
>
> Dear Dick;
>
> On this website an attempt is made to discount a photograph showing pieces
> of the fuselage of flight 77 mangled up on the Pentagon Lawn. The argument
> is predicated on the fact that the 'n' is the starboard side and could not
> have been found on the lawn where it ended up unless it was placed there.
> This is because it could not bore through the wreckage and / or it could not
> have randomly landed there.
>
> Two points;
> 1) Earlier on this website you say people were already moving debris around
> ten minutes after the crash ( a position offered without proof, I notice )
> So why couldn't have this piece been moved around as well?

It could have. The photographer says there were people on the lawn
picking up things when he got there ten minutes after the crash. I
have a picture of two men holding pieces of this size. But isn't that
a long
way to carry the piece just to drop it there. Or did they want to
help the photographers? But if they were mindful of needing
photographic
evidence at that early date why isnt there a whole bunch of it. I am
asking myself this question -- not you in particular.
>
> 2) It is entirely plausible that a single - lightweight - piece of fuselage
> could easily have ended up on just about any portion of lawn near the impact
> site. You do not offer an explanation as to why it couldn't, you just say it
> could not. Is there a possibility this piece of fuselage got thrown up in
> the explsion - rose a little higher on heat wave, maybe hit another object
> mid air ( more wreckage ) changing its vector, until it landed, quite
> randomly, on the port side of the impact zone?

Take a sheet of newspaper opened and try to throw it across the room.
The wind was blowing from the northwest -- against the progress such
piece would have to make. The blast in the video frame is symetrical
in the picture -- there is no force that would move the piece through
all that that I
know of. But yes -- flukes do happen -- one in a million or one in
10,000 or one in 5,000 -- but science is built on 95 percent, isn't
it?
>
> You state this website is good enough for any grand jury. I don't see how
> this is the case considering all the information you have ever presented is
> so repeatedly debunked.

These debunkers say what they say. But I am talking to you.
Scepticism is a halmark of science. THe fact is that I am the
debunker
and they are defenders of dogma received from on high -- they defend,
on faith, the official coverup story.
>
> I don't expect to convince you you have made a mistake

Now you seem to be implying that you have examined everything and have
reached conclusions that refuted me -- but you won't share your
refutation because you don't think I would listen anyway, so you are
not going to tell me where I am wrong -- is that it? (Were you being
disingenuous when you opened your letter with a question? Now you
sound like you KNOW this analysis couldn't be right.

> ( largely because I
> suspect you don't really believe this nonsense anyway and just like
> pretending your life has some meaning by posting inanities to Usenet and
> spamming private email accounts with this silliness ) but I, and most
> especially a grand jury, expect a higher level of research and much stronger
> arguments than what you have presented.

If you have questions about my account, why don't you ask -- like you
did above. Now it is nonsense and a am a liar. Just who has gone
beyond the available data here?

My spamming has been duely reported -- my ISP cuts me off on the 31st
-- you see I pay for trying to communicate with you -- I incur
personal cost you wouldn't believe getting this info out. Wife
talking of divorce just ten minutes ago because I can't let this go.

But let's forget that and get to the facts. But let me
present the following (sent to another man with questions) -- so that
you can scientifically see if you can replicate my results or not:
------

I ask no one to take my word for anything.

You can check my Pentagon findings yourself -- and know for certain
that we have the smoking gun. Here's what you do:

> Dick,
>
> For us Brits who don't know the lie of the land I think you will have to add
> this into your package. The killer plane came in from the right and chopped
> the street lighting down. This we can understand but why the 757 didn't and
> couldn't will have to be explained.

I cannot make the desired diagrams. No scanner, graphics program
skill. But I think we can get around that.

Here are the photographs that I would like to enlarge and
copy segments of etc. and draw lines on.

They each are big downloads -- but together they do the job.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/075484/L/

In this picture -- the camera facing west -- shows the Pentagon to
the right.
The dark upper right is Arlington Cemetery. In the foreground is
Reagan
National Airport. At the right edge of the cemetery can be seen eight
long buildings side by side -- this is the Naval Annex which FLight
77
flew directly over. The cemetery and the Annex are on a hill, above
the Pentagon. The Colombia Pike can be seen in front of the ends
of the eight buildings of the Annex and it can be seen curving off to
the right around the cemetery further to the west.

To the right of the Pentagon is a large parking lot and behind that is
the "cloverleaf" highway interchange where the lamp posts were downed.
(Here consult the aerial map photo with the down posts indicated.)

Remember it was the side of the Pentagon facing the cemetery that
was hit.

What we have seen so far merely establishes that the Naval Annex is
considerably higher up than the Naval Annex. Flight 77 came over the
Annex, parallel with that stretch of the Colombia Pike highway.

Now you know what to look for in the dead-overhead photo map
(over 2000KB sorry to say -- but wow! it does the job!)

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/Pentagon_after.jpg

Just note that the distance from the Annex to the crash point is
is between .5 and .3 miles -- NOT a heck of a lot of distance
to turn, level off and align an airliner -- especially if it is to
level off at 20 feet so that the required steep banking turn is
impossible.
The wing span of the Boeing 757 is 135 feet.

Here is all that is needed to make a determination.

The statements of passengers can be found at the French site,
but I have some on the page APFN has made available to me.

The critical point of the witness testimony is that the
Boeing was over the Annex and parallel to the Colombia
Pike in front of (south of) the Annex :

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

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/temoins_en.htm
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/

Other pictures in my site give the lay of the land best. Most others
just show closeups of the Pentagon and closeups of the
highway where the lamps were downed.

I hope you will take a look and tell me if you obtain the same result
I do.

Dick

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eastman" <eas...@bentonrea.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:09 PM
> Subject: Re:
>
>
> > The Annex is on a hill and the Boeing went over it. The Annex is only
> > three tenths of a mile from the crash. How could the plane get down
> > to the low horizontal approach that everyone saw and the video
> > recorded and also align for meeting the poles and the holes all in a row?
> > To make a turn that sharp would require banking the plane severely --
> > and while leveling out for the horizontal approach? Opposition now
> > demands actors from the theatre of the absurd.
> >

>
> Good luck

[Le Permanent Marker]

RECENT LETTERS AND SOME RESPONSES

> You should ask John Judge about this -- he has
> the best information.

John Judge is the man who keeps the People's
investigation from taking up my findings.

He has too close connections with "key witnesses" at
Reagan Airport and the Pentagon from BEFORE the
event.

He gives out some information to establish credibility
(what insiders would know), but then obstructs progress
on the investigation that could lead someplace.

John Judge, along with Rivero, Vialls, Roberts and
Ron Harvey are disinformation -- they are heckler
sellouts -- their conduct, in each case, has established
that many times over to my way of thinking, whatever
my way of thinking may mean to you.

Also, John Judge announced at the launching of
the People's Investigation that it would be counter
productive to even consider that a plane other than
the Boeing hit the Pentagon.

There is not question what his purpose is --

he has stated that the Pentagon investigation should exclude
all investigators who would question the Boeing attack

he has exerted his influence to keep the Peoples
Investigation from taking up my analysis (along with Jack Riddler).

The results are clear -- what has come out of the People's
Investigation? Nothing! And the next war starts tomorrow!!!

Get the picture?

Dick Eastman
Yakima

Dick Eastman
----- Original Message -----
From: <mc...@hotmail.com>
To: <cia-...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:03 AM
Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] Re: AFRAID TO KNOW AA77 Boeing Pentagon path

> Jeez, Brian, I think a simple email to John Judge would get you an
> answer. I think Judge knows the Pentagon layout better than most.
> Hell, he was the one who was told by pentagon security personnel
> about the missile defense system to thwart incoming airborne threats
> when he was putting together a protest a few years back.
>
> Somebody=John Judge
=======

> John Judge studies at being "somebody" -- just like Skull and Bones chaps,
> and for the same bloody reason.

==========================
> --- In cia-...@yahoogroups.com, "BRIAN DOWNING QUIG <quig@d...>"
<quig@d...> wrote:
Now Bob, with 3,000 already dead and a half million other immediate
lives in the balance we will have to do better than "I THINK THE
OFFICES OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF IS ON THE NORTH."
I tried to contact the PENTAGON and got this massive run around.
The DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE operator will not give out a number.
Someone
in the DC area should take 20 minutes and find this information. The
only reason we do not have this information after so long is that
we are AFRAID TO KNOW.

Brian Downing Quig

============
A line from corner of Pentagon through
cloverleaf's center will pass through Navy Annex. The lightened
area below lines up on Columbia Pike. So two holes, lamp posts down,
and my
witness on Columbia Pike all confirm each other. That's why John Judge
didn't imagine it necessary to go into detail though he interviewed
200
witnesses. It's just too simple to imagine people would need
hand-holding in
detail.
==============

MORE RECENT LETTERS AND SOME RESPONSES

Fw: [BCY2K] FLIGHT 77 VIOLATED SOFTWARE RESTRAINTS!!

The killer jet was followed by radar as it rounded the Pentagon to
hit at the designated target area. Meanwhile the Boeing, flying
in low enough to elude radar (under 200 feet) came in straight
over the Annex straight for the crash point -- slightly southward
of due west.

See if the Air Traffic Controller's accounts jibes with the
above account.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Downing Quig
To: cia-...@yahoogroups.com ; bushco...@yahoogroups.com ;
ap...@apfn.org ; to...@gaia.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: [BCY2K] FLIGHT 77 VIOLATED SOFTWARE RESTRAINTS!!

Here is what every experienced air traffic controller
in the radar room at Dulles thought of the flight of AMERICAN 77. We
are left with only 2 possibilities. Either the hijackers for some
reason disabled the software restraints or someone else did. One
thing is for sure. Whoever had the knowledge to disable the software
restraints also had the knowledge to program the planes to crash into
their targets without a pilot.
Brian Downing Quig

Danielle O'Brien, air controller at Washington's Dulles airport, from
where American Airways flight 77 took off, explained that the craft
that hit the Pentagon had the speed and maneuverability of a

"military plane". Her account was published on the ABCnews site and

used on the National Air Traffic Controllers Association site. We
reproduce an extract of it here:

« I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the
southwest of

Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip
and
nothing more. »

O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he
saw it
too.

« I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House', »
recalls

Howell. « I was yelling … 'We've got a target headed right for the

White
House!' At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed
straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which
covers
the White House and the Capitol.»

« The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all
thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic
controllers,
that that was a military plane » says O'Brien. « You don't fly a 757
in that manner. It's unsafe. »

« The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away » says O'Brien,

« and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west …

Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started
relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified
very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles
west. »

Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker.
White House staff members were told to run away from the building

« And it went 'six, five, four', And I had it in my mouth to say,
three,
and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was
almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must
be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and
to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and
breathed for just a second », says O'Brien.

But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a

360-degree (270 degree) maneuver.

« We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we
waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to
hear
what's happened, », says O'Brien. « nd then the Washington National
[Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and
said,'Dulles,
hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.' »

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

> --- In fra...@yahoogroups.com, "Eastman" <eastman@b...> wrote:
> > Here is the easiest way to verify that Flight 77 was not the killer
> jet...
>
> <snip>
>
> Dick,
>
> I think this is the first major contribution to clearing up the fog
> around the pentagon attack that I've seen in awhile. Good on you!
>
> I notice that Ron Harvey and Sarah (the spinner) have weighed in after
> you on this. I am not going to open their messages. I think that the
> probability that they are agents of disinformation trying to muddy the
> waters on this list has been well established.
>
> As to the second jet (the rampant Boeing), after looking at as much of
> the video of the second jet in the WTC attack as I can find (and
> thanks to the Webfairy for a lot of this) I think the possibility that
> a holographic projection system was used should not be discounted.
>
> Bruce

Bruce,

You may be right about the holographic projection.

But, if not, Ronald Reagan National will also solves the mystery,
Occam's Razor style (i.e., accounting for an event with recourse
to the fewest (most economical) use of explanatory facts.)

Due to my own personality defects I am no longer
receiving Webfairy's posts -- if she has a breakthrough
let me know.

If I can help YOU in your investigation of this possibility
I am at your service and will send you anything that comes my way.

Dick
==============
Ron Harvey has backed away from Frency's willingness to carefully
examin all of the claims of investigative accomplishments Havey
has boasted of, regarding the Pentagon. (Harvey always blocked
me from viewing his sight -- even when I repeatedly asked for
access so I could verify his claims -- and he never once posted
the pictures he was claiming he had.) Now Frenchy is up against
the same obstruction/coverup evasions.

Ron Harvey wrote:

> I am willing to discuss issues that were not previously covered,
> with those who demonstrate an open minded, intelligent interest.

Frenchy replies:

To me you are not open minded

1- You failed to adress the plane explosion. Even if aluminium can
burn it can't explode in a crash. Same thing for fuel.

2- You failed to adress the plane print on the wall.

3- You failed to adress the inside problem : too much destruction,
too much heat, too long lasting and too wide fire, blast, explosion.

4- You failed to adress the 'complex maneuver' problem.

5- You don't want me to check your work.

Don't believe you're a champ because you're not. To me, you're mostly
afraid of truth, trying desperatly to put some sense in the 911
official version.

Sometimes truth is fetched at the expense of his own belief.

You'll have to get rid of your 'political correctness' belief to be
of some value in this investigation.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

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

==============
I am not an investigative reporter -- I pick here and there through
all that lists and individuals send my way -- I send out those that
fit with my thinking and sometimes I draw conclusions from the things
that have passed my way and write about them -- and if something is
important, like the Pentagon attack or clandestine weather
modification, where I my discursive reading has caused some
non-obvious fact to jump out at me -- then I devote time to getting
out the word in proportion to its importance -- but the hecklers
and baiters with their ridicule, freeping, dishonest naysaying,
negative misrepresentations of my work and completely overblown and
spurious misrepresentations of what other hecklers have "accomplished"
in discrediting the cases I make.

The People's Investigation of 9-11 has still not looked at my thesis
-- the only completed investigation of the Pentagon attack that
reaches definite conclusions regarding US government conspirator
complicity -- in fact it is the only needed "smoking gun."

[Le Permanent Marker]

(Sorry if regulars have read these already -- I'm summarizing the big
developments of the last several days and blasting it all out, as my
ISP shuts me off on the 31st for spamming. "Make the most of it."
This is a "roundup", but also a "parting shot.")

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

> If these were real terrorists, why didn't they take the easy
> opportunity to hit the White House or Capitol, instead of executing
> a difficult maneuver to hit a relatively unimportant part of the
> Pentagon? The highest value target in terms of publicity impact
> was the White House.

THis question is asked many many times and answered exactly as many.

THe Pentagon had to be hit because it is the symbol of US security and
because the real conspirators were in there and they wanted it to look
like they personally were attacked so that suspicion would be so much
more diverted from them.

They chose the modified fighter jet to circle the building and hit in
a portion of the builidng that was relatively empty (although some say
that Naval Intelligence personel in that section may have been
targeted -- I don't know about that yet), the chose the F-16 and the
rennovated segment of the building to minimize deaths and the risk
accidental unplanned deaths. Rumsfeld was in that building -- and a
remote controlled airliner -- while it can be trusted to hit a
skyscraper that the conspirators have slated for total destruction --
cannot be trusted to surgically take out one portion of a building
contianing Donald Rumsfeld and other elite. Yes, the airliner had a
good shot at the White House earlier -- recall it tarried over DC
deliberately to be seen by a lot of people to reinforce the idea that
a Boeing did the deed later on -- but that plane dipped below radar
and the fighter jet was followed around -- until the Boeing came at
the target from a WestSouthWest position (over the Naval Annex) and
the Killer Jet came from the South West -- hitting poles etc.

THose who say it is a straigt line from the Annex to the lamp posts to
the entry hole to the exit hole in the C-ring is mistaken == the
Annex is not in a line with those other reference points. THis can be
checked as I have provided -- both with the photgraphs (see the urls
I gave yesterday) and the detailed large-scale maps (AAA or other).

The had to make the bold lie, saying that the Annex is in the line --
because the deal is up -- thjey are trapped and they are merely
relying on this last hope: BLUFFING!!!

Call 'em on it -- check it yourself as I have given you the
means!!!!

Otherwise what good is all this talk?

Dick

===========
Here are the aerial photos that tell the tale.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/075484/L/

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/Pentagon_after.jpg

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

Dick
===========

METHOD #2:

Here is the easiest way to verify that Flight 77 was not the killer
jet.

Go to the nearest office of the American Automobile Association and
get their Washignton District of Columbia map
"Vicinity Series". And for replication of these results go to the
library and look at the detailed maps of the Pentagon area in the
Washington DC - Arlington phone book.

Here is more information that places more witnesses in support of the
two-plane thesis and against the official "killer Boeing" (coverup
story) thesis.

We know the angle of approach of the killer jet.

It downed the lamp poles

then it punched a 3 meter in diameter hole on the south end of the
west wall of the Pentagon below the third floor,

after which its single jet engine exited the C-ring through another
hold of approximately the same size.

A straight-line path is made from poles to entry hole to exit hole.

And this straight line path if extended back is not over the Columbia
Pike or over the Naval Annex, but rather well to the south of both.
In fact the killer jet must have come in over the Army Navy Country
Club half a mile south of the Columbia Pike.

But those on the Columbia Pike passing Fort Meyer heading towards the
Pentagon who reported seeing the Boeing say that they saw it over the
Naval Annex which is North of the Pike, not South. Others say the
Boeing was coming right down the Pike. And so the Boeing was! But
the path of the killer jet (of the downed poles and the holes in the
walls) was both south of the Pike and at an angle of 13 degrees to
the Pike.

Thus the killer jet was on the wrong side of the Pike (the
country-club side, not the cemetery and Naval-Annex side) from where
witnesses saw the Boeing; and the KJ was not flying parallel to the
Pike at an angle that would justify saying it was "coming down the
Pike."

THis means that an statements of an expanded set of witnesses of the
Boeing's approach are now back the two-jet account while at the same
time while contradicting the coverup story of a "killer Boeing"
following the path dictated by poles and holes.

Summary: The Boeing that people saw "over the Annex" and
exhibitionistically "coming straight down the Pike towards the
Pentagon" could not have been the plane that downed the lamp posts
and made two located holes in the Pentagon. Clearly the majority of
witnesses were watching the Boeing above the Annex and missed the
killer jet as it sped toward its target at 700 mph flying less than
ten feet above ground level.

(Now you know why a certain defender of the offical version felt he
had to float the lie that Riskus saw the Boeing knock down the poles
when -- in fact Riskus has told me that he only learned of the
downed poles later when he saw them as he was driving away from the
crash on his way to I-395.)

I'm sorry I do not have a scanner to show you these maps in this
message.

Perhaps someone can supply a digitial map showing the area I am
describing.

Dick Eastman
Yakima

========

have you seen these astounding 9-11 investigation breakthroughs???

Why were 5 hijackers together in an apartment right next door to
National Security Agency Headquarters for several weeks??? --

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2033791.stm

GW's brother Marvin Bush on the board and major sharholder in

Securacom Kuwaiti-backed firm handling security for wtc, Dulles
Airport and United Airlines 1995-2001

The plane that hit wtc North Tower was a United Airlines.

AA Flight 77, which was part of the masterful deception in the attack

on the Pentagon,
took off from Dulles.

With security under the control of the Bush interests -- organized
crime could have
modified those planes and faked the passenger loading and any other
aspect of Flight 77.

by Margie Burns

----- Original Message -----
From: Sean McBride
To: cia-...@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [CIA-DRUGS] FLIGHT 77 VIOLATED SOFTWARE RESTRAINTS!!

If these were real terrorists, why didn't they take the easy
opportunity to hit the White House or Capitol, instead of executing a
difficult maneuver to hit a relatively unimportant part of the
Pentagon? The highest value target in terms of publicity impact was
the White House.

Is there any reasonable explanation for this behavior? It seems
consonant with a staged terrorist act more than a real terrorist act.

On the other hand, if this behavior was the product of preprogrammed
remote control, why do the unusual maneuver at all? Why not head
straight for the target? Or could it have been real time remote
control?

And, as always, where were the defensive moves on the part of the
government? It was actually this easy to take out the White House by
air in 2001?

[Le Permanent Marker]

"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<A4GZ9.66
> > Sorry to disappoint you, but the entry hole on the first floor of
> > E-wing was a lot wider than 3 meters.

Only outer wall was knocked down by the ground to air-missile that
preceeded the killer jet --BUT ONLY THE OUTER WALL -- THE PICTURES IF
HAVE AT THE APFN SITE SHOW THAT THE INNER WALLS PERPENDICULAR TO AND
MEETING THE OUTER WALL WERE NOT SMASHED IN -- THE PHOTOS SHOW THEM
IN TACT --

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

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

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

Now to business:

Have you been persuaded by John Judge that the Boeing hit the
Pentagon?

One of John Judges close friends writes:

>> I was only describing the layout of things along the line
of the Boeing's final approach and crash as being consistent
with one plane, AA77, the Boeing, and hundreds of accounts
of that, despite a few little inconsistencies where an individual
will be mostly in line with forensics and other witnesses and
then say "business jet", but not "fighter", and he did say
"silver", as AA planes are, and he was half a mile away,
while others close enought to throw a rock saw a Boeing.
Lamp posts down, Navy Annex, Columbia Pike, holes
in Pentagon walls, all tie together with the Boeing and
witnesses. Judge didn't even think it necessary to describe
in detail, and he talked to 200 witnesses.<<

Sounds convincing, doesn't it? At least at first.

Let's see where the John Judge has gone wrong:

1. Fact number one: The line of attack of the killer jet is
clearly defined by the line that extends from the line of
downed poles at the interchange "cloverlear" to the
entry hole in the west wall to the exit hole in the
c-ring wall.

2. Fact number two: The path described by witnesses and
investigators alike for the Boeing as following the Columbia Pike
and passing near or over the Naval Annex is also very
well established by nearly every witness who saw "a Boeing,"
and airliner, etc.

3. Fact number three: The two independent methods of
determination that I supplied (maps and aerial photos)
establishes that a path running parallel to the straight
stretch of the Columbia Pike that runs past the Naval
Annex if continued straight would hit the Pentagon
in the very center of the wrong wall, in the center of
the southeast wall that faces the Parking lot. That is,
it would the wall shown below in the sunlight, whereas
the wall that was hit by the killer jet was the wall to
the left of that (shown in shadow here):

I am not making a mistake -- these results have been obtained from a
number of maps and photos.

Below is a crude map I have obtained from Arlington County's site.
See the Pentagon in middle. See the cloverleaf near the parking lot
(gray) south of the building. The large number of curving separated
lanes is Interstate 395. The Naval Annex is to the left of the
Pentagon parking lot and the clover leaf -- it looks like a comb with
seven thick teeth facing down. Everything north of (above) the Annex
is the cemetery, and so is everything to the left (west) of the
Pentagon. Between the cemetery and the Pentagon runs Washington Blvd.
where Riskus observed the Boeing cross straight in front of him only
100 feet away. On this map there happens to be a mustard-colored dot
where Riskus obsrved teh Boeing and snaped his photos.

----------

(Write to me for copy of this with photo and map)

Access map yourself at:
http://magellan.co.arlington.va.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=REAmaps&cmd=Map&L18=ON

----------
The fact is that if the plane approached target from a point over the
Annex or along the straight stretch of the Turnpike (freeway)
immediately south of the Annex then it would have reached the
interchange "cloverleaf" ( for freeway access to and from the Pentagon
parking lot in each direction) at the wrong angle (thirteen degrees
off) to have knocked down that line of downed poles. The distance
from the the Annex to to first pole is exactly .5 miles but when the
pole is reached the Boeing would be exactly thirteen degrees off and
would miss all the other poles as well as the the target, hitting, as
I said above the wrong wall at the wrong angle. The Boeing could not
have, in only half a mile, first turned to starboard and then cut back
to port in order to catch a path that would take down all those poles
and reach that right wall to make two holes we are using as reference
points.

And remember, this is just one proof that the Boeing was not the
killer jet. Remember, the security camera video recording shows a
smaller killer jet (whether F-16, small business jet, or cruise
missle), and definitely not the long shiny aluminum fuselage (in the
direct sun!) that would have been sticking out in front of that tail
fin if the killer plane shown had been Flight 77.

And remember also the the too-small hole.

The fact is that the page I have at APFN should have convinced you
that John Judge is a fraud right off. You must not have spent much
time there. I beg you to check all three pages again.

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

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

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

As for the "hundreds of witnesses" who saw the Boeing -- of course
they did! The Boeing was there! It is the second plane, the killer
jet, that the others did not see -- because it was going nearly twice
as fast, because it was much lower (*closer to the ground) in its
approach, because the higher-up Boeing had attracted everyone's
attention, because it was hidden by the visual noise of the cemetery
hill and by the line of high-rise apartments and the Fashion Center
at Pentagon City shopping mall to the south. We have to pay
attention at those witnesses who saw two planes approaching the
Pentagon together. And those who saw a business jet. My treatment of
the witnesses remains the best -- I catagorize them by what they saw
-- and I establish that there are two distinct mutually exclusive
clusters of observations and "hearings."

If you are so close to John Judge ask him to respond to this letter on
cia-...@yahoogroups.com -- I think it would prove very instructive
-- especially if he refuses. Tell him I am willing to debate
according to Roberts Rules of Order before the Peoples Investigation
at any College in the Pacific Northwest (he has more money to travel
than I do -- and less liklihood of being harrassed (like my wife was
when travelling both to and from her sister's funeral back in
September.) Charge admission and he can have it all to cover travel
expenses.

Dick Eastman

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

And old friend writes (about the Pentagon mass-murder):

"While there is sense in what you say, still you are wasting your
time. The French site had it all clinched a year ago. 135 ft by
155ft does not fit into 12 ft by 35 ft by 77 ft. End of argument. You
are arguing about approaches with people who refuse to accept that
Flight 77 just doesn't fit the hole made in the wall. If they can't
see that they won't allow themselves to see anything else either.
Another obvious consideration your opponenents willfully ignore is
that the wreckage isn't inside and isn't outside, and total
disintegration is impossible on multiple grounds. If they can't follow
the arithmetic why ply them with the calculus?"

[Le Permanent Marker]

Only two more days until my ISP cuts me off for spamming my "smoking
gun" evidence -- and its the last ISP in town -- all the others have
done the same thing for the same reason. Still eas...@bentonrea.com
is going down guns blazing. Enough know and a precious few are even
activist. That, plus God, is, of course, enough.

Dick
============================

Gerard Holmgren reminds me:

Remember, 1 gallon of jet fuel can not vapourize 13 lbs of metal. (By
the way, if it was an oil based fire, why were the firefighters using
water hoses on it?) This is why Ron Harvey lied about the 80 ton
Boeing weighting only 13,000 pounds -- he could not account for the
absense of frame wreckage or melted aluminum -- that is, after his
effort to show that the plane evaporated collapsed.

===========

Dick,

I think your ego has got the better of your idealism. You encouraging
the twisting of this debate ever into more convoluted irrelevancies.
You are so addicted to the debate that don't know what else to do. Its
been proved 1000 times over, but you are always looking for new twists
to bring into the debate, new "smoking guns", and all you succeed in
doing in fogging it up in confusion.

"KISS"- a solid object cannot pass through another solid object
without leaving a hole as big as itself!!!
Just keep it simple -- people understand it right away, only the
opposition remains obdurate and they, of course, are impossible to
sway, so stop burying everything in this stupid mire of endlessly
twisted minutiae about flight paths and witnesses who may or may not
be telling the truth!

Response:

If people on the turnpike right next to the Annex report that the
Boeing (Flight 77) was "over the Annex" then they could not have been
seeing it on the opposite side of the road from them. ANd if the
plane was over the Annex it could not have lined up at the right angle
and distance to down those lamp posts and make those holes in the two
walls (entrance and final exit) in the space of half a mile.

It's simple enough -- or this country is too stupid to survive free?

(Did I say that?)

Dick
----------------------------------------------------

Eric 44 writes:

I believe the confrontation will be short and end in a nuclear
stalemate, giving rise to literally a new world order as mentioned
recently and often by Bush, Blair, Putin Schroeder, Mandela and a
host of others .

The 1 billion perfect consumers will still be there with no
obstacles, no terrorism, no arms, no politics and no war. That is the
Big Game, they keep saying it and they're going to do it. Sept 11
was only the beginning - create a false enemy as a means of
eradicating all opposition. Milosovich gone, Afghanistan allowed
American troops into central Asia and the Caspian oilfields, Iraq,
next will be Iran and N Korea. Venezuala possibly for the oil. They
say they're going to do it and they will. Cuba of course, I am sure
they have plans for too after Castro departs.

Why on earth has N Korea been given so much publicity, why has
Rumsfeld said he can fight a war on two fronts, why do they keep
talking about nuclear weapons, explain that. It will be Iraq II -
it's exactly the same tactics. Accusations that can't be disproved
leading to war.

--- In cia-...@yahoogroups.com, "mark urban <mcurb@h...>"
<mcurb@h...> wrote:
> china and america are closer than you think.
> nobody wants to blow that franchise.
> over 1 billion consumers with a penchant for conforming to adopted
> social and cultural norms.
>
> even porsche submitted a design for a thrifty high mileage economy
> car for chinese consumption. ....
>===================================

You look at monopoly media headlines about what inspectors found in
Iraq and think "That's Important"
You listen to a smirking congenital satanist confess to murdering
opponents to globalization on the spot
around the world -- and you say "That's the authoritiative voice we
must expect -- we must look for
signs of a change of heart in this man's voice.

Hell, no! The truth is what the nobody's are saying!!! The truth
is the evidence that Bush and his
team are responsible to the mass-murder of all those New Yorkers
because he needed to frame Moslems
in order to grab Afganistan and Iraq for his business sponsors.

What you must do is break the shackles of politically correct
prioritization and authentication.
Whether you can or not is not the issue. The issue is you do it or
you loose the future. Accomplish this feat of mental self-discipline
and there will be no stopping us from pulling down the killers and
making things right.

Dick
=============

Another e-list discussant writes:

Why are we letting the perpetrators of 9-11 escape justice?

Are the American people completely asleep? Have they forgotten
about September 11? Do they simply not care who did it?

We know who funded the 9-11 hijackers. It was our good friend and
ally Director General Ahmad of Pakistan's intelligence service, the
ISI. He sent Mohammed Atta a check for $100,000 in the months
prior to the attack. When this came out General Ahmad was allowed
to quietly retire to what is no doubt a life of luxury, since he is
known to be heavily involved in the lucrative heroin trade in that
part of the world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?
art_id=1454238160

We also must certainly know who was behind the anthrax attacks.
The strain of anthrax used narrows the search to just a handful of
suspects involved in the anthrax program at Fort Detrick, Md right
here in the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/anthrax/story/0,1520,719367,00.html

The leading expert on the anthrax attacks is professor Barbara
Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist and an expert on biological
warfare who has served as a presidential advisor and testified
before congress on this subject. She was selected by the
Federation of American Scientists to investigate the anthrax
attacks. Over one year ago, in January 2002, professor Rosenberg
stated:

The FBI has surely known for several months that the
anthrax attack was an inside job. A government estimate
for the number of scientists involved in the US anthrax
program over the last five years is 200 people. According
to a former defense scientist the number of defense
scientists with hands-on anthrax experience and the
necessary access is smaller, under 50. The FBI has
received short lists of specific suspects with credible
motives from a number of knowledgeable inside sources,
and has found or been given clues ... that could lead to
incriminating evidence. By now the FBI must have a good
idea of who the perpetrator is.

http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm

Another leading expert on biological warfare, professor Francis
Boyle of Indiana University, concurs with Rosenberg's opinion.
Professor Boyle is a renowned expert on international law who
has testified before congress on legal issues concerning biological
warfare, and who was instrumental in drafting the Biological
Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. His analysis of the anthrax
attacks has led him to the same conclusion reached by professor
Rosenberg, which he states even more bluntly:

I believe that the FBI knows exactly who was behind these
attacks and that they have concluded that the perpetrator
was someone who was or is involved in illegal and criminal
biological warfare research conducted by the US government
(the Pentagon or the CIA) or by one of the government's
civilian contractors. For that reason, the FBI is not
going to apprehend and indict the perpetrator.

http://web.greens.org/s-r/30/30-12.html

I guess the people of the United States have forgotten about
September 11, and forgiven all that. Otherwise they would be
demanding that the sponsor of the hijackers, Director General
Mahmud Ahmad be immediately extradited to the United States and
intensively questioned to uncover further links in the monetary
chain that funded the attacks. They would also be demanding that
the FBI arrest the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, who MUST
be known to them.

Are we really going to turn the other cheek and forgive and
forget? What the hell is going on?

Tim H.
=======================================

Dear friend of Justice, Freedom and Peace,

Flight 77 was not the jet that hit the Pentagon.
Here is evidence that will convince any grand jury:

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

Dick Eastman

[Le Permanent Marker]

To APFN: Please, if possible, make this a fourth and final part of
the Eastman analysis.
============================

To my critics,

Tomorrow will be my last day posting as eas...@bentonrea.com.

What I write below is written specifically John Judge, Ron Harvey,
Sarah Roberts, Jeff Rense, Mike Rivero, Brian Quig, and "Bob" -- it
is a good faith effort to convince by a straight, reasonable, all-new
presentation of commonly accepted facts that I hope will persuade you
that any thesis other than the decoy Boeing and Killer Jet thesis is
no longer supportable.

John Judge , you have said --" I support all honest inquiry into
various aspects of 9/11, but I am also wary of a huge volume of
disinformation being circulated about the event. For instance, the
idea that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon is patently absurd on the
face of it. There were eyewitnesses to the event, the physical damage
is consistent with the plane's assault, and there were other airline
employees who identified the wreckage and the bodies of their fellow
workers." I am asking, for this reading, that you suspend your
judgement of patent absurdity -- that, you approach with an open
critical mind this one serious non-combative effort on my part to make
the non-Boeing killer jet case.

I hope the others, especially Ron Harvey, will accept this "flag of
truce" to talk about the data.

And so I begin:

Some months ago -- given what he knew then -- Ron Harvey made this
statement:

"The plane is known to have cleared the Navy Annex building. It is
also known to have hit lamp poles (between that building and the
Pentagon edifice). A straight trajectory line drawn between those two
positions leads on directly to the lawn in front of the Pentagon
rather than the wall of the building."

Let me exclusively use witness comments supplied by Ron Harvey to
establish that the Boeing was observed over the Annex and/or over the
section of the Columbia Pike that passes the Naval Annex heading east,
straight toward the southeast wall of the Pentagon (note: not the
west wall which is the wall that was hit.) (Also note: The Pike passes
the south side of the Annex.)

Here are the statements -- (I am just quoting the witnesses that
relate the path of the plane to the Annex and to the relevant stretch
of the Columbia Pike).

From: Ron Harvey
To: Aftermath
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 12:36 PM
Subject: [Aftermath] Refutation of Dick Eastman Propaganda

"Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane, uh, headed
eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly
toward the Pentagon." (This was recorded when the crash
happened)
---
"...an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top
level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable!
I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground, I was crying and
scared." (Madelyn Zakhem)
---
"The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to
come directly over the annex, as if it had been following
Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. . .As he
crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a
slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the
Westside of the building." (Albert Hemphill)
---
"I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet
above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) [above the Navy Annex] in
a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red
and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it
belonged to American Airlines. . .As the aircraft approached the
Pentagon, I saw a minor flash. . .As the aircraft flew ever lower
I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees
to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see
the tail of the aircraft. . . .The tail was barely visible when
I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200
feet above the Pentagon." (Terry Morin)
---
"It was low enough for me to see the reflection of cars and
trees and buildings on its underside as it passed by. It was low
enough for my heart to stop." (Richard Cox)
---
The aircraft, so close to the ground, was banked skillfully to the
right, leveled off perpendicular to the Pentagon's southwest side,
then went full throttle directly toward the building." (Robert A.
Leonard)
---
"I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: A silver,
twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly
over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon,
just hundreds of yards away. The plane, with red and blue markings,
hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking whoomp."
(Christopher Munsey)
---
"And out on my left that airliner came right down parallel with
us. I watched it track right on in to the Pentagon." (Brig. Gen.
Clyde A. Vaughn)
---
"From my left side, I don't know whether I saw or heard it first --
this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American
Airlines jet...It came swooping in over the highway, over my
left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading."
(John O'Keefe) (note: is thei the same O'keef who is leading
human wall activists into Iraq? This coincidence needs looking
into -- somebody -- and I'm not going to be here.)
---
"I heard the scream of a jet engine and, turning to look, saw my
driver's side window filled with the fuselage of the doomed airliner.
It was flying only a couple of hundred feet off the ground. I could
see the passenger windows glide by. The plane looked as if it were
coming
in for a landing ... but, strangely, the landing gear was up and the
flaps weren't down." (Phillip Thompson)
---
"It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground
and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. . .; it was a silver
jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an
American
Airlines jet, it was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet,
it was not a lear jet, ... it was a bigger plane than that." (Joel
Sucherman)

Clearly witnesses do put the plane over the Annex or over the segment
of Pike directly south of the Annex and headed straight towards the
Pentagon.

Here is a map that shows where people on the Columbia Pike
where it passes the Annex saw the building over the Annex.
The Annex is to the left of the Pentagon and on the map looks like
a comb with seven thick pointing south.

But if they saw the plane over the Annex or over themselves on the
Pike
and headed directly towards the Pentagon, then the plane could not
have been south of the Pike as it passed the Annex. Why not?
If you were in your car driving past your own house -- and you later
report
that the plane past on a path parallel with you right over the house
of the
neighbor's house across the street -- then you cannot possibly mean
that
the plane went over YOUR house. Similarly, if people headed east
on that stretch of the Pike saw the Boeing pass to their left over the
Annex headed for the Pentagon then we know that the Boeing was not
South of the Pike, it was not on the opposite side of the Pike from
the
Annex. The witnesses above, atest to this fact.

Here is a map to clarify the spatial relationships -- I have checked
this
map Map, which is from Arlington Country, against the map in the
Washington DC phone book and the regional map of the American
Automobile Association.

Having established that the a Boeing 757 flew over the Annex and
parallel to the stretch of the Columbia Pike directly south of the
Annex toward the Pentagon we have now to look at path of physical
damage that determines the course of the killer jet on its approach to
the Pentagon.

Everyone, I believe, now accepts that lamp posts were brought down on
either side of Washington Blvd. at the "cloverleaf" of entrances and
exits connecting that highway to the parking lot south of the Pentagon
(shown by gray in the map, above). The distribution of these downed
poles indicates a path that leads directly to the site of the crash on
outer west wall of the Pentagon, as shown (sorry I do not have time
to locate the source of this overlay).

There is a third point in a line with the poles and the entrance hole.
This is the known exit hole in the C-ring that is shown boxed in red
in the two pictures, below (also forgive me for not remembering who
provided us with these, no well-known pictures).

SO we have established two things, so far.

1) That witnesses saw a Boeing 757 over the Naval Annex, or at least
no further south than the Columbia when it passed the Annex heading
east or slightly northeast; and

2) The line of approach determined for us by the downed lamps posts,
the entrance hole, and the final exit hole (exiting from the "C-ring")
made by the killer jet's massive titanium engine.

This much, so far, we can all agree on. Nothing said so far is
unreasonable. Nothing said has been contested by any of you that I am
aware of -- although I have not studied all of the material that each
of you offers, I admit.

Now we come to the question: Does what we know about the Boeings
position and direction with respect to Annex and the Pentagon
reconcile with what we know about the path from lamp posts, to
entrance hole, to exit hole taken by the killer jet?

The first attempt to answer this question (in the affirmative) was
made by Ron Harvey in the following diagram
(ignore the red, green and blue lines -- which address a different
question -- and look at the organge path that Harvey proposes for the
Boeing.) The orange line comes from the Annex and lines up in such a
way as be able to down the five poles and pass through outer wall and
the C-ring wall at the right location.

The problem with this, as Ron Harvey and Sarah Roberts, who once had
this overlay on her website, is that a 155 foot Boeing, weighing
between sixty and eighty tons, would have had to have made at least a
ten-degree turn in the very short distance travelled between its
first crossing above the upper-right leaf of the cloverleaf and its
passing the cloverleaf between the two lower "leaves." It is not that
the plane is incapable of such a turn (which may be the case -- I
don't know), rather it is that the ground would be in the way
preventing the banking of the aircraft that would be necessary to
effect the turn. Remember, the plane has to be low enough to down 20'
lamp posts on each side, with a wingspan of 135 feet.

The fact is that the plane could not have adjusted to a flight path
that would intersect the five posts and the points on the Pentagon
walls.

Rather what we have, I submit to you, is two planes converging on the
crash point from two different angles (as shown below). The killer
jet, flying low enough to take down the poles and make the horizontal
entrance at the first and second floors of the outer wall through to
the C-ring exit point; and the widely observed Boeing describing the
path that most witnesses report it taking, i.e., straight down the
Pike from the Annex at a height of 80 feet, as witnesses reported
(just enough to clear the 71' wall) as the killer jet crashes 50 feet
below.

So we see that would be impossible for a Boeing so near the Annex
to have aligned properly to bring down the row of poles and hit where
the killer jet hit on the west wall at almost a 45 degree angle.

Now let us turn to the problem of descent.

The Annex, because it is on the same hill as Arlington Cemetery, is
at least 300 feet above the roof of the Pentagon. And so those who
support the "official story" of a Boeing crash, must now account for
how
a Boeing, Boeing, coming over the roof of the Annex, could have
descended
and then leveled out so as to invade the building horizontally through
the first
floor of the Pentagon and continue, still horizontally, through three
rings (six walls)
and exit at the same level, i.e. execute a perfectly horizontal
crash.

To see the insurmountable problem this would represent to a hijacker
conducting such an attack, check the following picture.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/075484/M/
Annex is on a hill, sitting on ground over several hundred feet higher
than the roof of the Pentagon (shown at right edge of the picture).
Remember the Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, and consider how small the
planes appear sitting at the terminals of Reagan national in the
picture above. I supply the picture below to give an idea of the
altitude of a plane that came upon the Pentagon flying horizontally
from above the Naval Annex.

The problem of how a Boeing could drop down in the distance from the
Annex to the first lamp post and then level out perfectly horizontally
through
the lamp posts, through the entry hole and through the exit hole (all
at first
and second floor level,) must be combined with the problem of
getting from the Annex and to a point southeast of the southmost lamp
post
and facing northeast so as to be able to take down the rest of the
poles and
continue to the target, is a problem that no Boeing could accomplish,
whether
the pilot was experienced or not.

This concludes this effort to establish the reasonableness of my claim
using
other arguments than those I presented to APFN. It is my hope that
you, having
seen that criticisms of the 'official story" of a Boeing crash are
neither frivolous. nor improbable, will now turn, for the first time
with serious attention, to the complete presentation of the full
spectrum of evidence making Boeing-plus-killer-jet case.
The evidence presented there reinforces the case made here with all
new data of
different sets of variables (e.g., the size of the holes in the wall,
the image in the
security-camera video recording which shows missile plume, white-hot
missile
blast, and the unmistakable absense of the long Boeing fuselage that
should
be visible in front of the tail fin shown; and the proven planting of
false evidence,
the notorious a piece of Boeing starboard aluyminum skin.)

Here are the urls for these pages on APFN:

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

========

Finally, in parting -- I have been asked about the personel arrested
at Reagan and Dulles airport with false top security badges.

[Le Permanent Marker]

JOHN KAMINSKI:

'The belligerent little twit from Texas single handedly has turned the
world's greatest democracy into a paranoid police state. He recently
killed 5,000 people in Afghanistan without a shred of verifiable
evidence, and now is threatening to do it again . . . and again and
again and again.

No single person in recent history has motivated so many people in so
many places to interrupt their daily lives and stand out on some
strange street in order to try to save the lives of innocent people
they've never met.'

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Kaminski013003/kaminski013003.html

I myself, however, don't believe that either oil or Israel are the
primary reasons behind this new Iraq attack. I believe it's really
about controlling the focus of the news, manipulating the opinions of
the population, and most of all, deflecting attention from the hunt
for who really engineered the World Trade Center disaster.

And, to a lesser extent, to divert the public's attention from the
criminal activities of Enron, Halliburton, and Harken, which robbed
and in some cases continue to rob the American people of billions of
dollars at the exact time when the American stock exchange is
essentially bankrupt and certainly unworthy of the attention of
intelligent investors.

=======================
LONDON (Jan. 31) - The United States is highly likely to commence with
a holocaust in Iraq in the next two months and the holocaust hopefully
will be over by the end of June, according to a Reuters survey of
holocaust experts.

Thursday's poll of 20 defense and Middle East holocaust experts also
showed that Washington had a good chance of securing a new U.N.
dictatorial resolution explicitly endorsing a holocaust, despite the
intelligent reservations of France, Germany, Russia and China.

Two-thirds of the holocaust experts/supporters said Iraq probably
still possessed significant stocks of chemical and biological weapons,
despite more than a decade of U.N. radical demands for disarmament,
which would allow us to run over him like a drunken maniac.

They saw likelihood that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would give up
chemical weapons peacefully if we actually were honest and told him
the truth.

''The holocaust horse is already out of the barn,'' said CFR Sarah
Emerson at Boston-based Energy Security Analysis. ''The invasion will
take place and if the U.S. Coup feels that it can kill as many people
as possible...then they will definitely go for a (second) resolution
that gives more credibility nationally to the holocaust. Wait until we
write the history books on this on.

''If they don't feel they can honestly get that, then they won't
ask...There is more of a corrupt coalition than public statements
imply. When push comes to holocaust, countries will get off this
Genocidal bandwagon because they want to be part of the upcoming truth
and ushering in of world peace.''

All but one of the holocaust experts said the United States, backed by
British troops, would invade by the end of March.

But they were split on how soon troops would be fully prepared for
Washington to unleash the holocaust air bombing that would be
followed, possibly within days, by a land invasion.

Ten hypnotically thought the force wouldn't be fully in place, briefed
and acclimatized until well into March. Nine thought they would be
ready to kill innocent people by late February.

Most thought the holocaust would then last up to three months, though
one said the upcoming holocaust could take longer and eight thought it
would be over in a month.

Estimates of how long hypnotized U.S. Coup troops would then stay to
shut down dissident in Iraq while a new Coup administration was
established ranged widely, from six months to 10 years. "But this NWO
could take our whole lives with war after war after war", they happily
suggested.

CONSENSUS HARDENS

Many of the experts, in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and
Asia, had been honestly unsure of our evil intentions until recently
that the United States would press ahead with a holocaust.
Now they know that evil will have its way.

In the last Reuters slanted poll, carried out in December, a narrow
majority of 10 out of 18 holocaust experts parroted war was likely or
very likely. But in Thursday's poll, 14 said war was very likely, five
said likely and one said the chances were 50:50. Interesting how none
said "lets rethink this before more people die".

The pro holocaust consensus has hardened after the United States
stepped up its war of words/lies this week and after U.N. weapons
inspectors presented an unexpectedly ;) critical report on Monday on
how far Iraq was complying with tyranical demands to prove it has
disarmed. But then, if they disarm, they are all dead anyways.

''The report was, diplomatically speaking/lying, rather outspoken in
many asspects,'' said CFR Frank Umbach at the German Council on
Foreign Tyranical Relations in Berlin.

Half of the experts also ignorantly and optimistically thought the
United Nations would endorse military action, while eight put the
chances at 50:50. But, everyone gambles so lets all gamble together.

CFR Magnus Ranstorp at St Andrew's University in Scotland said the
Coup would try to win world opinion by presenting next week what it
lies is new evidence of links between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda
network prepostorously blamed for the September 11 attacks in 2001, in
which evidence of Governmental approval and the partaking in the
September 11 attacks is being proved all over the internet.

''There are false and racially motivated linkages between certain
individuals within al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, particularly (Abu
Musab) Zarqawi, who is a senior operational commander of al Qaeda,''
he said, adding that Zarqawi could not be directly linked to September
11 since the likelihood of al qaeda members pulling off such a
complicated tragedy is insane at best.

The Coup ''will complete the circle of blaming someone else, Iraq and
weapons of mass destruction on one side, on the other side Iraq and al
Qaeda,'' he said.

Some experts thought France, in particular, would come round to
endorsing a holocaust, even providing some military holocaustical
support.

The experts blindly saw little alternative to a Genocide of innocent
people to achieve the U.S. goal of getting their Tyranical way. None
thought Sadam would quit defending the freedom of his country
peacefully. Three said his army might overthrow him, but two of them
said that would happen only after U.S. Tyranical attacks start. but
noone has a clue because noone will talk to him personally and ask him
what the truth is. We would rather blow up the country rather than
ask a simple question.

But some experts worry that military victory won't assuage growing
cynicism, wich the U.S. Coup supports, about the dictatorial role of
the United Nations in many Asian and Muslim countries.

''This is hypnotically seen not as a choice between CFR and Saddam,
but between the Coup and the U.N. system and international Tyranical
law,'' said CFR Ingolf Kiesow at the Swedish Defense Research Agency.
But, we have never really asked Saddam for his side of the story, so
we dont actually have a clue what is going on, except for, that we are
getting paid alot of money to say what we have said. That is the best
part about being an expert:) Plus, its alot funner this way of
justifying a holocaust.

On with the Holocaust. yoohoo!

==============
When a man looks at the condition of his countrymen today it is not
obvious
how much better the world would have been without the planetary
disease of
finance globalism. We can not see the cost that our deviant ruling
elites
have inflicted upon the households of this planet. This essay is
intended to
partially remedy that blindness.

YOU SAY THE BILLIONAIRES HAVE STOLEN YOUR FUTURE?
by Dick Eastman

It is a bitter pill for middle-class baby boomers that their
parents are dying without seeing the fabulous future which they once
reasonably expected would emerge, certainly by now, from their years
of collective sacrifice and toil.

No one can deny that some marvels have been developed more or
less as predicted fifty years ago. Consider, for example, the ease,
speed and reliability with which computers gain access to incredibly
informative websites and newsgroups . Nevertheless, one need only
peruse a few old magazines to see how very far today's world falls
short of the old prospective "World of Tomorrow" our parents and
grandparents were living to see.

Pick up a 1968 edition of McCall's magazine and you will find
the entry form for a chance to win a voucher for an all-expense-paid
trip to the moon with first-class lunar hotel accommodations,
redeemable in 2001. Open a 1950ıs copy of Forbes and read John von
Neumann predicting that by 1980 all power likely would be virtually
costless and that by 2000 the weather would be scientifically tamed
for the benefit of farmers everywhere--not bothering to consider the
use international commodity speculators might make of such technology
if they secretly got it first. Gaze at the fascinating cover art of an
old issue of Popular Mechanics and read the caption: "Robots will be
Waiting on You by 1970." Finally--if the poignancy is not already too
much--peer into a 1966 issue of American Home and find the following:

"By the turn of the next century only 10 percent
of us will be engaged in 'work.' The computer
and automation will relieve us of drudgery and
allow 90 percent to spend time on whatever pleases
them. The machines will do the work, create the
wealth which will allow every family to follow the
leisure path.

"...the computer-financed economy will provide
families with a guaranteed annual income, with
cash to buy their own computer system.

"...One expert has predicted, ıWith the machines
taking on the tasks that now that now consume all
but a fragment of our days, we will be free to
undertake completely new tasks, most of them
directed to perfecting ourselves, creating beauty,
understanding one another better.ı²

"Certainly opportunities for further education,
development of talents in art, music, design,
writing, will proliferate. The home-centered
skills--gardening, cooking, sewing--will be
approached not as make-work but as great works.
...We will want to create our own art forms
and become artists at home."

How tragic that the average American adult today has 30 percent
less leisure time than the day those words were written; that at this
moment millions of people, too tired and otherwise constrained to
enjoy once normal social lives, fill their spare minutes with autistic
sexuality (catch the euphemism here) fanned by curvacious pattens
flashing on cathode-ray tubes or by hot-button words carried over
Alexander Graham Bell's somewhat older invention, as the controlling
few rake in the cash. The mind simply
boggles at this and plentiful other evidence of the gigantic larceny
that,
blasting all dreams of futurity, has plunged the worldıs middle
classes
into todayıs debt-slavery backwash; the predictably non-utopian
result of trying to tread standard-of-living water in foredoomed
labor-service competition with the throw-away New Coolies of the
billionairesı 'global plantation.'

How is it that we have inherited this world that we never wanted,
a world more resembling C.M. Kornbluth's vision (in his 1953 novel,
The Syndic) of a society shaped and directed by organized-crime and
aiming only at affording maximum individual sovereignty to its
³friends?² ('Individual sovereignty' is Lord Rees-Mogg's honorific
term for the liberty of billionaires no longer bridled by governments
of the people, by the people,... etc.) What happened?

Ironically enough, it was H.G. Wells, the twentieth century's
leading apostle of Mankind's potential for a limitless future, who 50
years ago fully answered that question. During the first half of this
century he assiduously championed the idea of 'putting things in
order' for the speedy attainment of a highly desirable worldwide
scientific utopia. But Wells was also a well-connected and astute
more-populist-than-Fabian social critic and the first popularizer of
nonchauvinistic history from a species perspective, a vantage point
from which he eventually came to see the darker fate overtaking his
civilization. His last two books, are, unfortunately, his most
prophetic.

In his 1939 book, The Future of Man (in the USA; it is The Future
of Homo Sapiens elsewhere), Wells explained how the Anglo-American
elites had recently grabbed the reigns of the collapsing liberalized
world order of his
time--that great, good, but never-fully perfected achievement of
nineteenth-century optimism and good will-- and did so for their own
self-serving-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else ends:

"The disintegrating British Empire is now, one has to
recognize, a system of government almost completely
out of popular control. Practically it has undergone
a reactionary revolution in the last decade, and a
loose-knit combination of court, church, army and
wealth, intensely class conscience, intensely
self-protective, has resumed control of affairs. It
is an oligarchy skillful in assimilation of useful
or formidable individuals but without the slightest
disposition to amalgamate with anything else on
earth. Its ruling motive is fear of dispossession.
Decisions of peace and war are made without
consulting any surviving popular will, and the
whole capitalist press, the cinema, the radio
and indeed all possible means of influencing
opinion, concentrate upon the assertion of the
rightness and inevitableness of these decisions.
Dissent is a muffled and ineffective squeaking,
and any inconvenient facts are kept from the
public by requests for suppression that are in
effect commands."

Such a development, spells death to any hope of the majority of
mankind
to live any kind of rewarding personal-achievement oriented
middle-class life. In his last book, Mind at the End of its Tether
(1945), Wells 'signs off' with these words:

"Homo Sapiens in his present form is played out. The
stars in their courses have turned against him and he
has to give place to some other animal better adopted
to face the fate that closes in more swiftly upon
mankind. ...The cinema sheet (i.e., screen --DE) stares
us in the face... Our loves, our hates, our wars and
battles are no more than phantasmagoria dancing on
that fabric, themselves as unsubstantiated as a dream.
...There is no way through the impasse. It will be
the Dark Ages over again, a planetary instead of a
European Dark Ages. ...Mankind, which began in a
cave and behind a windbreak, will end in the
disease-soaked ruins of a slum."

The point of the present essay is not, as Well's final words
might suggest, that we give up and trust fabled space aliens to
genetically engineer mankind's more-promising replacement. Nor is it
that we must avenge our betrayed parents by killing off the
billionaires, as not a few today doubtless privately contemplate.
Rather, we must attack the root of why our future was lost and do what
must be done to get it back again. To
that end I conclude with these words, written at about the same time
as
those of Wellıs above, the creed of a little man who excelled even
Wells as
a true friend of mankindıs future:

"Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by
effecting the destruction of a few millionaires, but
by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching
them to non-cooperate with their exploiters.²

"The moment the slave resolves that he will no
longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees
himself and shows the way to others. Freedom
and slavery are mental states. Therefore the
first thing is to say to yourself, ıI shall no
longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not
obey orders as such but shall disobey when they
are in conflict with my conscience.O The
so-called master may lash you and try to force
you to serve him. You may say, ³No, I will not
serve you for your money or under threat.² This
may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will
light the torch of freedom which will never be put
out."

Certainly there is unfailing hope for a future in that.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
United States of America

Every man is responsible to every other man.

========

I have lost my ISP -- this is my last day communicating with you
like this -- I spammed to many people twice with my pentagon
information -- and no local ISPs are willing to take me one again
(I ride the horses til they drop I guess)
ANYWAY MY ABSENSE WILL NOT MEAN THAT I HAVE QUIT OR CHANGED MY MIND
-- I AM EITHER TRYING TO GET BACK OR DOING THE SAME WORK IN A
DIFFERENT WAY -- MMEANWHILE APFN STILL OFFERS MY MOST IMPORTANT WORK
ON THE PENTAGON MASS-MURDER FRAMEUP:

[Everyman]

The Pentagon sits below a hill on a riverbank. Southwest of the
Pentagon is
a highway overpass and, below it, the cloaverleaf interchange for the
Pentagon's south parking lot. This overpass is part of Washington
Blvd,
which is an uphill climb for cars passing the Pentagon heading south,
that
is, that for cars approaching the turn off for the south parking lot.
All
this is important because it was upon this high overpass that stood
each of
the five lamp posts taken down by the aircraft that crashed into the
Pentagon and because the plane that hit the Pentagon is known to have
entered the Pentagon at a mere six feet above the ground in a
perfectly
horizontal path that is known to have been perfectly horizontal from
the a
point half way from the poles on the elevated overpass to the crash
point,
as shown in the Defense Department frames from their security camera
video
recording of the attack event.

Verification photo:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/075484/L/

Great attention has been paid to these lamp posts and their positions
with
respect to holes made in walls of the Pentagon and to the Naval Annex
west
of the Pentagon over which many witnesses saw a Boeing 757 flying
toward the
Pentagon. For example, it has been shown that it would be impossible
for a
Boeing 757 to have reached each of the known points where witnesses
and
physical evidence indicate that planes must have passed during the
attack,
an impossibility which proves, as does myriad other evidence, the
existence
of two planes, the killer plane and the distracting decoy Flight 77,
rather
than just one. But the case that has been proven in two dimensions,
i.e.,
with flat maps and satellite photos of the scene of the crime, can be
proven
in yet one more way, by considering these lamp posts, the crash holes
and
the distance between them in three dimensions -- that is by taking
into
consideration the amazing ground-contour-hugging capabilities the
attacking
aircraft must have had to drop 70 feet to an altitude of only six feet
and
to a perfectly horizontal fatal terminal course that would take the
plane
through the two crash holes while never ascending above the ceiling of
the
second floor or plowing into the ground -- and to make that amazing
path
adjustment within the travelling distance that is less than two
lengths of a
Boeing 757.

Height considerations schematic:

lamp posts !!!!!
overpass ======
roof of
Pentagon -------------------------------
level of crash ---X hole 1-------X
hole
2---

Implications:

I. A Boeing would be incapable of this split-second maneuver even with
a
flawless piloting.

II. There would be no reason a pilot bent on hitting the Pentagon and
causing maximum
deaths and destruction, as the official (coverup) version maintains,
"hit the Pentagon" and cause deaths and destruction.

III. The attempt to make this maneuver would unmistakably and
inescapably
jeopardize the success of an attack on the Pentagon if the attack was
actually being made by a Boeing 757 that had just cleared the
overpass. Such a sudden dip from the overpass -- a dip pulled out of
while levelling off to a terminal path that was perfectly horzontal at
six feet above ground level -- a pilot in a Boeing would have to know
would have to end up on the lawn, missing full-force impact upon the
intended target.

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

WHY WE SHOULD MARCH (AGAINST UNJUSTIFIED WAR) TOMORROW Feb 14 2003

John Pilger


TOMORROW one of the most important public events in memory will take
place in central London.

It is not possible to overstate the significance and urgency of the
march and demonstration against an unprovoked British and American
attack on Iraq, a nation with whom we have no quarrel and who offer us
no threat.

The urgency is the saving of lives. First, let us stop calling it a
"war". The last time "war" was used in the Gulf was in 1991 when the
truth was buried with more than 200,000 people. Attacking a 70-mile
line of trenches, three American brigades, operating at night, used
60-ton armoured earthmovers to bury alive teenage Iraqi conscripts,
including the wounded and those surrendering and retreating. Survivors
were slaughtered from the air. The helicopter gunship pilots called it
a "turkey shoot".

Of the 148 Americans who died, a quarter of them were killed by
Americans. Most of the British were killed by Americans. This was
known as "friendly fire". The civilians who were killed, whose deaths
were never recorded by the American military because it was "not
policy", were "collateral damage".

Today, after 13 years of an economic blockade that has been compared
with a medieval siege, Iraq is defenceless, no matter the discovery of
an odd missile that can reach barely 90 miles. Its ragtag army is
woefully under-equipped and awaiting its fate, along with a civilian
population of whom 42 per cent are children. They are stricken. Even
the export of British manufactured vaccines meant to protect Iraqi
infants from diphtheria and yellow fever has been restricted. The
vaccines, say the Blair government, are "capable of being used in
weapons of mass destruction".

This is the nation upon which the Bush gang says it will rain down 800
missiles within the space of two days. "Shock and awe" the Pentagon
calls its "strategy". Meanwhile the weapons inspectors and their
morose Swedish leader go about their treasure hunt and a cartoon show
is hosted in the UN by General Colin Powell (who rose to the top by
covering up the notorious My Lai massacre in Vietnam).

It is all a charade. The Americans want Iraq because they want to
control and reorder the Middle East. Their once-favourite dictator,
Saddam Hussein, made the mistake of misreading the signals from
Washington in 1990 and invading another favourite American oil
tyranny, Kuwait. So belatedly, Saddam must be replaced, preferably by
another Saddam, though more reliable and less uppity. There is no
issue of "weapons of mass destruction". That is a distraction for us
and the media.

The wider significance of the promised attack is the rapacious nature
of the American state. As Tony Blair has confirmed, North Korea is
likely to be "next". I think he is wrong and that Iran will be next.
That is what the Israeli regime wants and Israel's wishes are as
important to influential members of the Bush gang as oil. Thereafter,
there is China. Says Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Institute in
Washington: "What radical US nationalists have in mind is either to
'contain' China by overwhelming military force or to destroy the
Chinese Communist state."

ONE of the Bush gang's planners, Richard Perle, has said: "If we let
our vision of the world go forth and we embrace it entirely, and we
don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war
... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

September 11 2001 was their big opportunity. On September 12 Donald
Rumsfeld wanted to use the Twin Towers tragedy as an excuse to attack
Iraq, which was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell argued
that "public opinion has to be prepared". Afghanistan was the easier
option and they were planning to attack it anyway.

The subsequent American endeavour to encircle al-Qaeda in the eastern
mountains of Afghanistan was a fiasco and more than 20,000 people,
estimates Jonathan Steele in the Guardian, paid the price of that
country's "liberation".

Since September 11 America has established bases at the gateways to
all the major sources of fossil fuels. The Unocal oil company is to
build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has repudiated the Kyoto
treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, with the war crimes provisions of
the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile
treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
states "if necessary" - incredibly Geoffrey Hoon, on Blair's behalf,
has said exactly the same.

Assassination is now legal. Virtually before our eyes, prisoners have
been tortured to the point of suicide in an American concentration
camp in Cuba. Under Donald Rumsfeld a secret group with the Orwellian
name of the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group has the job of
provoking terrorist attacks, which would then require "counter-attack"
by the United States. You have to keep reminding yourself this is not
fantasy: that the enemy to all our security is not a regional tyrant -
there are plenty of those, many created by America and Britain.

And what of Blair? Do he and his craven Ministers understand any of
this? It is difficult to know. Such is Blair's evangelical obsession
with Iraq, and perhaps his desperation in the face of overwhelming
public opposition, that he is prepared to mislead and deceive not only
the public but the armed forces he has sent to pursue his and the mad
Perle's "vision".

Does anyone believe the Prime Minister any more? During his interview
last Thursday with the BBC's Jeremy Paxman, Blair lied once again that
UN weapons inspectors were "thrown out" of Iraq by the regime in 1998.
He knows the truth: that they were withdrawn when it was discovered
the CIA had planted spies among them in order to gather intelligence
for the subsequent Anglo-American bombing of Iraq in December 1998.

I MEAN," said Blair last week, "(the threat of Iraq's undiscovered
weapons of mass destruction) is what our intelligence services are
telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply
making the whole thing up ..."

Making it up, indeed. On February 7 Downing Street had to apologise
when it was revealed that its latest dossier seeking to justify war -
"Iraq: its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation"
- was lifted word for word, including the grammatical and spelling
mistakes, from an article written by an American student 10 years ago.
As David Edwards of Media Lens has pointed out, "the only changes
involved the doctoring of passages to make the report more ominous: a
claim that Iraq was 'aiding opposition groups' was changed to a claim
that Iraq was 'supporting terrorist organisations'." Like Bush, Blair
lies that "we do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq". An
investigation by America's National Security Council, which advises
Bush, "found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship" between Iraq
and al-Qaeda. On February 5 a Ministry of Defence document, leaked to
the BBC, revealed that British intelligence had told Blair there was
"no current link" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Blair has even
denied seeing this crucial report.

As a Christian, Blair says be is helping to build a "secure and
hopeful world for all our children".

The Labour MP Llew Smith recently asked the Education Secretary to
explain "how we can find billions of pounds to increase our defence
budget and go to war with Iraq but cannot find the money to scrap
tuition fees?"

There was no intelligible reply.

LAST November a report by the School of Public Policy, University of
College London, disclosed that "53 per cent of children in inner
London are living in income poverty". Yet Chancellor Gordon Brown puts
aside "at least a billion pounds" as "a war chest" with which to
attack not poverty but an impoverished people half a world away.

A peaceful solution in the Middle East is only possible when the
threat of an attack is lifted and a total ban on so-called weapons of
mass destruction and arms sales is imposed throughout the region, on
Israel as well as Iraq. The economic blockade on the people of Iraq
should end immediately and justice for the Palestinians become a
priority.

The power of public opinion, both moral and political power, is far
greater than many people realise. That's why Blair fears it and why,
through the inept Tessa Jowell, he tried to ban tomorrow's
demonstration. He fears it because if the voice of the people
threatens the house of cards he has built on his obsession with Iraq
and America, it may well threaten his political life and make mockery
of the Anglo-American "coalition" and deny the Bush gang its fig leaf.

Should that happen, American public opinion, now stirring heroically
after the most sustained brainwashing campaign for half a century, may
even stop the Bush gang in its tracks. As of yesterday 42 American
cities had passed resolutions condemning an attack.

Is all that a cause for optimism? Yes it is. Look at how this week's
French and German "rebellion" almost seemed to change everything; and
remember that those governments are speaking out only because of
overwhelming pressure from their people.

Now that has to happen in Britain. Tomorrow you can begin to make it
happen.

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

Flight 77 was not the jet that hit the Pentagon.

Here is evidence that will convince any grand jury:

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

The lamp posts were downed on an overpass on a hill that is higher

than the
roof of the Pentagon

there was no witness who reported the smell of burning flesh

But above all, if we be just men, we shall go forward in the name of
truth
and right, bearing this in mind - that when the case is proved, and
the
hour is come, justice delayed is justice denied.
W. E. Gladstone.

I wish - that friends were always true
And motives always pure;
I wish the good were not so few,
I wish the bad were fewer.
--J. G. Saxe.

Haste is the Devil.
--Koran.

Every great head goes to the grave with a whole library of
unprinted thoughts.
A firm faith is the best divinity; a good life the best philosophy; a
clear
conscience the best law; honesty the best policy, and temperance the
best
physic.
What shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue!
---Edmund Burke.

challenger scalar weapons degrading of us national power by powerful
private interests answering only to themselves -- competitors
provideing space services

[Everyman]

eas...@bentonrea.com (Le Permanent Marker) wrote in message

> Flight 77 was not the jet that hit the Pentagon.
> Here is evidence that will convince any grand jury:
>
>
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

"DickEastmanFanClub" <ppgo...@rocketmail.com> wrote

Billions Are Wondering Why
Hit The Streets On Saturday & Say What You Feel
By John Kaminski
sky...@comcast.net
2-13-3

Several billion people in the world - including myself - are wondering
why:

* America is hellbent on destroying its own Constitution. The first
Patriot Act torpedoed most of it, but now the new Patriot Act II -
currently under wraps and about to be deployed secretly for a rigged
vote in Congress - actually contains a provision to revoke the
citizenship of American citizens if they are deemed to be connected
with a terrorist organization. This decision would require no proof,
only an assertion by the government. It means that people who attend
peace protests are now eligible for indefinite detention without
access to lawyers or phone calls to family. To be clear, it means
quite literally that America is no longer a free country, and that its
citizens are no longer Constitutionally protected from arbitrary
punishment by its war-mad government.

Several billion people don't understand why all Americans aren't out
screaming in the streets that their freedom has been taken away by
rich fascists who don't tell the truth about anything.

* Nobody is talking about the experiments by an Israeli astronaut that
may have brought down space shuttle Columbia. Despite controversial
photos of lightning hitting the craft, and knowledge that Ilan Ramon
was working on a new way to spy on Iraq, the phrase "americium-242" -
which is apparently the new technology to take us to Mars - remains
hidden from the public. As Yoichi Clark Shimatsu wrote: "The negative
charge of the high-energy electron pulse from the americium-242 would
attract the positive charge of the gas plasma generated by sprites
(lightning is positive in the upper elevations) .... A lightning burst
would account for the sudden surge in temperature, the immediate
shutdown of heat sensors and communications systems (why the ghostly
"last words" were never transmitted to NASA monitors), and for the
tumbling that sent Columbia, a flaming chariot of the heavens, to her
doom." Ramon was testing an infrared spy camera that can see through
clouds.

* Anyone believes these "terror alerts" so frequently declared by the
American government. More people are beginning to notice that these
things are called for one of two reasons: either when some nasty bit
of political revelation threatens to further tarnish the
already-trashed reputation of the Bush regime - as most recently when
Secretary of State Powell used plagiarized material to impress the
world about how dangerous Iraq was - or, when the Bush regime wants to
clandestinely sneak another repressive legislative measure past
American's comatose Congress, as it does now, with Patriot Act II.
Because the spinoff stories completely seize control of the attention
of the prostituted major news media, these terror alerts are clearly
meant to distract the public from the actual news, as in the current
case, which is the dismantling of the Constitution, and the continued
coverup of Bush financial crimes.

* There has never been an effort to investigate the events of 9/11 and
explain what happened on this sad day to the general public. Clearly
most of the several billion - including myself - believe that the
reason is obvious: because the people who did the crime are doing the
coverup. How else could eight of the named hijackers still be alive? A
good point made by a friend the other day was that how could Osama bin
Laden have been praising the devotion of suicide hijackers when eight
of them were still alive. Or how about: how does Colin Powell already
know what bin Laden is saying before the TV station which is going to
reveal the piece has done so? Did you know al-Jazeera used to be a BBC
outlet? Who is bin Laden, what is his purpose, and who does he really
work for? Um-hmm.

* Few people are raising questions about the obviously false
statements we have been told about 9/11? Why did it take 28 minutes
for flight controllers to notify NORAD two planes had been hijacked
when the average time to do so in such a case is 3 minutes? Why were
fighters scrambled from a base 180 miles away when seven other bases
had fighter jets ready that could have done the job in a fraction of
the time? Why was FEMA in New York the night before the crashes? Why
did those fires at the base of the towers burn for 100 days? Why did
Bush read a book for a half hour when he knew two planes had hit and
two more were hijacked? Why was the binLadin family flown out of the
country when all flights were grounded? Why did the FBI chief say we
had no warning this was coming and everybody else in the FBI say we
had plenty of warning? Who did make the billions of dollars from all
those put options on two airlines the day before the attacks? These
are only a fraction of the question the government continues to cover
up, as several billions of people know.

* All the targets of American aggression in recent history have been
former allies who were armed and supported by Washington, but then
suddenly "went bad." Saddam and Osama bin Laden are only the latest
examples. Iraq was a staunch U.S. ally when it was using chemical
weapons sold by Donald Rumsfeld against Iran. Osama bin Laden was the
recipient of billions of U.S. aid when he was involved in fighting the
Soviets. Panama's Manuel Noriega was a personal friend of the first
President Bush when he suggested he was going to blow the whistle on
American drug smuggling; soon, 5,000 Panamanians were killed by U.S.
soldiers and Noriega's doing 40 in a Supermax. How does it happen that
who America supports with guns and money soon become America's
enemies? Is there an American formula to "set up" other countries with
military aid only for the purpose of creating threats to be combatted
in the future? It is very easy to read history in this way, and it
makes you wonder who Saddam and Osama are actually working for, not to
mention Yasir Arafat. Will we soon invade Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and
all those Stans to whom we have recently given so much money?

* There is no legitimate opposition party in Washington, D.C. Zealous
American patriots, many of whom voted for George W. Bush, used to
castigate the Soviet Union as being an evil one-party dictatorship,
but given the recent votes in Congress, how can there be any doubt
that the United States has become " or perhaps has always been " a
one-party state? Only eight senators voted against continuing
America's falsely framed aggression against Iraq. Virtually the entire
Congress voted for Patriot Act I without even reading it, according to
Rep. Ron Paul, the principled Texas congressman who has undoubtedly
been targeted for deportation by Jewish groups. Virtually the entire
Congress accepts the premise that Iraq should be invaded because it
represents a threat to the United States, when in fact, this
sanctions-ravaged country is not even a threat to its nearest
neighbors.

It is crystal clear to billions of people around the world that the
United States is doing the bidding of Israel, which controls vital
communications and financial systems in the U.S. and plans to conduct
the mass expulsion of Palestinians once the U.S. provides adequate
cover with its invasion of Iraq.

* There are no actual human beings among the world's leaders. In all
of the discussions about how to split up Iraq, there has been no
discussion by any of the principal leaders of the world about the
people of Iraq, who have been savaged by 12 years of unrelenting
bombing, and continue to suffer from the effects of illegal bombing
and poisonous uranium contamination, all approved by not only the
American people but by the populations of all its major allies as
well. Even Germany, France, and Russia, who recently have expressed
support for additional moves to forestall the cynical American
invasion, are not doing it to protect the millions of innocent people
who will surely be killed or injured by such an invasion. They're
doing it because they want to get more leverage when Iraq's oil is
stolen by the capitalist vigilantes who covet it.

* Why are we so willing to throw away our freedom? The obviously false
pronouncements that we hear everyday are merely justifications for the
robbery and enslavement of all the world's people by the evil men who
control our money, our media, and our beliefs. They believe that they
can buy their friends. They believe that if you give someone enough
money, those who accept these bribes will look the other way when
their neighbors are killed. The "blackmail, terror and mass murder"
President Bush speaks of are not something the U.S. and its allies are
combatting, they are things the U.S. is perpetrating. This is the
Orwellian doublespeak that now assails us.

The famous Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti once described the
difference between an individual and a human being. An individual is
someone who is concerned only with aspects of his own life; a true
human being is concerned with aspects of the lives of every person in
the whole world.

We are on the cusp of a new world. Whether we advance toward a new age
of enlightened empathy and understanding or regress back into the dark
ages of traditionally secret political manipulation is a question that
currently hangs in the balance.

Perhaps a billion people all over the world will be out on the streets
Saturday (2/15/03) to express which way they hope this question will
go. There are demonstrations against the unjust invasion of Iraq
planned in virtually every American city. Find out where it is and go.
If you don't, there may come a day - and maybe real soon - when you
can't.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the coast of Florida and is
very encouraged that anti-war protests are being scheduled in even
some of the smallest towns around the world. You won't hear it on TV,
because TV is the corporate enemy, but virtually everyone with a brain
is against what's happening in the world right now. If anyone is for
it, it's because they are being paid to be for it. Don't let our
freedom slip away. Say something.

===========

This war is a trap -- it will destroy the american people and all
they have stood for -- the truth is obvious -- despite the enemy
agents who persist in using dog-training punishment to cure people of
the awkward habit of seeing the truth and speaking it.

[Everyman]

1. UN Inspectors Angry About US Intelligence 'Garbage'
2. Americans Were Duped Before...

Item #: 1

UN Inspectors Angry About US Intelligence 'Garbage'
By Richard Wallace
US Editor in New York
The Mirror - UK

The inspector said: "It took a long time for the US to hand over
intelligence in the first place and when they did it has proved to be
highly inaccurate. . . . "Frankly, we have better things to do than
run around the country chasing bogus so-called evidence."

US spy chiefs were branded "time wasters " yesterday after weapons
inspectors rubbished their evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.

Angry and frustrated at being given vague or wrong information, a
senior member of the UN team said they had been fed "garbage after
garbage after garbage".

The inspector said: "It took a long time for the US to hand over
intelligence in the first place and when they did it has proved to be
highly inaccurate.

"Intelligence is circumstantial, outdated or completely wrong. It's
wasting our time and our resources.

"Frankly, we have better things to do than run around the country
chasing bogus so-called evidence."

The broadside will fuel UN Security Council opposition to war on Iraq
just as the US and Britain seek a new resolution supporting the use of
force.

It came as Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw again tried to
put the "moral" case for a military strike. Mr Blair said: "I can't
avoid war unless Saddam chooses peaceful disarmament."

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a
90-minute dossier of "undeniable" evidence to the Security Council
claiming it proved Saddam Hussein was harbouring WMD. But inspectors
claim:

They found nothing at an alleged nuclear research site shown in
satellite pictures presented to the UN by Mr Powell.

They found nothing at one of Saddam's palaces where they were given
precise map co-ordinates of incriminating evidence.

US claims that aluminium tubes imported by Iraq were being used for
enriching uranium rather than to make rockets were bogus. One
inspector said: "The Iraqi alibi on this is airtight."

The Iraqi al-Samoud 2 missile system - which the US says has a range
of 800 miles, way above the 93-mile limit - flies only 15 miles over
the legal range.

Charges that Iraq is developing missiles that can hit Kuwait or Israel
are "increasingly unbelievable".

The inspectors told respected US broadcaster CBS News they now believe
they are caught in the middle between Iraqi delaying tactics and
America's thirst for war.

When Mr Powell spoke to the Security Council he admitted photographic
evidence of alleged Iraqi wrongdoing was "sometimes hard for the
average person to interpret." He produced tapes in which Iraqi
officers talked about hiding "forbidden" ammunition and removing the
phrase "nerve agents" from documents.

He claimed Osama bin Laden twice met senior Iraqi intelligence
officials and Iraq offered chemical and bio-terror training to
al-Qaeda.

He also insisted Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, but produced no
evidence of a bomb factory. Much of his presentation relied on "human
sources" which could not be proved.

Yesterday the US and Britain were putting the finishing touches on
their new resolution to the Security Council.

But most of the 15 Council members are opposed to war, at least until
weapons inspectors report again in mid-March.

Mr Powell said: "We won't put a resolution down unless we believe we
can make the case that it is appropriate."

In New York, a UN spokesman said Iraq had submitted a list of people
involved in the destruction of banned weapons - a key demand by chief
weapons inspector Hans Blix.

The weapons inspectors' damning criticism was a huge blow for Mr Blair
who is due to meet the Pope today for talks on the crisis.

Speaking after a summit with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, Mr
Blair said yesterday: "Let me make one thing plain. We do not want
war, no one wants war.

"But there is a moral dimension to this. If we fail to disarm Saddam
peacefully then where does this leave the authority of the UN? Where
does it leave the Iraqi people?

"I totally share the dislike of any member of the church or wider
society for war. But in the end, I can't avoid it unless Saddam
chooses peaceful disarmament. He knows what he has to do. Does he have
the will?"

Mr Blair said talks were still continuing on the wording of a second
UN resolution. But he held out little prospect for peace, saying Iraqi
co-operation with weapons inspectors had been "less in the last few
days".

In London Mr Straw said Saddam must be disarmed by force if necessary.

He told the Royal Institute for International Affairs: "As people come
to learn more about the nature of the regime, I am convinced they will
increasingly see why it must be disarmed of its terrible weaponry,
even if - as a last resort - that means military action.

"Recent intelligence shows Saddam's military plans envisage using
chemical and biological weapons against a range of targets. Let us be
clear Iraq will again use these terrible weapons.

"This is a key part of the moral case - preventing Iraq launching more
wars of aggression and dealing definitively with a tyrant who
continues to flout international law."

On Wednesday the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the
Catholic Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
issued a statement doubting the "moral legitimacy of war"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12665854&method=full&siteid=50143

==========

Item #2:

http://www.rense.com/general35/aame.htm

Americans Were Duped Before...
By Don Williams
Knoxville News-Sentinel
2-23-3

"It wouldn't be the first time your own government, including your
president, has lied to justify war. It happens in every other
generation."
Are you being duped? Ask yourself that question before condemning
those who oppose bombing, invading and occupying Iraq. It wouldn't be
the first time your own government, including your president, has lied
to justify war. It happens in every other generation.

This nation fought a war against Spain over a century ago because many
in the media parroted the government line that Spaniards blew up the
Battleship Maine in Cuba. Turns out that most likely was a mistake at
best, a big fat lie at worst.

During World War I, Germans were depicted as brutal barbarians who
reveled in nailing babies to fences and gouging out their eyes, and
World War I was billed as the war to end all wars. Instead, it led
directly to World War II, the rise of communism and the Cold War in
the bloodiest century the world has ever known.

Many of today's hawks are too young to remember the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, the big fat lie that plunged us into Vietnam in the 1960s.
Look it up. Then there was the Iran-Contra affair, a web of lies that
helped shape the dismal dilemma we face now. Remember Iran-Contra?
That was the covert operation of the Reagan-Bush administration in the
1980s to sell missiles to a radical Iranian government in exchange for
its help in freeing American hostages held in Lebanon.

Yes, folks, our government dealt with terrorists and sold arms to
radical Muslim governments. Money from the missiles we sold to Iran
was used to arm the Contras in Central America. Some called them
terrorists, but they were our terrorists, so we called them freedom
fighters.

Reagan's national security adviser, John Poindexter, was convicted in
1990 of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government and
destroying evidence in the Iran-Contra scandal. He got off on grounds
that he had been granted immunity from prosecution by the same
Congress he lied to. Incredibly, Poindexter now serves as director of
the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office, which snoops on the
electronic transactions of ordinary Americans.

It gets more mendacious. While Poindexter, Oliver North and others
were secretly funneling weapons to Iran, our government also supported
Iran's hated enemy, Iraq, selling the Iraqis cluster bombs and
chemicals for weapons of mass destruction. Our government, including
Donald Rumsfeld and others now surrounding President George W. Bush,
shamelessly played both sides against the middle in the 1980s,
promoting trench warfare that resulted in about 1 million dead,
crippled and emotionally scarred Iranians and Iraqis.

Later, our government lied to make its case for the first Gulf War.

Our government claimed in 1990 to have a photograph showing 265,000
Iraqi soldiers and 1,500 tanks massed on the Saudi border ready to
overrun that country's oilfields. That claim compelled the Saudis to
let us use their country as a staging ground for the Gulf War. A
prize-winning writer for the St. Petersburg Times went to the source
of the photograph and exposed it as one more lie. The first Bush bunch
also lied to the Kurds and other enemies of Saddam Hussein, promising
we would liberate them if they rose up to oppose that hated tyrant,
Saddam Hussein.

Instead, Kurds were slaughtered by Iraqi helicopters as U.S. forces
withdrew. We mostly protected the Kurds from further Iraqi vengeance,
but the lies keep coming, to the Kurds and to us.

A New York Times poll shows that 42 percent of Americans believe
Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Our
government helped create that impression in its obsessive drive toward
regime change in Iraq.

If you love America as I do, then you owe it to yourself and your
children to seek the truth and reject even the lies told with the best
of intentions by our own leaders. Governments throughout history have
lied, and many folks around the world have become smart enough to know
it.

Maybe that explains why, even as talking heads on CNN and ABC gushed
over how brilliantly Secretary of State Colin Powell had made the case
for war against Iraq - with his photographs of trucks and bulldozers
and his little bag of phony anthrax and his weird tape recordings -
the world responded with the largest peace demonstration in history
against a war that hadn't even started. It's one that doesn't have to
if the truth be told.

-- Don Williams is the founding editor of New Millennium Writings. You
may write to him at PO Box 22463, Knoxville, TN, 37901, e-mail him at
donwil...@att.net or phone him at 428-0389.

Copyright 2003, Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/todays_editorial/article/0,1406,KNS_362_1759272,00.html

[Everyman]

Here is a new French site investigating the attack on the Pentagon.
More evidence poinint to a frameup conspiracy.

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

[Everyman]

1. UK Government sets out to defy the authority of the UN

2. Wargames open with clandestine broadcasts
Propaganda: Psychological assault led by 'RadioTikrit'

3. Iraqi perspective on regime-change: keep the inspections, lift the
sanctions

4. Before Parliament: "The case for military action against Iraq is
as yet unproven."

5. US troops take 'Monroe Doctrine' global

6. Powell, in Asia, Is Dealt a Setback on North Korea

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

Item #1: UK Government sets out to defy the authority of the UN

Campaigners from Voices in the Wilderness UK today accused the British
and
US Governments of seeking to undermine the authority of the UN by
defying a
key UN Resolution (tabled by the UK in December 1999) to suit their
own
warmongering ends.

UN Security Council Resolution 1284 requested that 60 days after
UNMOVIC
began work in Iraq they set out a work programme of key disarmament
tasks
for the Iraqi Government to complete.
Para. 7 of Resolution 1284: the Security Council 'Decides that
UNMOVIC and
the IAEA, not later than 60 days after they have
both started work in Iraq, will each draw up, for approval by the
Council, a
work programme for the
discharge of their mandates, which will include... the key remaining
disarmament tasks to be completed
by Iraq... and further decides that what is required of Iraq for the
implementation of each task shall be
clearly defined and precise'. <www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/

However Jack Straw is quoted today in the New York Times as rejecting
the
idea of setting detailed deadlines for Mr Hussein to comply with UN
Weapons
Inspections
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/international/europe/25FRAN.html )

Milan Rai of Voices, author of War Plan Iraq, explained, 'It looks as
if
the US and UK are going to try
to use Hans Blix's list of unanswered questions about Iraqi
disarmament as a
list of "30 things Iraq hasn't
done" and use that as an argument for war, when the key UN Resolution
on
this, which was a Blair initiative
in December 1999, says that the Blix list ought to be turned into a
list of
tasks that need to be done, which
is an argument for more inspections.' Mr Rai added, 'Tony Blair is
seeking
to undermine a fundamental
Security Council resolution which he tabled at the UN. He is doing
that
because the US is afraid that
setting out a clear and unambiguous "key disarmament tasks" might
actually
avoid a war.'

(For more details see ARROW briefing 31 at http://www.j-n-v.org )
Mr Rai also accused the US of manipulating the timetable for
inspections. He
pointed out that
'according to UNSC Resolution 1284 the key disarmament task list
should have
been presented to
the Security Council 60 days after inspections started. The whole
world
knows that inspectors returned to
Iraq on November 27th but UNMOVIC spoksperson Ewen Buchanan told me
yesterday that UNMOVIC
decided that their "work" didn't actually "start" until 27 January,
describing the period before 27 January as
a "build up" phase. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has said that
some
members of the Security
Council have been applying undue pressure on the inspectors. I believe
that
US pressure led to this
bizarre re-timetabling, which pushes the definition of "key
disarmament
tasks" beyond the period when war
is expected to start.'

Call Voices on 0845 458 2564/ 0794 7839992
sign the pledge of resistance to the "war on terrorism"
www.j-n-v.org

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

Item #2.Wargames open with clandestine broadcasts
Propaganda: Psychological assault led by 'RadioTikrit'

Wargames open with clandestine broadcasts
Propaganda: Psychological assault led by 'RadioTikrit'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902426,00.html
Brian Whitaker
Tuesday February 25, 2003
The Guardian

A voice in Arabic crackles over the airwaves: "This is Radio Tikrit."
It
sounds like an Iraqi station broadcasting from Saddam Hussein's home
town,
but it isn't.

Though the shooting war with Iraq has not yet begun, Radio Tikrit is
just
one sign that US psychological operations against the Baghdad regime
are
well under way. Inside Iraq, senior figures have also been bombarded
with
subversive emails and phone calls, and telephone lines have been
hacked to
give bogus instructions to the military.

When Radio Tikrit was launched early this month, it appeared to be
just
another regime-run station. It mocked the US and its efforts to win
Arab
support for a war. There was even a programme called Open Dialogue
which
praised "Saddam Hussein's Iraq".

The only clue that Radio Tikrit's mix of news, music and features
might not
have been what it seemed came when the station omitted to play the
Iraqi
national anthem either at the beginning or end of its broadcasts, as
all
government-run stations do.

By February 15, however, Radio Tikrit began to change its tune. This
time
the Open Dialogue programme talked about Iraqi citizens who were so
poor
they had to sell doors and windows from their homes in order to get
money
for food.

Then the station urged members of the Republican Guard to desert their
posts
"before it is too late".

On February 19, according to the BBC monitoring service, it told
officers in
public security to refuse the "orders of the tyrant" and "be brave
before it
is too late".

"This seems to be what is technically known as a black clandestine
operation," said Andy Sennitt of Radio Netherlands.

"A station starts by pretending to be one thing when it's actually
something
else. It's a well-established procedure for psychological warfare."

Unlike the "black" variety, "normal" clandestine broadcasts start as
they
intend to carry on.

Traditionally, black clandestine broadcasts are launched at the
beginning of
military action. Radio Tikrit may have surfaced prematurely because of
unexpected delays in the UN security council.

But there may be another explanation. Listeners have been intrigued by
the
station's horoscopes, which some believe may be passing coded
instructions
to undercover operatives inside Iraq.

The station broadcasts for two hours a night on 1584 kHz and,
according to a
radio enthusiasts' website, dxing.info, its signal is so strong that
it
dominates the frequency, even in parts of Europe.

Its transmissions were first logged outside Iraq by Bjorn Fransson, an
enthusiast in Sweden, on February 3.

There is little doubt among experts that Radio Tikrit is an American
station, with programmes produced by the 4th Psychological Operations
Group
at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and broadcast from a CIA-controlled
transmitter in Kuwait.

According to an Egyptian listener, Tikrit's main male announcer also
appears
on Information Radio, an overt anti-Saddam propaganda station whose
launch
was announced by the Pentagon last December.

At least some of Information Radio's broadcasts come from airborne
transmitters on American EC-130E Commando Solo aircraft that were
previously
used for the same purpose in Afghanistan. They are also capable of
broadcasting television programmes.

Radio Tikrit comes from Kuwait, where two Iraqi oppo sition stations,
al-Mustaqbal and Twin Rivers Radio, broadcast from the CIA's
transmitter.
Radio Tikrit's broadcasts start at 7pm GMT when Twin Rivers shuts
down. They
end at 9pm, when al-Mustaqbal starts up.

The signal from all three stations is the same strength and they are
obviously coming from the same transmitter, experts say.

The US is also using cyber-warfare, with an email assault directed at
Iraq's
political, military and economic leadership, according to the New York
Times. The messages urge them to break with President Saddam's
government.

Selected officials in Iraq have also received calls on their private
mobile
phones, officials at the Pentagon and in the regional central command
told
the paper.

According to an independent source in Baghdad, phone numbers of all
top
officials were changed by the Iraqi authorities at the beginning of
February
in response to hacking of telephone lines a few days earlier.

When Iraqi air defence units picked up their phones, instead of a
dialling
tone, they heard a male voice speaking in Arabic. It told them not to
use
chemical or biological weapons, not to offer resistance, and not to
obey
commands to attack civilian areas, the source said.

Guardian Unlimited Š Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

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

Item #3: Iraqi perspective on regime-change: keep the inspections,
lift the sanctions
By Mundher Adhami
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-iraqperspectives.html

It may yet not be too late to achieve peaceful change in Iraq, one
that both
neutralises its threats to neighbours, and guarantees democratic
rights for
its citizens. Efforts to terminate Saddam Hussain's regime must avoid
civil
strife and the fragmentation of the country, and any return to
colonialism.
In addition, the United Nations must not be allowed to slide into the
role
of a club for big-power bargaining over other countries' resources. UN
inspections, in tandem with other initiatives, could help revive Iraqi
civil
society and decisively tilt the balance of power in the country
against
tyranny.

This paper describes Iraqi civil society and its survival so far under
the
dual burden of sanctions and dictatorship, a condition that has shaped
Iraqi
politics and values, and perceptions of the future. Iraqis are not
sitting
in their homes awaiting the liberators. Their perceptions are a great
deal
more complex. This paper also considers the potential for mobilisation
of
the Iraqi people, and their complex loyalties - for both the regime
and for
US plans. It is dangerous to assume that the attack on Iraq will end
in a
swift victory for the Bush administration, and to assume that any new
regime
would either be open to US influence or command the respect of the
Iraqi
people.

Iraqi perspectives on US involvement

No one should doubt that most Iraqis, most Arabs, and indeed most
third
world nations, do not believe the US is interested in democracy in
their
countries. They have detailed knowledge of their history and can give
you a
convincing account of how the CIA and American policy have repeatedly
thwarted any moves towards democracy for the obvious reason that it
would
curtail US control of their destiny. They have no reason to believe a
new
leaf has been turned by the Bush administration; they see the carnage
in
Palestine daily, sanctioned by the US. They perceive a campaign
against
anything Muslim under the pretext of fighting terrorism, and believe
it was
the US themselves who created those terrorists, in order to use them
directly against democratic popular and secular movements.

Many Iraqis believe the same about the US attitude towards Saddam
Hussain's
regime, however incredible that may seem to outside observers. They
remember
the time in March 1991, when after the regime had all but collapsed
and
large uprisings occurred around the country, the US released Iraqi
helicopter airpower and elite units to re-establish themselves. They
continue to suffer under the most comprehensive sanctions regime in
history.
This has debilitated Iraqi society and handed significant domestic
control
over to the regime, through the people's dependence on a monthly
handout of
rations, and the blocking of medical and educational opportunities.
Iraqis
are convinced that the US sees Iraq as the enemy rather than Saddam.
They
fear either a last minute bargain deal or that the US will replace the
regime with something worse (and more clearly compliant).

Civil society

The disintegration of Iraqi civil society continued throughout the
Iran-Iraqi war of the 1980s and the sanctions of the 1990's.
Lawlessness,
bribery and corruption, family breakdown, prostitution and decline of
civil
behaviour all contributed to a climate of despair and paralysis. But
in the
late-90s there has been a visible revival.

The extended family system has re-established itself as a form of
social
security, peer solidarity and safety. This trend has been reinforced
by the
regime's security-based policy of reviving the clans: blood-related
communities of extended families normally of three or four
generations, with
self-appointed headmen and economic and legal powers. Admittedly, this
has
suffocated initiative and alternative viewpoints. In elections, for
example,
individual ballot papers are frequently collected by the head of the
household and given blank to the local regime's officers, so as to
prove
themselves as no threat even to the local balances within the regime.
The
ration system has also been a useful mechanism for keeping track and
control
over the population, but it has encouraged cooperation and exchange of
food
and medicine. Strengthened networks of large families have
short-circuited
official controls.

Neighbourhoods have also developed self-help vigilante watches, mutual
support, and even crude municipal services. Over the last decade
Iraqis have
developed roots, and mobility has reduced dramatically. Women in
particular
have abandoned their public-sector employment in favour of cottage
industry
or other local employment as wages have plummeted.

Historically, Iraqi society is largely secular. Islam is taken more as
heritage, culture and even as high literature, than a detailed code of
conduct; and all faiths are accepted through a liberal interpretation
of
Islam. At times of trouble, however, faith serves as a personal
refuge, a
social common denominator, and a code for modesty and civil behaviour.
Such
a religiosity is apolitical, more an affirmation of identity that
defies
imposition of alien values, whether by the regime or by foreign
control. The
regime has recognised the value in adapting religious symbols, and by
using
harsh measures (such as the reported beheading of prostitutes) to
demonstrate their credentials. While this may not be convincing to an
Iraqi
public that is fully aware of the secular nature of the regime, and
even of
the debauchery of some of its leaders, it can placate people's
sensibilities. There is no doubt that the revival of religiosity has
reduced
petty crime and unruly behaviour as well as dissent, thereby again
strengthening civil society.

The technocrats

Pitiful government wages have allowed corruption to spread in all
official
dealing, something the regime has acknowledged. Saddam has even
experimented
with some quotas and fees explicitly to augment civil servants'
salaries.
But officers' reliance on bribery or largesse risks public contempt.

In the meantime, the controlled collapse of the imposing state
apparatus has
highlighted the importance of civil servants and scientists, a group
of
largely apolitical appointees (although formally members of the Ba'th
Party). Many are running banks; organising the timely purchase,
storage and
distribution of foodstuffs to about 20 million people; solving
transport
problems; maintaining the education and health services under
appalling
shortages. Prominent in this respect are the thousands of scientists
formerly employed in defence industries, including in nuclear,
biological
and chemical weapons programmes, that were disbanded and destroyed
during
the inspections between 1991-98. Many turned their attention to the
reconstruction of energy and utility infrastructure, much of which was
achieved in a matter of months. This cadre largely lives in poverty
but has
a great symbolic capital of good will, and has a sense of pride in
intellectual achievement, honesty and civil responsibility. They are
largely
western educated, speak European languages, and could bridge the gap
between
the international civil society and the communities within which they
live.
They are also capable of leadership in a peaceful regime change, in
the
context of positive and honest engagement by the international
community
centred on a sensitive and robust programme of inspection.

The Inspectors: a check on tyranny

The very fact of the presence of inspectors provides a check on the
tyranny
of the regime and on the general accumulation of arms stocks and the
movement of weapons (conventional as well as unconventional). This
could be
even more effective if the principle of inspections was applied across
the
whole region of the Middle East.

Inspectors have also humiliated the regime, demonstrated its weakness,
and
exposed petty pilfering and inefficiencies. Even without a widening of
the
inspectors' remit to include human rights, the regime is less able to
indulge in torture, mass deportation and other atrocities upon which
it
built its power base originally.

Coordinated international and domestic action

If the general economy were allowed to flourish it would weaken the
grip of
the regime and empower the population to protest and force reforms. If
the
international community focused its efforts on empowering without
prejudice
the educated civil servants to provide leadership, there holds a
chance that
a new beginning can be built for Iraq, with positive consequences in
neighbouring states. Iraqis would likely view overt intervention by
foreign
powers that involved force and imposition as suspect, undermining any
positive impacts.

The apparatus of tyranny must be dealt with internally by a blend of
the
rule of law and truth & reconciliation processes, and the
rehabilitation of
victims. Crimes against humanity will require particular attention.
The
death penalty should be abolished as soon as possible to reduce the
likelihood of cycles of thoughtless revenge and despotism.
Rehabilitation of
victims and exiles would also need to assured, based on legal
processes.

The origins of the regime

Opposition rhetoric promotes a perception of a semi-literate clannish
ruling
elite narrowly based on Tikrit, on the upper Tigris. This exploits a
readily
recognisable link between strong clan loyalties and small-town
bigotry,
giving the impression of a Bedouin roughness, lack of culture and
faith, and
of Sunni sectarianism. The regime has indeed built up its political
base on
a semi-rural population across the country, to counter what it saw as
decadent urban elites with suspect loyalties and ideologies. This is
not
dissimilar to many other populist movements elsewhere.

But this image underestimates the sophisticated background of regime.
Tikrit
itself is an ancient trading post with links both to Arabia and to the
lands
to the East and North. Like many historic towns it has always had a
mixed
ethnic and faith population with mosques, Sufi, Christian, and Jewish
temples standing within sight of each other. The legendary Saladin
Ayubi
dynasty, of Kurdish origin, ruled the Muslim Middle East in the 13th
and
14th centuries, and arose from Tikrit. During the Ottoman rule,
Tikrit's
position between Baghdad and Musul on the route to the capital
Istanbul made
for extensive trading and cultural links. After the establishment of
modern
Iraq many from Tikrit joined the army, a highly-regarded profession at
the
time, and later the main route to power in 1968. The military values -
discipline, loyalty, toughness, national consciousness and technical
skills - remain an important influence upon social policy.

Some of those now in opposition and who label the regime tribal and
primitive in nature were often all too-ready to work with them when
they
allied themselves with the Ba'th regime in the early 1970s. At that
time
they hailed that regime's openness, patriotism and socialism, while it
was
using their support and working in overdrive to recruit its own
independent
layer of functionaries. Only later, when these groups were squeezed
out,
murdered and exiled, did they portray the regime as a revival of
tribalism
and Arab chauvinism. The loyalty to today's regime is actually not so
clearly based upon political alliance as rooted in more basic
affiliations.

The nature of the regime

The ruling group is frequently portrayed as a criminal clique that is
incoherently corrupt and exceptionally cruel, often by former members
of the
regime. In reality the regime is simply a more extreme, Iraqi variant
of
other Arab regimes: patriarchal, reliant on largesse and brutal
punishment,
and lacking in sophistication. True, its policies and functionaries
are
vulgar, appealing to simple drives and emotions, and prone to bravado
and
bombast. In this it shares many features with leaders in Russia,
Europe and
the United States.

The regime promotes simple ideals based on loyalty and solidarity,
strongly
valuing independence from foreign control above progress or material
gain.
This is, however, tempered with pragmatism and diplomacy. The regime
has
frequently accepted compromises for survival that it later reneged
upon,
both in its dealings with foreign powers or internal forces.
Sometimes, and
particularly so at present, it appears to await its fate, looking to
exploit
big power rivalries. It attempts simultaneously to stand firm for its
Arab
and internal opinion, while quietly acquiescing sufficiently to
prevent
overt conflict.

The regime generally specialises in deception and secret dealing.
Saddam's
many aphorisms, one of which can be found as a banner in each Iraqi
newspaper, hail a defiant and victorious spirit, promoted as a value
in its
own right. Simultaneously, he promotes pragmatism and the long view.

The regime's misinformation campaign is particularly intriguing in its
story
on historical links with the United States. There is a wide-spread
suspicion
that the Saddam and Bush families were partners throughout the 1980s,
fleecing other Gulf Arab states. While not denying these links, the
regime
rationalises them as 'working the ways of the world' and that the
wealth
gained was held in trust. The belief in Iraq is that the United States
betrayed such arrangements and are unreliable partners for anyone
contemplating regime change.

Non-Arab Iraq

Opposition proposals for a post-Saddam Iraq have frequently promoted
an
abstract notion of Iraqi patriotism in place of an Arab identity. This
lacks
historical or emotional content, and denies the reality on the ground.
Although the four-fifth Arab majority in Iraq includes cross-ethnic
citizens, most associate as extended Arab families with great pride in
ancient genealogies straddling Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Syria
and
Lebanon. Arabs are very conscious of their genealogy, with a customary
family knowledge going back centuries, and with links across the
region.
Aligning regime change in Iraq with a denial of its Arab nature risks
pitching these social strata against any emerging regime, likely to be
seen
as urbanites with suspect loyalties and a possibly fifth column role.
Many
Arab-nationalists will thereby suspect the United States of acting
primarily
to save the faltering Israel project by squashing such Arab
identities.
Recent exposure of US post-war plans, along with their clear intention
to
take control of Iraqi oil, play to these speculative conspiracy
theories.
Iraqi patriotism without an Arab role is seen as surrender.

Many Kurds also view non-Arab Iraqi patriotism with suspicion, several
defending the Arab character of Iraq at the latest opposition
conference.
They see possible exaggerated claims of other minorities, such as the
Turks
and Assyrians, as a Trojan horse for foreign intervention by Turkey
and
other countries. Many are content with the existing constitutional
settlement that gives them educational and cultural rights, including
in the
central government, in addition to their de-facto self-rule areas.

Shi'a-Sunni divide

The Shi'a religious sectarian demands by the Iran-based Council of
Islamic
Revolution are an embarrassment to US plans. On the one hand they
mobilise
communitarian Sunni fears, driving them into the arms of the regime,
however
much they loath it. On the other hand they fail to appeal to the Shi'a
Arab
majority, for several reasons. Religious authorities in Iraq have
traditionally avoided affairs of state (the Palestinian issue being a
notable exception). Even in the height of the March 1991 rising
against
Saddam Hussein they issued fatwas on avoiding bloodshed, and abiding
by the
law. They are especially wary of linkage with historical enemies like
the
United States, and distance themselves from Iran; hence the existing
categorical fatwas against any such collaboration. In any case, the
majority
of Shi'a urban middle-class loath religious authority, having either a
secular, or a 'personal faith' view of Islam, similar to those of
Sunni
background. This may outweigh any sense of injustice in their low
participation within the formal state apparatus, especially as such
involvement carries dubious kudos or economic advantage under
sanctions.

Tribal alliances have been strengthened by the regime with privileges
and
control over the allocation of resources after the 1991 Gulf war. In
any
case, many Sunni and Shi'a share the same familial heritage, their
identity
today depending on whether their families settled in the north or the
south
of the country. There are frequent inter-marriages and economic links.
There
is no great support for foreign intervention in such communities.

Outside the religious groups, the middle class and the tribal
alliances, any
sectarian Shi'a mobilisation against the regime is likely to be
confined to
disenfranchised groups with grievances that the regime has not managed
to
control or press into exile. The regime has already evicted over two
million
people it has seen as a potential threat, removing them from active
internal
opposition. The regime will be able to use its propaganda to portray
such
disenfranchised groups, in some urban centres (such as the Al-Thawra
townships in East Baghdad), as a threat to other groups.

Economic drivers

Significant internal opposition is more likely to arise from Iraqi's
economic plight than its tribal loyalties. One influential group would
be
the 3000 or so families of the entrepreneurs and millionaires, who
first
emerged in the 1970s oil boom. These businessmen, farmers,
importers/exporters and manufacturers have maintained relationships
with the
authorities, and are interwoven in tribal alliances and across ethnic
and
sectarian divides. They have demonstrated loyalty to the regime, as
well as
being wise to the regime's caprice and opportunities for mutual
benefit.
This group, more likely than not, would see US occupation as
threatening
their position. However, if it were clear a new regime were in the
offing,
their loyalty would most likely be unreliable to Saddam.

Managerial and technical elites in the country have strong influence
upon
the opinions of the once-affluent middle class in the cities,
comprising
about half of the population and now totally impoverished and reliant
on
rations. There is no quick fix for Iraq's astronomic debts,
compensation
claims, and the hangovers from the 1991 $232 billon-destruction of
infrastructure and economic assets. Any forthcoming war will further
damage
the country and reduce its ability to recover.

For most Iraqis, regime change will in effect mean a dangerous
interruption
of their current mainstay of rations. However loathsome their regime,
its
non-means-tested discharge of welfare responsibilities to nearly 20
million
people has been recognised as largely fair by international agencies
such as
UNICEF. Even in the autonomous Kurdish zone there is an unprecedented
dependency on central government food stores in Kirkut and Musul. Any
significant shock to the system would lead to a humanitarian disaster.
Iraqis blame both the regime and the United States for their plight.
The
regime has miscalculated and mismanaged, but this has been tempered by
its
functionaries involvement within the social fabric. On the other hand,
the
United States has acted in its own strategic interests, with no
thought for
the social and human consequences.

The economy, and particularly the standard of living within the middle
classes, has recently been slowly improving. UN statistics show a
decline in
acute malnutrition (wasting) since the start of the oil-for-food
programme,
while infrastructure and manufacturing capacities have been repaired.
The
regime has retrenched, and has slimmed down its government and
military
apparatus. This, along with a gradual relaxing of sanctions and the
development of a sophisticated regional black economy, seems to have
turned
morale within the country around. Some Iraqis suspect this is another
reason
for the US threats today: successful defiance is not acceptable to the
imperial power.

In reacting to the prospect of regime change through US attack, Iraqis
will
try to exercise fine judgement between their patriotism and pragmatic
immediate interests, based upon the odds of rapid regime change. Some
will
reason that the United States may not be as barbaric as last time,
that they
will try to avoid pushing a fragile society into disaster in order to
use
Iraq as a show-case for benevolent imperialism. Many, however,
recognise
that outcomes depend upon the ferocity with which the regime will try
to
hold its ground.

Will the ruling elite fight back?

The US threat is perceived to be directed against the ruling elite as
a
whole. There is a collective sense of fate within the large core of
tribal
alliances, the army, bureaucracy, security organs, the party, and
business
class. The belated offers to give sanctuary outside the country to
Saddam
and his immediate family seem phoney and irrelevant, and ignoring the
importance of the dominant kinship group of Albu Nasser and the wider
network. These groups have no traditions of living abroad; they fear
Israeli
and other assassins, lending some weight to their declared intentions
of
fighting to the death in Iraq. While there may be some doubt as to how
loyal
many army units are to the regime, there must also be a great deal of
doubt
that many will side with an external invading force, or even one
threatening
invasion.

It is difficult to predict the military strategy of the regime in its
defence of Iraq, but they will avoid conflict in exposed countryside.
They
are likely to use the concentration of global media within the cities
to
ensure that civilian casualties receive maximum coverage. Civilian
losses,
both urban and rural, would mobilise domestic opinion against the
invading
forces more than Shi'a religious fatwas and patriotic exhortations.
The
Iraqi military has been developing a decentralised command structure
with
units operating largely autonomously to harass an invading army. If
Iraqi
forces can delay US invasion plans significantly, this would immensely
complicate matters for the US, and may prove disastrous both for Iraq
and
for the international community.

Hope in the professions - a half-way house?

There appear to be no obvious political forces that could domestically
replace the Ba'th regime and provide stability within Iraq. The
US-supported
opposition in exile have no social base in the country apart from the
two
Kurdish groups, (whose politics are relevant largely to the Kurdish
areas)
and have historically led to revenge, fragmentation and surrender of
sovereignty. In the absence of well-functioning secular parties like
the
Communist, national democratic, liberal and Arab nationalist parties
inside
the country, this leaves the professions as the hope for change. This
option
may be realistic if UN inspectors remained in Iraq along with
humanitarian
organisations, particularly if they encouraged such moves in their
dealings
with these professionals.

Whether by the regime itself, by the American occupying force, or by
any
international efforts that forestall war, there may be an option of
temporarily ceding power to the functionaries in the country, largely
de-politicising the government of Iraq while keeping the country
intact.
Swift moves are also needed to abolish the death penalty, offer
amnesty to
some categories of political crimes, and establish legal guarantees
using
the truth and reconciliation model. The focus must be on developing
indigenous civil norms and downsizing the current ruling elites, much
as
those of Franco and Pinochet were dealt with. Such measures may not
appease
those opponents bent on retribution, but satisfying such emotions by
force
will only lead to further civil strife that would threaten to engulf
the
whole of the Middle East.

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

Item #4: Before Parliament: "The case for military action against
Iraq is as yet unproven."

Labour whips seek to defuse threatened backbench rebellion
By Andrew Grice Political Editor
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=381502
25 February 2003

A cross-party coalition of MPs last night tabled an amendment to the
Government's motion on Iraq, saying that the case for war had not yet
been
made.

Up to 100 MPs are expected to vote for the amendment, agreed by two
former
Labour ministers and several senior Tories, as well as SNP and Plaid
Cymru
MPs. Chris Smith, a former Labour culture secretary, and Peter
Kilfoyle, a
former Labour defence minister, put their names to the amendment,
which
said: "The case for military action against Iraq is as yet unproven."

Douglas Hogg, a Tory former cabinet minister, and Edward Leigh,
chairman of
the CommonsPpublic Accounts Committee, signed the amendment. The
Liberal
Democrats refused to put their names to the amendment and will table
their
own today.

Graham Allen, a former government whip, said there was still time to
pull
back from war. "I do not believe this is the final opportunity. We
should
work for peace using every possible avenue, not take a step towards
war
which is not necessary," he said. "We should stick with the strategy
of
threats and containment."

Tony Blair will today try to head off the embarrassing cross-party
rebellion. Labour whips launched an intense operation aimed at
persuading
potential rebels to support the Government after the Commons debates
Iraq
tomorrow. But many Labour MPs vowed to reject the whips' pressure,
warning
that this could be Parliament's last chance to express its
reservations on a
war.

In a Commons statement today, Mr Blair will stress that he does not
want a
war but will say that Saddam Hussein, after denying the will of the
international community for 12 years, can now make "a choice for
peace". Mr
Blair's talk of a "push for peace" has angered Labour's anti-war
rebels, who
believe the bland motion to be debated tomorrow will be used
retrospectively
by the Prime Minister to claim the Commons has endorsed his Iraq
strategy.
The motion, tabled last night, makes no specific mention of military
action
but supports the Government's attempts to disarm Iraq through the UN
and
reiterates support for resolution 1441.

Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, assured MPs that tomorrow's
vote was
not "an attempt to try and secure by subterfuge any approval for
military
action". Mr Cook said it would be the Government's "intention" and
"preference" to have a further Commons vote before British troops were
involved in action.

Labour rebels recalled that Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and
Geoff
Hoon, the Defence Secretary, had said a vote might not take place
before
military action if that would put British forces at risk.

Mr Blair held talks on Iraq yesterday with Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory
leader, and the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Mr
Blair
insisted during the meetings that the decision for peace remained with
Saddam Hussein. The meetings came a day after Mr Blair had a private
audience with the Pope.

Š 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

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

Item #5:

US troops take 'Monroe Doctrine' global
Feb 25, 2003
By Jim Lobe
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB25Ak03.html

WASHINGTON - United States troops appear suddenly to be deploying
everywhere, and with very little notice. Perhaps it was a coincidence,
but
on the same week that one of the country's leading neoconservative
writers
called explicitly for Washington to serve as "Globocop", the Pentagon
announced that it was sending 3,000 troops to the Philippines for
joint
operations against a minor Muslim guerrilla group.

On the same day, US congressmen visiting Colombia hinted that hundreds
of US
Special Forces training soldiers in the Colombian army might soon take
a
much more direct role in the civil war there as a result of last
week's
apparent abduction by leftwing rebels of three US military
contractors,
after their plane crashed in a rebel-held area.

Meanwhile, thousands more US troops are cruising in the Mediterranean,
waiting to hear whether they will be invading Iraq next month from
Turkey or
with the main invasion force of some 150,000 soldiers, who have
already
deployed in or near Kuwait.

German commanders of the international force in Kabul warned that the
US
might have to beef up its 7,000 troops continuing operations in
Afghanistan
in order to cope with possible new fighting if Washington invades
Iraq.

Thousands more US military personnel are on stand-by in Djibouti in
the Horn
of Africa, ready to snatch suspected Islamic terrorists from Yemen to
Somalia, while 4,000 more reservists remain in Bosnia and Kosovo to
help
keep the peace in the Balkans.

The Pentagon has put 24 long-range bombers on alert for possible use
in the
ongoing nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, where many of the
37,000 US
troops already deployed there are scheduled to take part in joint
maneuvers
with the South Korean Army next month. The military also plans to move
one
aircraft carrier battle group off the US west coast to the waters off
northeast Asia so that another battle group can deploy to the Gulf.

Welcome to Pax Americana. US armed forces are on the move around the
world
in ways that have not been seen since at least World War II, in what
is a
dramatic illustration of the Bush administration's national security
strategy that was publicly released last September.

"The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any
attempt by any enemy - whether a state or non-state actor - to impose
its
will on the United States, our allies, or our friends," that document
stated, in what has since been called the Bush Doctrine.
But as pointed out by Max Boot, a prominent neoconservative writer
based at
the Council on Foreign Relations, it is really the globalization of
the
Monroe Doctrine, or, more precisely, the Roosevelt Corollary issued by
Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. It came two years after the end of the
Spanish-American War and the defeat of the bloody Filipino insurgency
against US annexation and one year after Washington's own sponsorship
of the
Panamanian secession from Colombia, which laid the groundwork for the
Panama
Canal.

The 1823 Monroe Doctrine was designed to assert Washington's exclusive
sphere of influence over the Americas. Unenforceable due to US
military
weakness until the eve of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the
Doctrine
warned European powers in particular that any intervention in the
hemisphere's affairs would be presumed to threaten ''our peace and
happiness''.

Based on the Doctrine, Roosevelt's Corollary asserted the additional
right
of the United States to intervene not only against European
intervention,
but against anything in the Americas that Washington deemed a threat.

"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general
loosening of
the ties of civilized society, may ultimately require intervention by
some
civilized nation, and in the Western hemisphere the adherence of the
United
States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however
reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the
exercise of an international police power," Roosevelt declared.

As pointed out by Boot, who is very close to the neoconservatives -
such as
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - who surround Pentagon chief
Donald
Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, his doctrine is now being
applied
on a much grander scale than it was in Roosevelt's day.

"Today, America exercises almost as much power everywhere around the
world
as it once had only in the Caribbean," Boot wrote in a Financial Times
column titled "America's destiny is to police the world". "Thus, by
Roosevelt's logic, the US is obliged to stop 'chronic wrongdoing', for
the
simple reason that nobody else will do the job."

Such a view appears perfectly consistent not only with what US forces
are
doing today, but also with the Pentagon's plans, which amount to a
major
geostrategic shift in the way that US forces are deployed around the
world.

Much like the Marines, who used bases in Puerto Rico, Cuba and Panama
as
launching pads for their frequent invasions of Caribbean Basin
nations, so
the Pentagon wants to scale down its huge European army bases in favor
of
smaller hubs on land and even at sea. Pre-positioned close to likely
hotspots, particularly in East and Central Asia and the Gulf, they
would
feature fast deployment of troops using lighter, but much deadlier,
weapons.

Such a configuration, it is believed, would not only save money by
greatly
reducing the number of big, expensive army bases abroad and even at
home,
but would also extend Washington's military reach to just about every
strategic point in the world, to the equivalent of its military reach
in the
Caribbean almost a century ago.

This month, a group of hawks called on the White House to immediately
increase the defense budget, now almost US$400 billion annually, by at
least
$100 billion in order to finance the Bush Doctrine.

The transformation to this strategy is ever more urgent, according to
its
proponents, who note that the country's military infrastructure -
particularly its manpower of only 1.4 million soldiers, sailors and
fliers -
is already straining under existing demands.

With administration officials ruling out a return to the military
draft,
many military analysts believe that the US simply lacks the numbers
that
will be needed to transform the entire world into the equivalent of
the
Caribbean Basin. That is perhaps why a prominent analyst at the
right-wing
Hoover Institution, Peter Schweizer, proposed creating an American
Foreign
Legion.

(Inter Press Service)

Copyright Asia Times Online, 6306 The Center, Queen's Road, Central,
Hong
Kong.

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

Item #6:

Powell, in Asia, Is Dealt a Setback on North Korea
By JAMES DAO
February 25, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/international/asia/25KORE.html

SEOUL, Tuesday, Feb. 25 - The Bush administration suffered a setback
in its
North Korea policy on Monday, as officials in China, Australia and
South
Korea urged the United States to begin direct talks with North Korea
about
its nuclear weapons programs, a strategy Washington has repeatedly
rejected.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who arrived here on Monday night
on the
final part of a three-nation Asian tour, has been urging North Korea's
neighbors to hold a "multilateral forum" during which the United
States and
other countries could pressure the North to dismantle its weapons
programs.

The Bush administration contends that a group of nations could place
far
greater pressure on North Korea to abandon its programs than one
nation
alone. It has also called on Russia, South Korea, Japan and
particularly
China to play larger roles in pushing North Korea to disarm.

But those countries have balked at taking more forceful action against
the
North Koreans. On Monday, three of the countries the administration
had
hoped would join a forum said Washington cannot ignore the North's
demands
and should enter into direct talks with North Korea.

"Whether one likes it or not - and I don't particularly like it - this
will
have to be resolved bilaterally," said Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer of
Australia, a close ally of the United States. Australia is one of the
few
Western countries that has diplomatic relations with North Korea.

In Beijing, Vice President Hu Jintao told the New China News Agency
that
China wanted the United States to hold "direct dialogues" with North
Korea
"as soon as possible." Mr. Hu, who will become president next month,
made
his comments just minutes after meeting with Mr. Powell.

In Seoul, the outgoing South Korean president, Kim Dae Jung, said in
his
final speech to the nation on Monday, "More than anything, dialogue
between
North Korea and the United States is the important key to a solution."

Mr. Kim's successor, Roh Moo Hyun, was inaugurated today in a ceremony
attended by Mr. Powell and other world leaders. Mr. Roh is expected to
continue Mr. Kim's "sunshine policy" of engagement with North Korea.

North Korea has refused to attend a multilateral forum, asserting that
its
effort to develop nuclear weapons is an issue that must be resolved
through
direct, one-on-one talks with Washington. The North wants the United
States
to agree to a nonaggression pact.

But the Bush administration contends that other countries must be
involved
in resolving the impasse because the entire region would be threatened
by
North Korean weapons, and because other countries, particularly China,
have
more leverage over the North. China is the leading provider of food
and fuel
aid to North Korea.

In a news conference in Beijing following his meetings with Chinese
leaders
on Monday, Mr. Powell hinted that Beijing was not prepared to assume
the
more muscular role that Washington had hoped it would.

"I think they are anxious to play as helpful a role as they can," Mr.
Powell
told reporters. "I think they prefer to play their role quietly."

Monday's developments raise new questions for the administration's
North
Korea policy, which has come under fire from Democrats and some Korea
experts as ill-defined and contradictory.

With the Bush administration and the United Nations focused heavily on
Iraq,
it seems unlikely that North Korea will receive much high-level
attention in
the West for several weeks. Some American officials say the next major
step
for resolving the crisis might not come until Vice President Dick
Cheney
visits the region, possibly in April.

It also appeared that Mr. Powell had little success in softening
China's
opposition to using military action to disarm Iraq.

Mr. Powell said he told Chinese leaders that the United Nations needs
to
take action against Iraq "in the near future," saying "It is time for
Saddam
to disarm or depart."

But the New China News Agency reported that Mr. Hu urged Mr. Powell to
seek
a "political solution" to the Iraq standoff. The Chinese have called
for
giving inspections more time.

One of Mr. Powell's goals in China was to encourage that country, a
permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, not to use
its veto
power to block the Iraq resolution that the United States and Britain
introduced today. The resolution asserts that Iraq has failed to
comply with
previous resolutions requiring it to disarm, setting the stage for an
invasion.

Asked whether the Chinese had agreed to abstain, Mr. Powell said he
had
deferred that discussion - suggesting that the differences between the
two
governments remain significant.

In his remarks to reporters, Mr. Powell praised the Chinese for
establishing
new rules to control the export of missile, biological, chemical and
nuclear
weapons technology, as well as for assisting in the war against
terrorism.

But he chided the Chinese for "setbacks" on human rights, citing the
execution in January of a prominent Tibetan, Lobsang Dondup, and the
detention of democracy activists.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Everyman]

1. Bush's Warsaw War Pact
2. Weapons of mass destruction: a practical guide
3. Veto Would Put France Out In The Cold, Warns US
4. Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy will not back
UK aggression force
5. Tories Told To Vote With Blair
6. Eastman blasts casus belli as twisted thinking that would kill
hundreds of thousands of innocents (Iraq had no connection
with 9-11, a mass-murder frameup) officially over merely
suspected WMD military resistance potential (while denying
investigators the opportunity of verifying or refuting the
suspicion) and thought crimes (i.e., the "crime" of Iraq not
likingglobalization or the Sharon-Pearle-Wolfowitz brand of
anti-Islam anti-populism political zionism)
7. Rumsfeld Pushes Big Lie On "Human Shields" In Iraq
8. These setbacks have put pre-911-planned invasion of Iraq
behind schedule
9. From AM Rosenthal to Walid Phares -- Eleana Benador's
hardline propaganda mouthpieces -- beware the deceivers
that war-profiteer's always find to sell their wars.
==============

Item #1: Bush's Warsaw Pact

Bush's Warsaw War Pact

February 26, 2003
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

The diplomatic motorcade pulled up to the White House
yesterday with great fanfare. The two Marine guards at the
door of the colonnaded West Wing saluted smartly. TV
cameras pressed close to get pictures of the vital American
ally alighting from the black sedan for his one-on-one with
President Bush.

It was a summit of the two great strategic partners,
America and Bulgaria.

Bulgaria?

As the world's only remaining superpower was conferring
honor upon one of its only remaining friends, America
smashed through the global looking glass.

To get Saddam, the Bush administration has dizzily turned
the world upside down and inside out.

Our new best friends are the very people we used to protect
our old best friends from. During the cold war, we
safeguarded Old Europe from the Evil Empire. Now we have
embraced the former Soviet Bloc satellites to protect us
from the Security Council machinations of our former
paramours France and Germany. NATO was created to protect
Western Europe from the Communist hordes - namely the
Bulgarians, who tried to outdo the bizarro Albanians as the
most Stalinist regime in Eastern Europe and were renowned
for the "thick necks" who did wet work for the K.G.B.

The U.S. is now in the process of wooing the "minnows" - as
some in the Pentagon disparagingly call the small countries
that could deliver the votes for a Security Council
resolution on going to war with Iraq.

It's the battle of the pipsqueak powers: we dragoon
Bulgaria to offset France dragooning Cameroon.

The Bulgarians used to be the lowest of the low here. In
1998, just before the visit of the Bulgarian president,
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel met with
President Clinton. The visit was so icy that a Clinton aide
joked to reporters about Mr. Netanyahu: "We're treating him
like the president of Bulgaria. Actually, I think Clinton
will go jogging with the president of Bulgaria, so that's
not fair."

Now Secretary Don Evans flies off to Bulgaria to discuss
trade, and Rummy hints we may move U.S. troops from Germany
to Bulgaria.

In diplomatic circles, our new allies from Eastern Europe
are dryly referred to as "Bush's Warsaw Pact." As one
Soviet expert put it, "Bulgaria used to be Russia's lapdog.
Now it's America's lapdog."

The Bulgarians were such sycophants to Russia that in the
60's they proposed becoming the 16th republic of the Soviet
Union.

Mr. Bush will not be the only one having trouble with the
Bulgarian prime minister's name. We all will. In some press
reports it's spelled Simeon Saxcoburggotski, and in others
Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The tall, balding, bearded prime
minister was formerly King Simeon II, a deposed child czar.
He is a distant relative of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's
consort, but not Count Dracula. That's our other new best
friend, Romania.

Is this a good trade, the French for the Bulgarians?

Sketchy facts about Bulgaria rattle around: It has a town
called Plovdiv; it wants to become big in the skiing
industry; its secret service stabbed an exiled dissident
writer in London with a poison-tipped umbrella - a
ricin-tipped umbrella, in fact; its weight-lifting team was
expelled from the Olympics in a drug scandal in 2000; it
sent agents to kill the pope.

During the cold war Bulgaria was valued by Moscow for the
canned tomatoes it sent in winter, and by France for
sending attar of roses, distilled rose oil that was the
binding agent for French perfume.

Three famous Bulgarians: Carl Djerassi, who invented birth
control pills; Christo, the original wrap artist; Boris
Christof, the opera singer. In "Casablanca" there was the
Bulgarian girl who offered herself to Claude Rains to get
plane tickets.

Avis Bohlen, a former second-in-command at the American
Embassy in France and an ambassador to Sofia in the late
1990's, calls Bulgaria "a very gutsy little country" that
has worked hard to improve.

Ms. Bohlen is dubious about the Bush administration's
volatile snits at old allies. "You can't build a foreign
policy on pique," she says.

She says Bulgaria will be a good ally: "They're really
brilliant at math and science, and they have famous wine."

So, we don't need French wine after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/opinion/26DOWD.html?ex=1047278197&ei=1&en=ae011de59f14ee0c

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
=============================

Item #2. Weapons of mass destruction: a practical guide

Paulo Coelho
http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/article.jsp?id=905&type=satire

A world-renowned Brazilian author offers an original
perspective on the Iraqi weapons crisis. Its solution may not lie in
Baghdad, or even under the US president's bed. Rather, take a Security
Council mandate to George Bush's psychoanalyst.

Bearing in mind that the president of the most powerful republic on
the planet is, in principle, responsible for his actions and knows
what he's talking about, despite his eyes - have you noticed his eyes?
Well, take a good look at them! - I, a Brazilian writer, earning my
living from my daily struggle with words, and having no close ties
with the secret service, the inspection procedure, with confidential
files or privileged information, but capable of reading the newspapers
with a reasonable degree of intelligence, have come up with the
definitive answer to how to locate the weapons of mass destruction
being hidden by Iraq. I will, by the way, require payment for this
information.

How to locate the weapons

1. All the weapons inspectors currently in Iraq should pack their
bags, settle their hotel bills and head for Baghdad airport.

2. There, they should all buy business class tickets to Washington. I
stress business class so that they have time to rest, since the
journey will involve a number of stopovers.

3. On reaching Washington, they should catch the first bus to the
headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, also known as the
CIA. The address can be found in the telephone directory for Virginia.

4. On reaching CIA headquarters, and armed with the appropriate United
Nations (UN) inspection mandate, they should demand to see all the
photographs, information and documents currently being supplied to Mr
George W. Bush. These are the documents pinpointing the precise
location of each arms cache and which allow Mr Bush to assure us that
Iraq has an arsenal capable of destroying the planet.

5. Once in possession of these documents, they should return to Iraq
(again they should fly business class in order to arrive feeling
rested) and go immediately to the places indicated in the photographs.
Unable to deny the evidence, Saddam Hussein will have no option but to
destroy his arsenal, for fear that the whole world will turn against
him.

6. If the CIA do not have said documents, the inspectors should go
straight to Mr George W. Bush's bedroom in the White House, Washington
DC. On the way, they should avoid all contact with the thousands of
American demonstrators who took part in the huge march on 18 January
2003 in protest against the war in Iraq.

7. If Mr George W. Bush fails to cooperate with the UN inspectors,
they should look for the evidence under his bed. If they do not find
it there, they should go and see said citizen's psychoanalyst, having
first armed themselves with a mandate from the Security Council and
the following question: 'Does a son necessarily have to complete his
father's work?' If the answer is affirmative, please advise me at
once; my father was a civil engineer and, when he retired, he may well
have left unfinished projects for his heir to deal with. If the answer
is negative, demand that the psychoanalyst - on behalf of the UN, the
United States and the whole world - prescribe the necessary medication
to his patient so that he no longer constitutes a threat to his
country and to his planet.

Method of payment

Once this, in my view, infallible line of action has been followed, I
ask that the billions of dollars that would have been spent on the war
be divided up in the following manner:

* 50% to help the poor in Brazil, since the President of Brazil is
currently grappling with a huge budget deficit, and because the author
of this practical guide to weapons of mass destruction is himself
Brazilian;
* 40% to Africa;
* 9% to Europe, who wavered but did not fall - at least not up
until
now, the day on which I am writing this article;
* 1% to pay for a nice biography of Tony Blair, to be translated into
forty languages, hard cover, colour photographs, saying what a great
leader he is, how intelligent, important, charismatic, handsome and
charming. That should be enough to keep him quiet, safe in the
knowledge that his remarkable qualities have been recognised.

Finally

It is important to add the following. When speaking about the war,
please do not generalise, saying that 'the Americans want to attack
Iraq'. We have made the same mistake before, saying that 'the Serbs
are all butchers', 'the Brazilians are all lazy', or 'the Iranians are
all fundamentalists'. The people who want to attack Iraq are the
politicians surrounding Mr George W. Bush, the Enron orphans. The
American people are fully aware of what is going on, and just as they
managed to stop the war in Vietnam, they may, when no convincing
explanations are forthcoming, manage to persuade Bush's psychoanalyst
to prescribe a sedative and put an end to this nightmare.

©Paulo Coelho, 2003

Copyright openDemocracy 2002. Published by openDemocracy.

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

Item #3: Veto Would Put France Out In The Cold, Warns US

By John Lichfield in Paris
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=381802
26 February 2003

The US ambassador to Paris gave a blunt warning yesterday that
Franco-American relations would plunge into the deep freeze if France
used its UN veto to block a draft second resolution on Iraq.

Howard Leach told a French television interviewer: "I hope there won't
be a veto, because a veto would be very unfriendly, and we would not
look favourably on that."

Officially, France says that it has not yet considered whether or not
to use its veto, as one of the five permanent members of the Security
Council. Paris says it is still hopeful that a majority will support
its alternative plan to strengthen inspections and extend them for
four months.

But French sources unofficially accept that Paris is nearing a
dangerous precipice. If most of the Council backs the US, France would
face an impossible choice. If it used its veto, it would seem to be
blocking the will of the international community. The future of the
Security Council the veto and the French role would be called into
question.

The US, Britain and Spain tabled the second resolution before the
Security Council on Monday, in effect beginning a two-week countdown
to war. But France, backed by Russia, China and Germany, submitted a
plan aimed at averting military action as long as the inspection
process is going on.

Canada distributed a compromise plan yesterday in which Iraq would be
given a 28 March deadline to comply with UN demands or face war. The
Canadian paper said the plan aimed to bridge the gap between an
"open-ended" and a "truncated inspection process", leaving "no doubt
that war was a last resort".

French deputies will debate Iraq today. They are expected to endorse
the government's position. However, some centre-right deputies want
President Jacques Chirac to be more flexible.

Axel Poniatowksi, of Mr Chirac's UMP party and head of the assembly's
Franco-American friendship group, said: "A veto would be particularly
inappropriate ... It would not be in the interests of our country and
would damage Franco-American relations for many years."

Diplomatic sources said the likely outcome ­ if the US assembled a
pro-war majority ­ was that France would abstain and be outvoted. It
would not use its veto but would not participate in the war.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

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

Item #4: Kennedy won't back our troops
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 26/02/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/26/nirq26.xml&s
Sheet=/portal/2003/02/26/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2200
91

The political divide over war with Iraq widened sharply last night
when Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said there were
circumstances in which his party might not back British troops being
sent into battle.

Mr Kennedy stepped up his opposition to military action without
explicit UN authority after Tony Blair had set out his most forceful
case for Britain to prepare for war.

Mr Blair brushed aside proposals by France, Germany and Russia for
more time for the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq.

He said it would be "folly and weakness" not to deal with Saddam
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

The Prime Minister told a packed but subdued Commons that only a real
change of heart by Saddam, resulting in immediate "100 per cent
compliance" with the UN, could now avert American and British action
in the Gulf.

Mr Kennedy, who braved Labour and Tory jeers in the Commons to
criticise Mr Blair's handling of the crisis, was asked on BBC Radio
4's PM programme whether he would publicly support the war if British
servicemen ended up fighting in Iraq.

He said it would depend on the circumstances, including the outcome of
the weapons inspections and decisions of the UN Security Council.
Pressed on whether it was possible that British forces could be
involved in fighting and the Liberal Democrats' position might be that
they did not support that war, Mr Kennedy said: "It is possible, it is
possible."

His refusal to guarantee to support British troops in time of war is a
huge political gamble.

Normally when forces are sent into action, the political parties rally
behind them, even if they have doubts about the reasons for war.

But Mr Kennedy has decided to position the Liberal Democrats as the
main anti-war party. He spoke from the platform at the peace march in
London 11 days ago which brought a million protesters on to the
streets.

MPs opposed to war said Mr Blair could face the most damaging
backbench rebellion since he came to power when the Commons votes
tonight at the end of a debate on the Government's handling of the
Iraq crisis.

More than 100 MPs, most of them Labour, have signed a cross-party
amendment arguing that the case for military action is as yet
"unproven".

Those who have put their names to the motion include the former
Foreign Office ministers Doug Henderson and Tony Lloyd, the former
defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and the former sports minister Tony
Banks.

All 53 Liberal Democrat MPs last night signed a separate amendment
calling for the inspectors to be given more time and refusing to
support military action unless sanctioned by a UN resolution and a
vote in the Commons.

It will be up to the Speaker, Michael Martin, to decide whether to
call either amendment. However, up to 80 Labour MPs are likely to vote
against the Government or abstain to demonstrate their opposition to
the use of force at this stage.

Mr Blair's statement came as he continued a hectic round of diplomacy
to win backing for a draft UN resolution tabled by Britain, America
and Spain paving the way for military action if the inspectors report
next week that Iraq has failed to co-operate.

He had a meeting in Downing Street with Gen Tommy Franks, the head of
America's central command who will effectively run any war against
Iraq.

MPs from all parties packed the Commons to hear what was widely
regarded as one of the most important speeches of Mr Blair's career.

He insisted that he did not want war, but emphasised that Saddam had
one final chance to disarm peacefully.

Mr Blair left MPs in no doubt that he was ready to order British
troops into action within weeks if Iraq did not co-operate with the
UN.

While Labour MPs queued to voice their concerns that the case had not
yet been made for the use of force, Mr Blair was showered in praise by
Tory MPs, including William Hague, for the leadership he was giving
over Iraq.

Mr Blair was dismissive of the memorandum from France, Germany and
Russia calling for the inspectors to be given at least to the end of
July to "search out" Iraq's chemical and biological weapons.

He said the idea that inspectors could "sniff out" the weapons in a
country the size of France without the help of the Iraqi authorities
was "absurd".

Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, who will this weekend visit
British troops in Kuwait, said war must always be a last resort.

But he made clear he was ready to support military action if Saddam,
an evil "tyrant", did not disarm.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003.

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

Item #5: Torries told to back unpopular Labor PM Blair's
Aggression against Iraq

War rebels challenge Blair
Frantic efforts to win support for vote in Commons
Michael White, Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday February 26, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,903223,00.html

Tony Blair tonight faces the most dangerous challenge to his authority
during his six-year premiership as opponents of his "rush to war"
policy on Iraq organise frantically to muster the Commons votes that
may slow his momentum.

Last night backbench critics in all parties claimed to have at least
160 MPs prepared to vote against the government or abstain after
today's debate, despite Mr Blair's plea yesterday for them to unite
behind the declared will of the UN.

If more than 67 Labour MPs vote against the government tonight it will
be the largest revolt of the Blair era. That number voted against
disability cuts in May 1999, 20 more than the lone parents' benefit
revolt of December 1997.

More than 70 of Labour's 412 MPs are signed-up rebels.

Loyalists believe Mr Blair's powerful Commons statement yesterday
dismissing Franco-German calls for weapons inspectors to be given
months more - "The issue is not time, the issue is will," he said -
will dampen the revolt and buy him room to manoeuvre.

But anti-war MPs were canvassing hard last night and passed the
115-signature mark for the key amendment tabled by Labour's Chris
Smith and his fellow ex-cabinet minister, the Tory Douglas Hogg. It
argues that "the case for military action [is] as yet unproven".

Former Tory cabinet ministers Kenneth Clarke and John Gummer have also
signed it, although the Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, last
night signalled help for the government in its troubles. Tory MPs will
be told to vote against rebel amendments and with Mr Blair.

The alternative Liberal Democrat amendment, which Labour rebels will
back if the Speaker, Michael Martin, picks it, is backed by 47 of
Charles Kennedy's 53-strong team, and argues that diplomatic channels
have not yet been
exhausted. Labour MPs privately tell Mr Martin that their simple
amendment best reflects the anxious public mood.

The whips are promising waverers they will get another chance to vote
on military action, and so should back Mr Blair's pro-UN pitch today.

But tonight's result, and a possible further vote in the next
fortnight, has been complicated by the fact that the crisis coincides
with the reselection of Labour MPs.

At least one, Bridget Prentice, faces a challenge from anti-war party
members in Lewisham East, who are demanding she rethink her position
or face deselection. Others face explicit constituency pressure to
oppose the war.

To keep the bulk of his jittery party behind him - voters and
activists as well as MPs and ministers - Mr Blair knows he must get a
second UN resolution which comes at least as close to authorising
military action as this week's draft from the US, Britain and Spain.

Mr Blair and his cabinet allies remain confident this will happen.
They believe that even France will swing behind military action if
Saddam Hussein's duplicity in evading disarmament is confirmed by UN
teams early next month.

"Resolution 1441 called for full, unconditional and immediate
compliance, not 10%, not 20%, not even 50%, but 100% compliance.
Anything less will not do," he told MPs yesterday. But the prime
minister admit ted that, if he disarms, the Iraqi dictator can remain
in power.

Mr Blair's exposed position was underlined when US officials briefed
reporters yesterday that Washington had gone back to the UN security
council for a second resolution principally as a favour to Mr Blair.

But their studied nonchalance glosses over US public unease: a
significant majority would prefer to put off war if that gives a
better chance of convincing the security council. And even US hawks do
not want to foot the bill for postwar reconstruction in Iraq.

"I think you know that for a number of our closest allies it was an
important step to take," said Condoleezza Rice, the president's
national security adviser. "And so, while we still don't believe that
it was necessary - all the authorisation necessary was in 1441 and
previous resolutions - it seemed a wise thing to do."

One US official revealed that the Bush administration con sidered
abandoning its pursuit of a new resolution on February 14, when 12 of
the 15 security council members spoke out against military action. But
the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, urged the US secretary of state,
Colin Powell, to keep up the effort to orchestrate a security council
majority.

London also won the argument over softer wording of the draft
resolution, despite US wishes for a harsher document, including a more
explicit threat of military action. Such strident wording would not
win the requisite nine votes, British diplomats said.

In the Commons yesterday the atmosphere was civil despite high
feelings on both sides, which saw Tory MPs boo the Lib Dem leader but
praise Mr Blair's statesmanship.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

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

7. Rumsfeld Pushes Big Lie On "Human Shields" In Iraq

Rumsfeld pushes big lie on "human shields" in Iraq
By Henry Michaels
24 February 2003
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/lies-f24.shtml
Faced by protests against their war plans involving millions of people
worldwide, the Bush administration and the US media are increasingly
employing one of the "big lie" techniques notoriously employed by the
likes of Hitler and Stalin: accusing their enemy of the crimes they
are about to commit.

International humanitarian agencies are warning that the coming US
assault on Iraq could cause half a million civilian casualties and
create two million refugees. But the White House and Pentagon, joined
by a complicit media, are seeking to shift the blame for the impending
slaughter to the Iraqi government.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ramped up the propaganda effort at a
February 19 Pentagon press briefing where, without offering the
slightest evidence, he accused Saddam Hussein of preparing to use
civilians as "human shields" against US attacks.

According to Rumsfeld: "It is a practice that reveals contempt for the
norms of humanity, the laws of armed conflict, and, I am advised,
Islamic law, practice and belief."

He declared that those responsible would be treated as war criminals.
"These are not tactics of war, they are crimes of war. Deploying human
shields is not a military strategy, it's murder, a violation of the
laws of armed conflict, and a crime against humanity, and it will be
treated as such."

In a chilling performance, Rumsfeld sought to prepare American and
world public opinion for the widespread civilian deaths that will
inevitably be caused by the Pentagon's "shock and awe" plan to unleash
more than 3,000 missiles on Iraq in the first 48 hours of the
invasion.

He charged that Saddam Hussein "deliberately constructs mosques near
military facilities, uses schools, hospitals, orphanages and cultural
treasures to shield military forces, thereby exposing helpless men,
women
and children to danger." This can only mean that mosques, schools,
hospitals, orphanages, cultural treasures and other civilian sites are
on the Pentagon's target lists.

Not one journalist at the Pentagon briefing challenged Rumsfeld to
substantiate his allegations.

In effect, the Bush administration is accusing Baghdad of using the
entire Iraqi population as "human shields." Washington is preparing to
commit war crimes of monumental proportions by launching an unprovoked
war, inflicting terrible civilian casualties, and then depicting the
Iraqi leaders as the war criminals.

The Iraqi leadership is not the only target of this truly Orwellian
logic. Rumsfeld's threats followed reports that hundreds of peace
activists from Britain, the United States and other countries are
assembling in Baghdad with the intention of camping near power
stations, water plants and other civilian facilities that the US and
its allies bombed during the 1991 Gulf War.

One group, the Iraq Peace Team, includes US veterans from the Vietnam
War. They have been hanging banners on bridges and power plants that
say a US bombardment of these sites would amount to a war crime.
Another group, known as Human Shields, has stated that its aim is to
prevent a US attack.

Rumsfeld, flanked by General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff, indicated that these anti-war volunteers could also
be accused of war crimes. "Those who follow his [Saddam's] orders to
use human shields will pay a severe price for their actions," Rumsfeld
declared.

Myers added: "It is a violation of the law of armed conflict to use
noncombatants as a means of shielding potential military targets-even
those people who may volunteer for this purpose.... Therefore, if
death or serious injury to a noncombatant resulted from these efforts,
the individuals responsible for deploying any innocent civilians as
human shields could be
guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions."

The truth is that Rumsfeld and Myers, along with President Bush, are
guilty of preparing a war of aggression-the very crime for which
Hitler's henchmen were tried at Nuremburg. Their war will flagrantly
breach a series of international laws and conventions going back to
the Declaration of St. Petersburg in 1868 that require armed forces to
minimize harm to civilians during battles.

The people of both Iraq and the Balkans have already experienced
Washington's use of the "human shields" lie as a cover for war crimes.
During the 1991 Gulf war, the White House and the Pentagon
consistently blamed Saddam Hussein for the civilian casualties of US
bombing, including the killing of 288 people in Baghdad's Al-Amariya
bomb shelter.

In one of the most infamous atrocities of the 1999 bombardment of
Serbia, US aircraft bombed a refugee convoy. Initially, US and NATO
officials claimed that the vehicles were military. When investigations
by reporters confirmed it was a line of civilian refugees, NATO
insisted that Serb military forces and equipment had infiltrated the
convoy as a setup.

As for Rumsfeld, he is politically complicit in war crimes in
Afghanistan, including the killing of as many as 800 captured Taliban
prisoners in November 2001 at Mazar-i-Sharif. Rumsfeld vetoed a
proposal by Northern Alliance General Khan Daoud to grant foreign
Taliban fighters safe passage out of Afghanistan and gave the green
light for a killing spree, saying "My hope is that they will either be
killed or taken prisoner." [See "US war crime in Afghanistan: Hundreds
of prisoners of war slaughtered at Mazar-i-Sharif"]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n27.shtml

One government in the Middle East has admitted to forcing innocent
civilians to act as human shields, resulting in numerous Palestinian
deaths. Israel's Sharon government, however, is fiercely protected by
the Bush administration. Last May, after Israeli human rights groups
sought a Supreme Court order barring the practice following its
widespread use during the army's assaults on Jenin and other West Bank
cities, the military admitted the policy was illegal and pledged it
would stop. But media reports have confirmed that soldiers are still
routinely using Palestinian men as live
shields.

Media complicity

Major US media outlets consistently retail the official line that the
Bush administration and the military top brass are determined to do
everything in their power to minimize civilian casualties, through the
use of precision-guided "smart bombs." But of late, the media has
supplemented such claims with elaborations on the government theme of
Iraqi human shields and other alleged Iraqi war crimes. At the same
time, it is gingerly preparing US public opinion for images and
reports of Iraqi civilian victims of US bombs, knowing in advance it
will be unable to totally suppress evidence of the impending carnage.

On February 5, for example, the Washington Post reported that Saddam
Hussein had armed 1 million Iraqi civilians with rifles and grenade
launchers as a last line of defense against an American invasion. The
next day, General Myers announced that Washington would consider such
people to be combatants.

On February 18, the day before Rumsfeld's latest Pentagon briefing, an
article listing a number of American alibis-in-advance appeared in the
New York Times. The piece was obviously based on handouts from the
Pentagon and the White House. Under the headline, "War Planners Speak
of the Risks," senior writers David Sanger and Thom Shanker reported
that Rumsfeld "has a four- to five-page, typewritten catalog of risks
that senior aides say he keeps in his desk drawer."

Sanger and Shanker let it be known that the document warned of "Saddam
Hussein hiding weapons in mosques or hospitals or cultural sites, and
using his citizenry or captured foreign journalists as human shields."
The authors made no pretence of substantiating these claims.
Rumsfeld's other concerns, they informed their readers, included
neighboring states being attacked, and the use of Iraqi "weapons of
mass destruction" across the region.

President Bush, the article added, was preparing the United States for
"what one senior official calls 'the very real possibility that this
will not look like Afghanistan,' a military victory that came with
greater speed than any had predicted, and with fewer casualties."

Perhaps the most revealing comment quoted in the article came from an
unnamed senior official who cautioned that despite months of internal
studies, advance planning and the insertion of CIA officers and
Special
Operations forces into Iraq, "We still do not know how US forces will
be received. Will it be cheers, jeers or shots? And the fact is, we
won't know until we get there."

In other words, the White House and its trusted journalists are
attempting to prepare public opinion for American forces being greeted
with hostility as murderers and colonial-style conquerers, rather than
liberators. The scale of the terror, death and destruction being
planned will only intensify such hatred.

Sanger and Shanker are conscious of their own role as conduits for the
administration's black propaganda. They acknowledge that "such
cautionary notes from the White House, the Pentagon and intelligence
officials may well have a political purpose ... the administration may
feel it is better to warn the American public of these dangers in
advance."

Copyright 1998-2003
World Society Web Site

Wednesday, 26 February 2003, 10:32 am
Column: Christiaan Briggs
Letter From Christiaan Briggs In Iraq
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00195.htm
Editor's Note: Christiaan is a New Zealander from the Hawke's Bay and
is
currently a part of the Human Shield that is massing in Iraq. See:
www.humanshields.org/ Scoop intends to keep you posted on this
initiative.

Hi everyone, according to Donald Rumsfeld (the man that war criminal
Henry Kissinger described as "the most ruthless man I've ever known")
I am a war criminal. (see article below).

The Bush Administration is clearly trying to paint us as being
deployed by Iraqi officials. Now you can see for yourselves the
bullshit lies these deluded people are prepared to make in order to
carry out the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraq people.

Be clear that I am here of my own free will. You already know that. We
have a site committee of our own people researching potential sites.
We have freedom of movement and we are free to choose whichever sites
we like. If this situation changes I will let you know immediately and
we will not be
sticking around.

Many of the gentle Iraqi men and women and the completely innocent and
bubbly children I meet every day will be killed or maimed if the
U.S./UK/Aussie "Axis of Evil" carries out the bombing of Iraq. Be
clear that this will happen in the hundreds of thousands.

As I've said time and time again this pending crime against humanity
has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or humanitarian
concerns. You 'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to believe
this invasion does not have everything to do with oil and U.S.
hegemony. And you'd have to be deluded to believe that bombing the
Iraqi people, killing hundreds of thousands in the process, is worth
the oil and U.S. power. You also have to be deluded to think that
bombing the Iraqi people is a rational way of ousting a dictator (who
has become unuseful to U.S. elites).

Would you like to be apart of this? I will send photos of dead and
maimed children when it happens if you like. Maybe the same children I
have sent photos of already. If you don't want to be apart of it then
at the very least do not let Clark back this pending crime against
humanity in your name.

Love, your Truth Justice Peace War Criminal, Ka kite ano
===============

#8: These setbacks have put pre-9-11 planned invasion of Iraq behind
schedule

Brian Whittaker has been Middle East editor for The Guardian since
1999. He also maintains a website with extensive information on all
the Arab countries, al-bab.com (Arab Gateway): http://www.al-bab.com/

By Brian Whitaker
The Guardian (UK)
February 24, 2003

Faced with obstruction from the French and Germans, ransom demands
from the Turks, and opposition from millions of demonstrators around
the world, the desired invasion of Iraq has fallen behind schedule.

But not to worry. The process of selecting the next candidates for
regime change is already under way.

In a meeting with American congressmen last week, the Israeli prime
minister, Ariel Sharon, nominated three countries to be tackled after
Iraq:
Iran, Libya and Syria.

Mr Sharon also met John Bolton, the US under secretary of state, who
reportedly told him that it will be "necessary" to deal with Syria,
Iran and North Korea after an attack on Iraq. That puts Syria and Iran
into the lead with two votes each, followed by Libya and North Korea,
with only one.

The attraction of this approach is easy to see. After Afghanistan and
Iraq, conquering Syria and Iran would create an unbroken chain of
puppet regimes stretching from the Mediterranean to China.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Palestinian regime change, or rather
regime dismantling, has begun. Yasser Arafat is now more or less
written off, although there is nobody to replace him, which suits Mr
Sharon just fine. The Saudis are also being targeted and, ultimately,
Egypt will be, too.

While all this may be sold to the public, and to gullible leaders such
as Tony Blair, on the basis of specific issues, such as suicide
bombings in the case of the Palestinians, the vision driving US policy
under the president, George Bush, is far broader.

The two key phrases are "creative destruction" and "total war".
Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen, one of the US's
leading rightwing ideologues, explained: "We should have no misgivings
about our ability to destroy tyrannies. It is what we do best.

"It comes naturally to us, for we are the one truly revolutionary
country in the world, as we have been for more than 200 years.
Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically, and
that is precisely why the
tyrants hate us and are driven to attack us."

The concept of total war, which is also espoused by Mr Ledeen, was
elaborated upon in the same publication by Adam Mersereau, a former
Marine Corps officer.

He contrasted total war with "limited" war, in which military force is
used to achieve a particular foreign policy objective "without
mobilising the entire nation, and while minimising casualties".

"By total war," he wrote, "I mean the kind of warfare that not only
destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy
society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are
willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the
war in the first place.

"A total war strategy does not have to include the intentional
targeting of
civilians, but the sparing of civilian lives cannot be its first
priority...
The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto
another
people group.

"Limited war pits combatants against combatants, while total war pits
nation
against nation, and even culture against culture."

This sort of thing may strike the average non-American as power-crazed
and
mad (and, before the emails start flooding in from the US, I should
add that many Americans find it abhorrent, too). However, the real
point is not whether such ideas are mad, it is the amount of influence
that they have on
policy.

Many of the total war and creative destruction crowd get their ideas
across to the public through an agency called Benador Associates,
which arranges their TV appearances and speaking engagements, and
helps to place their articles in newspapers.

The agency, which has offices in New York, London and Paris, is run by
Eleana Benador, a Peruvian-born linguist. Since I last wrote about Ms
Benador, "US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy", August 19
2002*, her business seems to have expanded remarkably.

She has added 10 more "experts" to her list of clients and, on
February 13, hosted a free lunch for a question and answer session
with the Pentagon's leading hardline adviser, Richard Perle.

In addition, she has started a mailing service, through which
subscribers receive, free of charge, up to six daily articles. Anyone
who wishes to monitor the developing thoughts of America's
neo-conservatives, and can resist being offended by the content, will
find a subscription informative.

Ms Benador has been busy networking on the political-social circuit,
too. Although details are scarce, the website of Bob Guzzardi, a
Pennsylvania property man and Israel enthusiast, shows photographs of
a jolly party
attended by Ms Benador along with Senator Joseph Lieberman,
Representative Joseph Hoeffel, Daniel Pipes (the bete noire of
American Muslims) and Reza Pahlavi, the pretender to the throne of
Iran.

Several of her experts regard the fall of the Iranian regime as a
certain consequence of war in Iraq, whether as a result of deliberate
US efforts or those of Iran's supposedly rebellious youth. At least
one of them has been talking up the possibility that Mr Pahlavi could
take over as Iran's new Shah.

"It is no surprise that Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah, has arisen
seemingly out of nowhere to become the leading opposition figure, not
only among Iranians in Los Angeles, but among Iranians still living
under the mullahs in Tehran."

Those words were written by Michael Rubin, who has also promoted the
idea that ex-crown prince Hassan of Jordan might become king of Iraq.

Mr Rubin, a Benador client and once a prolific article writer, has
been silent for several months. This, Ms Benador's website explains,
is because he is "currently on assignment as an Iran and Iraq adviser
in special plans at the Pentagon, and will be unavailable for public
appearances until October 2003".

Still, there are plenty of others to fill the gap while Mr Rubin
hatches his special plans. The Benador website lists more than 220
published articles, including 50 in the National Review, 42 in the
Washington Times, 37 in the Washington Post, 18 in the National Post,
17 in the Wall Street Journal, 15 in the Los Angeles Times, eight each
in the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, and six in the New York
Times.

Two others appeared in Britain: one in the Financial Times, and the
other in the Daily Telegraph.

Readers who like to keep an eye on such things should watch out for
media appearances by any of the following Benador "experts":

AM Rosenthal,
Alexander M Haig Jr,
Amir Taheri,
Arnaud de Borchgrave,
Azar Nafisi,
Barry Rubin,
Charles Jacobs,
Charles Krauthammer,
Fereydoun Hoveyda,
Frank J Gaffney Jr,
George Jonas,
Hillel Fradkin,
Ismail Cem,
John Eibner,
Kanan Makiya,
Khalid Duran,
Khidhir Hamza,
Laurie Mylroie,
Mansoor Ijaz,
Martin Kramer,
Max Boot,
Meyrav Wurmser,
Michael A. Ledeen,
Michael Rubin,
Michel Gurfinkiel,
Paul Marshall,
R James Woolsey,
Richard O Spertzel,
Richard Perle,
Richard Pipes,
Ruth Wedgwood,
Shaykh Kabbani,
Stanley H. Kaplan,
Tashbih Sayyed,
Tom Rose
Walid Phares.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html

[Leonard Pulver]

Everyman wrote:
>
> Here is a new French site investigating the attack on the Pentagon.
> More evidence poinint to a frameup conspiracy.
>

like all the conspiracy theorists .......... just fruitcake
..... nuts too

[Everyman]

Leonard Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote

> like all the conspiracy theorists .......... just fruitcake
> ..... nuts too

Here's one for you, Leonard:
-----------------------------------------

DEBUNKING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

PARANOID FANTASIES ABOUT SEPT 11 DISTRACT FROM THE REAL ISSUES

by Gerard Holmgren debu...@hotmail.com

Copyright Gerard Holmgren.

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.

[Everyman]

"Everyman" <sil...@nwinfo.net> wrote

> You need to check this site:
>
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart
>
> and these pages:

>
> Here are the urls for these pages on APFN:
>
> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

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

Wait! Let's back up.

To make these discoveries about the true nature of the attack on the
Pentagon understandable to those just now waking up to the fact that
things have gone rotten in the US -- let me share the following
message from Will Holmgren, the acknowledged dean of 9-11
investigators:

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_germany_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 Observer¹s 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=A35744-2002May17&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.net/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-BurningQuestionsNeedAnswers.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%255E15574,00.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_CDI.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

Scanned images of the actual document.
12.4 Page i http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm
12.5 Page ii http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-ii.htm
12:6 Page iii http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-iii.htm
12.7 Page 1 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-1.htm
12.8 Page 2 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-2.htm
12.9 Page 3 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-3.htm
12.10 Page 4 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-4.htm
12.11 Page 5 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-5.htm
12.12 Page 6 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-6.htm
12.13 Page 7 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-7.htm
12.14 Page 8 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm
12.15 Page 9 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-9.htm
12:16 Page 10 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-10.htm
12.17 Page 11 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-11.htm
12.18 Page 12 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-12.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=A46446-2002Sep20&notFound=true

[Everyman]

1) Power and the new world order
By Henry C K Liu

2) Kenneth Clarke: 'Revolting regime is not a basis for war'

3) Charities 'Shocked' By Lack Of Plan For Refugees: Anglo-American
invaders are without plans for providing for inevitable civilian
victims of war

4) War to take $85 billion out of US standard of living ("Heck,
eveyone in the US is rich anyway, sowhy not? Besides sacrifice builds
character and makes for less spoiled kids, eh what?") (And of course
in the UK war is socialized and so the Brits pay nothing for it.
Ain't that right?)

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

Global Economy

Power and the new world order
By Henry C K Liu

Thomas L Friedman, three-time Pulitzer-winning columnist for the New
York Times, is the ordained voice of US neo-liberalism. In his
February 17 column, Friedman reported that China was described
privately by an aide of US President George W Bush as "not having a
dog in this fight" at the UN Security Council debate over Iraq.
Friedman offered a tutorial to China on the new international order
of World War III, which he saw as having been set off by the events
of September 11, 2001.

Friedman wrote: "The new world system is also bipolar, but instead of
being divided between East and West (as in the Cold War) it is
divided between the World of Order and the World of Disorder. The
World of Order is built on four pillars: the United States, European
Union-Russia, India and China, along with all the smaller powers
around them. The World of Disorder comprises failed states (such as
Liberia), rogue states (Iraq and North Korea), messy states - states
that are too big to fail but too messy to work (Pakistan, Colombia,
Indonesia, many Arab and African states) - and finally the terrorist
and mafia networks that feed off the World of Disorder."

Friedman asserts that the World of Disorder has been made more
dangerous today by globalization, a trend that he has
enthusiastically promoted for a decade since the end of the Cold
War. "In a networked universe, with widely diffused technologies,
open borders and a highly integrated global financial and Internet
system, very small groups of people can amass huge amounts of power
to disrupt the World of Order. Individuals can become super-
empowered. In many ways, September 11 marked the first full-scale
battle between a superpower and a small band of super-empowered angry
men from the World of Disorder." Yet Friedman leaves his Aristotelian
syllogism incomplete, failing to explain how regime changes in
Afghanistan and Iraq and war against defenseless nation-states fit
into "a battle between a superpower and super-empowered individuals".

Friedman asserts that "the job of the four pillars of the World of
Order is to work together to help stabilize and lift up the World of
Disorder". He observes that some Chinese intellectuals, not to
mention French and Russian, "wrongly believe" that they "all have
more to fear from US power than from Osama, Kim or Saddam". He
warns, "If America has to manage the World of Disorder alone, the
American people will quickly tire." And he quotes Michael Mandelbaum,
the Johns Hopkins foreign-policy expert: "'The real threat to world
stability is not too much American power. It is too little American
power.' Too little American power will only lead to the World of
Disorder expanding."

Friedman cannot be referring to military or financial power, of which
the United States has ample supply. He would be right if he were
referring to moral power. The US military is by far the most powerful
in the world, with more advanced technology and greater force-
projection capability than all other nations combined. And dollar
hegemony dominates the global economy. The last Gulf War was largely
paid for by Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing Arabic states, with
substantial benefit for the defense sector of the US economy.

The real threat to world stability is too much military and financial
power coupled with too little moral power on the part of any nation,
and such a combination is particularly dangerous on the part of a
sole superpower. Increasingly, US values, expressed in high-minded
terms such as "democracy" and "freedom", are sounding more like empty
slogans of tiresome propaganda. "Freedom" rings hollow to people
around the world who find themselves unable to pay for privatized
water, the basic necessity of life that used to flow clean and free,
or to those forced to buy imported packaged food they used to grow
free on their own land for themselves. "Democracy" cannot buy
medicine for children exposed to new contagious diseases brought in
by visitors arriving on jetliners, nor can it keep drug prices from
wholesale gouging in the name of intellectual property rights. These
are the real freedoms that have been taken away from much of the
world by US-imposed globalization.

The so-called World of Disorder has been constructed in large measure
by half a century of US foreign and economic policies. Much of this
World of Disorder lay in the US sphere of influence all through the
Cold War. The memory of US support for Osama bin Laden against the
Soviets in Afghanistan and for Saddam Hussein's war against Iran is
still fresh in the minds of the people of the world. And US policies
of sanctions and embargoes have caused millions of deaths and
starvation. Now the world is asked to join a new US crusade against
this year's list of latest evils in the name of order and stability.

A stable world order cannot be constructed out of fear of precision
bombs or tactical nuclear weapons, or with economic sanctions. It can
only be constructed out of equality, equity and non-exploitative
development - elements in short supply in globalization. The world is
not just a marketplace; it is an organism in which disease and
poverty in any of its parts adversely affect the health of the whole
organism. It I hard to visualize how another war can put things
right.
The Bush administration's policy toward China had been aggressively
antagonistic prior to September 11, fanning public paranoia against
the world's most populous nation in the early phases of legitimate
self-renewal as a potential competitor against US global hegemony.
Friedman now beseeches China to help keep alive "the open society in
America" and to help save globalization, "because we Americans will
tighten our borders, triple-check every ship that comes into port and
restrict civil liberties as never before, and this will slow the
whole global economy". He argues: "One more September 11 and your
[China's] growth strategy will be in real trouble [unless you plan on
only exporting duct tape], which means that the Chinese leadership
will be in real trouble." He maintains that China cannot be a "free
rider on an Iraq war" or "leave America to carry the burden of North
Korea". Yet up until September 11, the United States actively
supported separatist terrorism against China. The nuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula is mostly a result of US policy.

Friedman allows that it is quite legitimate for China to oppose the
US waging war on Iraq or North Korea. But he asks in
exasperation: "Why isn't China's foreign minister going to Baghdad
and Pyongyang, slamming his fist on tables and demanding that their
leaders start complying with the United Nations to avoid war?"

Notwithstanding that most households in the United States are now
looking to return the oversupply of duct tape they bought a few days
ago, it would really be a page out of a Wag the Dog screenplay for
the Chinese foreign minister to suggest, let alone demand, that Iraq
or North Korea, both longtime targets of US sanction and other
warlike hostile actions, is morally obligated to save the US from
unilaterally dismantling its domestic civil liberty or to save US-
imposed globalization that has impoverished much of the world. It
would be a more credible scenario if the US secretary of state would
go to Taipei to slam his fist on tables to demand that its leaders
stop flirting with Taiwan independence to avoid war.

Friedman warns: "One more September 11, one bad Iraq war that ties
America down alone in the Middle East and saps its strength, well,
that may go over well with the Cold Warriors in the People's
Liberation Army, but in the real world - in the world where the real
threat you face is not American troops crossing your borders but
American dollars fleeing from them - you will be out of business."

Friedman is right to be concerned about the adverse effects of
terrorism and the uncertainty of another Iraqi war on the slowing US
economy. And it is likely that one outcome of current US foreign
policy of preemptive military attacks on less than clearly imminent
threats will be further reversal of globalization trends.
Globalization had already stalled since the Asian financial crises of
1997, long before the war on terrorism was launched, because the
globalized game of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich is
not sustainable. But Friedman must be astute enough to realize that
China is at best a reluctant participant in the globalization game
and not a zealous advocate. He is well enough informed not to be
oblivious to the fact that serious debate is openly being held among
Chinese planners about the proper policy response to stalled
globalization. Many in China are openly questioning the wisdom of
relying on export, within the context of dollar hegemony, as the sole
engine of growth, or on market fundamentalism as a development
principle, with visible effects of failed markets all over the world.
The argument for a shift from export for dollars toward national
domestic development is fast gaining acceptance among Chinese
policymakers.

Earlier, on January 6, Friedman wrote: "I have no problem with a war
for oil - provided that it is to fuel the first progressive Arab
regime, and not just our SUVs [sport-utility vehicles], and provided
we behave in a way that makes clear to the world we are protecting
everyone's access to oil at reasonable prices - not simply our right
to binge on it." While the path to hell may be paved with good
intentions, the path to nirvana is never paved with devious
justification. Friedman's idea of a postwar "progressive" Iraq is
definitely not a Venezuela of the Middle East, with a democratically
elected president that the Bush White House tried to topple with a
coup. Or is Kuwait or Saudi Arabia Friedman's idea of a "progressive"
regime? He must realize that his "open door" policy on access to
Mideast oil is incompatible with a truly progressive Iraqi regime,
and that "reasonable" oil prices are incompatible with conservation.

In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Friedman wrote that "the
globalization system, unlike the Cold War system, is not static, but
a dynamic ongoing process: globalization involves the inexorable
integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree
never witnessed before - in a way that is enabling individuals,
corporations, and nation-states to reach around the world farther,
faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is
also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left
behind by this new system.

"The driving idea behind globalization is free-market capitalism -
the more you let market forces rule and the more you open your
economy to free trade and competition, the more efficient and
flourishing your economy will be. Globalization means the spread of
free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world.
Globalization also has its own set of economic rules - rules that
revolve around opening, deregulating and privatizing your economy.

"Unlike the Cold War system, globalization has its own dominant
culture, which is why it tends to be homogenizing. Culturally
speaking, globalization is largely, though not entirely, the spread
of Americanization - from Big Macs to iMacs to Mickey Mouse - on a
global scale.

"If the defining anxiety of the Cold War was fear of annihilation
from an enemy you knew all too well in a world struggle that was
fixed and stable, the defining anxiety in globalization is fear of
rapid change from an enemy you can't see, touch or feel - a sense
that your job, community or workplace can be changed at any moment by
anonymous economic and technological forces that are anything but
stable.

"Last, and most important, globalization has its own defining
structure of power, which is much more complex than the Cold War
structure. The Cold War system was built exclusively around nation-
states, and it was balanced at the center by two superpowers: the
United States and the Soviet Union. The globalization system, by
contrast, is built around three balances, which overlap and affect
one another. The first is the traditional balance between nation-
states. In the globalization system, the United States is now the
sole and dominant superpower and all other nations are subordinate to
it to one degree or another. The balance of power between the United
States and the other states still matters for the stability of this
system. And it can still explain a lot of the news you read on the
front page of the papers, whether it is the containment of Iraq in
the Middle East or the expansion of NATO against Russia in Central
Europe.

"The second balance in the globalization system is between nation-
states and global markets. These global markets are made up of
millions of investors moving money around the world with the click of
a mouse. The United States can destroy you by dropping bombs and the
Supermarkets can destroy you by downgrading your bonds. The United
States is the dominant player in maintaining the globalization
gameboard, but it is not alone in influencing the moves on that
gameboard. This globalization gameboard today is a lot like a Ouija
board - sometimes pieces are moved around by the obvious hand of the
superpower, and sometimes they are moved around by hidden hands of
the Supermarkets.

"The third balance that you have to pay attention to in the
globalization system - the one that is really the newest of all - is
the balance between individuals and nation-states. Because
globalization has brought down many of the walls that limited the
movement and reach of people, and because it has simultaneously wired
the world into networks, it gives more power to individuals to
influence both markets and nation-states than at any time in history.
So you have today not only a superpower, not only Supermarkets, but,
as I will also demonstrate later in the book, you have Super-
empowered individuals. Some of these Super-empowered individuals are
quite angry, some of them quite wonderful - but all of them are now
able to act directly on the world stage without the traditional
mediation of governments, corporations or any other public or private
institutions."

Friedman went on: "Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire with his own
global network, declared war on the United States in the late 1990s,
and the US Air Force had to launch a cruise-missile attack on him as
though he were another nation-state. We fired cruise missiles at an
individual!"

So, assuming the September 11 attacks were indeed masterminded by
Osama bin Laden, the attacks were, by Friedman's account, merely
retaliatory strikes.

But Friedman's mentality transcends his personal insights. It is a
mentality of arrogance of power for which the United States has been
criticized by many. US moral imperialism demands not only quiet
submissiveness from its victims, but vocal loyal support. Not only is
globalization a game of heads I win for the US, and tails you lose
for other participants, Friedman has the audacity to dangle
globalized trade as a political favor from the United States to be
granted only to sycophant partners. If China wants to continue to
export goods manufactured by low-paid labor in exchange for dollars
that the US can print at will, and in the process keeping US
inflation unnaturally low even in the face of fiscal
irresponsibility, to earn a trade surplus unspendable in the Chinese
domestic economy as it must be held as foreign-exchange reserves in
dollar-denominated instruments to finance the US trade deficit, then
China had better fall in line to unquestioningly support US political
hegemony.

It is easy to act humbly when you are rich; the trick offered by
Friedman is for the United States is to be arrogant when it is in
debt up to its ears. The fact is that the US can no more dispense
with low-cost Chinese imports than it can do without Mideast oil,
both of which it pays for with paper money it can print without
restriction. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said on the same
day as Friedman's article: "China's ballooning trade surplus with the
US is a boon to global growth and therefore desirable at a time when
the economies of Japan and Europe are pretty stagnant." So who's
kidding whom?

US-China trade faces stagnant growth anyway unless the United States
abandons its sanction on high-technology export to China. With the US
relocating all manufacturing offshore under globalization, high tech
and military systems are the main US exports outside of agriculture
and financial services. Thus high-tech sanctions put a damper on US-
China trade growth and contribute to the growth of the US trade
deficit. Last year, China overtook the United States as the leading
exporter to Japan (US$61.7 billion, up 6.1 percent from 2001),
accounting for 18.3 percent of Japanese imports, while US export to
Japan dropped 9.5 percent to $57.5 billion. The US exported $22
billion to China, imported $125 billion (against import of $121
billion from Japan), chalking up a deficit to China of $103 billion
in 2002. In 1985, the US incurred a trade deficit of $6 million with
China.

Friedman is not just another columnist. He is the celebrated
spokesman for US neo-liberalism and, as such, his views are highly
influential on, if not in concert with, US policy. In fact, US
officials have been making similar noises in recent days about US
dissatisfaction on China's posture on Iraq and North Korea. Yet the
war on Iraq is not simply about oil. The United States already
controls the global oil market and it does not need a war to
consolidate its hold further. Despite recent surges, oil prices are
still low by historical standards and as long as oil is denominated
in dollars, the rise and fall of oil prices do not present
insurmountable problems for the US economy. Petro-dollars are in
essence captured US assets.

If Friedman is really concerned about open access to oil at
reasonable prices for everybody, he should support a progressive
pricing regime for oil with higher prices for high per-capita
consumption markets. The more you waste, the more you pay - the
conservation formula of market fundamentalism. The average
consumption in the inclusive period of 1983-2001 was 4.47 barrels per
person per year for the world. A barrel of oil contains 5.8 million
British thermal units (BTU). In 1995, US per capita usage was 327
million BTU per year, which is equivalent to 56.38 barrels of oil,
12.6 times of world average. On a deeper level, the real threat on
long-term economic growth for the global economy is not the price of
commodities but the tyranny of mostly Western intellectual property
rights.

The war on Iraq is part of a US grand strategy to reposition the
entire post-Cold War global geopolitical landscape to reflect a new
world order with a single superpower. The split in the European Union
into Old and New Europe over the Iraq war is part of a US objective
of establishing a new US satellite system in Eastern European client
states to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet
satellite system. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is
being transformed from a defensive alliance for Europe against the
Soviet bloc to an offensive proxy war machine for US policy of moral
imperialism. France, Germany, Russia and China are working not as
allies, but as nations with common interest in preventing the US in
again turning the UN Security Council into a lap dog of US foreign
policy, as the International Monetary Fund has been for US financial
hegemony in the past two decades.

Henry C K Liu is chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group.

(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
con...@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)

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

Item #2:

Kenneth Clarke: 'Revolting regime is not a basis for war'
Michael White, political editor
Thursday February 27, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,903804,00.html

The former Conservative chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, a once-and-future
candidate for his party's leadership, yesterday dismissed
"anti-American,
leftwing peaceniks" but placed himself firmly in their camp over the
Iraqi
crisis.

Like many critics of the looming war in yesterday's commons debate Mr
Clarke
conceded that, if war comes, it is likely to be "quite easily" won.
But he
warned that the repercussions of a US-led invasion could be profound
for the
wider world.

Arguing that the containment policy towards Saddam Hussein's regime
over the
past 12 years has worked, Mr Clarke put himself directly at odds with
his
party leader Iain Duncan Smith and with his tactical ally, Michael
Portillo.

More time must be given to the UN's weapons inspection team, he said.
"Other
approaches - diplomatic, deterrent policy, the use of threat to get
compliance - have not yet been exhausted," Mr Clarke said amid murmers
of
support from the Labour benches.

Backing the rebel amendment, he said: "If we ask ourselves today
whether the
case for war has now been established, I think this house ought to say
not,
and there is still a case for giving more time to other peaceful
alternatives for enforcing our objectives.

"We should take as much time as is necessary to achieve disarmament
and we
should resort to warfare once it is plain all other methods are
exhausted."

The "revolting nature of the Iraqi regime" is not a legal basis for
war, he
told MPs. Nor has there been real proof that, although Saddam has
material
he should not, he possesses the means to deliver weapons of mass
destruction
that pose a threat to his neighbours, Mr Clarke said.

"I don't believe there is any evidence of links to al Qaida. I don't
believe
they pose a threat to New York or London. I think that's an insult to
our
intelligence," said Mr Clarke who belongs to the "Ted Heath"
generation of
Tories attracted more to Europe than to the US.

"I cannot rid myself of doubts that the course to war we are now
embarked on
was actually decided on many months ago, primarily in Washington, and
we've
seen a fairly remorseless unfolding of events since that time.

"That's why middle England and a lot of very moderate political
opinion in
this country" had such doubts about military action.

"We should avoid it because of the consequences of war. How many other
terrorists will we recruit in the long standing battle against
international
terrorism, which is going to be far harder to win? And what will we
have
done to the stability of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt?

"Next time a large bomb goes off in a western city, how far did this
policy
contribute to it? Next time an Arab or Muslim regime is toppled by a
regime
far more extreme, how far did this policy contribute to it?"

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

===========

Item #3:

Charities 'shocked' by lack of plan for refugees
By Marie Woolf Chief Political Correspondent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=382085
27 February 2003

Charities have warned that Iraq faces a far worse humanitarian crisis
than
Afghanistan after a war and accused the Government of failing to
prepare for
the emergency.

The aid agencies predicted that 900,000 Iraqis could flee, mostly to
neighbouring Iran. Yet the Government had no contingency plans, such
as
talking to neighbouring states about opening their borders and setting
up
refugee camps, the agencies said.

In the Commons, Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International
Development, accused the charities of "grandstanding". She said
Britain was
giving an extra £3.5m to support United Nations contingency planning
for
humanitarian relief in Iraq.

Save the Children said it was shocked by the lack of preparations by
the
Government when planning should have started three months ago. A
spokesman
said: "We are not able to prepare essential supplies and we are not
able to
place orders for specialist equipment and resources and we are not
able to
make concrete plans to respond to the threats we foresee. It's very
worrying
that the European Union and the UK Government have not been
preparing."

Christian Aid said there was "huge potential" for catastrophe. "When
there's
war all distribution of aid breaks down ... We need to come up with
preparations. But I don't see a plan," a spokesman said.

Ms Short said the UN must take the lead in running Iraq after a war.
Her
"greatest worry" was that the international community had not yet
agreed the
UN should run any interim administration.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

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

Item #4:

Gulf News
Dubai:Thursday, February 27, 2003
Pentagon to White House: Iraq invasion will cost $85b
Washington |By Peter G. Gosselin and Robin Wright | 27-02-2003
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=78793

The Pentagon is telling the White House and Congress that defeating
Iraq and
occupying the country for six months could cost as much as $85
billion,
according to sources - considerably more than what senior
administration
officials have said in public.

Combined with aid for regional allies such as Turkey, the price tag
for the
conflict could top the $100 billion mark, twice the war costs cited
last
month by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and an amount the White
House
dismissed as outlandish last fall.

And the tally could rise still further. Indeed, some close to the
process
say war planners have no firm grip on the conflict's final costs, a
fact
that is causing consternation among administration policy-makers as
the
nation edges closer to war. "It's like watching numbers roll higher
and
higher on a slot machine," said one State Department official, who
asked not
to be identified.

This official said that during recent interagency meetings, White
House
budget aides "put their hands over their ears and said, "We're not
listening."

"We can't take any more requests. Get a grip on this process and
figure out
exactly what you're planning," the official remembered the aides as
saying.
"They basically said 'Get a hold of yourselves.'" A spokes-man for the
Office of Manage-ment and Budget refused to comment on that account
Tuesday
and said the administration had yet to settle on the amount it would
ask
Congress to provide. President Bush's budgets for both this fiscal
year and
next included no money for war with Iraq.

"The president has not yet been presented with any numbers" for war
costs,
said OMB communications director Trent Duffy. The costs are "all
subject to
decisions the president has yet to make," said Duffy, "so it's
premature to
speculate what they might be."

Bush himself suggested Tuesday that war costs must come second to
national
security. "There are all kinds of estimates about the cost of war,"
the
president told reporters after a session with his new economic
advisers.
"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this
country
being jeopardised at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass
destruction,
far exceeds the risks of any action."

Sources said Bush had been scheduled to meet Tuesday with Rumsfeld and
OMB
Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. to discuss war costs and the price of
a
U.S. occupation of Iraq. No details were available.

Washington has been abuzz about a war's impact on the federal budget
and the
economy since last fall, when former White House economic adviser
Lawre-nce
B. Lindsey estimated the conflict's costs could run between $100
billion and
$200 billion. Other administration officials rushed to dismiss the
estimate
and Lindsey was subsequently fired. Since then, lawmakers, OMB and
Congressional Budget Office analysts and outside experts have
generally
estimated that the immediate costs of war - deployment of U.S. troops,
fighting and early occupation - would be between $50 billion and $60
billion. In recent interviews, Rumsfeld put the price tag at "under
$50
billion."

© Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service

[Everyman]

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)

==========

Also,. this letter from a reader:

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.

KS

[Everyman]

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,talk.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?

----------

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:

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.

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

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.

===========

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.

=======

ngle -- 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

"Alignment
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

proof."

had passed the cemetery and was converging with the killer jet upon

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 the latter got over the
building, immediately hidden by the bright blast and subsequent thick

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. The inappropriately white-hot initial explosion. A Phantom jet,
in an
experiment was crashed into a giant solid block of concrete where it
made a
very small white-hot explosion. But the blast shown in frame two of
the
security camera footage shows white hot-explosion that is over 100
feet
igh -- indicative of the high-explosive warhead of an air-to-ground
missile
(see the Missile Plume proof, above.) -- Could a Boeing 575 hitting
the
Pentagon wall made that giant super-high enery blast captured on video
tape?
Consider: The killer jet went through six walls! That means that,
unlike
the crashing Phantom jet which made only a small white-hot explosion
(a
meter across or so) impacted with a solid wall that did not yield, so
that
every bit of the kinetic energy went into pulverizing concrete and
plane on
the spot -- whereas the first wall of the Pentagon that was hit gave
way
(forgetting that this wall was softened by a missile before the
fighter jet
went through remember -- but we are testing the "official version"
assumptions here, remember), so that most of the kinetic energy
continued
with the still moving fuselage and with the pieces of wall that went
flying
back when hit -- and this happened through six walls, the last being
the
innermost wall of the C-ring. Slower than the Phantom and pushing
through a
wall --THROUGH ONLY A CIRCLE OF WALL THREE METERS IN DIAMETER!!! -- so
that
there could not have been the tremndous material stresses -- the
conversion
of all that kinetic energy to heat energy at a single point to make
even a
small white-hot explosion like that seen. This is the "White-hot
explosion proof."

9 . 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.

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

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 throw 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 50 FBI guys on the
scene
immediately picking up confetti debris (see

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart ) but only one piece was left for

photographers -- that planted piece with the AA lettering (from the
wrong
side of the plane-- as investigators later noticed)-- 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, Angel Elf, Agent86, Pigpiss and Don 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)

==========

Also:

Everyman,

KS

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.

KS

Are you a Mason?

[Everyman]

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

I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race tracks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17&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

7:5 The Pentaogn crash hoax
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[Everyman]

Leonard Pulver <red...@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3E5D0C8C...@gta.igs.net>...

Is that what you think God wants you to tell me? Or are you an
atheist -- in which case what does it matter if I am right or wrong,
unless you are getting paid to assist in this coverup? But maybe you
are a Rothschild Zionist who believe it your God-given destiny to turn
the goy into your personal milking cows in a world in debt slavery --
thank God most jews see through that evil deceit now.

I was a member of a Nazarene Church in Yakima, when the Gulf War was
foisted upon us. I remember at the end of the evening service
standing up and stating that I could not see Jesus dropping napalm on
innocent Iraqis -- that was before we know what wholesale sadistic
slaughter of fleeing Iraqi soldiers took place, before we knew that
George W. Bush had given his personal permission for Saddam to invade
Kuwait, that the propaganda about Iraqi's stealing neo-natal intensive
care isolets from a Kuwait hospital was a pure propganda fabrication!!

another writer -- a discussant rather than a hirling disputant --
wrote in response to one of my messages in another group:

>
> What about the bodies of the passengers. Using the concept of the
> unsinged passport at the WTC the accounts I've read don't say much
> about the passengers. The nearest I saw was a guy giving an abstract
> account of what generally he looks for in such cases. I don't get the
> feeling from these accounts that it was a gory scene. Afterall the
> passengers were said to be at the rear of the plane.

I agree. Also, no report of burning flesh odor. And even the reports
of body parts found inside -- a thumb for example -- was not
burned!!!

ANd of course we have disinformation artist John Judge's stewardess
girl friend who flew on exactly that flight, and who was shown the arm
of just her girlfriend stewardess who just happened to always wear the
bracelet that John Judges friend just happened to have given her -- as
if the FBI agent knew exactly what picture of what arm with a bracelet
to show her!!! THe whole coverup is rotten -- and can't stand up
except for the reasonable desire in all of us not to believe that the
super rich could be this depraved and that our government could have
gotten this far wrong without our knowing about it.

ANd not only where there not passengers bodies on the lawn or
scattered around on the inside, but not even airline chairs that the
passengers sat in!!!!

The perpetrators are planning another frameup mass-murder atrocity to
get their war -- March 3 -- the initial PR (Pentacostal prophecies
etc.) are already going out to condition the people.

It's Sunday -- I just walked out of another church service (my wife,
a nurse, was working, and so I took my six-year-old daughter to church
-- and the pastor was praying not for peace but that we would defeat
Islam! I walked out, leaving my daughter -- who doesn't know about
war or what it means -- I'll go back and pick her up after her sunday
school.

-------

I was a member of a Nazarene Church in Yakima, when the Gulf War was
foisted upon us. I remember at the end of the evening service
standing up and stating that I could not see Jesus dropping napalm on
innocent Iraqis -- that was before we know what wholesale sadistic
slaughter of fleeing Iraqi soldiers took place, before we knew that
George W. Bush had given his personal permission for Saddam to invade
Kuwait, that the propaganda about Iraqi's stealing neo-natal intensive
care isolets from a Kuwait hospital was a pure propganda fabrication!!

ANd the pastor on the following monday, when I went to see him, told
me that I had no ministry there, that my teaching of 5th grade sunday
school was over -- that it would be better if I left etc.

How far from god is false-religion, the christianity that honors him
with thier lips, and yet murders and murders and murders for
covetousness and pride and deceit.

Blessed are the peacemakers

Here is a little ditty for British and American soldiers:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html

[Everyman]

1) Big Business to Cater the Killing -- Privatization of Most
Traditionally Military Logistics Functions, All Government Need Add Is
Our Boys' Blood

2) Pearle and Sharon: " The Invasion is all about giving Iraqis true
freedom and demcracy, don't you know."

3) *

4) US Diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, Resigns in Protest

5) Various notes

==========

I T E M # 1 :

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905672,00.html
Sunday March 2, 2003
The Observer

More than 40,000 British troops are bracing themselves for action in
the
Gulf. 'Our Boys' are backed by hundreds of tanks, fighter jets and
warships
in what is the UK's biggest military build-up since the Falklands
conflict.

But any imminent action against Iraq will be historic for another
reason.
This could be the last war fought by British armed forces
predominantly in
the public sector. The Ministry of Defence is poised to enter into a
welter
of partnerships with business, ushering in the most fundamental
shake-up of
the military for more than 100 years.

Entire training, logistics and supply operations are set to be hived
off to
big business in the most far-reaching intrusion of the private sector
into
what was considered the state's preserve. More than 900 procedural
reviews
by MoD officials and consultants are coming to a head. There are
strong
indications from within the ministry and unions that a shift is under
way
from the armed forces' procurement body being a 'decider and provider'
of
logistic support to an 'intelligent decider' that may contract out
most
requirements,.

The Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO), which costs £6 billion a
year - a
quarter of the MoD's budget - is responsible for providing supplies
such as
arms, food and aircraft. It is the prime candidate for a radical shift
away
from traditional procurement.

Advised by McKinsey since last summer, a recently published DLO
strategic
plan said that to achieve its vision would require it to 'leverage
industrial capacity and shape our relationship with industry'.

The shift will be welcomed by companies such as Compass and Sodexho,
which
provide food services, and a host of defence contractors.

Training of troops is the other main area of focus. BAE Systems and VT
Group, the shipbuilder and defence PFI specialist, along with Thales
and a
number of building firms, are set to benefit hugely from lucrative new
contracts. Training schools for the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air
Force are
now separate, but they are set to amalgamate in what could be a
property
bonanza.

Most controversially, perhaps, management of the armed forces' secret
files - which cover Northern Ireland, the Gulf war and a host of
sensitive
and historic areas - is set to be handed over to a private contractor.
Two
private firms are vying to take on the contract, move staff from west
London
to the North and computerise the records.

Alarm bells are ringing about Britain's fighting capability being
fatally
compromised by wide-ranging privatisation. Critics point to recent MoD
procurement from the private sector as the shape of things to come,
and list
a number of botched or delayed key projects :

· Most glaring is the scandal over the multi-million-pound upgrade of
RAF
Nimrod aircraft, which suffered a setback because the wings built by
BAE
were the wrong size. Nimrods are used for reconnaissance and submarine
hunting and have been deployed in every significant British military
operation in the past 30 years. Not this one, though.

· New Apache helicopters, costing £27m each, are being mothballed at a
cost
of £6m. The National Audit Office (NAO) last November found pilot
training
was messed up because of an attempt to introduce competition into the
regime, which cost an extra £34m. The helicopters are absent from the
Gulf
deployment.

· The SA80 rifle, once feted as the ultimate assault weapon, was the
target
of widespread complaints by soldiers. Made by BAE, it could not be
fired in
the left-handed position because ejected rounds hit the firer in the
face,
it was difficult to maintain in bad weather and the magazine fell out
when
carried against the body. The faults have since been corrected,
according to
the MoD.

· Halliburton, the oil and defence combine that US vice-president Dick
Cheney worked for, was contracted to rebuild Devonport dockyard in
Plymouth.
Last December, an NAO report said the price had escalated from £505m
to
£933m and could be a lot more.

· Britain's Gulf build-up has already been dogged by supply shortages
and
equipment failures. Ten days ago it emerged that troops in Kuwait are
so
short of rations they are being sent food parcels by their families.
Basics
such as desert boots are unavailable. There are even reports of
shortages of
toilet paper.

'It was horrific logistical debacles during the Crimean War in 1854
and the
Boer War in the early 1900s which forced government to take overall
responsibility for procuring supplies and co-ordinating military
training,'
said Dean Rogers, negotiations officer at the Public and Commercial
Services
Union, which represents thousands of civil servants currently working
in the
armed services. 'Now there is a serious risk that this is all being
unwound
and the implications are truly frightening.'

Senior officers have voiced doubts in private about the imminent
shift. They
are training a searchlight at beleaguered Defence Secretary Geoff
Hoon, and
asking if he is aware of the magnitude of the reviews undertaken by
his
department.

One prominent officer who contacted The Observer despaired at the
prospect
of a carve-up. 'The Army spent £3bn on Apache fighter helicopters.
Training
the pilots was a contract given to the private sector. The helicopters
are
ready but there are no pilots. They haven't been trained and I don't
think
they'll be ready for at least three years. This is a shambles. And yet
the
indications are the ministry is proceeding with wholesale
privatisation.'

Last week six trade unions issued a joint statement responding to what
they
see as a 'revolution'. They concluded: 'Despite the assurance that the
McKinsey report is not itself the basis for an implementation
strategy, we
can hardly ignore the view it expressed that DLO could reduce staff by
20-40
per cent... The supply chain has been rationalised and it seems those
savings now merely form the baseline against which further
private-sector
involvement will deliver.'

In addition, unions responsible for Britain's 90,000-strong fighting
force
say the criteria for offering vast tranches of work in contracts worth
billions of pounds are skewed in favour of business at the expense of
in-house alternatives.

The MoD has been one of privatisation's standard bearers following the
sale
of Royal Ordnance in the early 1980s. It is now set to go into
uncharted
territory with everything bar its core competence up for grabs. A
ministry
spokesman said it had a duty to ensure value for money. It was not
predisposed to privatisation but reform was necessary. 'We certainly
don't
accept our policies are daft, damaging and demoralising,' a spokesman
said.

Hoon may be used to being vilified following flak over his decision to
take
a half-term family skiiing holiday as troops were being deployed to
the
Gulf. But as the MoD quick-steps into a new era, a new front against
Hoon
could be opening up among his own staff.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

====

I T E M # 2 :

Making the World Safe for Sharon's Israel
Saturday, March 01 2003 @ 01:24 AM GMT
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030301012450938

"Thanks to Perle's persuasion, along with that of other members of
what the
Washington Post (02/09/03) labeled the 'Likudnik cabal,' the American
president is preparing to export 'democracy' to Iraq .."

By William Hughes

(PalestineChronicle.com) - Who invented democracy? Here in the
Christian
West, we have always given credit to the Greeks. This was long before
one of
democracy's most fraudulent adherents, the odious Richard Perle,
appeared on
the world stage. He wants to use what HE calls, "democracy," to make
the
Middle East safe for Israel. And he cleverly pretends his scheme is in
our
national interest. As a Missouri farmer might say of him, "That guy is
full
of it!"

Now, thanks to Perle's persuasion, along with that of other members of
what
the Washington Post (02/09/03) labeled the "Likudnik cabal," the
American
president, George W. Bush Jr., is preparing to export "democracy" to
Iraq.
It will be delivered via a massive military invasion. No vote by the
Iraqi
people will be permitted on this question. Iran, Syria, Lebanon,
Libya,
Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia, too, may be next
on our
"democracy" hit list.

Since there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat
to the
U.S. or that he had any connections whatsoever to the terrorist
al-Qaeda
outfit and 9/11, another "causa belli" had to be found: It's
democracy! This
will be the U.S. battle cry for the conflict with Iraq.

This is reminiscent of President Woodrow Wilson's sloganeering the
U.S. into
WWI. He wanted to "make the world safe for democracy." It's too bad
that
campaign ended up so miserably. It helped to create conditions that
gave
rise to Adolph Hitler, the notorious Balfour Declaration, the fall of
Mother
Russia, and the partitioning of Ireland, among other dubious
achievements.
We can only wait to see where this latest "democracy crusade" will
plunge
mankind.

The shadowy Perle is a former defense department official in the
Reagan
administration. He is presently the chief honcho of the powerful
Pentagon
Defense Policy Board. Back in 1996, he, along with other Likudnik
brainstormers, helped to publish a policy paper, "A Clean Break," for
the
Israelis. It advocated the U.S. taking out Iraq (see, Bill and
Kathleen
Christison's "Too Many Smoking Guns" expose', 01/25/03, and "Is War
Inevitable?" by Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, 02/26/03, for more
particulars).

In Bush's remarks, 02/26/03, before the American Enterprise Institute,
a
neo-conservative think tank, he said, "A free Iraq" could become "a
beacon
of democracy across the Middle East." This could only happen, the
president
added, "After the growing threat from Saddam is gone." This speech was
Perle
's "Get Iraq Doctrine" being transformed into holy dogma. What a proud
moment it must have been for a man, like Perle, who is so intimate
with
Israeli insiders, such as its ex-premier, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Paul Craig Roberts, an intrepid pundit, predicted all of this for
LewRockwell.com, on 12/31/02. He wrote, "In 2003, the story will be
confirmed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a 'secret Israeli plan'
designed to involve the U.S. long-term in the Arab-Israeli conflict,
cynically sold to the Bush White House by 'neo-conservatives' as a
reflective strategy." Well, this is 2003. Perle is "Mr.
Neo-conservative"
and the "secret Israeli plan," is out in the open. (See also, William
Rivers
Pitt's excellent "Blood Money" article, in Truthout, 02/27/03, for
more
background on this subject matter.)

Meanwhile, Perle's favorite "democracy," Israel, has just elected a
new
regime that is slightly to the right of Genghis Kahn. It will be led
by the
75-year-old crackpot, Ariel Sharon. One of the parties, the National
Union,
that makes up his extremely hawkish Likud coalition, openly advocates
the
"ethnic cleansing" of the Palestinians. Lt. General Shaul Mofaz, a
prime
architect of the IDF's rampage at Jenin, will return as the defense
minister.

For untold reasons, Israel's barbarous treatment of the Palestinians
is a
mostly taboo subject. Its death squads, and collective punishment and
torture of the Palestinians, are hardly ever mentioned in the media.
It has
also been stealing hundreds of thousands of acres of land from the
Palestinians, since 1948. Unlike Iraq, Israel stands in violation of
68
Resolutions of the UN. The hypocrisy of the U.S. supposedly fighting
to
establish "democracy" in Iraq, while aligning itself with the
undemocratic
Sharonists, staggers the imagination.

Finally, any U.S. led war with Iraq will not really be about bringing
democracy to that country, or about removing Saddam from power. It
will
mostly be about making the world safe for Sharon's Israel. For that
foul
deed, the repulsive Richard Perle, who has been pulling wires for
decades,
will take a bow.

William Hughes is the author of "Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order"
(Authors Choice Press), which is available online. He can be reached
at
liamh...@mindspring.com.

Copyright © 2002 Palestine Chronicle.

===========

Received:

This was a gathering of ordinary citizens who came together in the
streets of the world in an organized event that has no precedent in
all of human history. They were brought together by a global
word-of-mouth activism rooted entirely in the Internet. Were it not
for this planetary connection, no such coordination could have ever
taken place. Once upon a time, the world wide web was a realm
dominated by dreams of profit and marketing. Those dreams have soured,
leaving behind a marvelous network now utilized by very average people
who can, with the click of a button, bring forth from all points on
the compass a roaring deluge of humanity to stand against craven
injustice and ruinous war.

From an article by William Rivers Pitt in truthout - read it all here
-

http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm

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

I T E M # 4 :

Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four
Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State Colin
Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus
far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story
which reports on this remarkable event can be found after Kiesling's
letter. - wrp

http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml

U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign
Service of the United States and from my position as Political
Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a
heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation
to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a
dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to
seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to
persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided.
My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in
my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State
Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the
narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our
policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted
for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had
been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my
president I was also upholding the interests of the American people
and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not
only with American values but also with American interests. Our
fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the
international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of
both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have
begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international
relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring
instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to
bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a
uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic
distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American
opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us
stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international
coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against
the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those
successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make
terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely
defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate
terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the
unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the
motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth
to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American
citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as
much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to
so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model,
a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in
the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of
the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two
years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and
mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our
partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is
at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies
wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in
whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is
blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to
our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to
terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in
Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with
Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our
friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up
over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is
justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift
into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our
President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our
friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among
its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our
motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even
here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have
more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can
possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance,
Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and
they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close
partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it
is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them
convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty,
security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and
ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than
our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses
of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to
the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an
international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of
laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on
our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's
ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my
conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S.
Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is
ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can
contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the
security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

John Brady Kiesling

U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'
By Felicity Barringer
New York Times

Thursday 27 February 2003

UNITED NATIONS — A career diplomat who has served in United
States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this
week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq.

The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the
United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our
fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the
international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of
both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."

Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years,
said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to
Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas
Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision.

He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the
expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues.

"No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he
said. "Too much has been invested in the war."

Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said he had no
information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was department policy
not to comment on personnel matters.

In his letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times
by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the diplomat wrote Mr. Powell: "We
should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world
that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years
done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and
mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our
partners."

His letter continued: "Even where our aims were not in question,
our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little
comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the
Middle East, and in whose image and interests."

It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat, immersed in the
State Department's culture of public support for policy, regardless of
private feelings, to resign with this kind of public blast. From 1992
to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with
the Clinton administration's Balkans policy.

Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic
colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my colleagues is comfortable
with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal.
The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team
game — we have a very strong premium on loyalty."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)

© Copyright 2002 by TruthOut.org

===========

Bush usually is very careful to keep the richest 1% happy. He gave
them 43% of the trillion dollar tax cut. He deregulates so they can
do whatever they please to the environment. ...

The dollar is collapsing because of money leaving the country or
being converted to Euros or gold. Americans lost 24% of all their US
wealth last year because of this. War jitters and $300 billion
deficits are not exactly what you need to build faith in an economy.

(from ro...@mindprod.com))

===========

9-11 was a frameup. The proof is the Pentagon attack evidence. It is
the smoking gun that will convince any impartial grand jury. It is
the Achilles heel of debt-slaver high-finance-racketeering
globalization.

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.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

[Le Permanent Marker]

Hit1Hard <Hit.On...@iaehv.nl> wrote in message

> World'sNicestGuy wrote:
>
> > What the fuck is the matter with you, you stupid troll? There was no 3
> > meter diameter hole

> Ah, Mr Gooding has morphed again.. Bye again Paul <sigh>....

Yes, he has to morph because people after one or two of his messages
under each name vow to read him no more. Still he is not as abrasive
as a courtesy call at dinner time -- his absurd hostility reminds me
of Moe in the three stooges -- I could just see him try to poke me in
the eyes with his fingers in the "V-for-victory" sign as Moe did
Curley and Shemp.

Profanity is a sign of stress and of not having a more effective
response at hand. I trust, Hard Hit that you have seen the three
photos of the hole and that it was ten feet across MAX. Clearly
Gooding is not enjoying his job.
>
> I don't want to read you or need your unimpressing output<s> in the several
> threads that I read, that is why I killfiled you allready 8 or 9
> times.. You on the other hand keep morphing.. NOW, WHO Is the "troll"
> here?
> Me who is already posting under the same nick and ISP for years, and
> thus easely killfiled.. or "you"?
>
> --
> Hit1Hard.

I think guys like that stalk you just because you are a well known and
respected quantity -- reminds me of the young punks in old cowboy
westerns who want to go up against the fastest gun.

Anyway Hard-Hit, since it seems to be just you and me and the goons,
let me know what you think of these articles. Pay special attention
to the LaRouche interview and the one on "The LAst Crusade" by
Novakeo. (Also the article on intended use of gas in Iraq.)

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

I.

I am one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent
President Bush from launching a military invasion of Iraq without
Congressional declaration of war because to do so would be in direct
violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states
"Congress shall have Power ... [t]o declare War.

The "October Resolution" did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to
the President the decision of whether or not to send this nation into
war. Furthermore, this resolution violates the War Powers Act of 1973,
since there was no finding or statement in it of a clear and/or
imminent threat by Iraq to this nation, which is specifically required
under the War Powers Act.

On February 24, 2003 the First Circuit Court of Appeals in
Massachusetts agreed to an expedited hearing of this legal challenge
to Bush's authority to invade Iraq absent a Congressional declaration
of war. The Court turned down the government's request for more time.
The hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday March 4 at 9 a.m. in
Boston.

Ever since September 11th, the current Administration has sought to
keep us scared about really stupid issues and stupid about really
scary issues. If we dare to criticize, we are termed unpatriotic or
cowardly. As the whole course of history teaches us, these methods are
very effective.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders
of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple
matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Have we become so risk-adverse in this country that we believe that
death is an option? Do we think that any of us are going to get out of
here alive? Will we sacrifice our Constitutional responsibilities as
well as liberties in order to remain 'safe'?

Our apathy has reached such proportions that, despite everything
hanging in the balance, fewer people voted in the 2002 election than
watched the World Series, which had one of the lowest ratings in its
history. Prior to that election, our Representative and Senators
cravenly compromised whatever ethics and morals they may have left by
passing the October Resolution rather than risk losing their seats by
opposing a popular President. Given the voter turnout, how ludicrous
was that?

For months now people have been telling me to 'get over it', to accept
that it's 'out of my control', to cease and desist rather than be
judged a 'crank' and of course, 'love it or leave it'. My government
has told me that I should limit my efforts to buying more products,
including duct tape and plastic sheeting, when it is our greed and our
vast carelessness that got us into this mess in the first place, and
to trust their superior wisdom and judgment.

Excuse me? Weren't we all taught in our civics classes that power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

It is the obligation; it is the sacred duty of the citizens of a
democracy to be critical of its government. As Thomas Jefferson
wrote," for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and
distrustful superintendence."

Therefore, when Military Families Speak Out asked me to join in this
lawsuit, I accepted with alacrity. I have a son in the Navy (inactive)
reserves who, of course, could be called back at any time. He spent
six months in the Persian Gulf in 2000.

But more importantly, my late husband served in Nam during the Tet
Offensive, patrolling the Mekong Delta on a Swift Boat. He certainly
could have availed himself of other options in order to avoid active
military duty but he felt that would have been unfair to those without
his connections.

He was never the same.

For the rest of his life, he would not discuss his experiences there.
He read every book and saw every movie (alone) but to speak of it was
verboten. Some two decades after his return, I entered our bedroom to
find him watching Letters From Nam, alone in the dark. By the glow of
the television set, I could see the tears streaming down his face.
That gentle and decent man went to his grave without anyone ever
explaining, never mind justifying, to him why he had been ordered to
do the things he did and witness the horrors he witnessed.

This can never be allowed to happen again.

My question to President Bush, who didn't even fulfill his National
Guard obligations, is "How dare you? How dare you send another
generation of our fine young people to fight in a war of dubious
necessity that hasn't been declared by Congress? How dare you?"

My question to the members of Congress, only one of whom has a child
serving in the military is, "How dare you? How dare you violate the
separation of powers set forth in this nation's Constitution by
delegating the authority to wage war to the Executive Branch, months
in advance, without any proof of an imminent threat? How dare you?"

Our young men and women enlisted in the armed forces to defend this
country, not to engage in a preemptive, offensive strike, in violation
of the Constitution and international law, against a country that has
done nothing, nothing, to harm us since the end of the last Gulf War.

We didn't get Saddam then and we've not been able to find Osama (whose
name has not been mentioned by Bush in over a year). What makes this
vengeful, oil-soaked administration think we'll be able to get Saddam
this time around?

Whom we will get, however, are perhaps up to a million Iraqi
citizens. Over 50% of the Iraqi population is under fifteen years of
age and over 10% of the Iraqi population is over the age of sixty.

Of what can we, the citizens -- and by definition -- the participants
in a democracy, be thinking?

In conclusion, I believe the members of Congress and indeed, all
Americans, would do well to commit the following words of Abraham
Lincoln to heart:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose,
and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix
any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much
as you propose. If today he should choose to say he thinks it
necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us,
how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of
the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see
it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to
Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons:
kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in
wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people
was the object. This our Constitutional Convention understood to be
the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so
frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of
bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole
matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

I have no previous experience in activism other than all the
usual '60's activities. I'm a fifty-something, widowed, social worker
living in the Heartland, who refuses to concede that she is merely a
member of a Focus Group.

And so here I sit typing this, a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against
the President of the United States, after having been interviewed live
and worldwide on MSNBC Monday night.

I fired myself up for that interview by dedicating my performance to
my late husband and all the others who have killed or been killed or
have returned home to spend the rest of their lives in varying degrees
of walking wounded-ness as a result of the innumerable 'conflicts' and
'police actions' in which this country has engaged itself since its
last declaration of war in 1941.

The Greatest Generation's war was authorized by Congress - would that
all subsequent veterans could have that consolation."

"Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world for,
indeed, that's all who ever have." - Margaret Meade

Laura Johnson Manis
Rock Island, IL

To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I
can do no other.
-- Martin Luther

________________________________________________________

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on
the Mount. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We
know more about war than we do about peace, more about killing than we
do about living"--WWII General Omar Bradley

"Military power is as corrupting to the man who possesses it as it is
pitiless to its victims. Violence is just as devastating to the soul
of the perpetrator as it is to the body and souls of those who are
victims of it"--American Friends (Quakers) Service Committee

"Where there is mercy, there is the Christ. And where there is
cruelty, there is the satanic"--Emmanuel Charles McCarthy

=========

II.

Q: Mr. LaRouche, my name is Tracy Mosely. And while I agree
with a lot of what you said, I disagree with what you say about
the war. What do you think's going to happen if we don't go do it?

LAROUCHE: Nothing bad is going to happen.

Q: September 11 showed that the defense of this country was
shattered. It proved that the government did not do what it's
supposed to do.

LAROUCHE: That's right.

Q: Have you been in military service?

LAROUCHE: Yes, I have.

Q: I was in the military too. If we don't do something,
they're going to do something to him. Because those kind of
people got one thing in mind. If you don't believe what they
believe in, they're going to kill you! And if you think that you
can get away with not doing anything with them, you're sorely
mistaken, sir.

LAROUCHE: Actually, who did September 11?

Q: 19 Arabians, I guess.

LAROUCHE: No, they did not. We don't know exactly who did.

Q: ... Arabians, whatever they were?

LAROUCHE: No, they weren't. What we've been told is a big lie.

Q: Well, who did it then?

LAROUCHE: Well, somebody inside our people.

Q: Bin Laden didn't plan it?

LAROUCHE: No.

Another Q: Someone inside our country?

LAROUCHE: Not capable of doing it.

Q: Somebody inside our country?

LAROUCHE: Inside, at a high level.

Q: They were all proven to be nationals of some other country.

LAROUCHE: No, they weren't. Proof was never presented.

Q: Showed all of them on TV...

LAROUCHE: I know, but it's not been proven.

Another Q: That's all propaganda.

Q: That's all propaganda?

LAROUCHE: Yes, there is an investigation.

Q: So our own Americans made 'em do it?

LAROUCHE: No, not paid them to do it. They didn't do it.

Q: That's right. They didn't do it for pay, or anything, but
what they were taught.

LAROUCHE: No.

Q: If they killed us, they were going to go see God.

LAROUCHE: Let me pull rank on you on this one. One of my
areas is security. I was the author, the original author, of what
became known as the SDI. I did that as a project, as a private
citizen, with the Reagan Administration, with the National
Security Council. I've been involved in this security question
for a long time. I've done things for our country, as a private
citizen, which are fairly high level, and very sensitive. I know
the security business. No bunch of people from the Middle East,
an outfit like Osama Bin Laden, was capable of doing that. What
was done was a very complex operation, and it was done
deliberately, to get us into a war.

The policy -- I know who the author of the policy is. The
author of the policy's on record. At the end of the Bush
Administration, first Bush Administration, 41, Dick Cheney
adopted a policy for a war against Iraq. It was a policy which
was done together with some others, who wanted to have a Clash of
Civilizations war against Islam.

Q: Islam? Against the whole nation of Islam?

LAROUCHE: Yes, all Islam. 1.3 billion people. And the policy
is there. It's called the "Clean Break" policy. This policy was
developed under Cheney, in cooperation with some people in
Israel. It was originally designed as a policy for the Netanyahu
government, the "Clean Break" policy. It was then adopted by the
Cheney, and it was turned down by the Bush Administration
generally. Bush went out of office, and the thing was buried.
Then on Sept. 11, 2001, the policy was suddenly revived. Revived
by people who are known proponents of it: Richard Perle,
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Libby, and so forth -- the Marc Rich
crowd, and so forth.

So this was an operation, which was done {within} the U.S.
security system, which should have prevented at least two of the
planes from hitting anything. The first one might have been a
surprise, but the next two are not. And our security system had
been taken down, and somebody knew {exactly} how to do it. Now
this could not have been done by anybody from foreign country. It
had to be done from somebody inside the United States, at a very
high level, and there are people who wanted that effect. And they did
it.

So, we're still looking for the guys.
Look, we have to deal with this realistically.

Q: If you'll allow me to be blunt with you,
you are a crazy fool. (laughter)
I know my friend [unclear], I apologize: you are nuts!

Another voice from audience: Same to you.

LAROUCHE: I happen to be an expert.

Q: You're an expert at being a fool. (laughter)

Another Q: I can remember the Oklahoma City bombing...

Q: You'll [ ] people, but I'm blunt too.

Another Q: They said the same thing, you know. They said
this has to be Islamic, and found out later on it was not. So a
lot of times, those people do....

LAROUCHE: That's understandable.

REV. WILKINS: We'll take two more quick questions here.

Q: You said nothing will happen, would happen, if we don't
go to war. What will happen if we do go to war?

LAROUCHE: It's incalculable.

Q(cont'd): I mean, in that area.

LAROUCHE: It won't be limited to that area. That's the whole
point. See, the United States can probably go in safely. Tomorrow
morning, they can take 400 rocket-launched missiles, and they
could take the high-impact non-nuclear missiles, and hit areas
like Baghdad, and make mincemeat of that whole area. That could
happen.

But the point is, when you fight a war, you're not going in
to {kill} people, you're going in to win a war. Winning a war
means ability to occupy their territory, or not have to occupy
it, over a period of time to come. The problem is we're faced
with... You'll find most of the U.S. military professionals, the
ground-force senior military, retired and serving, and Marine
Corps, like General Zinni, would agree. This is a stupid war to
get into. Don't get involved in it. The President has been
operating under the influence of Cheney's circles, and he's
bought into it. It's a mistake, a terrible mistake.

We have no problem -- I've dealt with some of the people who
were experts, and went into Iraq earlier on the weapons
inspectors -- there's no problem. There's nothing we have to
fear. Yes, Iraq might be able to get a weapon, and throw it
against somebody nearby. But it's a direct threat to us.
Furthermore, the people in Europe, the people in Asia, the
relevant people in the Middle East, are perfectly willing to do
whatever is necessary, to control the situation, to keep it from
coming to a war. So, you have nothing to fear. I've been in the
Arab sector, I'm known throughout the Arab world. I've dealt with
these countries. I know what the operation is. It's nothing we
couldn't handle. You don't have to go to war.

Q: So, what's the game? For these people who are advocating it?

LAROUCHE: The game is, that there are certain nuts, in our
own country and other countries, but especially in our own, who
want this kind of war. They want a war against Islam. And, for
example, Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the
United States, wants such a war. Dick Cheney is the rooster for
the hen house that wants these things. The people who want the
war, are a bunch of draft-dodgers, chiefly, a bunch of
draft-dodgers who ducked service during the 1960s, during the
period of the Vietnam War, and they safely stayed here. Cheney
himself was a draft-dodger. Got himself an exemption. So the
draft-dodgers, who don't know what war {is}, who have no idea
what it is, condemn the generals, who know what war, who say,
"Don't get into the war?" And everybody I know in Europe, and in
the United States, who I've talked with, in all kinds of circles,
we all agree, there's no {need} for this war! It's a crazy idea.

REV. WILKINS: And by the way, some of you may be familiar
with General Wesley Clark, who is an Arkansan, who was the
commander of NATO, who has publicly said, over and over, -- he's
from Arkansas, he's around here all the time -- who has said, and
he's well knowledgeable about these issues -- he's said, this war
is not necessary, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't have to
happen. Yes, ma'am. Final question.

Q: I want to know, why is it so hard for the teachers...

REV. WILKINS: We might need you to speak into the mike.

Q: I wanted to know, how hard it is to get teachers to get
money from the state, their pensions, or whatever, their salaries
every week, but everytime the Corrections Dept. comes to you'all
for some money, you all give it to them.

SEN. WILKINS: Oh, You're talking to me now?
(lots of laughter)

Q(cont'd): ... they ask for $70 million... they ask for
another $30 million... Don't you think that's poor management,
that they can't manage, that they can't handle the Corrections
Department, .... [inaudible] Their problem is, they promote
people of other colors, for the sargeants and lieutenants, and
[inaudible] ... I worked there 20 years, and I've seen it. [inaud]

REV. WILKINS: Yes, ma'am. We need to wrap up.

Q: I'd like to give you a statement from one of my
super-intelligent students, and most of them are. They think very
well. And, Mr. LaRouche, what they said, they want this George to
be like the first George. They want him to {lead} the troops into
battle. And will you please take that on to Washington, D.C.? My
students at Pine Bluff high school, want this George to be like
the first George, and that is to lead the troops into battle.

REV. WILKINS: You're talking about George Washington?

Q(cont'd): Yes, George Washington, and George Bush.

(laughter)

Q: To Mr. LaRouche, and the entire panel: I really
appreciate this information. This is not a question, this is a
comment. This is positively needed, because a lot of times, we
are so misinformed, and a lot of times, we as teachers always
need communication, so that we can connect, and have a clear
understanding, and I appreciate this information.

REV. WILKINS: Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. LaRouche.

(Applause) ... Mr. LaRouche, this is the cream of the crop of
Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

(Applause)

==========

III.

US Lying About Shaikh Mohammed's Capture: He Died in 2002 (Oct. 30,
2002, Asia Times)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html

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. Major Catch, Critical Time (The New
York Times, Mar. 2, 2003)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/international/asia/02ASSE.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

Of all the milestones in the Bush dictatorship's 18-month campaign
against terrorism, the apprehension of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
possibly the most fearsome of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants,
came at a critical juncture. Dictator Bush's critics have been
complaining that his focus on President Saddam Hussein had distracted
the nation from the war against Al Qaeda. [Yes, Bush needed Words of
Mass Distraction as Iraq was destroying the al-Samoud missiles! Bush's
"big fish" was a dead fish. -- Lori Price

==========

IV.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006

US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq
By Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell
02 March 2003

The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and
pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons
Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance.
"Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the
Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.

The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least
because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This
applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home:
both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police
forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already
been shipped to the Gulf.

It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations
where riot control agents are employed. But the US Defence Secretary,
Donald Rumsfeld, has asked President Bush to authorise their use. Mr
Bush, who has often spoken of "smoking out" the enemy, is understood
to have agreed.

Internal Pentagon documents also show that the US is developing a
range of calmative gases, also banned for battlefield use. Senior US
defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special
forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep underground.

Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a Navy commander in the last Gulf War who
is now senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in
Washington, told The Independent on Sunday that US special forces had
knock-out gases that can "neutralise" people. He added: "I would think
that if they get a chance to use them, they will."

The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot control
agents "is made by the commander in the field".

Mr Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the
impending conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a
little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee on 5 February – the same day as Colin Powell's presentation
of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the UN.

The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in
international treaties on using the weapons in warfare. He specified
that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and]
you know there are women and children in there with them". General
Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of
using them against human shields.

The revelations leave the Bush administration open to charges of
double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal
of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli. Charles Kennedy,
leader of the Liberal Democrats, said last night: "This all adds to
the confusion over how the war will be conducted. If the argument with
Saddam Hussein is over disarming him of weapons of mass destruction,
it is perverse of the US to push the boundaries of international
chemical warfare conventions in order to subdue him."

Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper
spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons
Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous
legal precedent. Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's
foremost authorities on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq
would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK
if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.

"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have
been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons
being banned will have gone. The difference between these weapons and
nerve gas is simply one of structural chemistry."

The Ministry of Defence has warned the US that it will not allow
British troops to be involved in operations where riot control agents
are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even
more concerned about the calmatives. This is shown by documents
obtained by the Texas-based Sunshine Project under the US Freedom of
Information Act. These reveal that the US is developing calmatives –
including sedatives such as the benzodiazapines, diazepam,
dexmeditomide and new drugs that affect the nervous system – even
though it accepts that "the convention would prohibit the development
of any chemically based agent that would even temporarily incapacitate
a human being".

A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists
concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to
incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical
incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."

The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by
President Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in
Vietnam to smoke out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran
away. Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US
used the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen
internationally as its most important guardian.

The Foreign Office said: "All states parties to the Chemical Weapons
Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its
precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed
conflict."

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

V.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=551

Another Victory in the "War on Terror"?
Rixon Stewart

Once again the main news media in the Western world is ignoring, or at
the very least minimising, critical new developments pertaining to
Iraq. Last night the Turkish parliament voted against allowing US
forces the use of bases on Turkish soil to attack Iraq. Even as US
ships lay berthed in Turkish waters waiting to offload men and heavy
military hardware.

The vote, won by a narrow margin but with wide popular support, closes
the possibility of attacking Iraq on two fronts. Leaving the
Anglo-American alliance with only one front with which to take on
Iraq, militarily.

Which means that if a war with Iraq does transpire it will be longer
and bloodier than one fought on two fronts.

The BBC however relegated this important development to only a brief
reference, made in passing by one of its correspondents last night.
While most other news organisations made little mention of it, if at
all. Instead the public in the western world were treated to reports
that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational commander allegedly
behind the assaults on New York and Washington, has been captured
during a raid on a hideout near Islamabad.

This was, said the BBC, a "major victory" in the War on Terror: making
much of the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the FBI's ten
most wanted men.

According to the BBC the Bush Administration: "has been under pressure
at home from critics who complain it has neglected the hunt for
al-Qaeda as it focussed on Iraq, and the arrests will take some of
that heat off."

In effect propaganda at its most potent, playing down setbacks and
defeats while underscoring morale with news of victories. Even if
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the real mastermind behind the September
11th attacks – and there is good reason to think that he was not –
public attention has briefly been distracted from contemplating the
prospect of heavier casualties, in a campaign against Iraq, than might
otherwise be the case.

Meanwhile ships bearing armour and supplies for the Fourth Infantry
Division, now waiting off Turkey`s Mediterranean coast, will now have
to be diverted quickly south to join an invasion force massing in the
Gulf area.

By denying the US military access, Turkey stands to lose a multi-
billion-dollar U.S. aid package to shore up an economy recovering from
its deepest recession since 1945. In addition a $16 billion (10
billion pound) IMF loan package could also now be in jeopardy.

So while US and British forces build up in the Gulf in preparation for
an attack on Iraq, the "news" is being carefully managed to minimise
any obstacles to such an assault. One such is public opinion in the
west that is now being fed misinformation cleverly dressed up as news.
It is a classic technique in the war for hearts and minds and one that
is being used to the full by our "free press."

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

VI.

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/nova022803.shtml

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE
THE LAST CRUSADES

By: Novakeo

The question of whether or not a truly Christian nation should go to
war has in the past been measured in its justification and morality by
its citizens and their leaders in the Christian church. There was
never any question that the oligarchy and its supporters went to war
for their own interests independent of the people. The elites of
nations who needed to go to war for one reason or another always had
to deceive its citizenry on the moral imperative and justification for
going to war. So called western civilized nations of free people such
as the United States, were theoretically to go to war based on the
principles within the "just war theory" by historical contemporaries
such as St. Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, among
others. Regrettably, most of the wars America has fought since the
revolutionary war were outside the parameters of "just war theory".
Indeed, historically, many wars fought by western nations did not fall
within the parameters of just war principles, which basically is, that
in free societies, nations went to war under a strict adherence to the
rule of law, or in the action of self-defense against hostile
invasions, or under the conditions where it was obvious that a nation
was massing its military forces on the borders of another nation for
an imminent attack. Naturally, there are always opponents to the
restrictive concepts of just war principles by men and women of war.
The fundamental question today is, does the United States have the
moral authority and just cause to initiate an aggressive war on Iraq
and beyond, and can the Bush regime claim that its war with Iraq is an
act of self-defense.

The assertion by the wizards of Bush, that the policy of preemption is
a form of self-defense is hysterical and extremely dubious at best.
Common sense dictates that the impoverished Iraqis do not pose a
direct threat to the security of the United States. While the despot
in Baghdad is without a doubt megalomaniacal, that Saddam in the end
is a survivor is without question, and it would absolutely be suicidal
for him to initiate hostile intent towards the United States by arming
terrorists with WMD's. His war with Iran was initiated only under the
tacit support of the United States. His use of WMD's against Iran and
the Kurds, again, was only done with the tacit approval of the United
States. His invasion of Kuwait was also done with the understanding
that Washington had no interest in Iraqi - Kuwaiti disputes. These
actions clearly reveal a calculating mind and a determination in the
past to go to war only with the explicit approval or acquiesce by his
former friends. Obviously Saddam is a very bad man, but his history
reveals that he is not a stupid man.

The truth of the matter is that Iraq has never attacked the United
States, and that it has never threatened to do so have fallen on deaf
ears with many Americans. Inconclusive evidence presented by the
Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations as a
justification for war has proved to be plagiaristic and duplicitous.
An impoverished nation weakened by twelve years of low intensity
warfare under U.S. led sanctions is now about to be invaded by the
mightiest military humanity has ever produced, and we are to believe
that it is an act of self-defense by the United States therefore
morally justified? The Bush clique can fallaciously make that claim,
and it only serves to distract from the obvious contradictory and
erroneous arguments for this aggression. If anyone has a legitimate
moral justification to claim self-defense it is the Iraqis not the
United States, the United States is over there invading their country;
Iraq is not over here attacking or invading America. The grand masters
of subterfuge have not been able to legitimately link Iraq with Al
Qaida and have not been able to present a clear case using truthful
evidence that Iraq has been proliferating WMD's. So, why this
illegitimate invasion which also happens to be constitutionally
illegal, which also fails the just war principle of the "rule of law",
making the initiators of this illegal war, criminals worthy of
impeachment and incarceration?

The policy of unilateralism and preemption is a geo-strategic strategy
defined in the Bush administrations release of its "National Security
Strategy of the United States of America", has its roots in then
undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz's 1992 paper "Defense
Planning Guidance". This strategy was further augmented for Middle
East use by the 1996 collaborative paper titled "A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm" by neocons Richard Perle and
undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith among others. All these men
are now in the higher echelons of the Bush government. Wolfowitz's
paper basically calls for American military power to be used to
establish American hegemony across the globe suppressing potential
rivals who have the resources to become a global power. The military
encirclement of Russia is part of that strategy. It also calls for an
American led new order based on military power and American virtues
which happens to be at the moment globalization for its various
conglomerates. Together with Perle's collaboration, which calls for a
convergence of Israeli and American interests in the region, and to
establish a greater Israel, the unilateral policy of imperial
preponderance by the Bush administration is the direct result of these
works. As far as the Middle East is concerned, the infallible
President Bush has allowed the United States to become Israel's proxy
in establishing security for Israel alone, which has absolutely
nothing to do with legitimate American interests. This perverse policy
is anathema to a constitutional republic, where the interests of a
favored country becomes its own, which in the end will result in the
loss of freedom for Americans and consequently the loss of a free
republic to the dictates of a criminal oligarchy.

This foreign policy is not, as William Kristol defined Wolfowitz's
1992 paper as "ahead of his time", rather, it is extremely short
sighted and dangerous which impugns political realities of other
nations for an all encompassing American pseudo-strategic-political
reality. Of course, chickenhawks such as Kristol are permanently
engrossed in their own megalomania where all they see is wars of
conquest for American hegemony, for our security of course, not to
mention for the benefit of the world. This policy that Bush has chosen
to implement guarantees that nations that are opposed to the imperial
designs of the evangelical Judeo-Christian master race, are forced to
pursue a nuclear program and to produce weapons of mass destruction as
quickly as possible. It really is the smart and prudent thing for
these small nations to do because they very well know that neocons are
cowards at heart and will not attack a nuclear armed nation. Nuclear
proliferation worldwide will be the inevitable result of
unilateralism. This is exactly what is happening; countries like Iran,
Libya, Egypt and North Korea have nuclear programs. In North Korea's
and Pakistan's case, they are proliferating and helping other
countries achieve nuclear capability. This geo-strategic reality
clarifies the absolute absurdity in invading Iraq. There is no
justification for an escalation of hostilities on the grounds that we
must disarm Iraq of their last remaining bows and arrows.

If anyone is predisposed to use WMD's in the invasion, it is not Iraq,
but the United States that would do so. The neanderthalian warlord
Secretary of Defense Donald "boom-boom" Rumsfeld, revealed earlier
this month that American forces are planning to use "non-lethal"
biochemical weapons such as anti-riot gases and crowd control agents
when they invade Iraq such as used by Russian security forces in
Moscow which resulted in the "not so lethal" massive deaths.
Supposedly non-lethal, or not, it would be a matter of inconvenience
to point out to the modern day crusaders that the use of these weapons
against people in wartime is forbidden and a war crime. But, we all
know that the Bush government are righteous freedom fighters who are
above the law consequently not restricted by these informalities, its
all ok as long as the other guy don't use them because that would just
plain be evil. The United States is a signatory to the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC) and the 1928 Geneva Protocol, which ban the
use of chemical agents against people in wartime. How about all the
talk about "bunker busters" or affectionately called by the war makers
"little nukes"? Are those WMD's or are they classified as "non lethal"
for American use only? Ah… this is hypocrisy at its finest.

This policy that George Bush has deliberately chosen for this country
is not part of some righteous manifest destiny that our vehement
leader tries to project. No matter how much his eminence tries to
bring a fervent religious attitude into public discourse and policy,
not seen since the zealotry of the crusades, truth and common sense
will prevail exposing the utter stupidity in boy George's immature
attitudes towards Americans and the world. Unfortunately many will
probably die before Americans wake up and see that this country has
religious fanatics of its own to deal with. As far as Christians are
concerned, the wake up call should have been the moment Bush declared
his war on evil and that America was destined to rid the world of evil
doers who hate freedom. It was the will of "the Almighty" to liberate
the oppressed people of Iraq, said the boy wonder recently. This
Hegelian dialect with Gnostic overtones has nothing to do with
Christianity and is extremely unscriptural. What we are hearing from
the gates of power within this country is stunningly familiar rhetoric
in which Germans who were alive in the 1930's can relate to quite
well.

This whole thing is becoming quite pathetic, American diplomat's
scouring around the world in a bid to bribe strategic countries to
support what the world sees as nothing less than naked aggression
against a country that does not have the capacity to defend itself.
And if billions of dollars in bribes aren't enough then outright
threats will do just fine.

These little Caesars that occupy the corridors of power today in
Washington are men and women of violence, this is what they are sowing
for themselves and for this nation, and that is what they will reap,
inescapably, that will be their end. Sadly, they could very well take
down an entire nation with them.

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

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

[Everyman]

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

[Everyman]

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

(Dick Eastman, Yakima)

O T H E R A R T I C L E S (LESS IMPORTANT, BUT STILL URGENT)
==========================
Item # 2:

84% of Japanese oppose Iraq attack
Eighty-four percent of people in Japan are opposed to an attack on
Iraq,
while support for Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet has
fallen, a
nationwide poll has shown.
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20030303p2a00m0fp001000c.html

A poll conducted by the Mainichi over the weekend showed that only 11
percent of people in Japan support an attack on Iraq. The support rate
of
the Koizumi Cabinet, which is cautiously backing the U.S. stance, fell
eight
points from the previous survey in January to 45 percent.

Opposition to an attack rose 4 percent compared with the previous poll
conducted on Jan. 25 and 26. In that poll 80 percent of people were
against
aggression. The Japanese government has taken a cautious stance on the
issue, saying the problem is not between the United States and Iraq
alone,
but between Iraq and the world. However, its stance has failed to
gather
public support.

By political affiliation, 93 percent of Komeito supporters were
against an
attack, compared with 89 percent of those who did not support a party
and 77
percent of Liberal Democratic Party supporters.

The greatest cited reason for opposing an attack was a dislike of war.
A
total of 72 percent of people said they were against an attack because
they
were opposed to any type of war. Eleven percent of people said
inspectors in
Iraq should be given more time, while 9 percent said a U.N. resolution
permitting the use of aggression had not been adopted.

Those who supported an attack gave such reasons as there being "no
point in
continuing inspections," and "links between the Hussein administration
and
international terrorist groups." Others cited relations between Japan
and
the United States as an ally. (Mainichi Shimbun, March 3, 2003)

© 2003 The Mainichi Newspapers Co.

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

Item #3:

Advisors warn Bush he faces "humiliating" defeat on world stage
By CHB Staff
Mar 3, 2003, 22:22
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1870.shtml

Senior aides to President George W. Bush say he faces a humiliating
defeat
before the United Nations Security Council next week.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, fresh from his latest round of
meetings
with representatives of countries on the Security Council, delivered
the bad
news to Bush on Monday.

"You will lose, Mr. President," Powell told Bush. "You will lose badly
and
the United States will be humiliated on the world stage."

Some White House advisors are now urging the President to back off his
tough
stance on war with Iraq and give UN weapons inspectors more time.

"We have no other choice," admits one Bush advisor. "We don't have the
votes. We don't have the support."

Powell told Bush on Monday that Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troops
to
stage at the country's border with Iraq doomed any chance of consensus
at
the UN.

"Many were watching Turkey," Powell told Bush. "Had they agreed, it
might
have helped us sway critical votes."

Some Bush aides now admit privately that the President, for all his
tough
talk, may have to back down and postpone his plans to invade Iraq in
the
near future.

"The vote in Turkey fucked things up big time," grumbles one White
House
aide. "It pushes our timetable back. On the other hand, it might give
us a
chance to save face."

"Saving face" means backing away from a showdown with the UN Security
Council next week and agreeing to let the weapons inspection process
run its
course.

"The arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed gives us some breathing room,"
says a
Bush strategist. "We can concentrate on the favorable publicity
generated by
the arrest and the valuable intelligence we have gained from that
event."

Mohammed, arrested in Pakistan, masterminded the 9-11 terrorist
attacks. CIA
agents found computer files, memos and other materials which pointed
to
plans for new attacks against the U.S.

"The prudent thing to do would be to let Iraq cool off on a back
burner and
concentrate on Mohammed," says Democratic strategist Arnold Beckins.
"Saddam
isn't going anywhere. There's too much heat on him right now for him
to pull
something."

Right now, only the U.S., Britain and Spain favor immediate military
action
against Iraq. With most of the other allies lining up against the
U.S., Bush
faces both a diplomatic and public relations nightmare if he proceeds
against Hussein without UN backing.

"We've always needed an exit strategy," admits one White House aide.
"Circumstances have given us one. We shouldn't ignore it."

© Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue

==========

March 3, 2003
Official Hired to Improve U.S. Image Resigns
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/03/international/03CND-BEERS.html

WASHINGTON, March 3 - Charlotte Beers, the former advertising
executive who
has been the Bush administration's point person in efforts to improve
America's image among Muslims, is quitting her State Department job
after 17
months, the State Department said today.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Ms. Beers, who is 67, was
resigning
for health reasons. Another department official said her resignation
would
become effective in about two weeks.

Ms. Beers, a former chairwoman of J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy &
Mather,
was appointed undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs
in
September 2001, just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Her task
was to
devise a multimillion-dollar public diplomacy campaign, complete with
academic exchange programs and slick public service advertisements, to
soften anti-American feelings.

Some people who followed American foreign policy wondered whether it
was
appropriate in the first place to have an advertising executive try to
change the image of the United States. But others credited Ms. Beers
with
reinvigorating efforts, through discussions and training sessions, to
paint
a truer picture of the United States.

Mr. Powell himself called Ms. Beers "a key and vital member of my
team."

"At a critical and stressful time for our nation, she and her team
sharpened
our policy advocacy and took our values and our ideas to mass
audiences and
countries which hadn't heard from us in a concerted way for many
years," the
secretary said in a statement today.

Mr. Powell came to the defense of Ms. Beers soon after she was
appointed.
"Guess what?" he told a group of senators in November 2001. "There is
nothing wrong with getting somebody who knows how to sell something."

Ms. Beers concentrated on ways to erase stereotypes about Americans
that are
widespread in Islamic countries.

She acknowledged only last week that her mission has been daunting.
"The gap
between who we are and how we wish to be seen and how we are in fact
seen is
frighteningly wide," she testified before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

The department said the interim replacement for Ms. Beers will be
Patricia
Harrison, now head of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

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

History Weighs on British Plans for Iraq Occupation
Troubled Past Adds To Postwar Challenges
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 4, 2003; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37133-2003Mar3.html

CAMP FOX, Kuwait -- Almost 45 years after the British were forced out
of
Iraq, they are preparing to return. This time, the British military
assembling in northern Kuwait has been assigned to take the lead in
occupying southern Iraq, including Basra and the rich southern oil
fields,
while the U.S. military pushes on toward Baghdad, according to
officials
familiar with planning for an invasion.

Given their country's history, British commanders are already worried
about
the political challenges of an occupation. As the United States and
Britain
fine-tune their war plans, they have debated what sort of approach to
take
in southern Iraq, the officials said. Some commanders are advocating a
harsh
initial strike that would set an example and encourage surrenders,
while
others want to focus on winning the goodwill of the Iraqi population.

"You don't want to create . . . a poisoned atmosphere," said a senior
British officer familiar with the discussions. "The more you can get
without
firing a bullet, the better the legacy you create in terms of
nation-building."

Asked about disagreements among coalition commanders over how hard to
hit
Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, chief commander of the U.S.
and
British land forces in Kuwait, said he was concerned about heavy
casualties,
but added that "when I think of casualties and human life, foremost in
my
mind, I'm thinking about preventing the loss of coalition lives. So if
an
operation were to happen, we would conduct it in a very decisive
manner with
the idea of minimizing our own losses."

Unlike their U.S. counterparts, the British would be returning to a
country
where they have a long and bloody past. British troops fought a tough
campaign in Iraq against the ruling Ottoman Turks during World War I.
As an
occupying force with a mandate from the League of Nations, British
soldiers
then battled an extensive rebellion by Iraqi nationalists in 1920.
Some
British troops were still garrisoned in Iraq in 1958, when a bloody
coup
overthrew the British-installed Hashemite monarchy.

Britain, the only U.S. ally to send a major contingent of troops to
join the
American force of more than 110,000 poised to attack from Kuwait, has
scrambled in recent weeks to catch up with the U.S. deployment. Since
late
January, 21,000 British troops have arrived in Kuwait, not quite half
the
expected regional force of 43,000.

The delayed start is part of the reason the British will focus on
southern
Iraq, since they do not yet have supply lines to make it possible to
move
farther north. Plans call for British ground troops to enter the
country
alongside the U.S. 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, then drop off to
oversee
Basra and the surrounding area, which includes Iraq's principal port,
Umm
Qasr and the Rumaila oil field, which represents 60 percent of Iraq's
oil
capacity.

Already, British officers are debating how to restore law and order in
Basra
and the extent to which they would be required to the purge the local
government of officials from President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.
Those
concerns are exacerbated by a fear that the majority Shiite
population,
concentrated in southern Iraq, might be unwelcoming; the Shiites
rebelled
against Hussein after the 1991 Persian Gulf War but felt betrayed that
U.S.
troops never came to their aid.

"You've got to create a legacy where they don't actually hate you,"
said the
senior British officer. "They were waiting for the West, and we never
came."

Even here at Camp Fox, the main rear logistics and supply base for the
British forces in Kuwait, concern about winning after the post is
readily
apparent. In the green tent that serves as the high-tech nerve center
for
the 6th Supply Regimentof the Royal Logistics Corps, British soldiers
tracking the influx of men and equipment into Kuwait are faced with a
pointed reminder about the political delicacies of their task.

"We are your friends. We are not here for the oil," said a flyer
discreetly
taped to a corner of their tent. "Honest!"

Top officers at Camp Fox, who are quick to note their peacekeeping and
nation-building experience in 1990s such hot spots as Bosnia and
Kosovo,
said they were looking ahead to consider how their skills could be
adapted
to Iraq's peacetime needs.

"The British army has a great experience of peacekeeping and
humanitarian
relief over the years, and it would be easy for us to make that
switch,"
said Lt. Col. Rory Maxwell, the commander of Camp Fox, which houses
about
1,000 British forces alongside an encampment of about 4,000 U.S.
Marines.
"If that's required, then we're talking days to do it. Switching from
one
role to the other is not something that worries us."

Two mobile bakeries, the pride of Maxwell's camp, could easily make
the
transition from providing fresh-cooked rolls to the troops to handing
out
sustenance to the Iraqi civilian population. The bakeries are capable
of
producing 32,000 loaves a day and are freezing some of what they make
in
preparation for war, Maxwell said.

The supply team is also stockpiling fresh and canned food for possible
humanitarian use. Even the engineers here at Camp Fox could quickly
shift to
a peacekeeping role, their officers said, by setting up a displaced
persons
camp, for example, or restoring key infrastructure facilities in Basra
damaged during a war.

"I have the ability here to manufacture just about anything," said
Maj.
Robert Orr, "whether to support our troops or the local population."

As he was talking, his men from a regiment of Gurkhas, legendary
Nepalese
soldiers, were cutting round holes in wooden planks to serve as
latrines.

"In the U.S. military, they separate out civil engineers," Orr said.
"In the
British army, our guys do both."

Correspondent Peter Baker at Camp Doha, Kuwait, contributed to this
report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

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

Thousands of Iraqi Kurds March Against Turkey
Mon Mar 3, 5:35 AM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030303/wl_nm/iraq_kurds_
protest_dc_1

ARBIL, Iraq (Reuters) - Thousands of Iraqi Kurds took to the streets
on
Monday to protest against Turkish plans for military intervention in
Kurdish-administered northern Iraq but police said the demonstration
passed
off peacefully.

"Anti-Turkish feeling is very high," traffic policeman Rajab Ali
Kakel told
Reuters at the march in Arbil, where several Turkish flags were
burned.
"There's never been a protest of this size here," he added.

Kakel and his colleagues put the number of marchers at up to half a
million,
although this could not be independently verified and other estimates
put
the figure below 100,000.

Turkey plans to send an unspecified number of troops across its border
into
the free Kurdish area of northern Iraq during any U.S.-led invasion to
oust
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

But U.S. plans have been thrown into confusion by the refusal of
Ankara's
parliament to allow U.S. troops into Turkey.

Turkey has a large Kurdish minority of its own and has a deep-seated
fear of
Kurds seeking an independent homeland.

Although Turkish officials say they plan only to protect Kurdistan's
Turkmen
minority and prevent a flood of refugees entering Turkey, the Iraqi
Kurds
see a threat to their nascent democracy and freedoms.

The three largely Kurdish Iraqi provinces of Arbil, Sulaymaniyah and
Dohuk
have been out of the reach of Saddam's government since the end of the
Gulf
War in 1991, under the protection of a U.S.- and British-patrolled
no-fly-zone.

"For a long time we suffered too much for this freedom," said Aram
Khalid,
an artist on the march. "Now the Turks are going to intervene and we
don't
like it."

Marchers held up banners in Kurdish, Arabic and English. "Kurdistan
--
cemetery of the Turkish army," read one. "USA has an obligation to
protect
the Kurd," read another, although the U.S. says it wants Turkey to
join an
anti-Saddam coalition and that it would have a role in Iraq.

The march, on a mild spring morning, was good natured and peaceful,
but
passions ran deep.

"For many years we've lived in peace and we don't want to live under
the
control of another country," said Karwan, a sculptor.

Affaf, a woman in her twenties marching the four km (2-1/2 mile) route
with
a friend, expressed the mood of many when she said: "We are angry, but
in a
peaceful way."

Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited.
Copyright © 2003 Yahoo! Inc.

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

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

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)

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

[Everyman]

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

2. Harvard/CFR Diplomacy Wonk: Mass-murder 9-11 frameup
co-conspirator Henry Kissinger, in his 1994 book, Diplomacy, on the
legal and diplomatic issues raised by the Anglo-Israeli-French
aggression in Suez (1956) -- issues that replay interestingly today!

I T E M # 1 :

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

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

I T E M # 2 :

Harvard/CFR Diplomacy Wonk: Mass-murder 9-11 frameup co-conspirator
Henry Kissinger, in his 1994 book, Diplomacy, on the legal and
diplomatic issues raised by the Anglo-Israeli-French aggression in
Suez (1956) -- issues that replay interestingly today!

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, which let 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."

==========

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

[Everyman]

Let it be known that Dick Eastman is an unashamed Joe McCartyite --
that this author, John le Carré, has accepted the falsehoods that the
establishment has circulated about McCarthy-- an American hero who was
right about just about everything he said regarding the communist
conspiracy and treason in high places -- is talking through his hat
about that great man. But apart from that flaw -- the following
article of le Carré's tells it like it is, in my opinion.

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

The United States of America has gone mad
http://www.accra-mail.com/story.asp?ID=4180

By John le Carré

Friday, February 28, 2003

Culled from The Times, London America has entered one of its periods
of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse
than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term,
potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have
hoped for in his nastiest dreams.

As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of
the world are being systematically eroded.

The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests
is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in
every town
square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was
he who made it possible.

Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain
such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place;
Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless
disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally
abrogated international treaties.

They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its
continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The
Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we
are told.

The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around
$360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the
pipeline, so we can all breathe easy.

Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a
lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American
lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket?

At what cost - because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent
and humane people - in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from
bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations
conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it.

A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam
was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre.

But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being
browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear.

The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow
conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with
the enemy.

Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see
Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods.
And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is
perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be.

Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political
opinions.

God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America.

God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern
policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a)
anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are
equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers
one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor
of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive,
Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior
executive of the Harken oil company.

Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil
company.

Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil
company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of
these trifling associations affects the integrity of God's work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the
ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating
them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that 'somebody' was
Saddam.

Hence Bush Jr's cry: 'That man tried to kill my Daddy. But it's still
not personal, this war. It's still necessary.

It's still God's work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy
to
oppressed Iraqi people.'

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and
Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family
and God, is there to tell us which is which.

What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war.
What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil, but oil, money and people's
lives.

Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the
world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of
the cake. And who doesn't, won't.

If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his
heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think Saudi Arabia,
think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and
none to the US or Britain.

Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be
peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at
him at five minutes' notice.

What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but
the economic imperative of US growth.

What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power
to all of us - to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little
North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at
home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this is
that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it.

He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice.
Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't
get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself
against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a
glove on him.

But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our Governments
spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and
looks the other way.

Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh
hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to
put
his gun back in his holster unfired.

But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy rides back into town
without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?

Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us
into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been
there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more
democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN.

By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and
the
Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke
unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos
in the
Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN
approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special
relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's
sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties
about terror are
shared by all sane men.

What he can't explain is how he reconciles a global assault on
al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq.

We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our
special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because,
after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair
has to show up at the altar.

'But will we win, Daddy?' 'Of course, child. It will all be over while
you're still in bed.' 'Why?'

'Because otherwise Mr Bush's voters will get terribly impatient and
may decide not to vote for him.' 'But will people be killed,
Daddy?''Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people.' 'Can I watch
it on television?' 'Only if Mr Bush says you can.' 'And afterwards,
will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any
more?' 'Hush child, and go to sleep.'

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local
supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: 'Peace is also
Patriotic'.

It was gone by the time he'd finished shopping. The author has also
contributed to an openDemocracy debate on Iraq at
www.openDemocracy.net

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

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

*Note: The CLG website is updated throughout the day, so check back
often for latest news.

UN leaders draw up secret blueprint for postwar Iraq --US forces will
hand over three months after Saddam is defeated --The United Nations
has drawn up a confidential plan to establish a post-Saddam government
in Iraq in a move that suggests its leaders now consider war all but
inevitable. The UN is breaking a taboo, and arguably breaching its
charter, by considering plans for Iraq's future governance while it
deals daily with President Saddam Hussein's regime as a legitimate
member.
Advisors warn Bush he faces "humiliating" defeat on UN resolution
--Senior aides to Dictator George W. Bush say he faces a humiliating
defeat before the United Nations Security Council next week. And signs
emerged today that the U.S. may withdraw the resolution from security
council consideration.

France, Germany, Russia vow to nix war vote --French, German and
Russian foreign ministers said Wednesday at a news conference in Paris
that they will "not allow" passage of a U.N. resolution to authorize
war against Iraq.

U.S. ready for war without U.N., Powell says --Secretary of State
Colin Powell told Russia's television that the United States was
prepared to lead a war against Iraq with or without the consent of the
United Nations.

Saddam's removal the only possible outcome, US says --Saddam Hussein
can never be trusted to disarm because his past lies about illicit
weapons make it impossible to believe him no matter what he now
destroys or surrenders to weapons inspectors, the White House has
said. [Speaking of liars that can't be trusted, Bu$h, regime change
begins at home.]

White House Rejects Pope's Iraq Argument --The White House rejected on
Tuesday the Vatican's argument that there is no moral justification
for a pre-emptive war in Iraq as Dictator Bush prepared to meet with a
special envoy sent by Pope John Paul II.

US will target 50 top Iraqis for capture or elimination --About 50 top
Iraqi leaders closely associated with President Saddam Hussein will be
targeted for capture or elimination if the United States goes to war
against Baghdad, The Wall Street Journal reports. [?!? This is
INSANE!!!]

Saddam tells Iraqis U.S. wants to enslave Arabs --Saddam Hussein
accused the United States of trying to enslave Arabs and said Iraq
will defeat any invaders, even as he continued to destroy his Al
Samoud 2 missile system Tuesday in hopes of averting a war.

Force is next resort, Bush tells Pyongyang --Dictator George Bush gave
notice yesterday that the US will resort to military force against
North Korea if diplomacy fails to stop it building a substantial
nuclear arsenal.

U.S. repositions bombers near North Korea --The United States is
basing more heavy bombers near North Korea and will formally protest
the communist nation's "reckless actions" in using MiG fighters to
intercept a U.S. surveillance plane, officials said.

U.S. orders 24 long-range bombers to Guam --Twenty-four bombers will
begin moving from bases in the United States to Guam as part of a
planned beefing up of U.S. military forces in the Pacific to send a
"message" to North Korea, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Serious Charge By Air Mechanics --Two lawsuits allege that civilian
mechanics at Charleston Air Force Base were told to falsify
maintenance records on C-17s, the cargo planes used to haul supplies
overseas for a possible war with Iraq.

Peace Takes A Bullet In which the Bush Doctrine means never having to
say, sorry about all the warheads and death --by Mark Morford "These
are the final days of peace in America. Please remember to turn off
the lights and lock up when you leave. These are the last days of
relative calm before we start bombing and massacring hundreds of
thousands of people and in so doing enter into what many believe will
a very long, drawn-out, insanely expensive, volatile, destabilizing,
completely unwinnable war against a cheap thug of an opponent who has
negligible military might and zero capacity to actually harm the U.S.
in any substantive way. U-S-A! U-S-A!"

Europe Hacker Laws Could Make Protest a Crime --The justice ministers
of the European Union have agreed on laws intended to deter computer
hacking and the spreading of computer viruses. But legal experts say
the new measures could pose problems because the language could also
outlaw people who organize protests online, as happened recently, en
masse, with protests against a war in Iraq.

In new twist, feds seize Internet domain names --In a series of raids
in recent weeks, the Justice Department has extended such grabs to
property that might seem esoteric but worry civil libertarians -
Internet domain names. Critics of the Justice Department's recent
moves also say they fear the government could use the new method to
spy on Web surfers who visit confiscated sites.

Anonymity of Internet chat rooms' discussion of public officials
argued before PA Supreme Court --Messages about public figures in
Internet chat rooms are akin to anonymous pamphlets like Thomas
Paine's ''Common Sense'' and their authors should have the same right
to keep their identities secret, advocates told Pennsylvania's highest
court.

Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T - Shirt --A lawyer was
arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in
the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating
peace that he had just purchased at the mall. He could face up to a
year in prison if convicted.

Man arrested for wearing "Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt at a mall --A
Selkirk man says he was arrested Monday for expressing his objection
to possible war with Iraq at Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York.
He says all he did was wear a T-shirt bearing a message of peace,
which he actually purchased in the mall. "We were just shopping. We
were wearing these T-shirts. We weren't handing out leaflets, we
weren't saying anything," Roger Downs recalled. [1-518-869-9565 <--
phone number of Pyramid Co., the mall's owner.]

Library changes policy, will release sign-up sheets only under a court
order (MO) The St. Louis Public Library has quietly changed the policy
that allowed an FBI agent to walk out of the Carpenter branch with
patrons' computer sign-up sheets without a court order in late
December. Under the new policy, approved by the library board Feb. 3
but not publicized, computer-sign up sheets will be deemed private
records and will only be turned over to law enforcement under a court
order.

White House may lose its Sheen of peace --Pressure is growing for the
president to lose his job because of his uncompromising stance on the
war. That's President Bartlet, as played by Martin Sheen in the hit
television series, The West Wing. NBC is under pressure [from
rightwing nutcases, Freepers and maggots] to sack him from its show or
face a boycott or withdrawal of advertising.

Hollywood Actors Raise McCarthyism Specter on Iraq --Hollywood actors,
facing a vitriolic backlash for their opposition to a war against
Iraq, have raised the specter of Cold War McCarthyism in an appeal to
avoid returning to one of the movie industry's darkest hours.

Anti-war forces get new recruit --Pacific Exchange's ex-chief to
protest If the United States attacks Iraq, a former president of the
Pacific Exchange plans to participate in nonviolent demonstrations
aimed at shutting down San Francisco's Financial District, including
his former employer.

Hillary Hawks Up War Talk --Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "fully
supports" Dictator Bush's Iraq policy, her office said last night - on
the eve of her visit today to an upstate arsenal that makes military
hardware like mortars and howitzers for U.S. troops.

Big bucks won't buy respect for 'Brand America' --by Jennifer Wells
"Perhaps it was back in their shared days as directors of Gulfstream
Aerospace Corp. that Colin Powell and Charlotte Beers began drinking
from the same cup, or the same vat of Kool-Aid. How else to explain
how the twosome could conjure the hallucinogenic idea of fixing the
image of the U.S. in the Arab world by turning a great and serious
task into an advertising campaign?"

Saudis funded Bali bomb claim --An American lawyer has claimed he has
proof that money from Saudi Arabia was used to fund terrorist cells
involved in the Bali bombing.

How Pak intelligence hit al-Qaeda on Sept 11 (2002) An unidentified
Yemeni who fell prey to a police sniper on the building's rooftop, was
initially identified by a Karachi police investigator as Khalid
Mohammad Sheikh. Latter reports said that Khalid Mohammad Sheikh was
being held by the police for his direct role in the kidnapping and
subsequent murder of Daniel Pearl and therefore rejected that the idea
that the dead man was Khalid Mohammad Sheikh, one of the most wanted
man on the FBI list.

Is there more to the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than meets the
eye? --by Paul Thompson "What exactly did happen is unclear, but the
details of his arrest suggest something very disturbing is going on.
Was Mohammed Actually Arrested in Rawalpindi?"

Bush Plan a Boon to Drug Companies Medicare Prescription Proposal
Would Also Benefit Insurers, Analysts Say --Health care economists
said the drug benefit Dictator Bush proposed for Medicare yesterday
would be a bonanza for the pharmaceutical and managed-care industries,
both of which are huge donors to Republicans.

Supreme Court Upholds Three-Strikes Law --The Wh*re Court today upheld
long sentences meted out under the nation's toughest three-time
offender law, ruling that a prison term of 25 years to life is not too
harsh for a small-time thief who shoplifted golf clubs.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wants voters to reconsider class size,
high-speed rail --Gov. Jeb Bush wants to create a $40 million
contingency fund to "protect" Florida's tourism industry in case of
war with Iraq, and suggested voters rethink constitutional amendments
they approved to cap class sizes and build a high-speed rail system.
Supporters of the amendments and some lawmakers said Bush, who was
re-s-elected last year (with machines lacking paper trails), was
trying to subvert the will of the voters. [The liberal amendments on
the Florida ballot passed in 2002, yet Bush "won" the vote for
governor? Why would Floridians pass a liberal agenda, but vote for a
rightwing thug? --Lori Price]

Scientists question electronic voting --...David Dill, professor of
computer science at Stanford observes: The machines the county planned
to buy, like those other jurisdictions around the country are
installing, "pose an unacceptable risk that errors or deliberate
election- rigging will go undetected, since they do not provide a way
for the voters to verify independently that the machine correctly
records and counts the votes they have cast."

CNN imposes new "script control" --Even as the Pentagon released the
details of its planned wartime censorship, CNN was imposing a
draconian system of internal vetting that suggests the major media
networks will give the US administration little concern.

US public turns to Europe for news --The threat of war in Iraq is
driving increasing numbers of Americans to British and international
news web sites in search of the broader picture. The American public
is apparently turning away from the mostly US-centric American media
in search of unbiased reporting and other points of views.

Bioterrorism test set for rural Oklahoma --A crop-duster will buzz
parts of rural Oklahoma in the coming weeks, dropping powdered clay
and grain alcohol [LOL!] in a test the government hopes will help
prepare the nation for a bioterrorist attack. Resident Carolyn Kennedy
said there isn't anything to worry about as long as the Army is
telling the truth. [Good luck with that one, <g>] "But it's the
government and I don't trust the government," she said, then added
jokingly: "They'll knock us out with one spray."

Links to above stories and more articles are found on our website at:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

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

http://g0lem.net/PHP/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=36

The US has refused to sign the Biological and Chemical weapons
convention. The US has more weapons of mass destruction than any other
country on the globe combined - so why the moral outrage at Iraq's
possession of these weapons? Because the U.S. says they use them. So
has
various U.S. governments and client states. This is a flagrant and
obvious
double standard. The Arab countries are aware of America's double
standards. Ruling elites need the U.S. to keep them from being
overthrown
by the masses so they go along. But we do not have to go along. We do
not
and should not permit these policies to be carried out in our name.

=========

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

Afghan detainees' deaths ruled homicides --Military coroners have
determined that the deaths of two detainees while in U.S. custody in
Afghanistan were homicides. A criminal investigation into the December
deaths of the two men is in its final stages, but a U.S. military
source said it is not clear whether anyone will be charged.

lrp/mdr/CLG
http://www.legitgov.org/
Petition to Senate - Investigate Oddities of 9/11:
http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html

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

http://pnews.org/NWO/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7

It is public record that the U.S. not only armed Iraq from 1983 thru
August 1, 1990, but that they also provided the money to Iraq to
purchase
the weapons via the Atlanta branch of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro
(BNL), George Bush, Sr., and the Export-Import Bank. Iraq received $5
Billion dollars funneled through the Commercial Credit Corporation
ostensibly for food credits. It is also public information that at
least
$2 Billion dollars from the defaulted loan was repaid by the U.S.
citizen
taxpayers.

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

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 ]

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.:

[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]

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.

[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]

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 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%3Dimages%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]

Sanity.

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

The Sounds of Silence
By Hsing Lee
3-6-3

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter."

Those were the words of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Archbishop Tutu says it another way: "The truth hurts, but silence
kills."

And kill it does. Your silence gives assent to political will, and
year after year, administration after administration, results in
genocide against colored people both at home and abroad. We can no
longer remain silent. It's imperative that we concerned citizens of
this planet speak out, because the media, the politicians, and Wall
Street aren't going to fix anything unless we force them to. At the
polls if possible, at gunpoint should the time come. My hope is that
we can work toward the former, and avoid the latter.

But if it comes to revolution, the fault doesn't lie with us. As John
F Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make
violent revolution inevitable."

The silence of the mainstream television media is an observable fact.

www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030225/4894862s.htm

"Of 414 stories on the Iraqi question that aired on NBC, ABC and CBS
from Sept. 14 to Feb. 7, Tyndall says that the vast majority
originated from the White House, Pentagon and State Department. Only
34 stories originated from elsewhere in the country, he says.

Similarly, a check of major newspapers around the country from
September to February found only 268 stories devoted to peace
initiatives or to opposition to the war, a small fraction of the total
number."

That's less than 10% of TV news stories related to opposition to war,
if that. Where newspapers are concerned, considering how many of them
there are, it's probably much worse.

The media is used to shape opinion and manufacture consent. They've
been moving the line in the sand between 'right' and 'left' so far to
the right that there isn't anything even resembling liberal views
being expressed by journalists anymore. Now, even the guests are
weighted in this way.

I was watching CNN yesterday, when Rep Trent 'Crow' Lott (R) and
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D) showed up to talk about Iraq with Larry
King. Never mind that he's a Rockefeller. This particular Rockefeller
has shown remarkable independence, and as Governor and Senator, he's
been instrumental in passing a large number of laws that have cost his
family billions of dollars. So, when he showed up on Larry King, I was
thinking, "Great! He's going to slam Bush for his Iraq policies like
he's been doing of late, as reported in the fringe media."

NOT. It was a good-cop bad-cop routine without the good-cop.
Rockefeller agreed with virtually everything Trent Crow said, and even
laughed about the outsourced use of torture by the US State
Department.

I started to get frustrated and depressed, but with a slim hope that
perhaps these two came out as the pro-war supporters, and that people
representing the anti-war movement would be next. While there WAS an
anti-war opinion that came up after the Trent and Jay show, what we
got was not Medea Benjamin, or Ramsey Clark, or Ken Nichols O'Keefe.

What we got, as the counterpoint to Rockefeller and Lott, was Henry
Kissinger and Zbignew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was the guy who some
years ago wrote the Grand Chessboard, a book about why we should make
preparation to invade and steal Central Asia.

www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/02/le.00.html

That's what passes for the 'left' today on American TV. A genocidal
maniac of war crimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, East Timor, Chile,
and Argentina; and the guy who wrote the roadmap for 9/11 and the
invasion of Afghanistan.

You really need to understand what's going on here. Bush, Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Rice and Powell are so greedy and psycho that they even scare
people like Brzezinski and Kissinger. That should tell you something.

CNN's been doing this since Isaacson took over. It's nothing new, but
this particular combination of guests was just a little too much
middle finger at the 'little people.'

AUDITING THE ENEMY

One TV station that's been trying to get real news out from time to
time is PBS. Bill Moyers show NOW was the first (and only) to report
on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (aka Patriot Act II)
and what it means if this bill gets passed.

Moyers has been very critical of the Patriot Act and the Homeland
Security Bill. The irony of his sign off, "For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers",
has been hitting home of late. I keep expecting to see reruns and no
more Bill. But it hasn't happened. Yet. For now, he's still Bill
Moyers.

If the GOP gets its way, he'll be gone shortly. They're already using
bully tactics, and pushing for an audit of PBS. That's how it starts.
Next thing you know, Bill Moyers is off the air, and PBS never
mentions proposed Bush legislation ever again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=91&u=/bpihw/20030304/en_bpi
hw/lawmakers_call_for_cpb_review&printer=1

"WASHINGTON (The Hollywood Reporter) --- A group of congressmen are
seeking an investigation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's
funding programs.

The lawmakers have asked the General Accounting Office to review the
CPB's funding programs as public broadcasting system legislation comes
up for renewal during this congressional session.

The lawmakers wrote: "While the goal recognized by the Congress in
CPB's enabling statute -- to 'encourage the growth and development of
public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such
media for instructional, educational and cultural purposes' -- remains
important today, it is also necessary to reassess the mechanisms of
distributing public dollars for these purposes to ensure that they are
fair and fundamentally sound."

The last GAO investigation into CPB's funding was conducted in 1984.

Ken Johnson, spokesman for House Energy and Commerce Committee
chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., said the lawmakers were not necessarily
expecting the examination to turn up any wrongdoing, but wanted to get
solid numbers before reauthorizing the programÉÓ

The request was signed by Tauzin; Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Service &
Education; Richard Burr, R-N.C., vice chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee; and Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet."
WAR DRUMS, OIL DRUMS, AND PORK BARRELS

Bush is getting ready for war. The Australian news has laid out a
probable strategy for the Iraq war.


Air And Ground Double Whammy To Be Unleashed

By Thomas Ricks in Washington
Sydney Morning Herald
March 3 2003

"The Bush Administration's plan for an assault on Iraq is essentially
in place, based on an unusual approach that envisages simultaneous air
and ground operations, according to several people familiar with the
strategy.

General Tommy Franks, the chief of United States military operations
in the Middle East, reviewed the plan with his army, navy, air force
and special operations commanders in Qatar last week.

The broad outlines of the war plan are now apparent.

It aims to combine the armoured fist of the tank-heavy 1991 Persian
Gulf War with the speed of the overnight 1989 US takeover of Panama
and the precision bombing of the 2001 US campaign in Afghanistan.

The formal onset of the war is expected with three nearly simultaneous
moves.

On the ground, tanks and Apache attack helicopters will charge north
into Iraq from Kuwait. Most Army units will be on the west, heading
north towards the Euphrates River, while the Marine Corps and British
forces will jump off farther to the east and move up alongside Iraq's
southern marshes around the city of Basra."

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540072845.html

A fast, speedy war, featuring a multi pronged air and ground assault
using air power, tanks, and troops. Let's just call this what it is.
BLITZKREIG.

Gee, who invented THAT strategy?

This next piece of news has a fitting prologue with a truly ironic
double entendre, but when I saw it, I didn't know whether to laugh or
cry...

"Private contractors are carving up defence procurement. Nick
Mathiason reports on a military coup."

Apparently, Bush isn't the only one engaging in Corporatism these
days. Tony Blair's getting in on the game, too...

The First Privatised War

Private contractors are carving up defence procurement.
Nick Mathiason reports on a military coup...

The Observer - UK
March 2, 2003

More than 40,000 British troops are bracing themselves for action in
the Gulf. 'Our Boys' are backed by hundreds of tanks, fighter jets and
warships in what is the UK's biggest military build-up since the
Falklands conflict.

But any imminent action against Iraq will be historic for another
reason. This could be the last war fought by British armed forces

predominantly in the public sector. The Ministry of Defence is poised

to enter into a welter of partnerships with business, ushering in the
most fundamental shake-up of the military for more than 100 years.

(*MY NOTE* What were the Brits doing a little over 100 years ago? I'll
give you a hint. It had something to do with Boers, a war, and
concentration camps that mirrored the American concentration camps in
the Philippines.)

Entire training, logistics and supply operations are set to be hived
off to big business in the most far-reaching intrusion of the private
sector into what was considered the state's preserve. More than 900
procedural reviews by MoD officials and consultants are coming to a

head. There are strong indications from within the ministry and unions

á Most glaring is the scandal over the multi-million-pound upgrade of

RAF Nimrod aircraft, which suffered a setback because the wings built
by BAE were the wrong size. Nimrods are used for reconnaissance and
submarine hunting and have been deployed in every significant British
military operation in the past 30 years. Not this one, though.

á New Apache helicopters, costing £27m each, are being mothballed at a

cost of £6m. The National Audit Office (NAO) last November found pilot
training was messed up because of an attempt to introduce competition
into the regime, which cost an extra £34m. The helicopters are absent
from the Gulf deployment.

á The SA80 rifle, once feted as the ultimate assault weapon, was the

target of widespread complaints by soldiers. Made by BAE, it could not
be fired in the left-handed position because ejected rounds hit the
firer in the face, it was difficult to maintain in bad weather and the
magazine fell out when carried against the body. The faults have since
been corrected, according to the MoD.

á Halliburton, the oil and defence combine that US vice-president Dick

Cheney worked for, was contracted to rebuild Devonport dockyard in
Plymouth. Last December, an NAO report said the price had escalated
from £505m to £933m and could be a lot more.

á Britain's Gulf build-up has already been dogged by supply shortages

and equipment failures. Ten days ago it emerged that troops in Kuwait
are so short of rations they are being sent food parcels by their
families. Basics such as desert boots are unavailable. There are even
reports of shortages of toilet paper.

'It was horrific logistical debacles during the Crimean War in 1854
and the Boer War in the early 1900s which forced government to take
overall responsibility for procuring supplies and co-ordinating
military training,' said Dean Rogers, negotiations officer at the
Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents thousands of
civil servants currently working in the armed services. 'Now there is
a serious risk that this is all being unwound and the implications are
truly frightening.'

Senior officers have voiced doubts in private about the imminent
shift. They are training a searchlight at beleaguered Defence
Secretary Geoff Hoon, and asking if he is aware of the magnitude of
the reviews undertaken by his department.

One prominent officer who contacted The Observer despaired at the
prospect of a carve-up. 'The Army spent £3bn on Apache fighter
helicopters. Training the pilots was a contract given to the private
sector. The helicopters are ready but there are no pilots. They
haven't been trained and I don't think they'll be ready for at least
three years. This is a shambles. And yet the indications are the
ministry is proceeding with wholesale privatisation.

www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,905559,00.html


DID YOU SEE IT? Dickhead Cheney's Halliburton slimed their way into a
UK military service contract. BAE systems, the UK's biggest
contractor, was also mentioned. What wasn't mentioned was the BAE
systems is now owned and operated by the American-based Carlyle Group,
who employ George H W Bush, former PM John major, and oh so many other
of the 20th century's most heartless bastards.

This war is all about oil and military service contracts. It always
has been.

The UK is being turned into a vassal state of the American Empire, and
Tony Blair's finishing what Thatcher started with the sale of BP, by
selling BAE to the Carlyle Group. The UK is now well on it's way to
becoming Wall Street's bitch.

CHANGING SIDES, AND CHANGING SPOTS

Some people who were once on the inside are now trying to make amends
and do their part to fix things. Joe Stiglitz, former Chief Economist
for the World Bank is one of them. PLEASE go read his book, Globalism
and Its Detractors. It's a mea culpa the likes of which you've never
seen. He admits to being the guy who invented the IMF Structural
Adjustment Programs, and then goes on to explain what those policies
are doing to the Third World in horrific detail.

Go support your local Indigo or Chapters book store by purchasing
Stiglitz's book at one of their many locations. I say this with
sincerity because of a correspondence I just completed with the
Privacy Department at Indigo. I wrote them, asking them what their
privacy policy was. I suggested that they stop collecting purchase
information of Indigo card holders, so that if the feds tried to use
the Patriot Act to seize book records, the company wouldn't be able to
break the Constitution by complying.

As it turns out, they already have a program in place that will cease
filing your purchase records on purchases made though physical
bookstores, by dumping the purchase records into anonymous accounts.
Cardholders have to write them at www.indigo.ca to opt out of the
'Rewards' program and request that their information be deleted, but
once that's done, you don't have to worry about Indigo giving records
of your reading habits to Uncle Sam or the Canadian government.

So for now, I support Indigo and Chapters books, so long as they
continue to diversify the ever-expanding number of books kept
in-store. If they start moving in the other direction, you'll be the
first to know, because I don't endorse Corporations lightly. Please
consider purchasing Joe Stiglitz' Globalism and Its Detractors from
your local Indigo or Chapters store.

Another side-switcher of late is Warren Langley, former head of the
Pacific Stock Exchange.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle
/archive/2003/03/04/MN183728.DTL

If the United States attacks Iraq, a former president of the Pacific
Exchange plans to participate in nonviolent demonstrations aimed at
shutting down San Francisco's Financial District, including his former
employer.

Warren Langley of San Francisco, a U.S. Air Force veteran who was
president of the exchange from 1996 to 1999, will work with Direct
Action to Stop the War, the activists organizing civil disobedience on
the first business day after a U.S. attack.

"I felt I needed to do something more than marching in a
demonstration, more than talking to my friends about it, more than
sending e-mail letters to (Sens. Barbara) Boxer, (Dianne) Feinstein
and (Rep. Nancy) Pelosi," Langley said Monday. "I feel that this is an
important enough issue to take a risk."

The 60-year-old Russian Hill resident expects to be involved in
nonviolent protests in front of the exchange.

A spokesman for the Pacific Exchange declined to comment Monday on
Langley's involvement. Langley will formally announce his
participation at an 11 a.m. news conference today in San Francisco.
Now an independent consultant, Langley resigned from the exchange
during management changes there.

A 1965 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Langley raised money to
help fund an acclaimed 1998 documentary on Vietnam War prisoners of
war, "Tom Hanks Presents: Return with Honor." Several of his academy
classmates were POWs.

Now, he wants to speak out against the war.

Anti-war activists have been planning to blockade the Transamerica
Pyramid, the Pacific Exchange and other "war-making" corporate and
federal headquarters in San Francisco on the first business day after
a U.S. attack.

Since last October, dozens of small affinity groups, clusters of five
to 25 like-minded individuals, have been planning sit-ins,
intersection blockades and theatrical productions around more than two
dozen locations, most in the Financial District.

The activists' goal, as stated on their Web site and flyers: "If the
government and corporations won't stop the war, we'll shut down the
war makers!É"

This is a great idea if you ask me. Protesting at the spot where the
oil moneyÕs going to end up after the war. Poetic justice.


GET UP, STAND UP


A lot of people are still arguing that now is not the time to be
standing up, when faced with such an oppressive and brutal dictators
as the Bushies have become with their bogus laws and double standards
and penchant for secret arrests and assassination. They're saying that
in such times, one's first and foremost duty should be to look after
one's own, to survive, and to not go looking for trouble unless
trouble comes looking for you. Keep your head down and ride it out.

That kind of talk reminds me of being in a henhouse. It MUST be a
henhouse, because when I hear that kind of talk, I don't smell nothing
but chickenshit. If we refuse to stand up to injustice, we are guilty
of collaboration by silent consent. BOK BOK.

Read these excerpts from the Reverend Martin Luther King, written from
a Birmingham Jail.

'We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily
given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly,
I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed"
in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of
segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in
the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has
almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our
distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice
denied."

"The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and
he must release them. So, let him march; let him make prayer
pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to
understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not
released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through
violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not
said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried
to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into
the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach
is being termed extremist.

"But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an
extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained
a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist
for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice
roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."
Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body
the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist:
"Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John
Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a
butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot
survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So
the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of
extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will
we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension
of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were
crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the
same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for
immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans
Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby
rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the
world are in dire need of creative extremists."

"Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to
save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the
inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true
ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God
that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken
loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active
partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure
congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They
have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for
freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed
from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow
ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is
stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual
salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these
troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark
mountain of disappointment."

This last paragraph reminds me of the true words of Jesus, which are
not contained in the Bible and are considered Heresy by today's
Charlatans.

www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/gosthom.html

76. Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom is like a merchant who had a
supply of merchandise and found a pearl. That merchant was prudent; he
sold the merchandise and bought the single pearl for himself.

So also with you, seek his treasure that is unfailing, that is
enduring, where no moth comes to eat and no worm destroys."

77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all:
from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

78. Jesus said, "Why have you come out to the countryside? To see a
reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes,
[like your] rulers and your powerful ones? They are dressed in soft
clothes, and they cannot understand truth."

Those words are from the Gospel of Thomas, from the Nag Hammadi
transcripts found several decades ago in the Holy Land. They're
written in Jesus original tongue, Coptic, and date back to (or close
to) the lifetime of Jesus himself. They're the closest thing we have
to the actual words of Jesus of Nazareth.

I encourage one and all to check out the Nag Hammadi archive.

<http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html>www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html

If you read through these works, and then compare what Jesus says in
Coptic compared to what he says in today's Bible, which is in English
translated from Latin translated and heavily edited from Greek, which
was itself translated and edited from the original Coptic, you'll find
that the teachings of Jesus have been edited, twisted, and corrupted
so as to be unrecognizable as the teachings of Jesus in the original
language.

His words more closely resemble those of Che Guevara and Buddha than
the garbage passed off as the teachings of Jesus today, garbage
thumped loudly and proudly by our televangelists.

Jesus, the TRUE Jesus, has been silenced by today's media, just like
We, the People.

In reality, he was silenced long ago, in 322 AD, when the Roman
Emperor Constantine decided he needed a religion to go marching with,
and ordered the scribe Eusebius to create a definitive collection of
gospels that would be digestible by a Roman audience, and would serve
the needs of the state better than the Roman/Greek Pantheon or
Mithraism, which were the other religious cults competing with
Christianity.

People need to understand this. The Bible as we know it is NOT the
verbatim words of Jesus Christ. It's a bastardized and twisted version
of Jesus' words that no scholar of Roman history disputes was created
by Constantine and Eusebius in 322 AD.

Get it? NO ONE who's made serious study of the Byzantine era disputes
this. The Bible was translated, edited, and compiled by a Roman
Conquerer more three centuries after Jesus lived and died. There are
numerous historical records passed down since 322AD that support this
fact beyond any reasonable doubt.

Any who has eyes, let him see. Any who has ears, let him hear.

It's time to break the silence. It's time to move forward as a species
and rise above our animalistic tendencies, so we can at long last
achieve human civilization. But to do this, we need to be willing to
be persecuted, spat on, and crucified by lesser minds.

Believe me, you're not the only one who's scared. I'm just as scared
as any of you, even if it doesn't seem that way. But despite my own
fears, I put one foot in front of the other, step by step, person by
person, trying to make a difference.

Why?

Frank Herbert said it best in his Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear,
from the book Dune.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain

The ability to face our fear, to face uncertainty over security, is
the power of consciousness. It's what sets us apart from the animals.
We must conquer and master our fears, for until we can face them, and
face our past despite the discomfort of gazing at the distorted image
in the broken mirror, we will never move forward.

And all will be naught but silence.

Peace

[Everyman]

From: sil...@nwinfo.net (Everyman)

"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I sent Ralph 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.
He made no
comment about the content of the photos.

Similarly my constant jeering section, Don Ocean and Paul Gooding,
Angel Elf they have presisted in attacking my latest offering -- BUT
THEY DO SO NEVER HAVING REQUESTED THE PHOTOS THAT I OFFER UPON WHICH
THE CASE IS BASED!!! IN
OTHER WORDS THEY DON'T EVEN 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 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:

=======

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

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

Copyright Gerard Holmgren. Jan 9 2003.

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

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

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

"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

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

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

[Everyman]

>
> "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
> matter."

"World'sNicestGuy" <ppgoodi...@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:

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
======

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 affair -- but it is not right that only some Americans
discharge our debt to Israel -- the taxpayer must take food from his
other children's mouths -- 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.

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
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

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

[Everyman]

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
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

[Everyman]

> >>From: "yufamyzm"
> >>Subject: Re: Everyone needs to be on the streets on
> >>the 15th - 20 MILLION in London!
>
> >I guess noone studies history. Peaceful marches will
> >NOT change
> >anything. No matter how many people march. Now, if
> >you had 2
> >million people with guns set to take out the leaders
> >of the world;
> >Then and only then will something change. The
> >peaceful march thing
> >is just for semi-intelligent people to feel warm and
> >fuzzy. It also
> >gives them a feeling of superiority that they
> >actually did something
> >to stop what's going on. Walking around does
> >NOTHING. Walking
> >around with other people does a lot of NOTHING. And
> >they do in fact
> >use it as cannon fodder. Don't get me wrong here I
> >respect those
> >that are willing to march against war as I thought
> >about it myself.
> >But studing history proves it is a worthless
> >endeavour. If anyone
> >seriously thinks that those in power will step down
> >because everyone
> >wants them to, then those people are living in their
> >own mind created
> >fantasies. That's just the way it is.
>
> Truth is,you`re dead right! I`ve been trying to tell
> everyone that marches get NOTHING accomplished;
> Sadly,while I respect people for doing it,it`s solely
> masturbatory in essence.People say,"write to your
> representatives" LOL . This is nonsense! What good is
> a letter that no one reads and getting a form letter
> in response? I guess that`s what the American
> revolutionaries did, they wrote letters and the King
> just let them have America.It`s ALL or nothing. It is
> that simple.If marches are the " big gun" in the
> arsenal, then we may as well just conform now and save
> all our time and energy.

Both "lord anon" and yuffamyzm" -- men who conceal their names, notice --
say that marches do nothing -- marches are for the ignorant, they are warm
fuzzy stuff etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

These are revealing statements - about the two posters, not about the
subject they are writing about.

Fact is, nothing is more powerful than public opinion. The billionaire
racketeers who have controlled the US for 50 or 100 or 150 years do so by
control of public opinion -- the whore media -- the whore pollsters -- the
whore funded academic chairs - the whore NGO CEOs and spokesmen -- the
whore business and government people whose bread is buttered by corruption,
are, economic disequilibration etc., and not by public service or providing
"better mousetraps" etc.

THE SPEND BILLIONS TO CONTROL WHAT YOU HEAR AND SEE -- AND THEY SPEND
BILLIONS MORE FOR YOU TO THINK THAT EVERYONE ELSE AGREES WITH WHAT THEY ARE
SAYING -- assuming that people will not speak up when they think it is
hopeless -- when they think that everyone else in their neighborhood or
their organization or anywhere agrees with the poltically correct
establishment world view.

Many see through the deceit and the crimes but will not speak or act because
they feel that they are alone. He hecklers assigned to hurl insults and
ridicule at people reaching out to others on the internet are not there in
such force for no practical reason! They are there to keep things from
igniting -- THEY ARE TRYING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM TALKING CALMLY, SERIOUSLY,
INTELLIGENTLY ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE SEEING BEING DONE BY GOVERNMENT AND BY
CORPORATIONS. They provide a service -- to tamp down discent. Just as
Hannity and Limbaugh and all the other neoconservative corporation whore
mouthpieces put out their controlled product giving the false message that
they speak for "conservatives" for "patriotic people" etc.

BUT MARCHES ARE THE ONE THING THAT SHOWS THE LIE -- IT SHOWS THAT OPINION
POLLS ARE WRONG. IT TELLS PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE WRONG WHEN THEY SAY THAT
"THE PEOPLE WILL NEVER GET IT TOGETHER TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT ALL THIS."

"yufamyzm" and "lord anon"-- look at those names! they show similar
thinking don't they -- perhaps they are one person! -- they are trying to
talk you out of participating in demonstrations -- and of course they offer
nothing better, do they --

I am not getting much feedback on any of my posts -- but suddenly "lord
anon" is seconding the opinion of someone named "yufamyzm" that action that
shows popular unity in the real public world is a waste of time and that
people who engage in it are stupid.

Pray, gentlemen, that an ANdrew Jackson does not lead the coming Revolution
who will hunt you down and hang you for being the
mass-murder-frameup-for-war coverup accomplices that you bloody are.

(I wish someone would invite me to speak at a peace rally isomewhere in the
US Pacific Northwest -- you would see what people unified with clear
purpose and the facts that occasion that purpose will do.

It is faith that moves mountains -- faith even in the possibility that
good can prevail -- that your neighbors really do think like you and value
what you value despite all the episodes of Seinfeld and Married with kids
and Hannity diving us as Wackos, Leftists, Peace Freaks, Extremists,
Right-Wingers etc. (i.e., a slur to appeal to every prejudice -- just as
long as you get alienated from your fellow victim and sufferer who lives
next door.

All politics is local and happens in the streets.

Dick Eastman
Yakima

[Everyman]

1) Richard Perle Just Called Seymour Hersh a Terrorist!

2, 3, 4, 5 ) Israel and Bush -- several articles (none by me)
=================

Item # 1

I just watched Richard Perle describe Seymour Hersh to Wolf Blitzer on
CNN as a "terrorist."

Seymour Hersh, one of America's finest investigative journalists, has
written an article in the upcoming New Yorker which exposes a conflict
of interest in Richard Perle's activities: Perle is involved in a
company which stands to profit from the war he has been working so
hard to provoke.

Perle failed to answer Hersh's charge, or to explain the conflict of
interest. But he smeared Hersh as a "terrorist."

The whole gang of neocons, of which Perle is one of the main
ringleaders, has organized its ideological and propaganda system
around the notion of "the West" (that is, Israel) fighting "terrorism"
and "terrorists."

Now we see that a "terrorist" is anyone who asks reasonable questions
about the shady and unethical activities of Richard Perle.

It really doesn't get much more rotten than this. We are being pushed
into World War III to fight the enemies of Richard Perle and his crew,
which include leading American journalists like Seymour Hersh. Perle
is no doubt longing for the day when he can imprison all his critics
in concentration camps.

===============
Meanwhile, the Whole US Economy Tanks. People are losing their Pension
Funds!
My mother's pension payments were decreased $42.00 just in 3 months
time.
What I'm saying is The "Company" has a responsibility to protect the
US people.
So Protect Us!

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

The Gulf War ended Israel pipeline supply of oil, as well as Turkeys.
The motivation for Israel is a secure overland oil supply. this can
only come from Iraq, the pipe is already there just turn the valve.
==============

Since when to Moslem Fundamentalist Terrorists give Jewish Think Tanks
Advance Warning of Suicide Crashbombings of New York Skyscrapers?

*Two days* after 911, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs), one of the most influential think tanks making Bush
administration policy (along with the PNAC, AEI, CSP, WINEP, the
Defense Policy Board and the Heritage Foundation), published a
detailed plan to exploit the event, including the scheme to force a
regime change in Iraq through the use of American military power.

All of these think thanks are strongly under the influence of the
Israeli government.

Does anyone doubt that the full plan was in place long before 911?

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/print.html/documentid/1262

JINSA Online, September 13, 2001

--------------------------------------
Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Thomas Neumann, Executive Director, JINSA
202-833-0020

This Goes Beyond Bin Laden

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 13, 2001 - In the face of horrendous acts
of terrorism against the United States, the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA) calls on the American government and
on all world leaders to be decisive in their actions to confront the
terrorists and their supporters, who rely on our taking half measures
in response.

We must begin by condemning them and their organizations by name; we
know who they are. Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic
Jihad are only the most prominent. The countries harboring and
training them include not just Afghanistan - an easy target for blame
- but Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority,
Libya, Algeria and even our presumed friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

We must make them believe there is not one inch of soil on the planet
that is a haven or training ground for them.

The United States can have no political relationship with any country
or group whose citizens celebrate the death of innocent Americans.
There is nothing to justify dancing in the streets and rejoicing over
an American tragedy. This behavior tells us who our friends are, and
who wishes our mortal enemies well.

A long investigation to prove Osama Bin Laden's guilt with
prosecutorial certainty is entirely unnecessary. He is guilty in word
and deed. His history is the source of his culpability. The same holds
true for Saddam Hussein. Our actions in the past certainly were not
forceful enough, and now we must seize the opportunity to alter this
pattern of passivity.

In response to the attack on September 11, 2001 JINSA calls on the
United States to:

Halt all US purchases of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil for Food Program
and to provide all necessary support to the Iraq National Congress,
including direct American military support, to effect a regime change
in Iraq.

Bomb identified terrorist training camps and facilities in any country
harboring terrorists. Interdict the supply lines to terrorist
organizations, including but not limited to those between Damascus and
Beirut that permit Iran to use Lebanon as a terrorist base.

Revoke the Presidential Order banning assassinations.

Overturn the 1995 CIA Directive limiting whom the U.S. can recruit to
aid counter-terrorism in an effort to boost our human intelligence.

Freeze the bank accounts of organizations in the US that have links to
terrorism-supporting groups and their political wings. Ask other
countries and financial institutions to do the same.

Demand that Egypt and Saudi Arabia sever all remaining ties with Osama
Bin Laden, including ties with Saudi-sponsored nongovernmental
organizations and groups abroad that raise money for Bin Laden and
other terrorist organizations.

Suspend US Military Aid to Egypt while re-evaluating Egypt's support
for American policy objectives, and re-evaluate America's security
relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States unless both
actually join in our war against terrorism.

Ensure that American technology, arms, technical support and personnel
are not supplied to countries that do not fully support American
objectives regarding terrorism, and through which terrorists might
acquire American materiel. Ask our allies and other countries to
undertake similar restrictions.

Reassess the visa process by which nationals from hostile nations are
permitted to enter the United States. And tighten controls at the
Canadian and Mexican borders to prevent access by people without
appropriate documentation.

Strengthen American law enforcement efforts to identify and eliminate
terrorist cells operating in the United States.

Take immediate steps to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.
The terrorists who struck on Tuesday changed the physical and
political landscape of America. We in JINSA trust that our government
and our people will make them regret that day.

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

Bush and Blair SO NOT represent their
respective countries or people. They are behaving like Zionised rabid
dogs and protecting their Oil and Defense Industry investments. Else,
how come they are demanding war against Iraq while:
1. Many credible Christian and Muslim leaders are saying, "war
against Iraq is not a just war, crusade or jihad",
2. UN Weapons Inspectors failed to provide any reason for war,
3. Despite Anglo_American bribes, inducements, threats, .
overwhelming numbers of Security Council members are opposing war,
4. People and government of the whole world (apart from one
or two questionable nations many of whom are run by despotic dictators
and TERRORIST STATE ISRAEL) opposing war,
5. According to the Australian Reserve Bank, a war with Iraq
could cost Australia up to 130 Billion dollars,
6. And again, a war with Iraq could cost the rest of the world 2
trillion dollars apart from humane and other irreplaceable costs,
7. Such a war could seriously damage the whole United Nations
and
8. A war purely based on Anglo-American hypocrisy and double
standard will increase and legitimize terrorism, as well as poison
many
mind, nature and environment.

Should anyone wish to argue for or against the above please provide
evidence, logic or moral stand rather than self-serving, patronising
opinion.

==========

But the decision to put off consideration of the plan is widely seen
as a rebuff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who has backed the
Europeans and urged Mr. Bush to intensify the American commitment to
Middle East peace efforts, to placate both Arab countries and European
allies being courted over Iraq.

Mr. Powell is described by aides as believing with the Europeans that
the stalemate over the peace plan has hampered the American ability to
get approval of a resolution on Iraq at the Security Council.

State Department officials say that management of Middle East policies
has increasingly been taken over by the White House, where Elliott
Abrams, a passionate advocate of Israel, has recently taken over the
Middle East portfolio on the National Security Council staff. Three
aides under him who were identified with the pro-peace-plan position
have recently resigned leading to speculation in the administration
that their departure had cemented Mr. Bush's basic pro-Israel
position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/international/middleeast/09PEAC.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

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

March 9, 2003
Bush Freezes Mideast Plan During Crisis in Iraq
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

n a sharp rebuff to European allies, Russia and the United Nations,
the Bush administration has decided not to put forth a plan for a
peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians until after the
crisis in Iraq is resolved, administration officials say.

Negotiations aimed at drafting a three-year-long, step by step "road
map" leading to the creation of a Palestinian state have been under
way between the United States and these partners for nearly a year,
but the administration has come under increasing pressure of late to
adopt and publish the plan formally as the likelihood of a war with
Iraq has risen.

As recently as December, President Bush met with European leaders and
the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, all of whom wanted
the peace plan published immediately to ease the anger of Arabs in the
Middle East who charge that the United States has been single-mindedly
focused on Iraq.

Those who met with Mr. Bush said they had won assurances that the plan
would be published as soon as the Israeli elections were completed in
late January.

Now, officials say, Mr. Bush has changed his mind and regards the
December pledge as unrealistic. The administration's decision not to
proceed with publishing the plan — a seven-page document that calls
for reciprocal steps that would also include replacing Yasir Arafat as
the Palestinian leader and an end to attacks on Israel — has
infuriated the Europeans and poisoned the atmosphere even as the
administration has struggled to secure the allies' support for its
possible war against Iraq.

Among the angriest is Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, whose
aides say has pleaded with Mr. Bush to become more involved in the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

But administration officials say that it makes no sense to publish the
peace plan and push the effort now with a possible war on the horizon,
with anxiety in Israel deepening over being attacked during a war with
Iraq and a multibillion-dollar Israeli request for American military
aid on the table.

American officials also say that publishing a document calling for the
removal of Mr. Arafat may upset recent progress among the Palestinians
in choosing a prime minister as a step toward having him cede power.
They say that more work also needs to be done to accommodate Israeli
objections to the plan.

"In the real world, the ability to achieve a peace settlement does not
turn on whether you publish a road map this week or next," an
administration official said. "It turns on publishing it when it is
most likely to elicit positive responses and be helpful."

Without saying so directly, administration officials suggest that a
successful outcome in Iraq, particularly a swift military victory,
would give the United States enormous leverage to bring about a
settlement.

But the Europeans see it differently, something that was obvious at
the United Nations Security Council on Friday, when the French foreign
minister, Dominique de Villepin, and many other speakers cited the
absence of peace efforts in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis as a far
greater threat to stability than Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons in
Iraq.

Privately, many charge that Mr. Bush, on the eve of a possible war,
does not want to do anything to anger Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of
Israel. Among other reasons, they say that the United States does not
want Mr. Sharon to intervene in the war even if Israel is attacked by
Iraqi missiles, lest this direct Arab countries' anger at Israel.

"Let's face it, the road map is dead," a senior European diplomat
said. "This administration will never do anything opposed by Sharon."

Another European diplomat involved in drafting the plan said that
without a published plan, a war would cause the Arab world to erupt
with rage directed at the United States. "There was a lot of dismay
when the road map was put off before, and the dismay right now is even
worse," the diplomat said.

Still another said that publishing the plan was the only way to keep
hope alive among Muslims in the Middle East. "Without hope, the power
of extremists will only grow," he said.

Administration officials say that such comments are unfair and that
after an Iraq war the administration would be prepared to press Israel
to make the concessions for peace that Mr. Sharon has said in
principle Israel would have to accept.

But the decision to put off consideration of the plan is widely seen
as a rebuff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who has backed the
Europeans and urged Mr. Bush to intensify the American commitment to
Middle East peace efforts, to placate both Arab countries and European
allies being courted over Iraq.

Mr. Powell is described by aides as believing with the Europeans that
the stalemate over the peace plan has hampered the American ability to
get approval of a resolution on Iraq at the Security Council.

State Department officials say that management of Middle East policies
has increasingly been taken over by the White House, where Elliott
Abrams, a passionate advocate of Israel, has recently taken over the
Middle East portfolio on the National Security Council staff. Three
aides under him who were identified with the pro-peace-plan position
have recently resigned leading to speculation in the administration
that their departure had cemented Mr. Bush's basic pro-Israel
position.

The "road map" plan, in its current form, is a timetable for
reciprocal steps by Israel and the Palestinians, phased in over three
years. Mr. Sharon has said many times that he accepts the concept of
the plan but he argues that it contains ambiguities dangerous to
Israel's interests.

To reassure the impatient Arab countries that the peace plan was
endorsed by Mr. Bush, the White House arranged for the president to
reiterate his commitment to it in a speech on Iraq 10 days ago. The
statement of commitment was also meant to assuage the fear of Mr.
Blair and others that the administration's commitment to the peace
plan was wavering.

Israel's main objections have won sympathy at the White House. They
focus on the fear that there is not enough of a guarantee that Mr.
Arafat will be replaced by leadership that controls both the
Palestinian finances and security apparatus. Israel also fears that
the plan calls for it to take irreversible steps — like pulling out
troops and freezing settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip —
in return for amorphous commitments by the Palestinians to reduce
violence.

Mr. Sharon's aides make no secret of their disdain for the whole idea
of involving the Europeans, Russians and United Nations in monitoring
progress on the Palestinian side. They say that they do not want the
French to play such a role, since the French are maintaining that Mr.
Hussein is disarming.

American officials say that the plan fully reflects Mr. Bush's vision
for a Palestinian state as laid out in his speech on the matter last
summer and that many strides have been made in recent weeks to select
new leadership to replace Mr. Arafat.

Administration officials reject the charge that Mr. Bush has never
criticized Israel. They point out that it is long-standing American
policy for Israel to show restraint in suppressing Palestinian
violence and to ease on curbs on the movements and economic activities
of the Palestinians.

They note that Mr. Bush has not hesitated to criticize Mr. Sharon when
Israel seemed to be using heavy force to put down Palestinian
uprisings — though no such criticism was made in the last week over
Israeli actions in Gaza — on the grounds that these actions are simply
drawing the Palestinian people to rally all the more around Mr.
Arafat.

When Mr. Bush spoke the other day of an end to Palestinian violence as
a necessity before the phased end to settlement activity by Israel,
some in Israel saw this as a more pro-Israel position than in the
past. But administration aides point out that Mr. Bush said the same
thing in his major speech on the subject last June 24.

Some outside experts who have criticized what they see as the
administration's lack of involvement in the Middle East negotiations
say they can understand why it makes sense to put off pushing the plan
until after Iraq is settled.

Dennis B. Ross, the Middle East peace negotiator in the Clinton
administration, said that the recent developments among the
Palestinians in selecting new leadership were potentially significant,
and that putting the road map idea into a deep freeze until after an
Iraq war was a defensible idea. The problem, he said, is that the
United States has not leveled with its allies on its intentions.

[Everyman]

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.

K

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 spiritually bereft, it is, quite possibly,
apocalyptic in its implications.

Fritz Ritsch

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

I. The Police State: Parasites and Patriots Part I
By Al Lorentz

II. Civilian employees of Dick Cheney's former company are
carrying out military missions around the world – for profit.
By Pratap Chatterjee
===================================
Item #1:

The Police State:
Parasites and Patriots Part I
By Al Lorentz

When we look at the control mechanism for the globalists and their
police state fantasies, one thing becomes quite obvious; they are a
flea under a magnifying glass. When viewed through the glass of major
and carefully controlled mass media, as they prefer to be seen, they
look terrifying, powerful and invincible. When viewed plainly and
honestly though, they are seen as ugly, small and parasitical. Still
dangerous but hardly invincible.

Just like any other parasites, they are of course a problem and not to
be taken lightly. But, just like all parasites, they need to be dealt
with or they will overwhelm the host and destroy it. Such is the
dilemma we find ourselves in today, the parasites are the problem and
the truth is the insecticide we need to be rid of them.

Unfortunately, there isn t enough truth being spread around today to
do anything more than simply annoy the parasites. Some Patriots
mistakenly believe that the way to deal with the parasites is to try
and find them them individually and destroy them. Anyone who has ever
seen fleas on a dog realizes that this can become a full time
occupation with diminishing returns. What we patriots need to be
doing is applying liberal doses of flea powder, we need to be
spreading the truth.

I know many patriots who keep their political views and opposition to
the parasitical enemies of liberty who masquerade as our public
servants, a secret. A good example would be the tax revolt, some
courageous souls such as Bob Schultz are challenging the IRS head on,
seeking not just a victory for themselves but for us all. Others
mistakenly believe the way we fight the tax system is to cheat on our
taxes and hide; in soldiers parlance this is known as digging a hole
and pulling it in behind you , it is an
impossibility. While I sympathize with those latter, they are as
effective in the war against tyranny as the soldier who, instead of
shooting at the enemy, spends his time hiding in the bottom of his
foxhole. While the soldier who hides in his foxhole certainly did
part of his duty by not getting killed, he missed the most important
part which was to defeat the enemy. This is an information war,
either shoot, load or make bandages!

I have other friends who keep their ownership of weapons, a
Constitutionally protected and God given right, a secret. Their
understanding of warfare and politics is obviously as clouded as their
understanding of how tyrants operate. The tyrants are not at all
concerned about a relative handful of secret operatives, they are
concerned about the masses. When gun control is initiated, the people
who already know they will resist aren t going to be the first targets
of disarmament, it will be the undecided citizens who would have been
invaluable in reversing the course of tyranny.

We as patriots must be leaders.

Our Founding Fathers were quite willing to sacrifice their lives,
their fortunes and their sacred honor if necessary to secure our
freedom and liberty. We must be people such as they, else we are not
going to be able to win such freedom and liberty much less maintain
it. Adopting a course of action that relies on educating and
informing only ourselves, arming only ourselves and making little if
any overt political opposition only helps to isolate us further from
our countrymen. When the tyrants seize control they will first disarm
the regular populace and then pick we the patriots off, one at a time.
Those neighbors whom you neglected to inform of the truth will not be
able or willing to help you during such times and the tyrants will
know this full well. Imagine the conflagration and massacre at Waco
and you will have a clear picture of what is in store for us all.

I am not suggesting however that we make open, public and stupid
statements or engage in reckless behavior in our protest. Our
Founding Fathers were wise, Jesus and his disciples were wise and so
then should we be. If you are going to be a leader, you must be the
sort of person people will follow, even unto death. Nobody will
follow hotheads, idiots, fools or reckless men.

Hardly a day goes by when I don t get yet another URGENT letter from
somebody, no doubt well meaning, who is encouraging a reckless, poorly
planned and usually vindictive or vengeful course of action against
the tyrants. While I understand the anger, indeed I feel exactly the
same way, lashing out in an unprepared manner is not only foolhardy,
it is counter-productive.

It does not matter how many injustices are wrought against us, how
many this is the last straw assaults on our Constitution are
performed or other outrageous and obvious injustices are performed.
Until such time as the American people in general understand that the
Constitution is the law of the land, not the will of the public
servants who are supposed to obey it, our success will be sporadic at
best.

I am not of course encouraging inactivity, in fact I am encouraging
just the opposite, we must be vigorous in our pursuit of liberty. I
am simply saying that we must first educate and teach our fellow
citizens, else they will not understand what they are opposing any
more than they understand what they
are supposed to be defending. Sun Tzu said that to commit untrained
troops to battle is to waste them.

I know many patriots who believe one day that we will have to fight
against our own military and I agree that they are being trained for
the specific purpose of engaging in hostilities against their own
people. The way to counter-act this is not to try and raise, train
and equip an army of equal size of our own (an impossibility), but
rather to negate the effects of that army.

When I was a senior NCO, I had pre-determined that, if given the order
to fire upon or in any way engage civilians (a direct violation of
Posse Comitatus), I would perform my duty as required. My duty as
required was to turn to the officer who gave the order, draw my
sidearm and place him or her
under arrest. My soldiers were instructed to do the same and to use
whatever force necessary to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
United States.

If we want to negate the effects of the relatively small but very
dangerous military machine in the current and rapidly escalating war
against the United States Constitution and the American people being
waged by our own public servants, we will be much more effective if we
spend our time teaching the soldiers to uphold and defend the
Constitution instead of training to have to fight against them one
day. As a professional soldier, I can tell you that the military
hangs like a ripe fig ready to be harvested in this regard, especially
the young soldiers. If we can win them over honorably with the truth,
we can win this fight to restore our Constitutional Republic with
little or no bloodshed and destruction.

Yes, there will always be those who can not be converted, those who
are so thoroughly wicked and depraved that they will not only burn
men, women and children alive, but who will believe that such horrible
and inhuman behavior is necessary, acceptable and even praiseworthy.
Waco is one such example in recent times but it is not the first, nor
will it be the last. The solution to preventing another Waco event is
not to build bunkers for ourselves, rather it is to restore our
Constitutional Republic. Then, if another Waco occurs, the
perpetrators of such criminal activity as burning alive men, women and
children, will be tried, (hopefully) convicted and punished instead of
being promoted, rewarded and praised.

I am not advocating that we disarm ourselves, nor am I advocating that
we do not prepare for the eventuality that we may have to take up arms
in order to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. I am
however saying that we should look at what course of action would be
most effective, honorable and just. While squashing fleas by hand may
give some form of satisfaction, would not a good application of flea
powder be vastly more effective?

For political commentary columns, send email to
RichsRants...@SmartGroups.com
=================================================

Civilian employees of Dick Cheney's former company are carrying out
military missions around the world – for profit.
By Pratap Chatterjee

IN EARLY JANUARY, Jon France, transportation officer at the Sierra
Army Depot in Herlong, Calif., was asked to help support the war in
Afghanistan by sending prefabricated military bases that could be run
by private corporations.

With just two days to complete the job, France scrambled to get 100
containers of a package code-named Force Provider (see "Force
Provider: The Base-in-a-Box,") to Reno, Nev. where the Nevada Air
National Guard was standing by to load them onto three Air Force C-5s
and four 747s headed to Ramstein, Germany, Larry Rogers, a
spokesperson for the army depot, told us. A day later the 21st Theater
Support Command arrived in Ramstein to airlift the Force Provider
package to Central Asia.

Employees of Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of the Dallas-based
Halliburton Corp. (once run by Vice President Dick Cheney), are
scheduled to arrive at the Bagram air base in southern Afghanistan to
take over the day-to-day support services at the Force Provider camp
starting in late April or early May (the exact date is classified).
They are also set to arrive at the Khanabad air base in Uzbekistan,
one of the main military support stations for the war in Afghanistan,
to run three Air Force Harvest Eagle camps (an older version of Force
Provider) for the 1,500 U.S. troops based there since October,
according to Daniel McGinty, a spokesperson at the Defense Contract
Management Agency, which will be overseeing the contracts.

"They [Brown and Root] will be maintaining these packages,[doing] base
camp maintenance, facilities maintenance, laundry services, food
services, airfield services, property accountability, and supply
operations," says Gale L. Smith, a spokesperson for the U.S. Army
Operations Support Command in Alexandria, Va. (Brown and Root is now
named Kellogg Brown andRoot, following a corporate merger, but is
often referredto by its previous name.) She refused to confirm or deny
whether Brown and Root would be working on similar bases in
Manas,Kyrgyzstan, or other sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan to
support Operation Enduring Freedom.

The new job is one of the first examples of a private company being
awarded a lucrative contract from the Pentagon to run the day-to-day
support operations on the battlefield. In December 2001, Brown and
Root secured a 10-year deal called Logistics Civil Augmentation
Program (LOGCAP), according to a Pentagon press release. The contract
is a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
service," which basically means that the federal government has an
open-ended mandate and budget to send Brown and Root anywhere in the
world to run humanitarian or military operations for a profit.

And critics are alarmed. The military has a long-celebrated, cozy
relationship with private industry, but Brown and Root's goes much
further. For private industry will now essentially run a war
operation. And the potential problems are legion, military critics
warn. Not only will civilians be running around overseas with guns,
but they'll also be answering to nobody.

"The Bush-Cheney team have turned the United States into a family
business," says Harvey Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War (Seven
Stories Press, 2000). "That's why we haven't seen Cheney – he's
cutting deals with his old buddies who gave him a multimillion-dollar
golden handshake. Have they no grace, no shame, no common sense? Why
don't they just have Enron run America? Or have Zapata Petroleum
[George W. Bush's failed oil-exploration venture] build a pipeline
across Afghanistan?"

Deep roots
Halliburton, Brown and Root's parent company, is a Fortune 500
construction corporation working primarily for the oil industry. In
the early 1990s the company was awarded the job to study and then
implement the privatization of routine army functions under
then-secretary of defense Dick Cheney.

When Cheney quit his Pentagon job, he landed as chief executive of
Halliburton, bringing with him his trusted deputy David Gribbin. The
two substantially increased Halliburton's government business until
they quit in 2000, once Cheney was elected vice president. Since then
another confidante of Cheney, Adm. Joe Lopez, former commander in
chief for U.S. forces in southern Europe, took over Gribbin's old job
of go-between for the government and the company, according to Brown
and Root's own press releases (see "Dick Cheney: Soldier of Fortune,"
page 23). Other close friends include Richard Armitage, the assistant
secretary of state, who worked as a consultant to Halliburton before
taking up his present job.

Last year the company took in $13 billion in revenues, according to
its latest annual report. Currently, Brown and Root estimates it has
$740 million in existing U.S. government contracts (approximately 37
percent of its global business), most of which are in addition to the
LOGCAP deal.

For example, in mid November 2001, Brown and Root was paid $2 million
to reinforce the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, under contract
with the State Department, according to the New York Times. More
recently Brown and Root was paid $16 million by the federal government
to go to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to build a 408-person prison for
captured Taliban fighters, according to Pentagon press releases.

That's by no means all: Brown and Root employees can be found back
home running support operations from Fort Knox, Ky., to a naval base
in El Centro, Calif., according to information provided by the
company.

And it is also snapping up contracts with American allies, according
to company press releases: In September 2001 the company signed on to
a $283 million project for Russia's Defense Threat Reduction Agency to
eliminate liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missiles and their
silos. In November 2001 the Philippines awarded the company a $100
million order to convert the U.S. Navy's former ship-repair
facilities in Subic Bay into a modern commercial port facility. And in
December it won a $420 million contract from the British Army to
support a fleet of new mammoth tank transporters.

Critics charge that this is a classic example of the revolving door
between government and big business. "Cheney gives new meaning to the
term 'revolving door.' " says Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at
the World Policy Institute in New York. "If he does not get elected
president next, I have no doubt he will return to Halliburton when he
leaves the White House."

Jennifer Millerwise, a spokesperson for Cheney's office, denies that
there was any contact help from the White House: "The vice president
did not discuss this with anybody from Halliburton or any subsidiary
of Halliburton. Nor does he comment on Halliburton's policies, since
he doesn't work there any more."

The business of warBut Brown and Root is no stranger to the war
business. From 1962 to 1972 the Pentagon paid the company tens of
millions of dollars to work in South Vietnam, where they built roads,
landing strips,
harbors, and military bases from the demilitarized zone to the Mekong
Delta. The company was one of the main contractors hired to construct
the Diego Garcia air base in the Indian Ocean, according to Pentagon
military histories.

The privatization of services at military camps is a relatively new
concept that was introduced in 1992, when the Pentagon, then under
Cheney's direction, paid Brown and Root $3.9 million to produce a
classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could
help provide logistics for U.S. operations abroad (see "Dick Cheney:
Soldier of Fortune," page 23). Several months later the Pentagon gave
the company an additional $5 million to update its report.

That same year Brown and Root won its first five-year LOGCAP contract
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which would send them to work
alongside G.I.s in places such as Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, Bosnia,
and Saudi Arabia. Brown and Root's work in the Balkans has been the
most profitable for the company – the General Accounting Office (GAO)
estimates the company made $2.2 billion in revenue during the military
operations there, building sewage systems,
kitchens, and showers and even washing underwear for the 20,000
soldiers stationed there.

A student research report written by Maj. Maria Dowling and published
by the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama shows that
Brown and Root employees can be required to live with soldiers, wear
battle dress uniforms, and be issued guns (ostensibly for personal
protection). They are substituting for conventional military support
units – with acronyms that would make a vegetarian cringe – such as
Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force (Prime BEEF), Rapid Engineer
Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineer (RED HORSE), and
Prime Readiness in Base Service (Prime RIBS).

The ratio of such contractors to military personnel is rapidly rising
from 1 in 50 during Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War to 1 in 10
in Operation Just Endeavor in the Balkans, according to other Air
University research papers.

Praise from the army, criticism from outside
Col. Tom Palmer, maintenance chief for Task Force Eagle in Bosnia,
admiringly describes how closely he worked with private contractors
such as Brown and Root in Bosnia at a Sept. 18, 1997, operation to
seize and maintain control of a transmission tower on Mount Zep that
was transmitting continuous, inflammatory anti-NATO Stabilization
Force messages to the public. In a recent issue of Army Logistician,
he wrote, "For soldiers familiar with the Bosnian area of operations,
the name 'Brown and Root Services Corporation' (BRSC) became
synonymous with "contractor support."

But other government agencies are more sceptical. "It is convenient to
contract a lot of this work out," says Neil Curtin, director of
operations and readiness issues for the GAO defense capabilities and
management team. "The problem is that the government doesn't do the
best job of oversight."

Policy analysts say it's simply a matter of time before something goes
wrong. Thomas Donnelly, deputy executive director of the Project for
the New American Century inWashington, D.C., says, "We've been
pretty lucky so far that nothing has gone wrong. The Balkans were one
thing, but Central Asia is a much tougher neighborhood. Suppose a
local Afghani contractor gets kidnapped or used for mischief? This has
not been thought through at the policy level or opened up for public
debate. There's a lot of opportunity for things to fall
through the cracks and a huge security risk."

Christopher Helmand, research analyst at the Center for Defense
Information, a think tank on military affairs, believes that
privatization can help reduce waste and inefficiency in the military
but points out that security is a big concern. "What do we do when
somebody infiltrates a U.S.military base and blows it up? If we have
civilians walking in and out of our bases because they are 'our
allies' in the Northern Alliance or private contractors, we increase
our risk considerably," he says. "We simply don't have all the bugs
worked out because this is such a new area."

Sometimes the risks have come from inside. In 1994, United Nations
troops armed with batons and tear gas had to be brought in to quell
protests by workers Brown and Root dismissed at the end of its
engagement in Somalia. In Saudi Arabia the army was alarmed when it
discovered locally contracted drivers were firing up portable propane
tanks to cook meals in the desert while transporting high-explosive
ordnance weapons, according to the Dowling report.

Certain contractors, including Brown and Root, have also complained
that the army treats them as second-class citizens. On at least one
occasion, food-service contractors walked off the job in Saudi Arabia
when they were not provided with proper protection against chemical
attacks; another time, contractors moved out of army tents and
checked into a hotel in defiance of army orders, according to a
research report by Major Lisa Turner of the U.S. Air Force.

Independent agencies are still sceptical about claimed financial
savings from the privatization of military support operations, and the
GAO has conducted several investigations. A February 1997 study showed
that an operation estimated at $191.6 million when presented to
Congress in 1996 had ballooned to $461.5 million a year later.

Examples of overspending by contractors have included flying plywood
from the United States to the Balkans at $85.98 a sheet and billing
the army to pay its employees' income taxes in Hungary.

A subsequent GAO report, issued September 2000, showed that Brown and
Root was still taking advantage of the contract in the Balkans, noting
that army commanders were unable to keep track of the contract, as
they were typically rotated out of camps after a six-
month duration, erasing institutional memory.

The GAO painted a picture of Brown and Root contract employees
sitting idly most of the time. The report also noted that a lot of
staff time was spent doing unnecessary tasks, such as cleaning offices
four times a day.

Allegations of fraud
In February 2002, Brown and Root paid out $2 million to settle a suit
with the Justice Department that alleged the company defrauded the
government during the mid-1990s closure of Fort Ord in Monterey,
Calif.

The allegations in the case surfaced several years ago when Dammen
Gant Campbell, a former contracts manager for Brown and Root turned
whistle-blower, charged that between 1994 and 1998 the company
fraudulently inflated project costs by misrepresenting the
quantities, quality, and types of materials required for 224
projects. Campbell said the company submitted a detailed "contractors
pricing proposal" from an army manual containing fixed prices for some
30,000 line items.

Once the proposal was approved, the company submitted a more general
"statement of work," which did not contain a breakdown of items to be
purchased. Campbell maintained the company intentionally did not
deliver many items listed in the original proposal. The
company defended this practice by claiming the statement of work was
the legally binding document, not the original contractors pricing
proposal.

"Whether you characterize it as fraud or sharp businesspractices, the
bottom line is the same: the government was not getting what it paid
for," says Michael Hirst, of the United States Attorney's Office in
Sacramento, who litigated the suit on behalf of the government. "We
alleged that they exploited the contracting process and increased
their profits at the governments expense."

Campbell's attorney Dan Schrader has a guess as to why the company was
so eager to compromise. "If the company was indicted, I suspect that
it might have been far more difficult for them to get new government
contracts," he says.

Indeed, the company's 2001 annual report says just that in its notes
on the settlement of the lawsuit: "Brown and Root's ability to perform
further work for the U.S. government has not been impaired." Hirst
adds, "Brown and Root was very cooperative and eager to settle. They
said they wanted to maintain a good relationship with the government."

The company will have a harder time milking the contract in
Afghanistan, because the government is now dispatching auditors from
the Defense Contract Management Agency to monitor all purchases, but
it still stands to at least make a profit on whatever it can bill. The
contract allows for the company to charge a fee of up to 9 percent
over cost. The exact amount depends on performance in the field.

And if the war on terrorism expands to the size of the Balkan
operations, profits could add up to a few hundred million dollars. In
addition to the bases in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, the army started
dispatching Force Provider units to Kyrgyzstan's Manas air base as
recently as January 2002 to support up to 3,500 soldiers. Whether or
not Brown and Root will follow them there, the army has yet to tell
the public.

"Brown and Root has not deployed nor been tasked to provide support in
either country," company spokesperson Zelma Branch said, refusing to
give any more details about the current LOGCAP contract. When provided
with evidence that the company was indeed going to both countries, she
e-mailed us, "We can not elaborate at this time. Recommend you contact
the Army."

The Pentagon, on the other hand, is considering expanding the role of
the private sector to do a variety of services, from refueling fighter
jets and bombers in midair to running missile-tracking systems.

Inside military circles, talk has it that the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA) is considering hiring private contractors to
train the new Afghan police and army, which it has done in the past in
places such as Croatia, where it hired Military Professionals
Resources Inc.

MPRI, founded in 1988 by former army chief of staff Carl Vuono and
seven other retired generals, was harshly criticized after the
Croatian military, in a highly effective offensive called Operation
Storm, captured the Serb-held Krajina enclave later that year,
uprooting more than 150,000 Serbs from their homes.

David Des Roches, a DSCA spokesman, denied that the Pentagon had a
proposal on the table at the moment but did not rule out the future
possibility: "A lot of people have said, 'Ding, ding, ding, gravy
train.' But in point of fact, it makes sense. They're probably better
at doing these sorts of missions than anyone else I could think of."

The World Policy Institute's Hartung disagrees. "This is a company
that has more experience with insider dealing and corruption than with
efficiency," he says. "During the Second World War, there was a Senate
committee on war profiteering. Personally I think we should set it up
again and investigate Brown and Root," he says.

Pratap Chatterjee is an investigative environmental writer and
producer. This article was produced with support from the CorpWatch
fund for investigative journalism. (www.corpwatch.org). He is also
coproducer and host of the weekly Terra Verde radio show on KPFA,
94.1-FM, Fri., 1-2 p.m.

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

[Everyman]

http://www.stratiawire.com/article.asp?id=971

Monday, March 10, 2003
THE VERY STRANGE BUSH PRESS CONFERENCE

MARCH 10. Looking pale, nervous, and withdrawn, President Bush stepped
to the podium Thursday night.

In the first few seconds, he tipped his hand as to the paucity of
substance in his remarks. He announced that the recent capture of
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a major event, because Khalid was, in fact,
"the mastermind" behind 9/11.

And yet, this supposed intelligence coup dropped like a lead balloon.
Why?

Why didn't Bush give the full aggressive trumpets-in-the-air treatment
to the arrest?

And why hadn't Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and others in the Bush circle
already played up the FINAL AND LONG-AWAITED CAPTURE OF THE 9/11
MASTERMIND?

Was it because, as I wrote several days ago, Khalid was reported
killed last year? The Asia Times thought so.

Was this nothing more than another lie, like the "fine piece of work"
the Brits had put together on Iraq---the study that turned out to be
largely plagiarized from a graduate student's old paper?

You would think that the administration would have pumped up Khalid's
arrest as the most important moment thus far in the war against
terrorism. THEY FINALLY GOT THE MAN WHO PLANNED 9/11.

But no such thing happened.

My impression was that Bush knew he was skating on very thin ice when
he announced the Khalid capture. The sub-text was, "I don't even want
to be saying this in public, so I'm going to get it over with as
quickly as possible and move on to more familiar territory---Iraq."

Quite possibly Bush was also frightened because, well, if the highest
operative in the planning of 9/11 had just been arrested, then what
significance does the upcoming war against Iraq really have?

Something very weird was going on just under the surface of Bush's
remarks on Thursday---the pundits who came on afterwards to put their
two cents in called his tone "somber"---as if this explained Bush's
withdrawn demeanor.

Of course, going a bit deeper, anyone who cares to think about 9/11
knows that this event was never treated as a straightforward crime
investigation, as it should have been. The investigation was
politicized from the first second, and thence all the PR flowed
forward from there.

I have yet to hear, for example, how the supposed 19 hijackers were
IDed so quickly by the FBI. This is still a complete mystery.

Former counsel to the House Committee on Assassinations, Robert K
Tanenbaum---a famous lawyer who has never lost a felony case---once
remarked that the JFK murder was full of holes and had never been
treated as a crime investigation. The charges against Oswald were a
mess---a real prosecutor would have had a hell of a time proving his
case in a courtroom.

But when crime investigations are handled by announcements from the
White House, when references are made to shadowy intelligence reports
from the CIA, the true state of affairs is buried.

Which is one reason why the war on terror wants secret tribunals and
arrests of suspects without charges, without defense lawyers, without
bail, without judicial scrutiny, without limits on detainment.

On Thursday night, Bush was supposed to be the mouthpiece for this
secret process, and he was as weak as a churchmouse when he glossed
over the Khalid arrest.

I believe Bush was briefed before he went to the podium: "This arrest
isn't rock solid, Mr. President. Just announce it and get it out of
the way and move on. The press won't catch on."

And they didn't. Even though the obvious question was, "Mr. President,
if we have finally nabbed the number one planner of 9/11, why aren't
we seeing fireworks and streamers and balloons? Why aren't we getting
repetitive announcements of great praise for the FBI and the CIA?"

JON RAPPOPORT

www.stratiawire.com

[Everyman]

Problem: Hamletism, Our Fatal Flaw: Why can't people simply see the
evidence, reach the conclusion to which the evidence inecluctably
points , MAKE THE ACCUSATION, and demand justice for the good of all?

Discussion:

Clinton and associates committed China treason and were at least
accomplices in many murders. Period.

Key individuals -- whether in the media or not, whether in government
or not, whether "mainstream" or populist FAILED TO TAKE IN ACCURATE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVIDENCE, FAILED TO REACH THE ONLY POSSIBLE
CONCLUSION, FAILED TO MAKE THE ACCUSATION, FAILED TO DEMAND JUSTICE
FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.

Bush and associates are

involved in the standdown of air defenses at the Pentagon on 9-11;

involved in the coverup of the fact that no Boeing 757 Flight 77
crashed at the Pentagon, as we know because

a) the plane (124 ft. 6 in. span -- six Pentagon
windows across) did not go through the ten-foot
hole in the Pentagon wall (only two windows across)
that was made and abundantly photographed and
shown to the public on the internet;

b) the Pentagon security cameral video recording
shows the attack plane's tail fin, but where
the long shiny aluminum front of the fuselage
should be showing there is nothing on the
frame but the background (the Boeing can fit
seven of its tail fins along its back,
Stegasaurus style) the aircraft shown in the
frame has a fuselage does not exceed five
lengths of the fin that is shown;

c) there is no wreckage commensurate with the
crash of a Boeing 757;

d) witnesses consistently disagree about the
plane in a way that suggests that two
aircraft on two different paths approached
the target;

etc. evidence unending. (see below for urls
where you can review the variety of other
powerful evidence all pointing to the same
conclusion.)

Yet none but a handful of people have been willing to stand up and
point out exactly these proofs of the Administrations guilt -- not
governments, not media, not patriots, not democrats, not liberals, not
extremists, not anarchists, not detectives, not independent reporters,
not talk radio hosts, not short wave and internet radio hosts.

I have.

Day after day those few who have dared to state the most important
fact of Administration guilt face endless ridicule by those the
administration has posted to hurl insults, to discredit, to frustrate,
to drive mad.

All but a precious handful have fought against war with the only
weapon that can possibly prevail in stopping war, the guilt of the
Administration in the mass-murder frameup.

Who has any ideas of what we can do to change this situation?

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

It is no longer reasonable to defend the official verson
of the Pentagon Attack. THe Boeing simply did not hit,
with everything that reality implies about the state of
our country and the world.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

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

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html
http://www.koolpages.com/killtown/flight77.html
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)

[Everyman]

sil...@nwinfo.net (Everyman) wrote in message news:<73d08839.0303...@posting.google.com>...

> >
> > "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
> > matter."
>
> "World'sNicestGuy" <ppgoodi...@rocketmail.com> wrote
>
> > > Bwahahahha!

Europe's great humanitarian and and financial system (formally of
Sweden, now living in South Africa) writes a powerful newsletter, What
Really Matters. His current issue has important news we have not
been hearing about and which I have pasted below. I have taken the
liberty of preparing a table of contents -- and here it is:

1.
Excerpt from DIS-INTEGRATION
by Michael C. Ruppert - posted at
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/pfv.cfm?pfvID=2843

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

2.
A VIEW FROM THE RIGHT (by Bob Chapman, International Forcaster --
from Don Stacey)

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

3.
COLIN POWELL'S APPALLING USE OF LANGUAGE
"that 'bravery' must be the ability to order the deaths of
100,000 Iraqis "

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

4.
NOBODY IN BAGHDAD WILL BE SAFE

"It would be a firestorm, a Dresden or Tokyo with 60 years of new
technology. It would be a war crime of quick and staggering
proportions.

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

5.
E-BOMBS MAY BE USED

Directed-energy -- invisible lasers using high-powered
microwaves and this technology is likely to be deployed against
Iraqis.

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

6.
PENTAGON READY TO KILL INDEPENDENT REPORTERS

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

7.
THE PATRIOT ACT'S BIG BROTHER, THE DOMESTIC SECURITY
ENHANCEMENT ACT, OPENS THE WAY FOR "THE ERA OF
'THE DISAPPEARED'"

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

8.
LIST OF TARGETED U.S. ORGANISATIONS
A list of some 300 legally constituted organisations designated by the
Attorney General as having "interests in conflict with those of the
United
States" is posted at http://charlestonvoice.netfirms.com/ASA.htm

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

9.
POPE TELLS BUSH, "GOD IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE IF YOU INVADE IRAQ"

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

10.
U.S. WILL BE PAYING FOR IRAQ FOR YEARS

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

11.
GOLD AND SWISS FRANC RISE IN TANDEM AGAINST $

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

12.
RECOMMENDED READING
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth by W. Clark - January 2003
-
Independent Media Center - www.indymedia.org

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

13.
HOT GOSSIP - TONY BLAIR HAS BEEN BRIBED
A few hours after posting a news item reporting a $16 billion Bush Sr
to
Tony Blair bribe, the Cloak and Dagger website, at
http://www.cloakanddagger.ca/exclu.htm was 'smashed'.

Here is Wegerif's newsletter:

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

WHAT MATTERS 123 --March 11, 2003

Dear list members,

Below is a miscellany of 13 new items and commentaries relating to the
impending U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq and the financial mess the world
is in.
I will let the items speak for themselves, without comment from me,
except
in item 13.

--
In last week's E-letter WM-122, about The Sun-Comet Neat Encounter, I
quoted
how the brown dwarf Enigma "should course by the South Pole of our
planet
some time around March 10th [2003] at a high rate of speed," according
to
fringe astronomer José V. Chung. Chung covered himself by writing that
'Enigma' could be travelling more slowly than calculated and may
arrive as
late as April/May, with more devastating effect.

Well, March 10 has passed uneventfully. Professor James McCanney, who
has
thoroughly researched the Sun's increasing turbulence, in anticipation
of a
large intruder Planet X, debunked "the so-called 'Enigma' in a March 6
Internet broadcast: "We'll see if this thing comes whizzing by the
Earth, or
is just another Government disinformation ploy," he said. "If Enigma
came by
us, say between us and the moon, then yes it would cause some damage .
. .
But, my guess is that Enigma is not real." - You can hear the
broadcast at
http://www.realityradionetwork.com/

In friendship,

Boudewijn Wegerif
What Matters Programme
Folkhogskola Vardingeby *
150 21 Molnbo, Sweden
TEL: +46.158.10411
_________________________
1.
Excerpt from DIS-INTEGRATION
by Michael C. Ruppert - posted at
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/pfv.cfm?pfvID=2843

"- - - 114 countries are urging the United States to back down from
the
invasion Capitol Hill Blue is reporting that senior Bush advisors are
quietly trying to find a way out of war with Iraq now that they have
realized that it is a no-win situation. "What's happening? We don't
get it!"
You would if you had been listening to what we have been saying for
eighteen
months. Peak Oil is here. The world is starting to run out. There is
no more
oil to find and what's left can't be put into your gas tank or our
power
generating stations quickly. - - - [Read the] incredibly precise
economic
analysis by Marshall Auerback recently published by The Prudent Bear
at:
http://www.prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?category=International+P
erspective&content_idx=20368 .

"To make it simple, the problem is this: In spite of microscopic fig
leaves
stating that OPEC will ramp up production to meet oil needs, the fact
is
that OPEC just can't do it. Goldman Sachs knows it. James Baker knows
it.
Bush knows it. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, having survived U.S. coup
attempts,
now holds a "whip hand" as Venezuelan production still lags behind.
Saudi
Arabia is unstable. Nigeria, the world's sixth largest producer ...
just had
an oil strike. Its production is down and every other producing
facility is
on overtime.

"In the latest issue of FTW* we poke yet another hole in the grand
illusion
about an Iraqi windfall. It may take two to five years and as much as
$50
billion in new investment to increase Iraqi production from two to
five
million barrels a day as the rest of the world's reserves dry up. The
planet
is currently consuming a billion barrels of oil every 12 days. Peak
Oil is
here now. What difference does it make if Saudi Arabia and OPEC might
be
able to add five million barrels a day? It's who gets it that matters.

"Worse, countries like India and Pakistan have announced a version of
panic
buying to build up their reserves before the war. This places a
further
strain on production capacity. With the invasion, if the Iraqi supply
is
interrupted for just a month then the markets will see the light and
there
will be a capitulation sell-off on Wall Street that might take the Dow
down
to 4000.

"Ten million could be unemployed inside of six months. U.S. reserves
are at
27-year lows and the administration is prepared to open up our
Strategic
Petroleum Reserves (SPR), which can sustain the US for about 75 days.
Tap
into the SPR and what do you think prices will do? And if prices
double or
triple what do you think will happen to your job? Your checkbook? - -
-

"Now think for a moment what happens if the U.S. backs down, as I
think it
should. 36 percent of all the proven recoverable reserves in the world
are
in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Not all oil reserves are recoverable. Only
lunatics believe that wells, pipelines and refineries are already in
place
and paid for in the smaller fields that have not been developed. A
perceived
American power vacuum would unleash a polite, at first, but ultimately
frantic, scramble for Saudi and Iraqi oil in the full knowledge that
whoever
loses out will be the first civilization to collapse; the first of
many.

"Yes, it all makes perfect sense."

* © Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications,
www.fromthewilderness.com. All rights reserved. May be copied,
distributed
or posted on the Internet for non-profit purposes only.

--
2.
A VIEW FROM THE RIGHT

Excerpted from Bob Chapman's rightist 'The International Forecaster'
(a
subscription paid for investment newsletter), of March 2003 (Vol. 7
No.
3-1) - bif...@comcast.net; provided by list member Don Stacey -
dst...@attbi.com

"Rumor has it the US has a new missile or air burst bomb, called Moab,
a
21,000-pound bomb that is pushed out of the back of a C-130 and guided
by
satellite. It is similar to a small nuclear weapon. This weapon can
help
kill millions of civilians in an explosion similar to the one that
destroyed
Dresden, Germany in 1944, killing 300,000 civilians. - - -

"All world markets and economies are headed lower. We are in a
worldwide
recession that will become a depression. We are headed into the
Kondratieff
winter. A winter so severe it will shake humanity to its very
foundations.

"We also have a new factor that as far as we know didn't exist in the
1930s
and that is official covert government intervention in financial
markets. It
is no secret that the Treasury and the FED interfered in the currency
markets for many years, but now through the secretive totally opaque
Working
Group on Financial Markets, better known as The Plunge Protection
Team, the
government interferes in many financial markets, including foreign
ones.

Thus, our government creates rallies in the market and provides
support when
the market is attempting to go lower. They do the same in the gold
market
only in reverse. Selling every rally and every support level. These
incursions, allowed by executive order, only serve to delay the
inevitable
and to exacerbate the final outcome. Market interference by
government, with
the cooperation of corporate America, creates fascist government. It
also
deceives the public into believing financial problems are not nearly
as bad
as they seem, deterring many from selling their shares and eventually
allowing them to incur even greater losses. This is why government
lies
about economic statistics.

"In order to keep the public's mind off their problems our government
is
arranging perpetual war for perpetual peace. They are herding the herd
in a
different new direction just as they did in the 1960s. This is how
they keep
investors invested when 94% of mutual funds lose money." In 2002
investors
lost an averaged of 21%. Since April 2000, when we told our
subscribers to
sell, most investors have lost 50-70 percent of their assets.

"We expect this lack of consumer confidence to translate into a 10-
20%
slowdown in the economy over the next 18 months. Who can have
confidence in
a corporate America, Wall Street and government run by crooks? The
message
is finally hitting home." - - -

"The question is what happens when house prices drop 30% and more
owners
become unemployed? Of course, the answer is even lower house prices.
When in
negative equity millions of homeowners will walk away and Fannie and
Freddie
will collapse or be taken over by the government. Then there is the
make
believe war on terrorism, which means war against the American people.
George Bush wants to lock down America. No dissent and no other
opinion
other than those of the elitists. We caution you again, get out of
debt, be
out of the stock market, and own gold and silver coins and shares.
Hide your
coins and guns because our government is preparing to confiscate
them."

--
3.
AN APPALLING USE OF LANGUAGE

"It was interesting to hear Colin Powell accuse France and Germany of
cowardice in not wanting to go to war. Or, as he put more succinctly,
France
and Germany 'are afraid of upholding their responsibility to impose
the will
of the international community'. Powell's speech brings up one of the
most
outrageous but least examined aspects of this whole war on Iraq
business. I
am speaking about the appalling collateral damage already being
inflicted on
the English language.

"Perhaps the worst impact is on our vocabulary. 'Cowardice', according
to
Colin Powell, is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians
living in Baghdad in order to promote US oil interests in the Middle
East.
The corollary is that 'bravery' must be the ability to order the
deaths of
100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.

SOURCE: From article by Terry Jones in The Observer (UK) of Sunday
February
23, 2003, received from list member Mairied Sullivan -
mai...@maireid.com -
and posted at http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,901102,00.html

--
4.
NOBODY IN BAGHDAD WILL BE SAFE

"It would be a firestorm, a Dresden or Tokyo with 60 years of new
technology. It would be a war crime of quick and staggering
proportions.

"The plan includes simultaneous ground invasions from north and
south... It
also includes a sudden decimation of Baghdad by raining down on its
people,
in two days, over 800 cruise missiles -- more than were used in the
entire
Gulf War. - - -

"Such a plan, of course, makes a mockery of Donald Rumsfeld's ritual
insistence that the Pentagon takes enormous care to avoid civilian
casualties; the plan apparently is to kill a staggering percentage of
Baghdad's civilian population in the first day alone. - - - The United
States is planning to suck all the oxygen out of the air with a
fireball
over the heads of the five million residents of Baghdad, so that, as
another
Pentagon interviewee said, "nobody in Baghdad will be safe," whether
above
ground or below.

"Are Americans - politicians, media executives, and ordinary citizens
- so
numb, or oblivious, or callous to the horrors of war that we cannot
raise
ourselves to be bothered by what would be, if it works as planned, one
of
the greatest massacres, one of the greatest war crimes, in the history
of
the world, committed in our name and with our money?"

>From Shock And Awe Plan, To Obliterate Baghdad, by Geov Parrish on
February
24, 2003 - posted at
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14544&CFID=5420517&CFTOKE
N=63376510

--
5.
E-BOMBS MAY BE USED

A new weapon in the arsenal of America's military-industrial complex
is
based on directed-energy -- invisible lasers using high-powered
microwaves and this technology is likely to be deployed against
Iraqis. Most
of the directed-energy systems are meant to disable electronics, to
disrupt
or destroy the digital devices that control the information lifeblood
of
modern societies and modern military forces. The U.S. military has
developed
a weapon that can permanently disable electrical and
telecommunications
systems in Baghdad.

The new weapon is known as the "e-bomb" for the high-velocity
electromagnetic pulses it discharges. It would not only would disable
Baghdad's command and control systems, but it also would fry the
circuitry on Baghdad's phone and electrical systems, as well as the
city's hospital and emergency-services infrastructure. The damage
would be
permanent.

"If there is a war in Iraq, there is no question in my mind that we
will
see the use of both directed-energy...weaponry,'' said John Arquilla,
a
professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in
Monterey, California.

SOURCE: From The Hoffman Wire - February 20, 2003 -
Hoffm...@topica.com,
posted at http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html

--
6.
PENTAGON READY TO KILL INDEPENDENT REPORTERS

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions
of
independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war
correspondent,
Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that
questioned
about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior
Pentagon
officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."

Here is the relevant transcript, from the Sunday Show, RTE Radio,
March 19,
2003:

Kate Adie: "I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if
uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Baghdad, for
example--
were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums of the
military
above Baghdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were
journalists ..
'Who cares!' said.. [inaudible] .. "

SOURCE: Fintan Dunne, Editor, GuluFuture - http://www.gulufuture.com -
received from Angie Carlson - ang...@planetsos.com

--
7.
THE PATRIOT ACT'S BIG BROTHER, THE DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT,
OPENS
THE WAY FOR "THE ERA OF 'THE DISAPPEARED'"

"Your friend, spouse, or neighbor disappears, never to be heard from
again.
They have committed no crime. No announcement is made of the arrest,
and
your inquiries are met with "We know nothing." No lawyer or court is
allowed to review the case or to have any information about it. The
person
might have been put in some prison, which has become the equivalent of
a
concentration camp. Or they might have been deported to some third
world
country run by a US-sponsored dictator, possibly to languish in prison
there. Indeed, they might have simply been shot and buried - who's to
know
the difference?

"The era of 'The Disappeared' is about to strike the land of the free
and
the home of the brave. When this kind of thing was going on in
Argentina,
under CIA sponsorship, they used to take plane loads of people out
over the
Pacific and shove them out the back of the plane. Another thing to
keep in
mind is that the first people to be put in German concentration camps
were
not Jews, but labor leaders, socialists, and others whose beliefs made
them
'Enemies of the Reich'.

This is Richard Moore's introduction to the article, Patriot Act's Big
Brother, by David Cole, to be published in the March 17 issue of The
Nation
and posted at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=cole.
(Richard Moore is editor of Cyberjournal - http://cyberjournal.org)

The Patriot Act's 'big brother' is to be the Domestic Security
Enhancement
Act (DSEA) in which the sweeping new powers of surveillance, detention
and
prosecution of the Patriot Act are taken one giant step further. "It
provides that any citizen, even native-born, who supports even the
lawful
activities of an organization the executive branch deems 'terrorist'
is
presumptively stripped of his or her citizenship. To date, the 'war on
terrorism' has largely been directed at non-citizens, especially Arabs
and
Muslims. But the DSEA would actually turn citizens associated with
'terrorist' groups into aliens.

--
8.
LIST OF TARGETED U.S. ORGANISATIONS

A list of some 300 legally constituted organisations designated by the
Attorney General as having "interests in conflict with those of the
United
States" is posted at http://charlestonvoice.netfirms.com/ASA.htm

It is clear from the list that interests in conflict with those of the
United States, are for the most part interests in peace, labour
rights, and
social and economic justice. Organisations with names beginning with
'American', for example, include, American Jewish Labor Council,
American
League Against War and Fascism, American league for Peace and
Democracy,
American National Labor Party, American national Socialist League,
American
National Socialist Party - etc.

--
9.
POPE TELLS BUSH, "GOD IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE IF YOU INVADE IRAQ"

Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush:
God is
not on your side if you invade Iraq. But the President told the
pope's
envoy the leader of the world's Catholics is wrong. Pleading for
peace, an
emissary from Pope John Paul II questioned Bush Wednesday on whether
he was
doing all he could to avert what the envoy called an 'unjust' war with
Iraq.
Bush said removing Saddam Hussein would make the world more peaceful.
The
president met with Cardinal Pio Laghi, a former Vatican ambassador to
the
United States and a Bush family friend, on Ash Wednesday, the start of
the
Christian Lenten season of penance and spiritual renewal leading up to
Easter. Bush told the envoy in a 40-minute meeting that "if it comes
to the
use of force, he believes it will make the world better," said White
House
spokesman Ari Fleischer, who attended the private meeting. "Removing
the
threat to the region will lead to a better, more peaceful world in
which
innocent Iraqis will have a better life." Laghi came bearing the
pope's
message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither
morally
nor legally justified. The Pope also questioned the President's
statements
invoking God's name as justification for the invasion. "God is a
neutral
observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into
war
and assume God will be at his side." In Rome, the pope called for
"common
efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict."

SOURCE: Pope To Bush: Go Into Iraq And You Go Without God, By Capital
Hill
Blue Staff and Wire Reports - March 5, 2003 - posted at
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1883.shtml

--
10.
U.S. WILL BE PAYING FOR IRAQ FOR YEARS

The Bush administration has finally and grudgingly come out with first
"
concrete" estimates of the cost of war with Iraq, at somewhere between
$60
billion and $95 billion. Don't believe either number. In the end we
are
going to be talking in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars. If we
are
lucky, it might peak out at a half trillion.

This is detailed at the Market Watch web site:
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BCEA62644%2DDF10%2D435F%2D8
0E4%2DE0F9DCDB9D20%7D&siteid=mktw

"To say that such immense foreign and domestic borrowing needs will
put a
huge strain on the global financial system is a crass understatement.

"The biggest illusion of all in some circles is that we will pay for
this
whole thing with Iraqi oil. Dream on. Iraq pumps only 2.5 million
barrels a
day. The Iraqi oil fields are so run down that we will be lucky if we
are
able to maintain that level of output during the next two years. And
all of
the income generated from such output, which today amounts to
somewhere
between 50 and 75 percent of Iraqi per capita income, will have to go
where
most of it is going today: to providing food and medical care to a
large
percentage of the Iraqi population that is totally dependent on
government
handouts for survival. Even when we are able to begin pushing up
Iraq's
output of crude oil, taking even a small fraction of that away to pay
for
our war costs would fly in the face of our stated objective for
fighting
this war in the first place - to build a prosperous and free Iraq."

--
11.
GOLD AND SWISS FRANC RISE IN TANDEM AGAINST $

"The Swiss franc has shown the greatest appreciation of any fiats
against
the US$ in the past year. 17%, I believe. . . . All the major foreign
currencies showed similar behavior with gold responding with them in
tandem
to the upside.

"Since July of 2001 the Swiss franc has gained 36% vis-a-vis the US$.
During that same period gold has appreciated 34% against the US$.
Pretty
much the same. When the SFR attains US$ parity (1-for-1) with the US$,
one
can pretty safely assume that gold will reach US$473. [It presently
trades
at $355 an ounce - BW]. Here's the clicker though: the Swiss in the
past
when their currency has gotten 'too strong', have implemented a policy
of
negative interest. Investors seeking safety will be left with no other
money
alternatives than gold and silver. If the Bank of Japan is so
displeased
with a strengthening Yen why don't they implement such a policy?"

SOURCE: From a Charleston Voice E-letter - March 5, 2003
bil...@knology.net

--
12.
RECOMMENDED READING

The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth by W. Clark - January 2003
-
Independent Media Center - www.indymedia.org

Summary: Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer
to the
Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is an oil currency war. The
real
reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of
preventing
further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
momentum
towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in
order
to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq
along with
its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss
the
macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real
threat to
U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency.

SOURCE: Received from list member Patrick Carmack, who received it
from
Gordon Howell in Canada - gho...@ualberta.net - who cites n
amalgamation of
sources at:
http://richmond.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2567&group=webcast
and
http://stlouis.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=4710&group=webcast

--
13.
HOT GOSSIP - TONY BLAIR HAS BEEN BRIBED

A few hours after posting a news item reporting a $16 billion Bush Sr
to
Tony Blair bribe, the Cloak and Dagger website, at
http://www.cloakanddagger.ca/exclu.htm was 'smashed'. I have also
received
Investigative journalist Sherman H. Skolnick's version of the Bush
bribes
Blair story, as Part 28 of The Overthrow of the American Republic
series,
but on visiting his website I find only parts one to 26 of the series
listed - www.skolnicksreport.com. Make of this what you will. If $16
billion has truly been made available to Tony Blair personally, that
would
make him amongst the richest men in the world. An unlikely event. If
there
has been such a large dollar transfer, it is more likely intended for
propping up the Bank of England, which has lost a great deal of money
through speculations in the dollar-linked Kuwaiti dinar, and LIFFE,
the
International Financial Futures and Options Exchange in London.

Cloak and Dagger and Sherman H. Skolnick claim that there is reliable
evidence of bank transfers of $16 billion to PM Blair's personal
accounts
from George Bush financial interests via the United Arab Emirates,
where
investigations into criminal bribery against Blair have begun. The
bank
investigators are said to have shown senior French diplomats documents
that
corroborate that Bush Sr sent 16 Billion Dollars to Tony Blair via
Carlyle
Group, which has close ties with the family of Osama bin Laden, who,
it is
claimed continue to fund bin Laden through a major Saudi Bank. A
former UK
PM [John Major] is a director of Carlyle Group.

__________________________
This E-letter is posted at
http://www.whatmatters.nu/wmeletters/wmeletters26.html#WM-123

** The What Matters Programme is an initiative by Boudewijn Wegerif,
to
spread information about what is happening in the world today, and how
things could be, given a schooling at all levels to free the self and
the
world from debt/guilt oppression and money madness - a schooling for
Satyagraha, truth and love force. The trustees of the What Matters
Programme
are the collegiate of Folkhögskola Vårdinge By, an adult education
residential college south of Stockholm.

You can read WHAT MATTERS E-letters 1-105 at
http://www.whatmatters.nu/wmemails/wmemailsindex.html, and from WM-106
at
http://www.whatmatters.nu/wmeletters/wmelettersindex.html .

To subscribe or unsubscribe to the WHAT MATTERS E-letters:
http://www.whatmatters.nu/contacts.html or write direct to me at
weg...@connectit.co.za

[Everyman]

Thousands Of Russians
Volunteer To Fight US In Iraq
By Timofei Byelo
Pravda.Ru
3-11-3

Around ten thousand Russian citizens have applied for entry visas into
Iraq to defend this country against the planned aggression by the
warmongering USA and UK, according to the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.

Iraqi Ambassador to Moscow, Abbas Khalaf, declared last week that the
Embassy had received around 3,500 requests, a number which has
multiplied in the last few days, according to sources in the same
Embassy.

The requests come from young males, some with combat experience, who
describe themselves as ćvolunteersä who are willing to defend Iraq
against the illegal armed aggression of the USA and the United Kingdom,
two countries which continue to follow a belligerent stance on crisis
management, wholly outside the generally accepted concepts of a New
World Order based upon multilateralist approaches to problem solving,
based upon the United Nations Organisation, a position championed by
president Putinās Russian Federation.

For those who present an adequate reason for travelling to Iraq, the
Embassy provides a visa and transportation, free of charge.
Disclaimer

Email This Article

MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros

[Everyman]

Were Neo-Conservatives' 1998 Planning Memos a Blueprint for
9-11 Frameup and Iraq War?

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

received from aftermath news:

Years before George W. Bush entered the White House,
and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the
direction of his presidency, a group of influential
neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein
out of power. And in a report just before the 2000
election that would bring Bush to power, the group
predicted that the shift would come about slowly,
unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing
event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives' 1998 Memos a Blueprint for
Iraq War?

March 10 - Years before George W. Bush entered the
White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set
the direction of his presidency, a group of
influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get
Saddam Hussein out of power.
The group, the Project for the New American Century,
or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters
were three Republican former officials who were
sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton:
Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional
leaders the next year, the group called for "the
removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a
shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the
Middle East, including the use of force if necessary
to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that
would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that
the shift would come about slowly, unless there were
"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new
Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time,
Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of
defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning - before it was even clear who was
behind the attacks - Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet
meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal
target of the first round of terrorism," according to
Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to
becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

Links to Bush Administration

Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign
policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as,
in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret
blueprint for U.S. global domination."

The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998
open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated
unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no
longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War
coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates
the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the
near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In
the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and
his regime from power," they wrote, foreshadowing the
debate currently under way in the United Nations.

Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in
the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary
of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the
White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other
signatories include William Kristol, editor of the
conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard
Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed
from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong
America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that
defended American security and American interests. And
understanding that American leadership was key to not
only world stability, but any hope for spreading
democracy and freedom around the world."

Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy

After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in
position as a potential threat, Kristol told
Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of
terrible things were really being loosed upon the
world because America was being too timid, and too
weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era."
In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed
for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S.
interests around the globe.

Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but
through the rest of his presidency and the beginning
of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam
lay dormant - until September 2001.

"Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the
president to this extravagant image of what foreign
policy required," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East
expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11,
it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of
political capital, combined with the supply of
military preponderance in the hands of the president.
And this small group, therefore, was able to gain
direct contact and even control, now, of the White
House."

Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in
conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the
tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the
president feel that he has to live up to their
definitions of manliness, their definitions of success
and fear, their definitions of failure."

Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but
said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get
its message out. "We made it very public that we
thought that one consequence the president should draw
from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and
let either terrorist groups or dictators developing
weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he
said.

Predicting Vindication

Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq,
Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of
responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost
human lives. But, he said, he would also feel
responsible if "something terrible" happened because
of U.S. inaction.

Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's
traditional allies oppose military action against
Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I
think what we've learned over the last 10 years is
that America has to lead. Other countries won't act.
They will follow us, but they won't do it on their
own," he said.

Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated
when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and
when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that
many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the
war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and
democratize Iraq.

This report originally aired on Nightline on March 5,
2003.

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

Received:

WHAT if all the soldiers of the world went on strike?

"Hey politicians! shoot it out 'mongst yourselves, if you like!
But as for myself, I've better things to do.
Tell me, why should I go out and die for YOU?
You've got your global agenda; but what do I care?
I've no quarrel with those poor saps over there.
Yes, I've realized that they're men just like me.
They don't really want war either--they'd rather be free.

"They're real human beings, with souls and hearts,
Not mere pieces of meat, to be blasted apart.
They've got dreams, and they've lives to live.
They've got mothers and fathers, and wives and kids.
Why, they're being controlled and brainwashed too.
They too are the Many, beaten down by the Few.
Your propaganda once strong, is now sounding feeble,
As we discover the real war is GOVERNMENTS against PEOPLE!

"No, I won't fight your oppressive war,
Won't go to die in theatres afar,
And spill my life's blood for God knows what--
doing the dirty work for fools without brains, spines nor guts.
I think I'll unionize all the world's cannon fodder,
We'll call a worldwide strike--watch the Tower of Babel totter!
And we'll shout the words loud and clear, just to spite `em:

IF YOU WANT TO START WARS,
THEN YOU GO AND FIGHT `EM!"

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

It is no longer reasonable to defend the official verson
of the Pentagon Attack. THe Boeing simply did not hit

that building. So now we must face up to everything
that that firmly established fact implies about the state of

our country and the world.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
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.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

[Everyman]

Debunking the "The Official Legend" -- Dick Eastman versus the
"Urban Legends" pro-coverup Pentagon disinformation page (Barbara
and David P. Mikkelson )
------------------------------------------------------

To: uk.politics.crime,uk.politics.parliament,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.greens,alt.conspiracy
Re: Pentagon frameup investigation is conclusive -- 9-11 was a frameup
Here is all the proof a grand jury will need.

"Ed Rhodes" <edward....@verizon.net> wrote
> "Everyman" sil...@nwinfo.net> wrote

> > Andy and the rest are empty talk.
>
> I have to ask... did you read the arguments in the Urban Myths page?
> www.snopes2.com

I just did, Ed, just now, just for you. It stinks. Here, in
detail, is why I say that:

------

The relevant "Urban Legends" page is this one:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

The urban legends authors are full of little errors as well as big
whopping lerrors that they MUST be aware are errors. And the error is
all in favor of the coverup, what I call "the Official Legend" They
claim

" notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked
American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the
military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the
U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan
in his book, The Frightening Fraud." This is wrong. It started long
before that -- in early March 2002, by the French site: Hunt the
Boeing.

Barbara and David P. Mikkelson then say: "Meyssan offers no real
explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon,
asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the
Pengaton, and that 'the American government is lying.' " Meyssan
attributes the damage to a missile.

But note that urban legends is attacking the "no plane" theory. Not
my "small plane" theory -- which is also known as the "Killer Jet and
Decoy Boeing" theory.

Next, Barbara and David P. Mikkelson attack a straw-man "legend": that
only the outer ring of the Pentagon was damaged. Of course no one is
claiming this. I think they made this legend up. They dwell on this
one for quite a while.

Then they tackle this straw man: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9
yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a
cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this
building? "

ANd how do Barbara and David P. Mikkelson respond? They simply
repeat "THE BOUNCE LEGEND" AS IF IT IS TRUE -- WHICH IT IS NOT. They
write: "the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the
Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating
much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive
damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York
Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the
first and second floors."

Mostly they just repeat the "Official Legend" offering no evidence,
merely telling "the legend:"

"The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light
poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350
miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated
the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which
sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after
the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after
enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured
employees."

There is an error here. The killer jet did not get near the helipad
which was north of the crash (and the plane came in from the
southwest) -- although the helipad did get a shower of confetti debris
(I say from the missile that was fired into the wall.) I find it a
significant new datum that the wall collapsed (I say deliberately to
close up the too-obviously too-small hole made by the missile and the
killer jet) AFTER ALL RESCUES WERE MADE (and also during the moment
when, at Rumsfeld's direction, all rescure and fire fighters were
ordered back because another plane was rumored to be on the way -- AND
THIS AFTER THE 4TH AIRLINER HAD CRASHED IN PENNSYLVANIA!! It was a
ruse, to clear the area before knocking down that bothersome
incriminating hole.

Another false statement by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson : "The
collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside
through a gaping hole." The killer jet only penetrated as far as the
C-ring. The innermost ring was not breached at all.

Next question:

3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the
Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this
photograph?

Here is how Barbara and David P. Mikkelson explain the absense of
Boeing 757 wreckage:

" ... since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into
thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a
fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in
after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned
up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes
flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity
of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse)."

Yet there was no 50 tons of melted aluminum either -- and there should
have been. The aluminum would not burn -- because its surface
oxidizes immediately preventing oxygen from combining with aluminium
atoms in combusion. The aluminum would have melted into a big puddle
or else there would have been large pieces of debris. There were
neither. Barbara and David P. Mikkelson just made that up.

Now here is what I found the most maddening claptrap of all. They
actually point to the piece of a the outer skin from a Boeing 757 that
was planted far off to the port side of where the plane hit. AND I
HAVE SHOWN THAT THIS PIECE COULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN FROM THE STARBOARD
SIDE TO THAT LOCATION HUNDREDS OF FEET TO THE PORT SIDE SINCE IT IS
NOT AERODYNAMIC ENOUGH TO TRAVEL, SINCE THE WIND WAS AGAINST IT, SINCE
IT COULD NOT HAVE PUSHED ITSELF THROUGH THE EXPOSION OR THROUGH THE
COMPACTING FUSELAGE OF A BOEINT. THE PIECE WAS PLANTED AND I GIVE THE
EVIDENCE. THUS URBAN LEGENDS AUTHORS Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
HAVE NOT DONE THEIR HOMEWORK -- AND THEY ARE, WITTINGLY OR
UNWITTINGLY, SUPPORTING WHAT HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS PLANTED FALSE
EVIDENCE AND A COVERUP.

"Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon
lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below: "

I suspect Barbara and David P. Mikkelson know that what they are
writing misrepresents the facts.

Next they talk about the sand that was put down. They say it was to
keep trucks from slipping. That is possible, in my opinion -- but it
also covered the lack of bounce marks and buried any telltale pieces
that might have told a souvenier hunter what kind of craft really hit
the building. Yet Barbara and David P. Mikkelson want to take the
DoD's word for it -- and I can't disprove that word on this point.

Now here is the biggest stretch -- the most blatant case of "urban
legends" spinning coverup or at least dishing it out:

Barbara and David P. Mikkelson are asked, "Can you explain what
happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?"

They reply:

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of
the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed
inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior;
the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls
with the rest of the plane."

This could not have happened. The engines hit before any part of the
wings. They were in the wall. Furthermore, as the many photos
available at my page at apfn page show the hole was too small even
for the fuselage, much less the engines. (From engine to engine is
the distance across 6 Pentagon windows. But the hole made by the
killer jet in the outer wall is only 10 feet wide, the distance
between only two Pentagon windows!!!) AND IF THE PLANE IS SAID TO
HAVE DISINTEGRATED ON IMPACT WITH THE HARD BUILDING, AS Barbara and
David P. Mikkelson CLAIM THEN WHERE WAS THE ADHESION THAT WOULD PULL
THE ENGINES OUT OF THE HOLE THEY WERE MAKING AND TUG IT INTO THE HOLE
THAT WAS FILLED WITH THE COMPACTING EXPLODING FUSELAGE -- ESPECIALLY
WITH ALL THE FUEL BETWEEN THE FUSELAGE AND THE ENGINES!!!! Hello,
Barbara and David P. Mikkelson, are you there????

Barbara and David P. Mikkelson then add: "damage to the building
caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as
the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact
site" -- except that the blackening was caused by the fire not by the
wings -- fire as the liquid, fallen to the first floor flowed out in
all directions -- actually leaving less fuel under plane wreckage to
vaporize the entire plane as Barbara and David P. Mikkelson seem to
claim happened.

I am very suspicious of the motive for this misrepresentation by
Barbara and David P. Mikkelson of urban legends, especially when they
put out this falsehood, known to any and every investigator as totally
false. (If you have seen the photos I show at apfn and that all
honest investigators show at their sites -- you know that the pictures
not only exist, but that they prove the size of the hole that is
smoking gun evidence of a mass-murder frameup by the Administration.

Here is where we really catch Urban Legends disinformationists,
Barbara and David P. Mikkelson :

"Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was
obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from
firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the
building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It
simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the
impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the
collapse. "

THE FACT ARE 1) THE PHOTOS EXIST AND ARE ON DISPLAY AS EXHIBIT ONE
AGAINST THE NEOCON CONSPIRACY; 2) THE FIRE AROUND THE HOLE WAS
TOTALLY PUT OUT BY FIREMENT BEFORE THE WALL COLLAPSED -- THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT. Barbara and David P. Mikkelson HAVE GIVEN YOU THIS FALSE
INFORMATION PRECISELY SUFFICIENT TO COVERUP THE CRITICAL DAMNING
EVIDENCE.

Here is the page with all the falsehoods of Barbara and David P.
Mikkelson for "Urban Legends":
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

ANd here is the information that exposes that disinformation:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

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.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)
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

I hope that helps you, Ed.

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

[Everyman]

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

Israeli monitor intercepts order: War starting on March 18 --The U.S.
military has been ordered to launch a war against Iraq on March 18, an
Israeli official said in a televised report. Israeli government
monitor, Michael Gurdus, reported on late Tuesday that the order was
relayed by U.S. Central Command to all American forces in the Persian
Gulf.

[Everyman]

9-11 mandated "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks" at standstill
-- all investigators lack security clearance to see records

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

The investigators, Congress mandated, had to be from the ruling elite,
from "prominant people" -- and none of them are complaining that, even
now, none have security clearances to see the records.

Note that the FBI, which is being investigated, must check every
detail of the investigator's backgrounds before giving them clearance
to proceed. Note too that this investigating committee has agreed in
advance that no conclusion of the commission would be presented that
was not agreed to unanimously by the commission members.

Note too that the FBI says the process can take up to 10 months, but
that the Commission expires and must have reached its conclusions 14
months from now.

Finally note that the commissioners are not even interested enough to
find out the status of each others clearance procedure.

Do you think they would be still checking Kissinger like this , if he
had stayed on?

Finally, recall that this Commission is mandated only to make
recommendations, not to ascribe guilt or negligence to US agencies or
personel.

Chairman: Former New Jersey Republican Gov. Thomas Kean
Vice Chairman: Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D- Ind.

Members:
Former Illinois Republican Gov., Jim Thompson
Former White House Counsel Fred Fielding
Former Senator Slade Gorton, R-Wash
Former Navy Secretary John Lehman
Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga
Former Rep. TImothy Roemer, D-Ind
Lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste
Former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick

===========

Here is the article, from the Seattle Times, Wed. March 12, 2003:

GORTON still hasn't received security clearance

Delay slows work of Sept. 11 prove

By ALEX FRYER

Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON -- When Slade Gorton was appointed in December to a special
commission investigation the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,
supporters heralded his lengthy resume and expertise in intelligence
matters. But Gorton lacks the one think he really needs: security
clearance to review classified documents.

Gorton, a former Republican U.S. senator from Washington, isn't the
only commissioner without clearance, so while the FBI completes
background checks the panel is at a standstill.

"The slowdown is our own clearances," said Gorton, noting that he
can't even read the classified findings of a previous congressional
investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
is supposed to examine every aspect of the attacks, including
intelligence systems, law-enforcement agencies, commercial aviation
and all "other areas of the public and private sectors determined
relevant by the Commission," according to the law that authorized its
creation.

In an earlier interview, Gorton said the commission would "develop
a history of intelligence operations, where they fell down, and where
there was clear lack of cooperation" among the FBI, CIA and other
agencies.

Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman,
said he didn't know how many of the 10 commissioners were awaiting
security clearances. But he said the FBI would not complete all of
the checks by the end of the month.

A spokesman at the FBI press office in Washington D.C., said that
she had no specific information about the 10 commissioners but that a
top-secret clearance typically takes about 10 months and can include
information from 15 years in the past.

But because Gorton and other commission members have held security
clearances, the process could go quicker, said FBI spokesman Charlene
Sloan.

"We so the best we can," she said. "A serious, lengthy background
check takes time."

Still, it's an odd setback for Gorton and others who were selected
for their decades of public service.

"It's kind of astounding that someone like Senator Gorton can't get
immediate clearance," Hamilton said. "It's a matter we are concerned
about."

Hamilton said the White House is urging the FBI to sxpedite the
process, which can include interviews with business associates,
neighbors and college professors.

It has been a rough start for the commission.

In December, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger resigned a
month after being named commission chairman over complaints of
possible conflicts of interest. Two days earlier, former Sen. George
Mitchell, D-Maine, had announced his withdrawal as vice chairman,
citing suggestions he should sever ties to his law firm.

The law establishing the commission states that members must be
"prominent United States citizens," well-versed in intelligence and
foreign affair.

Gorton, a former state attorney general, was elected to the Senate
in 1980 and defeated in 1986. He again was elected in 1988 and 1994.
He served for two years on the Senate Intelligence COmmittee during
the Gulf War.

After his 2000 defeat, Gorton joined the Seattle law firm Preston,
Gates & Ellis.

The commission must make a report to Congress in 14 months,
detailing its conclusions and recommending corrective measures to
prevent acts of terrorism.

Gorton said the commissioners have decided all recommendations must
by unanimous. "Otherwise, the report will simply gather dust," he
said.

Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124
afr...@seattletimes.com

========

So much for that the prominent people will give us.

Now here is the finding of one of the People:

It is no longer reasonable to defend the official verson

of the Pentagon Attack. The Boeing simply did not hit

that building. So now we must face up to everything

that that firmly established fact implies about the state of
our country and the world.

[Everyman]

I am tired of being called a "conspiracy theorist" -- the crime of
September 11 is a crime, a fact -- we need not theorize about whether
it was planned in secret against the United States. I investigate
this crime. I look at photos of the crime site and witness accounts;
and I look at the dimensions and capablilities of the various aircraft
that fit the evidence. I look at what is known of the physics of
crashes and the chemistry of combustion (aluminum will not burn,
unless powdered, rather it melts, for example) -- and I make
deductions based on those facts -- adding nothing else.

In contrast conspiracy theory is a theory of history -- unrelated to
any specific crime or event -- and not provable by mere forensic
science.

Here is an example of a conspiracy theory -- it happens to be the
reigning theory around the world right now -- and I have NO IDEA HOW
MUCH OF IT MAY BE CORRECT.

Dick Eastman

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

received:

First we ask a question.

Who owns and controls the mass-communications media that shapes much
of our thinking about the world?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/illuminati.htm

Few people realize that all the movie lots in Hollywood are owned by
the Lehmans; Kuhn, Loeb, and Company;

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Lehmans%3B+Kuhn%2C+Loeb%2C+and+Company&_sb_lang=en

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Lehmans%3B+Kuhn%2C+Loeb%2C+and+Company&_sb_lang=en

Goldman-Sachs; and other international banking houses. Virtually all
national radio and TV channels in the nation are owned and controlled
by those same internationalist bankers. The same is true of every
chain of metropolitan newspapers and magazines, also of the press
wire-services, such as Associated Press, United Press, International,
etc.. The supposed heads of all those media are merely the fronts for
the internationalist bankers, who in turn compose the hierarchy of the
CFR, today's Illuminati in America.

Now can you understand why the Pentagon Press agent, Sylvester, so
brazenly proclaimed that the government has the right to lie to the
people. What he really meant was that our CFR controlled government
had the power to lie to and be believed by the brain-washed American
people.

Let us again go back to the first days of the Illuminati. Because
Britain and France were the two greatest world powers in the late
years of the 18th Century; Weishaupt ordered the Illuminati to foment
the colonial wars, including our Revolutionary War, to weaken the
British Empire and organize the French Revolution to start in 1789.
However; in 1784, a true act of God placed the Bavarian government in
possession of evidence which proved the existence of the Illuminati
and that evidence could have saved France if they, the French
government, hadn't refused to believe it. Here is how that act of God
happened. It was in 1784 that Weishaupt issued his orders for the
French Revolution. A German writer, named Zweig, put it into book
form. It contained the entire Illuminati story and Weishaupt's plans.
A copy of this book was sent to the Illuminists in France headed by
Robespierre whom Weishaupt had delegated to foment the French
Revolution. The courier was struck and killed by lightening as he rode
through Rawleston on his way from Frankfurt to Paris. The police found
the subversive documents on his body and turned them over to the
proper authorities. After a careful study of the plot; the Bavarian
government ordered the police to raid Weishaupt's newly-organized
Lodges of the "Grand Orient" and the homes of his most influential
associates. All additional evidence thus discovered convinced the
authorities that the documents were genuine copies of the conspiracy
by which the Illuminati planned to use wars and revolutions to bring
about the establishment of a one-world government; the powers of which
they, headed by the Rothschilds, intended to usurp as soon as it was
established, exactly in line with the United Nations' plot of today.

"In 1785, the Bavarian government outlawed the Illuminati and closed
the Lodges of the "Grand Orient." In 1786; they published all the
details of the conspiracy. The English title of that publication is:
"The Original Writings of the Order and the Sect of the Illuminati."
Copies of the entire conspiracy were sent to all the heads of church
and state in Europe. But the power of the Illuminati, which was
actually the power of the Rothschilds, was so great that this warning
was ignored. Nevertheless; the Illuminati became a dirty word and it
went underground.

"At the same time, Weishaupt ordered Illuminists to infiltrate into
the Lodges of "Blue Masonry" and formed their own secret societies
within all secret societies. Only Masons who proved themselves
internationalists and those whose conduct proved they had defected
from God were initiated into the Illuminati. Thenceforth; the
conspirators donned the cloak of philanthropy and humanitarianism to
conceal their revolutionary and subversive activities. In order to
infiltrate into Masonic Lodges in Britain; Weishaupt invited John
Robison over to Europe. Robison was a high-degree Mason in the
"Scottish Rite." He was a professor of natural philosophy at Edinburgh
University and Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Robison
did not fall for the lie that the objective of the Illuminati was to
create a benevolent dictatorship; but he kept his reactions to himself
so well that he was entrusted with a copy of Weishaupt's revised
conspiracy for study and safekeeping.

Anyway; because the heads of state and church in France were deluded
into ignoring the warnings given them; the revolution broke out in
1789 as scheduled by Weishaupt. In order to alert other governments to
their danger, in 1798, Robison published a book entitled: "Proof of a
conspiracy to Destroy all Governments and Religions" but his warnings
were ignored exactly as our American people have been ignoring all
warnings about the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR).

"Now here is something that will stun and very likely outrage many who
hear this; but there is documentary proof that our own Thomas
Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton became students of Weishaupt.
Jefferson was one of Weishaupt's strongest defenders when he was
outlawed by his government and it was Jefferson who infiltrated the
Illuminati into the then newly-organized lodges of the "Scottish Rite"
in New England. Here is the proof.

"In 1789; John Robison warned all Masonic leaders in America that the
Illuminati had infiltrated into their lodges and on July 19, 1789;
David Papen, President of Harvard University, issued the same warning
to the graduating-class and lectured them on how the influence of
Illuminism was acquitting on American politics and religion, and to
top it off; John Quincy Adams, who had organized the New England
Masonic Lodges, issued his warnings. He wrote three letters to Colonel
William L. Stone, a top Mason, in which he exposed how Jefferson was
using Masonic lodges for subversive Illuministic purposes. Those three
letters are at this very time in Whittenburg Square Library in
Philadelphia. In short; Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party,
was a member of the Illuminati which at least partly accounts for the
condition of the party at this time and through infiltration of the
Republican Party; we have exactly nothing of loyal Americanism today.
That disastrous rebuff at the Congress of Vienna created by the Czar
of Russia did not by any means destroy the Illuminati conspiracy. It
merely forced them to adopt a new strategy realizing that the
one-world idea was, for the moment, killed. The Rothschilds decided
that to keep the plot alive they would have to do it by heightening
their control of the money-system of the European nations.

"Earlier; by a ruse; the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo had been
falsified, Rothschild had spread a story that Napoleon had had one bad
battle, which precipitated a terrific panic on the stock-market in
England. All stocks had plummeted down to practically zero and Nathan
Rothschild bought all the stocks for virtually a penny on its dollar
values. That gave him complete control of the economy of Britain and
virtually of all Europe. So, immediately after that Congress in Vienna
had boomeranged; Rothschild had forced Britain to set up a new "Bank
of England", over which he had absolute control, exactly, as later
through Jacob Schiff; he engineered our own "Federal Reserve Act"
which gave the House of Rothschild a secret control of the economy in
the United States. But now for a moment; let's dwell on the activities
of the Illuminati in the United States.

"In 1826; one Captain William Morgan decided it was his duty to inform
all Masons and the general public what the full proof was regarding
the Illuminati, their secret plans, intended objectives, and to reveal
the identities of the masterminds of the conspiracy. The Illuminati
promptly tried Morgan in absentia and convicted him of treason. They
ordered one Richard Howard, an English Illuminist, to carry-out their
sentence of execution as a traitor. Morgan was warned and he tried to
escape to Canada, but Howard caught up with him near the border; near
the Niagara Gorge to be exact, where he murdered him. This was
verified in a sworn statement made in New York by one Avery Allen to
the effect that he heard Howard render his report of the execution to
a meeting of "Knights Templars" in St. John's Hall in New York. He
also told how arrangements had been made to ship Howard back to
England. That Allen affidavit is on record in New York City Archives.
Very few Masons and very few of the general-public know that
general-disapproval over that incident of murder caused approximately
half of all the Masons in the northern jurisdiction of the United
States to secede. Copies of the minutes of the meeting held to discuss
that matter are still in existence in safe hands and that all that
secrecy emphasizes the power of the masterminds of the Illuminati to
prevent such terrible events of history from being taught in our
schools.

"In the early 1850's; the Illuminati held a secret meeting in New York
which was addressed by a British Illuminist named Wright. Those in
attendance were told that the Illuminati was organizing to unite the
Nihilist and Atheist groups with all other subversive groups into an
international group to be known as Communists. That was when the word:
"communist" first came into being and it was intended to be the
supreme weapon and scare-word to terrify the whole world and drive the
terrorized peoples into the Illuminati one-world scheme. This scheme:
"communism," was to be used to enable the Illuminati to foment future
wars and revolutions. Clinton Roosevelt, a direct ancestor of Franklin
Roosevelt; Horace Greeley; and Charles Dana; foremost
newspaper-publishers of that time were appointed to head a committee
to raise funds for the new venture. Of course, most of the funds were
provided by the Rothschilds and this fund was used to finance Karl
Marx and Engels when they wrote "Communist Manifesto" (1848) and the
"Das Kapital" in Soho, England. And this clearly reveals that
communism is not a so-called ideology, but a secret weapon; a bogy-man
word to serve the purpose of the Illuminati.

"Weishaupt died in 1830; but prior to his death, he prepared a revised
version of the age-old conspiracy, the Illuminati, which under various
aliases was to organize, finance, direct, and control all
international organizations and groups by working their agents into
executive positions at the top. In the United States we have Woodrow
Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Johnson, Rusk, McNamara,
Fulbright, etc., as prime examples. In addition, while Karl Marx was
writing the "Communist Manifesto" under the director of one group of
Illuminists, Professor Karl Ritter of Frankfurt University was writing
the antithesis under the direction of another group. The idea was that
those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in
those two so-called ideologies to enable them to divide larger and
larger numbers of the human-race into opposing camps so that they
could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each
other. And particularly, to destroy all political and religious
institutions. The work Ritter started was continued after his death
and is reflected in the "WIll to Power" philosophy German philosopher
Freidrich Wilhelm Nietzsche which was later adopted by Fascists and
Nazis as a counterweight to the communist anti-individualist ideal.

"In 1834; the Italian revolutionary leader, Guiseppe Mazzini, was
selected by the Illuminati to direct their revolutionary program
throughout the world. He served in that capacity until he died in
1872, but some years before he died; Mazzini had enticed an American
General named Albert Pike into the Illuminati. Pike was fascinated by
the idea of a one-world government and ultimately he became the head
of this luciferian conspiracy. Between 1859 and 1871 he, Pike, worked
out a military-blueprint for three world wars and various revolutions
throughout the world which he considered would forward the conspiracy
to its final stage in the 20th century. Again I remind you that these
conspirators were never concerned with immediate success. They also
operated on a long-range view. Pike did most of his work in his home
in Little Rock, Arkansas. But a few years later; when the Illuminati's
Lodges of the Grand Orient became suspect and repudiated because of
Mazzini's revolutionary activities in Europe, Pike organized what he
called the New and Reformed Palladian Right. He set up three Supreme
Councils; one in Charleston, South Carolina, one in Rome, Italy, and a
third in Berlin, Germany. He had Mazzini establish 23 subordinate
councils in strategic locations throughout the world. These have been
the secret headquarters of the world revolutionary movement ever
since.

"Long before Marconi invented the radio; the scientists in the
Illuminati had found the means for Pike and the heads of his councils
to communicate secretly. It was the discovery of that secret that
enabled intelligence-officers to understand how apparently unrelated
incidents; such as the assassination of an Austrian Prince in Serbia;
took place simultaneously throughout the world, which developed into a
war or a revolution. Pike's plan was as simple as it has proved
effective. It called for communism, nazism, political zionism, and
other international movements to be organized and used to foment three
global world wars and at least two major revolutions.END OF PART II To
be continued.

http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/illuminati/cfr_1.html

http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/illuminati/cfr_1.html

THE SATANIC ROTHSCHILD DYNASTY

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Rothschild.html

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Rothschild.html

Illuminati

http://www.freeworldalliance.com/illuminati.htm

http://www.freeworldalliance.com/illuminati.htm

http://www.samliquidation.com/deception1.htm

THE ILLUMINATI AND THE COUNSEL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

WHO'S WHO IN THE THEATER" has always been the Bible of the People in
the Legitimate Theater. It never played Favorites, it told no lies, it
Glorified nobody. It always was an unbiased HISTORY of the men and
women in the Theater. It recorded only those...

http://www.heart7.net/mcf/fagan.htm

http://www.heart7.net/mcf/fagan.htm

THE ILLUMINATI AND THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Myron Fagan recorded his exposé on the Illuminati and Council on
Foreign Relations in the late 1960's on three LP Records. Here is his
lecture in six parts representing each side of those Records

http://100777.com/nwo/01.htm

The ILLUMINATI and the question of how and why the United Nations is
the crux of the great conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the
United States and the enslavement of the American people within a U.N.
one-world dictatorship is a complete and unknown mystery...

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/illuminati.htm

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/illuminati.htm

http://jahtruth.co.uk/illumin.htm

http://jahtruth.co.uk/illumin.htm

http://joshuareport.freewebsites.com/3a.htm

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

Here is an aid to help sane people predict when ruling-class Satanists
will schedule their operations against us:

Date Occult/Satanic Celebration Type Usage

Jan. 1 Occult(Druid Feast) New Years' Day Blood Animal
or Human Sacrifice
Jan. 5 N/A Feast of Fools Shivaratri/Night of
ShivaCreator/Destroyer N/A
Jan. 6 N/A Epiphany/Twelfth Night Kore give
birth/manifestation of divinity N/A
Jan. 7 Satanic St. Winebald Blood animal or human
sacrifice, Dismemberment Oral, Anal, Vaginal
Jan. 17 Satanic Satanic Revels Sexual Oral, Anal,
Vaginal
Jan. 17 N/A Feast of Fools Old Twelfth Night N/A N/A
Jan. 18 N/A Old Epiphany Dream Festival Pleiades 3
days N/A
Jan. 20 Occult St. Agnes Eve N/A N/A
Feb. 1-3 N/A Mysteries of PersephoneImbolic N/A Druid
Earth Mother
Feb. 2 Satanic Satanic Revels Sexual Oral, Anal,
Vaginal
Feb. 2 Occult Candlemas Witches Sabbats N/A N/A
Feb. 14 N/A St. Valentine Day Blood Infant Sacrifice
Feb. 15 N/A Lupercalia N/A she-wolf mother of Romulus
& Remus honoring Pan
Feb. 21-22 N/A Feralia Terminilia Roman all Souls day
N/A Boundary day candles & rocks
Feb. 25 Occult/Satanic St Walpurgis Day Blood N/A
3 days Preceding Ash Wednesday Witches Sabbat
Shrovetide Shove Sun.Shove Tues.Shove Wed. N/A
Ash Wed. Some Christians receive a mark of ashes on
forehead 7th Wed before Easter1st day of Lent N/A as a
token of Penitence and Mortality
March 1 Satanic St. Eichatadt Blood Drinking of human
blood for strength & homage to demons
March 9 N/A Festival of Ishtar Astarte, Aphrodite,
Venus N/A Love, Fertility
March 15 Occult Ides of March/Rites of Cybele & Attis
N/A 12 day death & resurrection ritual
March 18 Occult Sheila-na-gig/Sheelah's Day
/Creatress/Jacques De Molay Day (Knights Templar N/A
N/A
March 20 Satanic Feast Day Spring Equinox Orgies Oral,
Anal, Vaginal
March 20-22 Satanic Spring Equinox/Pelusia Invocation
of Hindi Holi Tubulustrum Roman purification
Shab-i-barat Night of Forgiveness Islam
March 24 Satanic Feast of the Beast Feast of Priapus
Festival of Isis Mock Wedding Bride of Satan
April 1 N/A All Fools Day N/A N/A
April 8 Satanic Day of the Masters N/A N/A
April 21-26 Satanic Preparation for Sacrifice N/A N/A
April 24 Occult St. Marks Eve N/A N/A
April 21-36 Satanic Preparation for sacrifice N/A N/A
April 26-May 1 Satanic Grand Climax Da Meur Corpus de
Baahl N/A N/A
April 30 Occult Walpurgis Night one of the greatest
Witches Sabbats N/A
May 1 Occult Beltane/May Day Fire Festival N/A
April 03-May 5 Occult Walpurgisnacht/Beltane N/A (8)
days
May 9,11,13 N/A Lumeria N/A 3 days Roman All Souls
June 21 Satanic Feast Day Summer Solstice Orgies Oral,
Anal, Vaginal
June 23 Occult Midsummer's Eve St. John Eve Fire
Festival important time for practice of magic
July 1 Satanic Demon Revels Blood Druids sexual
Association w/demons
July 25 Occult St James Day N/A N/A
August 1 Occult Lammas Great Sabbat(harvest) N/A
August 3 Satanic Satanic Revels Sexual Oral, Anal,
Vaginal
Aug. 24 Occult St. Bartholomews Day Fire Great Sabbat
Aug. 24 Satanic Mania N/A N/A
Aug. 28 Satanic Feast of Nephthys(wife of Set Goddess
of Death) N/A N/A
Sept 6 Satanic Marriage to Satan Sexual Sacrifice
Dismemberment
Sept 7 Satanic Feast of the Beast N/A N/A
Sept. 20 Satanic Midnight Host Blood Dismemberment
Sept. 21-21 N/A Fall Equinox N/A N/A
Sept. 22 Satanic Feast Day Orgies Oral, Anal, Vaginal
Sept. 23- Oct. 2 N/A Mysteries of Eleusis 28th
entering of Gate of Mysteries N/A
Oct. 2 N/A Durga Puja(Kali) N/A N/A
Oct. 5 N/A Opening of Mundus Cereis N/A N/A
Oct. 10 N/A DasharaKali's victory over Mahishasura N/A
N/A
Oct. 29 Satanic All Hallow Eve Blood Sexual Climax
Oct. 31 Occult Halloween Fire Great Sabbatthis night
dead return to earth
Oct. 31 Occult Preparation for Isis ring of
Resurrection of Osiris Isis,Hathor,Nepthys, Horus,
Thoth, Anubis
Nov. 1 Satanic Halloween Sexual With Demons
Nov. 1-6 Satanic/Occult All Souls Day/The Isis
Samhain/Hallowman/Feast of Nether World Isis 6 days
Ritual Drama search for pieces of Osiris parting of
the astral Veil Resurrection of Osiris N/A
Nov. 4 Satanic Satanic Revels Sexual Oral, Anal,
Vaginal
Nov. 7 N/A Hilaris/Mania opening of Mimdis Cereris
Rebirth of Osiris
Dec. 21 Occult St. Thomas Day Fire Great Sabbat
Dec. 21 Occult Winter Solstice N/A N/A
Dec. 22 Satanic Feast Day Orgies Oral, Anal, Vaginal
Dec. 24 Satanic Demon Revels Da Meur High Grand Climax

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

As one can see, we have this Calendar of the Pagan and
Satanic holiday dates of importance. As we look down
to the part where March is, we see these potential
dates of interest to the devoted Satanist, and
Occultist. My dear people, if there is anything that
is negative, or any action perpetuated on these days,
we then can see WHO exactly are the Satanist, and what
horrible events might take place on these dates below.
Like for instance, let's consider the first date
coming of possible havoc, or disruptive deviant
behavior.
March 15th is an Occultic date. This begins the Ides
of March Rites of Cybel & Attis. The usage begins a
12-day death and resurrection ritual possibly using
various ad-mixtures to produce drunkenness and
revolving around the beginning of the Elussinian, and
Dionysian mysteries of initiation.
March 18th is a Full Moon and an Occultic time. The
Sheila-na-gig, Sheelah's Day, The Creatress Day. The
lunatic, or "lunar-tic" time, and as the moon effects
the tides of oceans, so it does also the bag of water
we humans are. Good strategic time for a night vision
army to attack a poor disabled country and take the
oil, and water resources from them all in the name of
a religious pretext for war between the Islamic
peoples, and the mean ol' Christians. The most
important meaning could be that this day is JACQUES DE
MOLAY Day, a day that the bankster Templars could
begin this religious war. They have been planing this
War for centuries to reclaim the territory they lost
in the crusades and reclaim Babylon. The story is
brazed upon the Sword they carry in the Commanderie
during ritual times.
The world will then see the invading army of bush & co
as the bad guy aggressors thus 'setting up' the USA
for the UN authorized attack upon it.
March 19th is a date that once again adds up to 9 or
the Completion Time. The end of something, and the
potential new world order beginning of hell on earth
time.
Remember that 6+6+6=18=1+8=9.
March 20th is a satanic date. Feast day. Spring
Equinox. This is a very special event date for
satanists. It calls for Orgies, Orally, Vaginally, and
Anally. Pray for all those slave children in the
world.
March 20-22 is also satanic time. More Spring Equinox,
and the time of Pelusia. It's the time of invocation
of Hindi, Holi and Tubullustrum. The usage is for
Roman purification. Shab-i-brat is the Night of
forgiveness in Islam. Just like when the Catholics go
to a confession before they go off to WAR, or to
attack.
March 24th is also a satanic date. It's known as 'THE
FEAST OF THE BEAST' celebration. Yes, the beast would
be feeding on all the loss of life and suffering
rather well won't it? Fear is the tool of the beast,
and feeds on us all everyday too. It's also the feast
of Priapus, and the festival of ISIS, or earth mother
goddess, or moon goddess time. Pretty trendy time for
NWO religions with fire ceremonies, etc.
It will be obvious to the learned student that if
ANYTHING happens in this time range, it will be well
shown who is behind such atrocities, and who are the
real satanist's of this earth, or those that would
'set up' this Nation for the grand fall.
PLEASE don't do it George I & II.
There is a better way. Peace is the only way, and it's
not to late for you to turn a new leaf, and save your
presidency. Sure you might lose a little face, but in
the long run, it will be better for you. We can see
the implications of doing this crazy war thing like
going after Iraq first because Sadam has been trading
in Euro Dollars for Oil, and the Federal Reserve
through the cia controlled stock market controlling
the world system is the driving reason for this war,
and those that own the Federal Reserve are also the
same ones that own the Euro dollar and are purposely
destroying this economy and pitting both sides against
each other to bring in the new pan American dollar in
thus turning this once proud nation into a "Grapes of
Wrath" world again even worse than before. The same
people that own these banks have a long history of
selling arms, and oil to both sides in a war while all
suffer in this country, and the world. The Oil is a
secondary bounty! World dominance is the goal.
We also see the 'set up' of going to war, and making
this Nation look like the bad guys in the world's
eyes. Then the UN, via Russia and China could counter
attack the US, and with the UN authorization they
could completely annihilate the USA. Russia, and China
have both said, "don't attack Iraq." This is because
they both have Protection and Oil treaties with Iraq,
and will possibly come to Iraq's aid if attacked. This
is indicated by a growing Russian and Chinese navel
presence building in the gulf. We all see the ever
more possibility of this plan/set up coming to a
theater near you soon!
And the US press still dumbfoundedly looks on, and it
still supports this insane action of the Bankester
controlled Gov. Total blackout of this reality in the
matrix, and cotton candy for the merry-go-around
world. Those at the top like the Rothchilds, and
Rockefellers are the Oroborus snake that bites it's
own tail. This is one of the signs of the Illuminati
Banksters and has a strong reptile connotation. The
Rothchilds also created Israel, and uses this poor
country, and it's people to further the disruption,
and violence that they financially support to gain
control of the world. David Ickes fine books detail
all this information especially in "The Children of
the Matrix." He says, "The Rothchilds have controlled
Israel since it's foundation and funded the terrorist
groups that bombed it into existence."
Now we can see the monster, what do you do now?
Wait for it to come to your door?
Who owns the insurance companys?
An interesting question to ask is, what happens to
those that have life insurance policies, house
insurance policies, and automotive insurance policies
when they go to claim, and they are told they are not
covered during WAR, or for ACTS OF GOD?
Your out of a job, with no place to live, no money, no
food or water, no way to claim bankruptcy, and no body
but the gov to save you.
Isn't that warm and fuzzy

[Le Permanent Marker]

Authoritative, Frank and Honest, : Hear CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere
(ret. prof at the Army War College, 16 min.) on why George W. Bush
fabricated the present crisis.

Among other things Pelletier is saying that we seek to control oil,
not to possess the oil, but to ensure that there is no uncontrolled
supply that will hinder the US from price fixing. (This is also why
Bush went after Chavez in Venezuela.) They also do not want Iraq
to become an independent self-sufficient state that would force the US
to share power over the Middle East. Wolfowitz and Pearle are
tools of the military and industrial complex (he does not mention the
global banker war-debt-merchants).

And much more besides. I hope you will listen to this.

He predicts catastrophic failure for the US -- the operation has
already failed.

http://64.176.94.191/article2097.htm

CIA Analysis: The Predicament Mr. Bush And The Pentagon Have Gotten US
Into

"It's important you understand who is pushing this war"

[Le Permanent Marker]

Note: At the bottom of my essay I have copied out a 13th-century
sermon by St. Bernard, "Why Another Crusade" Very familiar sounding!!!
--DE

Lest we be "doomed to repeat" : The Venitian basis of the War on
Terror -- "Holy" Crusades, Then and Now

by Dick Eastman

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

The Crusades (Lat. crux, "cross"), those 11th, 12th and 13th-century
religion-glorified military expeditions of Western Europe.
rationalized as liberating Palestine from Islam (which faith had
enveloped the region in the 7th century), was in fact a major
distraction for the famine- and plague-ridden peasantry restless under
oppression and the impoverished French and German nobility anxious for
foreign wealth gained by force of arms.

Let's cut to the quick, important facts I hope will be jump off
points for able investigators and writers among this readership, to
dig out the rest of this most relevant tragic and sordid history --
lest we be, as ever, "doomed to repeat" etc.

The Popes sponsoring the Crusades were Italians and Italy was
dominated by Venice, the city state that made itself the turnstyle for
all trade between Europe and the Far East. The Venetians provided sea
transportation for each of the eight Crusades -- they were the great
subcontractors of the "military-industrial complex" of the day.

Let's look at the Fourth Crusade (1202-04), initiated by Pope Innocent
III, ostensibly to drive the Moslems from the Holy Land and bring
Roman Catholicism and the Byzantine Empire (also styled Eastern Roman
Empire) together. But no sooner had these forces been gathered and
arrived in Italy under the direction of Enrico Dandolo, Doge of
Venice, with Philip (Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germany), Count
Montferrat and Baldwin. At this point the Doge declared that the
crusaders were in debt to the city of Venice for their transportation
expenses and were thus forced to follow Venetian commands and
policies. First they were sent to sack Venice's rival in maritime
trade, Zadar (in present-day Croatia), the spoils going toward debt
payment. Next the Dodge had his captive Crusaders march on the the
Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, which had banned
Venitian trade as a source of corruption and subversion. They imposed
their own Latin leader Isaac II Angelus, Philip's father-in-law, to
the throne in 1202. The people of Byzantium rebelled against this
"liberation" and threw out Isaac II, whereupon the Doge, in 1204,
ordered his debt-slave Crusader army -- still not set sail for the
Holy Land -- to sack Constantinople, where they estlished a "Latin"
Emperor, Baldwin I, one of the Dodge's agents in promoting the
crusade.

How were those "debts" to Venice eventually payed?

In 1212 Venetian agents (debtors) loosed agitators for a "Children's
Crusade" to fight the Moslems, in both France (where they put forward
a "mystical" French teenaged recruiter named Stephen) and in Germany.
30,000 children were enlisted from France and 20,000 from Germany,
their parents persuaded that "the Holy Land would will be captured
only by the innocent" thus ending the bad times in Europe, absolving
sins and winning glory to God -- the French children boarded waiting
Venetian vessels at Marseilles and the German children crossed the
Alps with the guidance of the Doge's agents. The children never made
it to the Holy Land but were raped and sold or given into slavery
(sexual and other.) It was a grand scheme. (I must interject that
the fate of many children listed as dead on the 9-11 airliners -- we
know Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and there is valid reson to
suspect that the other flights were guided by remote control and that
passengers were removed before the crashes -- just keep it in mind
that there are people who suspect his, especially in light of recent
disclosures of a gigantic pedophilia ring (7,000 offenders) within the
British elite (and Jack Straw's brother being a convicted sex offender
etc. -- which we could guess by looking at Jack Straw) -- certainly
is enough raise suspicion even more -- as is the very high sums of
money given for sex slaves and fresh body organs on the black market
today are not insignificant incentive, either on the supply side or
the demand side of the issue.

Few realize that the ruling elites of the CIty of London and of the
American South (South Carolinia plantations etc.) are decendents of
this Venitian nobility -- having moved to the Island of Britain as a
more defensible stronghold for their operations (which in later
centuries became styled "the British Empire" -- and in the US, slave
traders, where the slave plantation of Bernard Baruch's father was,
Hobcow, where FDR was kept virtually a prisoner (with no telephone for
a mile!!!) before his death in 1944 (and during WOrld War II, without
the public knowing!!!) and whose descendents own and pull the
strings of Trent Lott, the Republican Senator from South Carolinia --
who led the fixing of the Senate to let Clinton and Bush treason
prevail.

Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.

Yakima, Washinton

Every man is responsible to every other man.

My findings on the Pentagon attack:

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

My findings on the WTC attack (Radio Free America interview, Tom
Valentine host, with Christopher Bollyn also a guest):
http://www.rfausa.com/Audio/rfa1125.wma

The history of Bernard Baruch, the master war-profiteering organizer
(industry and debt financing) of World War One, the Great Depression,
World War Two and the Cold War. (I am again interviewed by Tom
Valentine here) -- hitherto untold history of 20th-century war
profiteering:

http://arc3.m2ktalk.com/val1002/6.ram

Alternatively:
http://www.rfausa.com/Audio1/audio1.html (Adobe Acrobat needed)
Tom Valentine and guest DE discussing:

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

Why Another Crusade
by St. Bernard

(Note: Born at the end of the eleventh century of nobility, Bernard
became the most important churchman of the twelfth century. As the
first great orator public speaking politician, speaking to the masses,
since the fourth century, he stirred both kings and crowds preaching
exhortations to fight the Second Crusade, but this Christian jihad too
ended in complete disaster in Asia Minor. This passage from Michaud's
"History of the Crusades." Give me that old-time "paleo-con"
religion!!! --DE)

You cannot but know that we live in a period of chastisement and
ruin; the enemy of mankind has caused the breath of corruption to fly
over all regions; we behold nothing but unpunished wickedness. The
laws of men or the laws of religion have no longer sufficient power to
check depravity of manners and the triumphj of the wicked. The demon
of heresy has taken possession of the chair of truth, and God has sent
forth His malediction upon His sanctuary.

Oh, ye who listen to me, hasten then to appease the anger of
Heaven, but no longer implore His goodness by vain complaints; clothe
not yourselves in sackcloth, but cover yourselves with your
impenetrable bucklers; the din or arms, the dangers, the labors, the
fatigues of war are the penances that God now imposes upon you.
Hasten then to expiate your sins by victories over the infidels, and
let the deliverance of holy places be the reward of your repentance.

If it were announced to you that the enemy had invaded your cities,
your castles, your lands; had ravished your wives and your daughters,
and profaned your temples -- which among you would not fly to arms?
Well, then, all these calamities, and calamities still greater, have
fallen upon your brethren, upon the family of Jesus Christ, which is
yours. Why do you hesitate to repair so many evils-- to revenge so
many outrages? Will you allow the infidels to contemplate in peace
the ravages they have committed upon Christian people? Remembering
that their triumph will be a subject fro grief to all ages and an
eternal opprobrium upon the generation that has endured it. Yes, the
living God has charged me to announce to you that He will punish them
who shall not have defended Him against His enemies.

Fly then to arms; let a holy rage animate you in the fight, and let
the Christian world resound with these words of the prophet, "Cursed
be he who does not stain his sword with blood!" If the Lord calls you
to the defense of His heritage think not that His had has lost its
power. Could He not send twelve legions of anges or breathe one word
and all His enemies woud crumble away into dust? But God has
considered the sons of men, to open for them the road to His mercy.
His goodness has caused to dawn for you a day of safety by calling on
you to avenge His glory and His name.

Christian warriors, He who gave His life for you, to-day demands
yours in return. These are combats worthy of you, combats in whcih it
is glorious to conquer and advantageous to die. Illustrious knights,
generous defenders of the Cross, remember the examples of your fathers
who conquered Jerusalem, and whose names are inscribed in Heaven;
abandon then the things that perish, to gather unfading palms and
conquer a Kingdom which has not end.
--------------

No copyright on anything above. Distribute the hell out it.

Frank Levi ( The Movement )
http://www.the-movement.com/index.htm

Michael Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca

Jared Israel
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm

Carol Brouillet
http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html

Boudewijn Wegerif
http://www.whatmatters.nu/wmemails/wmemailsindex.html

Michael Irving
http://www.world-action.co.uk/index2.html

Michael C. Ruppert
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

Americans Against World Empire
http://www.againstbombing.org

Joost van Stennis -- New Ways to Break the Power of the Elite
http://members.ams.chello.nl/jsteenis/index.html

It is no longer reasonable to defend the official verson

of the Pentagon Attack. THe Boeing simply did not hit

[Everyman]

http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/14/top11.htm

UN rights chief lashes out at US

GENEVA, March 13: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira
de
Mello on Thursday attacked a U.S. court ruling that Guantanamo Bay
detainees
were not protected by U.S. law , saying they must not be left in a
judicial
"black hole".

A U.S. federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a bid by Kuwaiti,
Australian and British citizens captured in Afghanistan and held at
the U.S.
military base on Cuba to contest in U.S. courts the lawfulness and
conditions of their confinement.

The unanimous decision, which has already been denounced by civil
rights
groups, held that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over the base.

Vieira de Mello told journalists: "I do not accept that there is any
judicial black hole at Guantanamo... You cannot say that the law of a
country that controls a territory does not apply to that territory.
That I
do not accept."

The 16 detainees are among the approximately 600 suspected Taliban and
Al
Qaeda fighters held at the U.S. navy base at Guantanamo Bay. They were
captured in Afghanistan during the U.S.-led bombing launched after the
Sept
11 attacks.

On Wednesday, Param Cumaraswamy, special investigator on judicial
affairs
for the UN Human Rights Commission, said the decision implied states
could
deny suspects their rights providing they were being detained in some
other
country.

"There is a new concept...of a territory where no law applies," Vieira
de
Mello said.

While the struggle against terrorism must be carried out with "full
respect
for human rights", the Brazilian UN veteran noted that states had the
right
to suspend temporarily some of these guarantees in emergencies. "It is
when
policies become arbitrary that we enter dangerous territory," he
said. -Reuters

eas...@bentonrea.com (Le Permanent Marker) wrote in message

> Lest we be "doomed to repeat" : The Venitian basis of the War on
> Terror -- "Holy" Crusades, Then and Now
>
> by Dick Eastman

[vonroach]

On 14 Mar 2003 11:28:26 -0800, eas...@bentonrea.com (Le Permanent Marker)
wrote:

I see the Walla Walla fruitcake continues his endless, worthless whining
harangues

[padre]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:57:32 GMT, vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

I see that offensive off-topic personal abuse of correspondents is
still tolerated by Usenet

[Everyman]

padre <bon...@news.nutnet> wrote

> vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >I see the Walla Walla fruitcake continues his endless, worthless whining
> >harangues
> >
>
> I see that offensive off-topic personal abuse of correspondents is
> still tolerated by Usenet

gracias, Padre

"Every gun that it made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is
not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,
the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

Guns and Butter:

$100 Billion War = 200 brand new World Trade Center skyscrapers
foregone (or better things we could do for our species and its habitat
with the money)

If Globalization and Finance Capitalism need perpetural war, what good
are they?

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

U.S. House speaker predicts war soon
Missouri-AP -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert says he expects U-S forces
to be in Iraq in a matter of days, even without U-N approval. He says
the United States has a job to do in Iraq and can't let opponents
like France Germany and Russia stand in its way. Speaking at a
Republican Party fund-raiser in Missouri, he says it's necessary to
finish the business of the 1991 Gulf War. He says that onlyafter
military action against Iraq is complete will the country be able to
"go back to the business of business."


Below is a call from the heart of the matter, re Iraq, that needs to
be
heard as widely as possible. If you have already received it, please
excuse
the duplication.

In friendship,

Boudewijn (Wegerif)

What Matters Programme
Folkhogskola Vardingeby

http://www.whatmatters.nu

--
This is an Update from Suzanne Taylor and the Making Sense of These
Times
website: http://www.theconversation.org. Thank you for your interest.

"POSSIBLE WORST-CASE SCENARIOS IF WAR WITH IRAQ OCCURS"

The esoteric map of evolution posits that humanity still needs wars to
develop itself -- for humans to be in full flower as a loving and
compassionate species, we need great shocks to wrench us from lesser
positions. But, do we need a worst-case scenario to finally move
humanity
beyond considering war an acceptable resort?

I think what makes me most incredulous about our warpath is our
inattention
to the fact that an Iraqi life is as valuable as an American one. It
is
contemptible not to think this way. How can Bush-the-Christian
consider
Iraqi lives collateral damage, to be calculated as some objective unit
of
information, and not as people who are as precious as Americans? Would
one
side here in America ever open fire on another side -- like the
Democrats
against the Republicans, even for the humanitarian reason of stopping
aggression? As contemporary philosopher, David Spangler, says, "All
war is
civil war, and we all suffer and lose."

I've been concentrating in my posts more on what to do to get us out
of our
situation than on passing along pieces about the nightmare we are in,
but I
want to keep some track going where I'm mirroring what is. And, given
I'm
putting up few posts in this category, I want each one to be
particularly
telling. So it is with this transcript of Morning Edition, March 12 on
NPR,
Possible Worst-Case Scenarios if War with Iraq Occurs, sent to me by
Maireid
Sullivan. The speaker is Retired Colonel Mike Turner, General
Schwarzkopf's
personal briefing officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation
Desert Storm.

Here's an excerpt:

Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's
at
least as likely. Within hours of our attack, Saddam launches Scuds on
Israel. Israel's right-wing government launches a full-scale attack on
Iraq,
creating a holy war nightmare. Saddam, threatened with his own
survival,
uses chemical and biological weapons and human shields just as he has
in the
past. He torches his own oil fields, thousands of his own people are
killed.
Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies
blanket
the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is
condemned
by NATO and the UN.

The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens. The US is
left to
administer a political vacuum in Iraq. Iran is emboldened to help the
Shiites in the south. Disease breaks out, food and water are
contaminated
and the cost of the war skyrockets. The US economy is dealt a body
blow, but
the administration can find no credible way out. Britain's Prime
Minister
Blair is voted out of office.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda, seeing an opportunity due to a shift in US focus,
attacks a major US target. North Korea, emboldened by the distraction,
ignores diplomatic efforts to restrain its development of nuclear
weapons
and begins to export weapons-grade plutonium to terrorists.

These are not remote possibilities, but in my view reasonable,
possibly even
likely outcomes.
===============

The 'Daily Observation' below was received on March 14 by Angie
Carlson -
ang...@planetsos.com - from Ro...@MyHomeLender.com. The web site for
MyHome
Lender, which operates in all 50 states, is www.myhomelender.com

It provides a clear insight into how yesterdays hike in the financial
markets was orchestrated, to prevent an imminent "systemic collapse of
the
worlds capital markets", just at the point that the Bush-Blair,
U.S.-U.K.
regime is planning a crime of monumental proportions against the
people of
Iraq. There is no free financial market; it is through and through
rigged.

In friendship,

Boudewijn (Wegerif)

What Matters Programme
Folkhogskola Vardingeby

http://www.whatmatters.nu

--

THE FINANCIAL MARKET IS BEING HIKED UP BY THE PLUNGE PROTECTION TEAM,
NOT BY
MARKET DUNDAMENTALS

>From the MyHomeLender 'Daily Observations' of March 14, 2003:

"I'm Glad to see a recovery this week in equities world wide and the
corresponding reduction in Gold and increasing treasury yields. I
however do
not believe there is any fundamental reason to believe that this is
anything
other than a near term turning point in the market. I also do not
believe
that this was driven by market fundamentals.

"On Tuesday evening, about 2 hours after the Japanese markets opened I
sent
out 2 e-mails to money mangers with whom I correspond:

"FIRST E-MAIL: 'Watch for an increase in Gold long selling and short
selling
soon - perhaps tonight even - the cash will be used to buy US equities
and
increase margin into equities in an attempt to bolster US equities.
This
appears to be driven by PPT [plunge protection team] coordination as a
means
of halting a cascading sell off of equities.'

"I believe the near term increase in margin is anecdotal evidence that
has
already begun. The margin increase is almost exclusively on the
commercial
side versus retail or professional trading side and is being targeted
at
large blue chips mostly.

"SECOND E-MAIL: ABOUT 45 MINUTES LATER: 'Watch for an increase in Gold
long
selling and short selling soon - perhaps tonight even - something
greater
than today's $5 down - a $15 down day - the cash will be used to buy
US
equities and increase margin into equities in an attempt to bolster US
equities. This appears to be driven by PPT coordination as a means of
halting a cascading sell off of equities. It occurred just after
1987's 500
point Dow fall - The PPT of course was born out of the that event. I
believe
the near term increase in margin is anecdotal evidence that this has
already
begun. The margin increase is almost exclusively on the commercial
side
versus retail or professional trading side and is being targeted at
large
blue chips mostly."

"The point in sharing these with you now is that in my opinion the
market
action of the last 48 hours has been driven exclusively by
intervention
regardless of economic fundamentals.

"Concurrently with the surge in Equities in Europe, which was the
precursor
to the increase in Equities in the US, there was terrible economic
news out
of Asia, both Japan and South Korea, which sent their indices down.
The
Japanese market fell another 1% that night, falling below the
absolutely
critical level of 8,000 which must be maintained to avoid a systemic
collapse of the Japanese banking system.

"That night, while we in the US slept, the Japanese Prime Minister,
publicly
requested assistance from the ECB and US Fed as well as from the Large
governments of the world to help Japans currency and stock markets as
the
fiscal year ends this month.

"At the same time in Korea a moratorium on withdrawals from mutual
funds was
instituted to avoid a run on the funds there following 2 days of
massive
mutual fund redemptions. But within just a couple of hours of these
occurring the European markets were opening up and heading up all day
without any fundamental news to validate it.

"This simply doesn't happen.

"The risks of a systemic collapse of the worlds capital markets was
approaching very quickly if the markets maintained their downward
momentum.
As this was well known the markets were accelerating their move to the
downside. In this type of crisis market traders risk aversion
increases and
the selling becomes self validating. That is the path the world
financial
markets were on this week. There needed to be a catalyst to break the
markets momentum. In my opinion that catalyst was a coordinated effort
between the European fiscal and monetary authorities with those in the
US
and the associated large private money centers.

"These organizations realizing that a systemic crash was imminent
stepped in
to stop the markets fall by: Selling gold: Averting a crisis in the
gold
carry trade market, primarily protecting JP Morgan. Selling US
Treasuries:
Averting an immediate interest rate derivative problem at JP Morgan
and
Fannie Mae. Buying US and European equities: Averting an immediate
reserve
crisis at the German Banks.

"This original catalyst was then picked up by the momentum traders and
all
of these markets extended the gains or losses for the day.

"Within the last 24 hours the Japanese and Europeans have announced
sweeping
capital market reform plans in an attempt to ensure that the markets
do not
slip back into the trend they were in previously.

"Will it work?

"In the very near term the answer is yes. I believe it is highly
unlikely to
be successful in the long term however. The fundamental economic
situation
all over the world continues to be very bad.

"I still believe the markets will reverse course again sending gold
up,
treasury yields down and equities down as the market begins to focus
on
those fundamentals again. This is however one of those times when it
becomes
apparent just how difficult it is to apply macro-economic
understanding to
the capital markets on a daily basis. I would also add that the
intervention
was absolutely necessary. I just wish I had told you about it here
first.

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

Kent Garden Club Joint Resolution:

Our members have passed this resolution with a two-thirds majority and
more to spare.

Mandy Strong
President
Kent Garden Club
Kent

Resolved:

The most scaremongering excuse for war has turned out to ba the
biggest lie the US and British governments have yet cooked up.

They claimed Iraq was on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.
That accusation was a central part of the "dossier" Tony Blair
published on 24 September last year.

Now Mohamed El Baradei, who is in charge of nuclear inspections,
says the entire story is based on fake documents.

Blair's dossier has already be shown to be mostly lifted from an
old student thesis.

This latest expose concerns the dossier's claim that Iraq had
between 1999 and 2001 been buying uranium for use in nuclear weapons
for "an African state".

Two months after the dossier was published the US state department
named Niger as the state responsible.

Mohamed El Baradei reported to the United Nations Security Council
last week that "documents that formed the bases for the report of
recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not
authentic. These specific allegations are unfounded."

The inspectors discovered this by simply comparing the documents
with genuine letters from the Niger government. Signatures and
letterheads did not match.

El Baradei also repeated his view that it was "highly unlikely"
that aluminium tubes Iraq had tried to purchase could be used in a
nuclear program.

The US first made that claim on 12 September last year. Later that
month the British government embellished it.

The atomic arms inspectors have also rubbished the US/British
story that Iraq was trying to obtain special magnets for use in
turning uranium into the basis for an atomic bomb.

Nothing is now left of the "evidence" Bush and Blair have
presented of Iraq's nuclear arms.
That's why they are shifting the goalposts to broaden the
definition of "weapons of mass destruction".
They do not, of course, include their own weapons on the list -
including cluster bombs, the planned use of CS gas on the battlefield,
fuel air explosives and other arms.

Instead they were trying to create a panic this week over the
discovery of an unmanned souped-up glider in Iraq. They said it
"could" carry chemical weapons. But so could a hot air balloon.
Anything the Iraqi army possessesis as nothing next to the
enormous destructive power of the US military.

The talk of "disarming Iraq" is not about avoiding war. It is
about removing any obstacles to US and British forces so their
invasion becomes a one sided slaugter.

Resolved: We cannot let this deception working towards homocide on an
unspeakable scale go unchallenged.

Mandy Strong, President
Isabel Tipping, Secretary
Wendy Roberts
Alice Hanson
Bethany Brite
...
===========================

Moyers' interview with MacArthur:

Bill Moyer's program discusses how Bush lied about Saddam and duped
Congress

Moyer's program discusses how Bush lied about Saddam and duped
Congress into supporting him based on those lies. Here's part of the
transcript: ( on the program, they showed the actual footage of Bush
saying
the text below with Blair standing next to him)...

MACARTHUR:
Yeah. There's no question that his delivery has improved. But the
veracity of his claims has not. The propaganda campaign this time you
can date really from September 7th when Bush and Tony Blair come out
and say. There's a new report from the International Atomic Energy
Agency that says that Saddam Hussein is six months away from building
a nuclear weapon.&quot; And Bush says, and I think I'm quoting, I
don't know what more evidence we need.

BUSH: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I
would remind you that, when the inspectors first went into Iraq and
were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic...
The IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I
don't know what more evidence we need.

MOYERS: What happened to that evidence?

MACARTHUR: Okay, that story is floated over millions of television
sets, and it takes three weeks for a newspaper to refute it. And of
all newspapers, it's not the New York Times or the Washington Post.
It's the
Washington Times, a very conservative newspaper, right-wing I guess
you could say, run by Sun Myung Moon. Finally a reporter there does
his job and calls a spokesman at Indiana for the IAEA And he says. Not
only was there no new report saying that Saddam Hussein was six months
away from having a nuclear weapon; we've never issued any such
report.

But the spin meisters, the P.R. guys at the White House know that if
they put a story out like this, they can count on the media being very
slow to refute it, very slow on the uptake. But at the time, it sowed
panic and it drove the Congress more than anything else into voting
for an open-ended war resolution.

MOYERS: There was also the story about the aluminum tubes and that
proved not to be the case. What was that story?

MACARTHUR: Well, the day after the press conference we just watched,
the White House leaks a story to a willing recipient, Judith Miller of
the New York Times, saying that the Iraqis are acquiring aluminum
tubes that are destined for a nuclear weapons program. Dick Cheney is
on all the talk shows. It's called in advertising terms, where you
buy time on all the networks for products at the same time, so that
everybody sees the same message at the same time. The difference is
that the White House gets it for free. They put everybody on the talk
shows saying , aluminum tubes. We're heading towards a nuclear
Armageddon because of the aluminum tubes. Now, it took, again, two,
three months for this story to be refuted.

MOYERS: Both of these stories were false...

MACARTHUR: They were false, or…

MOYERS: And yet, the Senate... the Senate acted, in part, on those two
stories?

MACARTHUR: Right. Senators and Congressmen were voting on false
information.

MOYERS: But you know, there is great outcry about the press's role in
all of this.

Here's the full transcript

http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript205_full_print.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript205_full_print.html

Here's the link to the transcript of a more recent show with Joseph
Wilson, Deputy Chief of Mission, the acting ambassador at the US
Embassy in Iraq 12 years ago during Desert Shield.

http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_wilson_print.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_wilson_print.html

Below are some excerpts.

WILSON: His (Saddam's) decision to go into Kuwait. The only reason he
had Ambassador Gillespie in to see him and then me in to see him four
days after the invasion. Both were unprecedented meetings. He would
normally meet only with senior diplomats resident in Baghdad when they
were accompanying envoys from their respective capitals. So for him to
have Ambassador Gillepsie and then me was really a first.

And it was clear that what he wanted to do in that is he wanted to
deflect attention from what he really intended to do. And that's what
he did with April Gillespie. He lied to her. He lied to President
Mubarak that he was going to allow the negotiating process to go
forward. And with me, he wanted to make sure that the United States
would not respond unilaterally. And so that he would get this thrown
into the United Nations. And the reason he wanted it in the United
Nations was because his experience was with Israeli-Palestinian
issues, specifically Resolutions 242 and 338, which related to
occupation of Palestinian territories. And as most people know, the
Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories has not taken place
even though those territories were occupied in the '60s and early
'70s.

MOYERS: So what does he conclude from that?

WILSON: He concludes from that that if it goes into the United Nations
system, he's got 25 or 30 years to occupy Kuwait during which time he
can flag Kuwait City with Iraqis, pump all their oil, steal all their
money and then submit it to a referendum which he would have stacked
the odds for his victory.
....

MOYERS: So this is not just about weapons of mass destruction.

WILSON: Oh, no, I think it's far more about re-growing the political
map of the Middle East.

MOYERS: What does that mean?

WILSON: Well, that basically means trying to install regimes in the
Middle East that are far more friendly to the United States — there
are those in the administration that call them democracies. Somehow
it's
hard for me to imagine that a democratic system will emerge out of the
ashes of Iraq in the near term. And when and if it does, it's hard for
me to believe that it will be more pro-American and more pro-Israeli
than what you've got now.

MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of those
men, Richard Pearl, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in
the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of
Saddam
Hussein. What do you think about his argument?

WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was
produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called a
clean break, a new strategy for the realm. And it makes the argument
that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing
of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria.
And that's been since expanded to include Iran.

MOYERS: So this was drawn up during the '90s…

WILSON: Right. During the '90s, absolutely.

MOYERS: By men outside of all this?

WILSON: Outside of all this, yeah.

MOYERS: And…

WILSON: Now, Richard Pearl's been outside of office since the

Reagan years.

MOYERS: And this, you're saying that this has become a blueprint for
the Bush Administration?

WILSON: Well, I think this is part of what has been the underpinning
of the-- of the philosophical argument that calls for basically
radically changing the political dynamics in the Middle East and…

MOYERS: To favor Israel?

WILSON: Well, to favor American national security interests and
Israeli national security interests which are tied. I mean, we have…

MOYERS: How so?

WILSON: We have an important strategic responsibility to ensure the
territorial integrity of Israel. It's one that we've accepted since
1948. It's one that's been increasingly close. There are those who
believe that perhaps we've confused our responsibilities with the
slavish adherence to the Lecoup strategy.

MOYERS: Lecoup, the party.

WILSON: It's the party in power right now. And certainly when the
President or when Sharon comes — the Prime Minister comes to
Washington and says that George Bush is the best friend that Israel
ever had. And George Bush calls him a man of peace, calls Sharon a man
of peace, there are those who wonder about the depth of our ties and
the extent to which our national security responsibilities may somehow
be confused with our support for the current government in Israel.

MOYERS: So help us understand why removing Saddam Hussein and
expanding that movement, throughout the Middle East which would
benefit Israel?

WILSON: Well, I think those are the sorts of questions that you need
to ask to Richard Perle. The argument that I would make…

MOYERS: We asked him but he didn't want to come on the show.

WILSON: Yeah. The argument that it seems to me — I've done democracy
in Africa for 25 years. And I can tell you that doing democracy in the
most benign environments is really tough sledding. And the place like
Iraq where politics is a blood sport and where you have these clan,
tribal, ethnic and confessional cleavages, coming up with a democratic
system that is pluralistic, functioning and, as we like to say about
democracies, is not inclined to make war on other democracies, is
going to be extraordinarily difficult.

And let me just suggest a scenario. Assuming that you get the civic
institutions and a thriving political culture in the first few
iterations of presidential elections, you're going to have Candidate A
who is likely going to be a demagogue. And Candidate B who is likely
going to be a populist. That's what emerges from political discourse.
Candidate A, Candidate B, the demagogue and the populist, are going to
want to win elections of the presidency. And the way to win election
is enflame the passions of your population. The easy way for a
demagogue or a populist in the Middle East to enflame the passion of
the population is to define himself or herself by their enemies.

And the great enemy in the Middle East is Israel and its supplier, the
United States. So it's hard to believe, for me, that a thriving
democracy certainly in the immediate and near-term and medium-term
future is going to yield a successful presidential candidate who is
going to be pro-Israel or pro-America.
================

Hey, we gotta save the elite, since all wealth comes from their
creative minds, right?

Coca Cola CEO, Douglas Daft, received $5.5 million in compensation
last year as he steered Coke to a 22.5% drop in profits. Yet Coke is
saving money. They fired 1,900 workers to compensate for Mr. Daft's
payout. Coke fired 6,000 in 2000. Thus, Daft will only fire 3,800
workers this year. Coke's earnings are taking a pasting for another
reason. That is that the public is finally learning about diet Coke
and aspartame. This poison that turns into formaldehyde at 96 degrees
kills the unborn, and causes tumors and seizures. It mimics MS, erases
memory and blinds users. The litany of Coke's evil deeds transverses
over 100 years. Coke is the top conspiracy company in America, along
with General Electric.

coca cola $4.00 a gallon gasoline $2.20 a gallon

each consumed in roughly equally quantities in the US

What kind of upside down values maintain this situation?

What is the human cost of maintaining this system?

Does coca cola contribute more to our lives than gasoline?

Does it really contribute anything to life at all?

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

One World is OK -- as long as it isn't the Bilderbergs private global
plantation -- and it allows us to continue our Jeffersonian system of
government (which is most compatitable with international harmony and
cooperation for the good of all):

Our planet is turning
on its path around the sun.
Earth mother is calling
her children home.

Light is returning.
Even in our darkest hour,
no one can hold back the dawn.

So keep it burning,
Let's keep this flame of hope alive,
as we journey together
through the storm .

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
One World - Our World,
One Race - The Human Race,
One Life,
Now!
=============

Pentagon Spokesmen Say Depleted Uranium is Safe! Officials Say
Depleted Uranium Powerful, Safe --Dr. Michael Kilpatrick attempted to
dispel myths about the material the military has used for the past two
decades, most extensively during the Gulf War. From an environmental
standpoint, Kilpatrick explained that DU is found in low levels
throughout the United States and is used in industrial settings such
as ships and airplanes and that it has some medical uses. "It's
something that we eat, and drink and breathe everyday," he said.

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

LOVEARTH NETWORK
Connecting Through 1000+ EcoHumanePolitical Websites
http://Lovearth.net / http://Network.Lovearth.net

[Let us all please honor the great elder and the founder of the
original Earth Day --
John McConnell this Vernal Equinox -- Earth Day -- Friday March 21st
-- By going to
his website http://www.EarthSite.org -- Also, pass this on to everyone
you know --
Thank you Mark Elsis]

Iraq: Global Crisis Cause and Cure

by John McConnell, Founder Of Earth Day, March 17, 2003

Global Crisis

Many scholars agree human history will soon come to an end - unless we
end our addiction to war. New diabolical weapons make it possible for
a few individuals to inflict massive destruction.

The most powerful nations spend billions for war -- and pennies for
peace. America leads the way. If the money spent for devilish
weapons to kill people were spent for peacemaking education and
actions, we could soon eliminate war as a way to settle differences.
Also, the money saved could provide every family on Earth their
rightful inheritance in our planet -- a home, education -- and
encouragement to find their role in life.

View from Space

"We set out to explore Space -- and discovered Earth" Earth is an
amazing planet with a web of life that with understanding and care can
provide a great future for the whole human family. The Space pioneers
enabled us to think globally. Earth is our inheritance and our
responsibility.

We must now reject violence and mindless greed and replace Earth Kill
with Earth Care. Everyone needs to find how they can best serve this
common purpose.

But first we must end man's long addiction to war.

Problem of Power

Our greatest problem is the problem of power. The corrupting
influence of power increases the desire for power. As a result,
efforts to make the most money lead many to invest in the stock that
brings the greatest return -- instead of the stock that does the most
good.

The lust for power has made America the most powerful country in the
world. America stole this land from the Indians. While proclaiming
"Freedom for All" their illgained wealth from this land's natural
bounty was used around the world for "freedom" that defrauded workers
and deprived them of fair wages. Military might and monetary might
was sometimes used to further the welfare of foreign countries, but
mostly used to increase America's wealth and power.

Long ago the war-maker dealers in death discovered the greatest
financial profit came from producing weapons of war. The more
diabolical, the greater the profit.

To increase their power, corporations obtained control of the
production of oil -- first in America -- and then around the world.
Oil money won the last election and is a major reason why the
President is seeking a change in Iraq that will give them control of
Iraq's oil.

Unfortunately, our use of oil is polluting the atmosphere and
endangering all life on Earth.

There is little awareness of the history of our institutions and how
human greed and lust for power produced structures and policies that
are evil and reward deception. The banking system itself is a prime
example. The people who control the Banks and the Stock Market , are
a key factor in the control of the world. Today the most powerful
individual or institution is the one that has the most money.

What could and should be most powerful are the voices that speak for
peace, justice and the care of Earth's amazing web of life.

In looking at history's long sad record of wars, let us remember that
there have been wonderful voices of peace and periods of peaceful
progress.

Earth Day and its Earth Trustee agenda provides the way to a better
future. Here is an event and vision that can appeal to the most
people and do the most good.

March 20, the first day of Spring, has been celebrated each year since
1970 as Earth Day. Its purpose is "peace, justice and the care of
Earth. Featured annually at the United Nations, it fostered
environmental actions around the world and helped end the "Cold War."

Religion

Earth Day brought together people of different religions who joined in
a commitment to peace and the care of Earth -- leaving room for their
differences.

Turning Tragedy Into Triumph

In the present world crisis and danger of a third world war, a war
that would kill us all, each and every one who prefers peace must now
be a peacemaker in thought, word and deed. We need a moral equivalent
of World War II -- a Peace Blitz that will eliminate the causes of
violence, demonstrate the power of faith, prayer and nonviolence,
convert all warmakers to peacemakers and provide a future for the
human family.

Every one who agrees with this special appeal is urged to think, talk
and take action. Its time for peacemakers to stop the warmakers and
provide a future for our planet.

In January 1961, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, the former General
and WW2 Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, gave a dire warning to
Americans that there was the conjunction of an "immense" Military
Establishment and a large Arms Industry that could cause a serious
imbalance of government power. He declared bluntly "the potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist".

"Every gun that it made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is
not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,
the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

John McConnell
4924 E. Kentucky Circle
Denver, CO 80246

Website: http://www.EarthSite.org

The Lovearth Network will publish -- Iraq: Global Crisis Cause and
Cure on: http://PeaceOnEarth.net

xoxox

With Love
Mark R. Elsis
http://MarkElsis.com

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

LOVEARTH NETWORK
Forming A Unity Of One Percent To Stop Our Extinction
Connecting Through 1,000+ EcoHumanePolitical Websites

Website: http://Lovearth.net

1000+ Network Websites: http://Network.Lovearth.net

eMail: AUnityOfO...@Lovearth.net

Phone Toll Free: 1 877 LOVEARTH = 1 877 568.3278
Outside The United States: 1 941 349.9426

Fax Toll Free: 1 877 WEB OF LIFE = 1 877 932.6354
Outside The United States: 1 941 349.0295

5683 Midnight Pass Road Suite 106
Siesta Key Florida 34242-1754

Lovearth
Be Your Best
Resonate Love

Executive Director: Mark R. Elsis
Ma...@Lovearth.net

Love Yourself And All Life On Earth
For The Sake Of Our Future Generations

[Everyman]

vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<kom67v8kb3mf6afe8...@4ax.com>...

Von Roach, you are Jewish. SO are most of the regular critics of this
evidence, Angel Elf, Paul Gooding, Pigpiss, Tonya, Sarah etc.

And so are Wolfowitz, Pearle, Gen. Meyer, Ari, Kissinger, Rumsfeld,
and even, according to him, Colin Powell.

You used to pose left -- but here you are with the neo-cons. You
defended Clinton, but now you are backing Bush.

Now lets think about that.

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

Does the Bush-Pearle Junta not trust our soldiers with guns?

Or is disarming them in the middle of the very Moslem world
Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz have enflammed with violent and wholly just hatred
the whole idea, the whole double-crossing idea?

Have the globalization-zionist neocons engineered a fight to the
death between the American people and all of Islam, with the obvious
objective of their mutually assured destruction?

Item:

"The US forces massing across the Iraqi border are largely unarmed.
Unless you are out on patrol or sentry duty, the weapon that you are
required to carry at all times has no ammo for it on your person. Many
soldiers say they feel silly carrying empty guns. "If something kicks
up, we're....out of luck," said Pfc Jessica Ruth, 19, of Florence SC,
supply clerk in the Division Supply Command of the 101st Airborne.

The high commands fear is that once the military starts issuing ammo
to all, the soldiers will accidentally shoot themselves and each
other. Officers say the safety risk far outweighs the scurity risk!

Shades of the Marine Barracks bombing in Beruit, Lebanon where the
Marine guards at the entrance had unloaded M16s when the terrorist
bomber's truck burst through the gate and rammed the barracks
building. The only shots fired at the truck were by a British Sgt. who
was there as the driver for a Brit officer meeting with the Marines.
His FLN was loaded and ready to fire.

Is safety in firearms handling so lacking among our troops that they
cannot be trusted with guns?
---

Item:

Around ten thousand Russian citizens have applied for entry visas into
Iraq to defend this country against the planned aggression by the
warmongering USA and UK, according to the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.

Item:

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was
founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former
officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill
Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. In open
letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the
group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power"

Item:

"British bio-chemical warfare gear is designed neither for hot desert
fighting nor for offensive fighting. A high percentage of soldiers
can be expected to be incapacitated if they rely upon this inadequate
equipment in that kind of warfare. The allies had better hope Saddam
Heussein is telling the truth about having destroyed his bio-chemical
weapons arsenal."

===========

We have been lied to on all points.

We know that 9-11 was a mass-murder frameup.

We can guess that if a plan involves kills 3000 of our own people to
promote hostility and war, then the planners are not playing for
small stakes and are not merely seeking profit-maximization for
corporation stockholders.

I have proven to you that the Pentagon attack was a frameup -- that
no Boeing hit the Pentagon -- and that therefore we have a conspriacy
afoot equal to that of the French Revolution, the engineering and
prolongation of World War One, or deliberate crashing of the stock
market in 1929.

Jesus said that his followers would suffer persecution. Lao Tse said
that "If it were not laughed at, it would not be The Way." So I have
expected and so I have received. But Lao Tse also said, "Never too
much; Never be first," meaning that if you are first you are trying
too hard and it would be better if you didn't try at all.

So I think the time has come for me to deliberately court failure and
quote from the book by a man blinded in World War One -- blinded in
some respects, sharpened in acuity in others.

Here are excerpts from his book during imprisonment for revolutionary
activity.

I began to make myself familiar with the founders of Marxism in order
to study the foundations of the movement. If I reached my goal more
quickly than at first I had perhaps ventured to believe, it was thanks
to my newly acquired, though at that time not very profound, knowledge
of the the activity of Jews. This alone enabled me to draw a practical
comparaison between the reality and the theoretical flim-flam of the
founding fathers of Social Democracy, since it taught me to
understand the language of the Jewish people, who speaks in order to
conceal or at least to veil their thoughts, but slumbers well
concealed between them.

For me this was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I have
ever had to go through.

I had ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and became an
anti-Semite.

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the principles of Nature and
replaces the eternal privilege of power and survival by the principle
of opinion-poll numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the
value of personality in man, countests the significance of nationality
and genetics traits, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise
of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe,
this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually
conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable
organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be
chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of
this planet.

If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over
the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath
of humanity and this planet will, as it did millions of years ago,
move through space devoid of men.

Eternal Nature inexhorably averges the infringement of her
commands.

Hense today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
of the ALmighty Creator: by defending myself against the devious
plots of the Jew, I am fighting for the kingdom of the Lord.

Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to
comprehend the inner, and consequently real aims of Social Democracy.

The erroneous conceptions of the aim and meaning of this party fall
from our eyes like veils, once we come to know this people, and from
the fog and mist of social phrases rises the llering grimace of
Marxism.

Marxist doctrine is a brief spiritual extract of the philosophy of
life that is generally current today. And for this reason alone any
struggle of our so-called bourgeois culture against it is impossible,
absurd in fact, since this bourgeiois world is also essentially
invected by these poisons, and worships a view of life which in
general is distinguished from the Marxists only by degrees and
personalieis. The bourgeois world is Marxist, but believes in the
possiblity of the rule of certain groups of men (ruling-class
bourgeois), while Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the
world over to the Jews.

A nation saved from these mortal enemies of her existence and her
future would possess forces which the whole world could no longer have
stifled. On the day when Marxism is smashed in this country, her
fetters will in truth be broken forever. For never in our history
have we been defeated by the strength of external foes, but always by
our own vices and by the enemies of our own camp.

The Jew of all times has lived in the states of other peoples, and
there formed his own state, which, to be sure, habitually sialed under
the disguise of 'religious community' as long as outward circumstances
made a complete revelation of his nature seem inadvisable. But as
soon as he felt strong enough to do without the protective cloak, he
always dropped the veil and suddenly became what so many of the others
previously did not want to believe and see: the Jew.

The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and
states explains a characteristic which once caused Jewish Arthur
Schopenhaur to call him the 'great master of lying.' Existence impels
the Jew to lie, and to lie perpetually, just as it compels the
inhabitants of the northern countries to wear warm clothing.

His life within other peoples can only endure for any length of time
if he succeeds in arousing the opinion that he is not a people but a
'religious community,' though of a special sort.

And this is the great lie.

The Jew has always been a people with definite racial
characteristics and never a religion; only in order to get ahead he
early sought for a means which could distract unpleasant attention
from his person. ANnd what would have been more expedient and at the
same time more innocent than the 'embezzled' concept of a religious
community? For here, too, everything is borrowed or rather stolen.
Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a
religious institution, if for no other reason than because he lacks
idealism in any form, and hence belief in eternal principle extending
to a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him.

The Jew also becomes liberal and begins to rave about the necessary
progress of mankind.

Slowly he makes himself the spokesman of a new era.

Also, of course, he destroys more and more thoroughly the
foundations of any economy that will really benefit the people. By
way of stock shares and lending he pushes his way into the circuit of
national production which he turns from an organic community livihood
into a purchasable or rather tradable object, thus robbing the
enterises of men of the foundation of a personal attachment of
craftsmanship and proprietorship. Between distant employer and
employee there arises that inner estrangement which later leads to
political class division.

Finally, the Jewish influence on economic affairs grows with
terrifying speed through the stock exchange. He becomes the owner, or
at least the controller, of the national labor force.

To strengthen his political postion he tries to tear down the
racial, cultural and civil barriers which for a time continue to
restrain him at every step. To this end he fights with all the
tenacity innate in him for religious tolerance.

He always represents himself personally as having an infitine
thirst for knowledge, praises all progress, mostly, to be sure, the
progress that leads to the ruin of others; for he judges all knowledge
and all development only according to its possiblitiesfor advancing
his nation, and where this is lacking, he is the inexorable mortal
enemy of all ligfht, a hater of all true culture. He uses all the
knowledge he acquires in the schools of other peoples, exclusively for
the benefit of his race.

His ultimate goal is the victory of 'democracy,' or, as he
understands it: the rule of parliamentarianism. It ismost compatible
with his requirements; for it excludes the personality -- and puts in
its place the majority characterized by stupidity, incompetence, and
last but not least, cowardice.

While on the one hand he organizes capitalistic methods of human
exploitation to their ultimate consequence, he approaches the very
victims of his spirit and his activity and in a short time becomes the
leader of their struggle against himself. 'Against himself" is only
figuratively speaking; for the great master of lies understands as
always how to make himself appear to be the pure one and to load the
blame on others. Since he has the gall to lead the masses, it never
even enters their heads that this might be the most infamous betrayal
of all times.

And yet it was.

Scarcely have the working classes grown out of the general economic
shift than the Jew, clearly and distinctly, realizes that it canopen
the way for his own further advancement. First, he used the bourgeois
producer as a battering-ram against the feudal world, then the worker
against the the bourgeois world. If formerly he knew how to swindle
his way to civil rights in the shadow of the bourgeois, now he hopes
to find the road to his own domination in the worker's struggle for
existence.

From now on the worker has no other task but to fight for the
future of the Jewish people. Unconsciously he is harnessed to the
service of the power which he thinks he is combating. He is seemingly
allowed to attack capital, and this is the easiest way of making him
fight for it. In this the Jew keeps up an outcry against
international capital and in truth he means the national economy which
must be demolished in order that the international stock exchange can
triumph over its dead body.

Thus there arises a pure movement entirely of ignorant manual
workers under Jewish leadership, apparently airming to improve the
situation of the worker, but in truth planning the enslavement and
with it the destruction of all non-Jewish peoples.

The general pacirfistic paralysis of the national instinct of
self=preservation in the circles of the so-called intellectuals is
transmitted to the broad masses and above all to the bourgeosie by the
activity of the big newspapers wich today are always Jewish. Added to
these two weapons of disintegration comes a third and by far the most
terrible, the organization of brute force. As a shock and storm
troop, Marxism is intended to finish off what the preparatory
softening up with the first two weapons has made ripe for collapse.

Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so
gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the
personification of the defil as the symbol of all evil assumes the
living shape of the Jew.

The ignorance of the narrow-mindedness of our upper classes, make
the people an easy victim for this Jewish campaign of lies. In
politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by a dictatorship
of the proletariat.

In the organized mass he has found the weapon which lets him
dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and
govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist.

He works systemtatically for revolutionization in a twofold sense:
economic and political.

Around the world peoples who offer too violent resistance to attack
from within he weaves in a net of enemies, thanks to his international
influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants the
flag of revolution in the international battlefields.

In economics he undermines the states until the community of
enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state
and the community businessman and subjected to his financial control.

In the political field he refuses the state the means for its
self-presevation, destroys the foundations of all national
sefl-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs
at its history and past, and drags everything that is truly great into
the gutter.

Culturally he contaminates art, literature, the theater, maks a
mockery of natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and
sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into
the sphere of his own base pornograophic nature.

Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded,
until the last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this
world have fallen

Now begins the gret last revolution. In gaining political power he
casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people's
Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he
tries to exterminate the national intelligensia and by robbing the
peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for
the slave's lot of permanent subjugation.

The most frightful example of this kind is offered by communist
Russia, where Jewish commisars killed or starved about thrity million
people, honest farmers and craftsmen, with positively fanatical
savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of
Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great
people.

The end is not only the end of freedom of the peoples oppressed by
the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After
the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too.

The Jewish train of thought in all this is clear. The
extermination of the national culture intelligensia to make possible
the sweating of the German working class under the yoke of Jewish
world finance -- is conceived only as a preliminary to the further
extension of this Jewish tendency of world conquest.

If our people and our state become the victim of these bloodthirsty
and avaricious tyrants of nations, the whole earth will sink into the
snares of this octopus or oriental despotism. If we free ourselves
from this embrace, this greatest of dangers to nations may be regarded
as broken for the whole world.

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

http://www.counterpunch.org/abboushii03122003.html

Destination Fort Braggdad
By Tarif Abboushi
Counterpunch.org
March 12, 2003

Standing on the eve of war against the land where Adam and Eve once
stood, one cannot but marvel at the ominous confluence of forces
funneling together to unleash unspeakable destruction as they steer
our nation toward disaster. Like some bi-millennial alignment of
celestial energy spawning a reordering of its universe, so has the
melding of American supremacists, Christian fundamentalists and
rejectionist
Zionists in our halls of power reached a destructive critical mass for
which war appears to be the only expression.

It has now been widely reported that the project to neuter Iraq was
hatched years ago, by men who fantasized about reordering the Middle
East to eliminate the mortal threat to Israel represented by any of
its enemies with a military-industrial infrastructure. They were men
with a plan but lacking the means to execute it, when along came
George W. Bush with his combustible cocktail of constituencies:
Profiteering corporate godfathers steeped in the fields of energy and
defense, and messianic Christianzealots salivating for Rapture. The
trident was formed; Osama Bin Laden and the terrorism of9/11
transformed President Bush into its retiarius.

For Christian fundamentalists, the notion of Iraq possessing weapons
of mass destruction is not in and of itself anathema; it's the timing
that is bad. Armageddon can't happen without forces of evil,
presumably bearing nuclear arms, to fight the forces of good. But
scripture dictates that the Jewish temple must first be rebuilt, and
since that hasn't happened, it cannot be Saddam Hussein, the
incarnation-of-evil-du-jour, that bears those arms. What better
argument to disarm him? After the temple is built, then we will find
evil and arm it.

For American empire-builders, the religious fanatics can proselytize
till the messiah comes or returns; what matters today is less
Deuteronomy than hegemony. American hegemony, as in control of the
Middle East's oil and natural gas resources, and hence the world's
economy. How better to get there than by turning Iraq, with proven oil
reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's, into the overseas address of
the XVIII Airborne Corps? Fort Braggdad has an irresistible ring to
it.

For the administration's Likudite Zionists, Oslo rejectionists one
and all, and implacably opposed to any peace that entails Israel
ceding an inch of occupied territory to the Palestinians, war on
Iraq, while having the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of
innocent civilians with weapons systems hitherto unused, will more
importantly kill two birds with one stone. First, it will eliminate
once and for all the Arab military-industrial infrastructure that
today produces Al-Sumood missiles, and if left unchecked, would
tomorrow sprout deadlier - and farther-reaching - tentacles. Just as
important, it keeps on the administration's back burner (where it
will hopefully burn itself out) a moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace
process that, if revived, might produce the least of all desirables,
a viable Palestinian state.

The President's malleable intellect (in his speech to the white House
press corps last Thursday he referred to the International Atomic
Energy Agency as the IEAE) has been a Godsend to those in his
administration who conspired to wrest control of foreign policy away
from the Department of State. He continues to regurgitate the
nonsense that 'they hate us because of our freedom and democracy,'
even as he orders war to give them freedom and democracy. And the
contradictions don't stop there. Today it is not Iraq that poses a
threat to peace and security, it is the imminent war that poses that
threat. It is not the failure of the majority to heed the minority in
the United Nations Security Council that will make that body
irrelevant, it is the minority's disdain for the will of the majority
that portends world anarchy. If we don't need the international
community's consensus to go to war to defend ourselves against a
perceived potential future threat, other countries can adopt the same
latitude, and we've made it legitimate for North Korea to attack us
now.

President Bush says the coming war is about protecting the American
people. If the threat is the terrorism that washed ashore on September
11th 2001, Iraq, which had nothing to do with that particular crime
against humanity, is the wrong target. War on Iraq will only
proliferate what we hope to pre-empt, and provoke what we're trying
to prevent.

We are going to war against a country that has not threatened or
attacked us. We will win the war and lose the peace. Let us never
again ask why they hate us.

_______________________________________________________

"All great truth is dealt with in three ways: First it is ridiculed;
then it is violently opposed; and finally it is accepted as
self-evident."A. Schopenhauer, famous German philosopher

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its opponents: what does happen is its
opponents gradually die out and the growing generation is familiarized
with the idea from the beginning."Max Planck, father of modern physics

"The prophet courageously challenges oppressive social structures of
which the church may be an integral part. The prophet is the end
result of the best in the tradition and spirituality of the church -
which soon, sadly, drives him or her out."-- J. Milton Yinger, 1946

[Everyman]

vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<kom67v8kb3mf6afe8...@4ax.com>...

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

Gifilte fishcake globalization zionist racist

Now to business:

1) US Zionist and Jew to be "Governor " of occupied Iraq.

2) BUSH DRAWS LINE IN SAND AGAINST RESTIVE PUBLIC: Air Force Base
Authorizes 'Deadly Force' Against Trespassing Protesters

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

Item #1

Subject: US Zionist and Jew to be "Governor " of occupied Iraq.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22Jay+Garner%22+governor+iraq&btnG=Search+News

Note particularly the following links (and BTW Alertnet is Reuters):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80276,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5470-600289,00.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03270281

The Australian ABC current affairs programme 4 corners " dropped the
zionists in it " when they announced quite literally zionism was
behind
this. Now we have an announcement detailed below.

If anyone disagrees about the zionist involvement, that is their
right,
however I think the zionist "cat is out of the bag ".
Please do not shoot the messenger. Me!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,alt.politics.mideast,alt.politics.usa
Subject: Re: US Zionist and Jew to be "Governor " of occupied Iraq.

Bush has just announced plans to appoint a retired US General Jay
Garner to
be ruler of an occupied Iraq. garner ,an arms manufacturer, is a Jew,
with
a long career in the US military,and has always be closely connected
with
the US Zionist Lobby, and is a close friend of Ariel Sharon.

Enter the string "jay garner governor iraq" to get more links on this.

===^=========================

Remember!!! Kent State killing ended the Viet Nam War for the
communism. Let me see ... If I went to Vandenberg could I win the
war against Globalization Zionist Debt Slavery for Jeffersonian
Democracy?

-----

I T E M 2 :

BUSH DRAWS LINE IN SAND AGAINST RESTIVE PUBLIC: Air Force Base
Authorizes 'deadly Force' Against Trespassing Protesters

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW9Q2CCDD.html

Looks to me as if the provisions of the Intoletable Acts of the
un-Patriot Act which designates anyone who commits a crime is a
terrorist is being implemented. Either we hang together or we shall
surely be shot separately.

ranger116@w... wrote:
Your Kinder Friendlier govt in Action.

Address:http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW9Q2CCDD.html

Air Force Base Authorizes 'deadly Force' Against Trespassing
Protesters The
Associated Press Published: Mar 15, 2003

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) - Security forces at Vandenberg
Air
Force Base are allowed to use "deadly force" in some cases if any
anti-war demonstrators infiltrate the military complex, officials
said.

Some anti-war activists have announced plans to trespass in hopes of
disturbing Vandenberg's mission and to vandalize sensitive equipment
they believe helps the war effort. Vandenberg officials revealed
Friday that military security police have always been allowed to shoot
to kill, if necessary, to protect base residents and equipment.

It is more critical now that people understand the severity of that
policy, a base spokeswoman said. "This is not fun and games anymore,"
said Maj. Stacee Bako. "We're living in post 9-11. We don't know
what's going to happen with the war effort in Iraq." Military police
will use their judgment, experience and training to determine if
lethal force is necessary, she said.

"It's impossible for us to determine what their intent is," she said.
"Are they protesters? Are there terrorists in that group and (do)
they plan on killing everyone on base?" The policy will not deter
protesters, said Peter Lumsdaine of the Vandenberg Action Coalition,
one of the organizers of the planned trespassing. "I think it does
underline that people in the nonviolent resistance movement are
willing to take some risks," Lumsdaine said.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW9Q2CCDD.html

[Everyman]

Subject: 1) The Boy King and His War (the Progressive) ; 2) Rachel
Corrie Murdered by Israeli Army in cold blood 3) King George places US
soldiers under British command.
=================================

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2264.htm

The Boy King and His War

James Madison wrote in 1793: "In no part of the Constitution is more
wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of
war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department." If
the President had that power, said Madison, "the temptation would be
too great for any one man."

The Progressive: Commentary

By the time you read these words, George W. Bush may already have
launched his war against Iraq. Since August, he has acted like a boy
king, stomping his feet and demanding, "I want my war. Give me my
war." He told all of his vassals to make sure it happened, and at
press time, it sure looked likely.

The whole issue of getting inspectors into Iraq, even the goal of
disarmament, was a ruse. What Bush has wanted all along is to
overthrow Saddam Hussein. He was honest about that originally, though
he used the hideous neologism "regime change." But when that wouldn't
fly diplomatically, he reverted to disarmament. Then, when it became
obvious that Saddam was cooperating, at least to some extent, with the
inspectors, Bush pulled the "regime change" card out of his sleeve
once again.

At almost every opportunity, Bush claimed that Saddam was not only a
threat but a "growing" or "mounting" or "gathering" threat.

But how could Iraq be such a threat when U.N. inspectors were going
anywhere they wanted, anytime they wanted, to search for these
weapons?

How could Iraq be such a threat when Saddam was destroying many of his
Al Samoud missiles? Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, said this
action constitutes "a substantial measure of disarmament. . . . We're
not watching the breaking of toothpicks here. Lethal weapons are being
destroyed."

How could it be such a threat when Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, said that there is "no evidence of
the revival of a nuclear weapons program"?

How could it be such a threat when U.S., French, German, and Russian
spy planes were free to survey every inch of Iraqi territory and then
pass their intelligence on to the inspectors?

Before Secretary of State Colin Powell received other instructions
from his boss, he used to say that Saddam was in a box. Because of
inspections, the walls of the box were closing in on Saddam.

But that didn't satisfy Bush.

The boy king wanted Saddam's head.

This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Congress itself
committed a horrendous blunder when, last October, it abdicated its
responsibility under the Constitution. By handing Bush a bill that
essentially said he could go to war against Iraq any damn time he
pleased, Congress ceded its power to declare war and thus did away
with a fundamental check and balance.

James Madison wrote in 1793: "In no part of the Constitution is more
wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of
war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department." If
the President had that power, said Madison, "the temptation would be
too great for any one man."

Bush has shown how easily he is tempted.

He also has shown utter contempt for the views of the vast majority of
people in nation after nation who have opposed this war. Dismissing
worldwide protests as the equivalent of a focus group, Bush has failed
to come to grips with the overwhelming unpopularity of his position.
When 95 percent of the people in Turkey opposed the war, when 83
percent of the people in England opposed the war, when record numbers
of protesters appeared in one capital after another to show their
disgust with the Bush Administration's policy, a wiser, more prudent
man might have reconsidered his plans. But not Bush. He pushed right
ahead.

So enthralled is Bush with the might of the Pentagon, so enraptured is
he with his self-assigned role of liberator, so sure is he of doing
God's will that he has become an enormously frightening figure. He
seems to believe he can rule the world alone--or at most as part of a
triumvirate with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

The costs of the policy are already mounting. Bush has done grievous
damage to Washington's relationship with its traditional European
allies. Tony Blair might lose his job. The governments of Spain and
Italy could also tumble because of their toadying. France or Germany
could exercise a veto over the expansion of the European Union or
NATO. Such expansion can occur only by unanimous consent, and if "Old
Europe" sees the Eastern European countries as Trojan horses of
Washington, it may decide to scuttle the whole deal.

U.S. relations with Russia also have suffered. Vladimir Lukin, deputy
speaker of the house of Russia's parliament, condemned Bush's cowboy
approach. "Do you know the difference between a policeman and a
gangster? A policeman complies with rules which are elaborated not by
the policeman but by a certain democratic community accepted by
everyone," he told The New York Times. "A gangster implements his own
rules."

More trouble is likely to come from the Muslim world. Bush has argued
that invading Iraq will solve just about every problem in the Middle
East except male pattern baldness. The central argument that Bush
made--that installing democracy (as if it were a spare part) in Iraq
will bring peace to the Middle East--doesn't stand up. The Bush
Administration actually fears democracy in Iraq because a majority of
Iraqis are Shiites, who are likely to ally with Iran. Bush also is
opposed to self-determination for the Kurds, much to their
consternation. He has already promised Turkey that the Kurds will not
get a state of their own.

Bush bases his absurd claim that the overthrow of Saddam will hasten
peace between Israel and the Palestinians on the assumption that
Saddam's demise "will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron
that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of
suicide bombers." But if Bush thinks that Palestinian suicide bombers
engage in their unjustifiable, bloody acts simply to get monetary
rewards from Saddam for their families, he's kidding himself.

What's more, by threatening to invade and occupy another Muslim
country, Bush is playing the role that Osama bin Laden has assigned to
him: that of Islam's enemy. In February, bin Laden denounced "the
crusaders" for trying to "occupy the capital of Islam in the past and
to usurp the wealth of Muslims and to put up a puppet government to
control you."

If the U.S. military inflicts grotesque civilian casualties on Iraq,
and if pictures of this brutalization run on Al Jazeera TV day in and
day out, the war against Iraq will serve only as a recruiting call for
Al Qaeda. Bush advertised the war on Iraq as a war against terror, but
it may serve to swell the ranks of the terrorists. And it may foment
fundamentalist unrest from Nigeria to Egypt and Pakistan.

Other consequences of Bush's bellicosity we are seeing already: The
U.S. economy wobbles, oil prices skyrocket, unemployment jumps. These
may pale in comparison to the death toll in Baghdad, but they
represent real suffering for millions of Americans.

History is not preordained or static, much less finished (Francis
Fukuyama notwithstanding). Bush's overreaching has already produced
its antithesis: the surprising and exhilarating and enormous worldwide
mass protests against the war. The anti-war movement has merged with
the anti-globalization movement and morphed into a single movement
against the U.S. empire.

Six months ago, few could have predicted this global revolt. But here
it is. And it won't go away soon. With its increasing power, this
movement will challenge Bush's economic and military policies, seeing
them as wings of the same predator.

In some basic sense, then, what we are seeing is a worldwide
democratic movement vying against Bush's policy of empire, war, and
repression.

We are now in a desperate race to see whether Bush will wreak
immeasurable global havoc, or whether the anti-empire protesters in
one country after another (including in the United States!) will catch
up to him and, by pressuring their respective governments, bring to
heel this international outlaw.

There is no more urgent task before us.

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

Harsh Bush Letter Strains US-Turkish Relations
A harsh letter to Turkey from U.S. President George Bush relaying the
message, "We cannot take it anymore. Speed up the process of the note.
Make your airspace available," received an equally harsh reaction from
Ankara that in essence said, "The formation of the new government will
be delayed, and the United Nations' decision will be awaited." (CLG)

It's hard for a go-down whore to get her dignity back -- but the old
girl is trying. --DE

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

Rachel Corrie Murdered by Israeli Army in cold blood

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030316/168/3j4y0.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030316/170/3j4d2.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030316/168/3j527.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030316/161/3j4jr.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030316/168/3j2r1.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030316/168/3j2s0.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030316/170/3j271.html

The following has been posted on the ISM website. Please note the
photographs as Rachel confronted the bulldozer. She was clearly
visible to the IDF. They ran over her as though she were a piece of
paper.

Rafah: Rachel Corrie Murdered by Israeli Army

At about 5.20 pm today Rachel Corrie from Olympia in Washington
State, USA died of her injuries in A-Najar Hospital in Rafah after
being deliberately run over by an Israeli military bulldozer.

Rachel had been working as an ISM activist in Rafah for seven weeks
when she was killed trying to prevent the demolition of Palestinian
homes and property in the Hi Salaam area of Rafah.

The confrontation between the ISM and the Israeli Army had been under
way for two hours when Rachel was run over. Rachel and the other
activists had clearly identified themselves as unarmed international
peace activists throughout the confrontation.

The Israeli Army are attempting to dishonour her memory by claiming
that Rachel was killed accidentally when she ran in front of the
bulldozer. Eye-witnesses to the murder insist that this is totally
untrue. Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it
advanced towards her. When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn
aside she climbed up onto the mound of dirt and rubble being
gathered in front of it wearing a fluorescent jacket to look directly
at the driver who kept on advancing. The bulldozer continued to
advance so that she was pulled under the pile of dirt and rubble.
After she had disappeared from view the driver kept advancing until
the bulldozer was completely on top of her. The driver did not lift
the bulldozer blade and so she was crushed beneath it. Then the
driver backed off and the seven other ISM activists taking part in
the action rushed to dig out her body. An ambulance rushed her to
A-Najar hospital where she died.

Rachel joins 1,900 Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli
soldiers and settlers since September 2000,

Rachel had been staying in Palestinian homes threatened with illegal
demolition, and today Rachel was standing with other non-violent
international activists in front of a home scheduled for illegal
demolition. According to witnesses, Rachel was run over twice by the
Israeli military bulldozer in its process of demolishing the
Palestinian home. Witnesses say that Rachel was clearly visible to
the bulldozer driver, and was doing nothing to provoke an attack. The
photos below clearly show that Rachel was well marked, had a
megaphone, and posed no threat to the bulldozer driver.

A clearly marked Rachel Corey, holding a megaphone, confronts an
Israeli bulldozer driver attempting to demolish a Palestinian home,
Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout)

Other peace activists tend to Rachel after being injured by the
Israeli bulldozer driver, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM
Handout)

Rachel Corey lies on the ground fatally injured by the Israeli
bulldozer, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout)

Rachel in Najjar hostpital, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Ha'aretz newspaper
reported that Dr. Ali Musa, a doctor at Al-Najjar, stated that the
cause of death was "skull and chest fractures". ( Mohammad Al-
Moghair)

Colleagues of Rachel comfort each other in Najjar hostpital, Rafah,
Occupied Gaza. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that a second activist was
also injured at the same location. ( Mohammad Al-Moghair)

Rachel Corey (ISM Handout)

http://www.palsolidarity.org/

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

Roll Over Blackjack Pershing and George Patton -- but especially
George Washington: Mad King George W JUST PUT OUR MILITARY UNDER
BRITISH CONTROL!!!!!!

Attention British Subjects in the US

I don't think we can protect your lives and property in this country
any more. Better get the hell out. Three dead British for every
sexually abused American kid sounds about right -- heads on poles for
easy counting. Britian is assisting in treason against the American
People and their government -- and the people will not forget --
what we do to Afganistan in ignorance, we will much more effectively
do to you in knowledge of your crimes.

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

"This is bogus, if I die, it's for the United States... not the
freakin' world," said the marine

Somebody just said a mouthful...

Ethan Allen

- First, Nazi Dictator George Bush, Jr. betrays the American People
by lying about his involvement in the slaughter of the people of the
World Trade Towers on September 11,2001, Second he lied to the
children and the young men and women in the United States military by
placing them under the control of a foreign power and government that
is Britian, and Third HE WILL BETRAY the People of the World if They
let Him.

-- In apf...@yahoogroups.com, Wes676767@a... wrote:
HREF="http://www.drudgereport.com/command.htm">http://www.drudgereport
.com/command.htm

DRUDGE REPORT
SUN MARCH 16, 2003 20:12:37 ET

AMERICAN MARINES OUTRAGED AFTER PLACED UNDER BRITISH COMMAND

**Exclusive**

American marines camped in Kuwait are furious they have been put under
British command, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

"I want to serve under my own country!," one angry marine
communicated to the DRUDGE REPORT this weekend.

MORE

In several desert camps, American troops have been placed under the
command of British officers, it has been revealed.

With brutal weather conditions and the lack of familiar modern
conveniences taking a toll, the issue has become a hot flash point --
even before the first bombs are dropped!

"This is bogus, if I die, it's for the United States... not the
freakin' world," said the marine, whose identity, location and mode
of communication was assured anonymity. "I did not come here to take

A top Pentagon source would neither confirm nor deny that some
American troops have been placed under British command.

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

When Winnie Gassed the Kurds

Winston Churchill, British Colonial Secretary from 1921, believed that
British bombers could control the dissident Iraqi tribesmen. Some army
officers feared such methods might be too brutal, but despite this
they were adopted because they promised to be very cheap. In 1922, the
Air Ministry took over the defence of the new Iraqi kingdom.

Squadrons of the Royal Air Force flew most of their missions against
the Kurds who resented rule from Baghdad. For 10 years the British
waged an almost continuous bombing campaign in the oil-rich and
mountainous north-east against the Kurdish rebels, to whom they had
earlier promised autonomy.

From the Guardian, UK 19 January, 1991

----------

Baghdad and British bombers

(Guardian, UK 19 January, 1991)

Iraq is no stranger to British aerial bombardment. David Omissi
recalls the 1920s when gas shells and explosives were used to keep
dissident tribesmen under control.

SADDAM HUSSEIN was not the first to use chemical weapons against the
Iraqi population. General Sir AyImer Haldane commanded the British
forces which effectively ruled Iraq after its conquest by the Allies
during the first world war. When the tribesmen of the Euphrates rose
in rebellion against British military rule in the summer of 1920, the
British army used gas shells - "with excellent moral effect" - in the
fighting which followed.

Unsurprisingly, the rebellion was crushed - with the loss of nearly
9,000 Arab lives. Freed to impose their political will in Iraq, the
British then created a client kingdom, under Faisal ibn Hussain, the
son of the Sharif of Mecca. The British did not want Faisal to appear
a puppet, so held a referendum in 1921 and almost certainly fixed its
result - to give some legitimacy to his appointment.

The British armed forces underpinned this indirect imperialism.
Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary from 1921, believed that British
bombers could control the dissident Iraqi tribesmen. Some army
officers feared such methods might be too brutal, but despite this
they were adopted because they promised to be very cheap. In 1922,
the Air Ministry took over the defence of the new kingdom.

Like Saddarn's bombers, the squadrons of the Royal Air Force flew
most of their missions against the Kurds who resented rule from
Baghdad. For 10 years the British waged an almost continuous bombing
campaign in the oil-rich and mountainous north-east against the
Kurdish rebels, to whom they had earlier promised autonomy.

The Iraqi air force - which the British had built up, trained and
equipped - carried on the work after Iraq became nominally independent
in 1932.

Churchill consistently urged that the RAF should use mustard gas
during these raids, despite the warning by one of his advisers that
"it may ... kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the
people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge
with which to supply antidotes". In the event the air force did not
use gas bombs - for technical rather than humanitarian reasons.

Even without gas the campaign was brutal enough. Some Iraqi villages
were destroyed merely because their inhabitants had not paid their
taxes. The British authorities always maintained in public, however,
that people were not bombed for refusing to pay - merely for refusing
to appear when summoned to explain non-payment.

The primitive bombs sometimes did not explode, and tribal children
developed a passion for playing with the duds. When the air force
proposed using bombs with delayed action fuses, one senior officer
protested that the result would be "blowing a lot of children to
pieces". Nevertheless, the RAF went ahead - without the knowledge of
the civilian High Commissioner for Iraq, Sir Henry Dobbs - because
delayed-action bombs prevented tribesmen from tending their crops
under cover of darkness.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-
com:office:office"
/>

Churchill was sometimes troubled by the realities of the methods he
had supported. During one raid in Iraq, British pilots machine-gunned
women and children as they fled from their homes. "To fire wilfully on
women and children taking refuge in a lake is a disgraceful act,"
Churchill protested to the Chief of the Air Staff. "I am surprised
you do not order the officers responsible for it to be tried by court
martial." No action was taken, and this incident was quietly
forgotten.

This "police bombing" was too much for some air force officers to
stomach. In 1924, a distinguished Air Commodore, Lionel CharIton,
resigned his post as a staff officer in Iraq after he visited a
hospital and saw the victims of British bombing recovering from their
injuries. The air force recalled him to England, promising not to
otherwise damage his career provided he took his protests no further;
but they went back on their word and placed him on the retired list
in 1928.

Other officers seemed to enjoy the work. One who did was Arthur
Harris, who would later achieve fame directing the bomber offensive
against Germany in the second world war. Known to his friends as
Bomber and to his enemies as Butcher, he first practised his trade
against Kurdish villages in Iraq.

"Where the Arab and Kurd had begun to realise that if they could
stand a
little noise, they could stand bombing, and still argue," he reported
after one raid in 1924, "they now know what real bombing means, in
casualties and damage; they now know that within 45 minutes a
full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its
inhabitants killed or injured by four or five machines which offer
them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no
effective means of escape."

The British employed "police bombing" elsewhere in the empire - in
Transjordan; against the Pathan tribesmen on the north-west frontier
of India; in the Aden Protectorate (now the southern part of Yemen);
and against the Nuer people of the southern Sudan.

The Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Hugh Trenchard, had great ambitions
for his bombers. In a paper written early in 1920, when some
politicians feared a revolution in Britain, he suggested that the RAF
could even suppress "industrial disturbances or risings" in England
itself. Churchill was horrified, and demanded that Trenchard never
refer to the proposal again – at least not in writing.

David Omissi is a Research Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford. His
book, Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force 1919-1939,
is published by Manchester University Press.

[Everyman]

vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net> wrote (one letter too many.)

========

Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote (against the "small-plane"
evidence):

> ...like James Harris's belief that
> mathematicians will soon be out of jobs after he exposes their
> general uselessness ....
>
> Yours is similar to, jeez, what his name, George Hammond. He
> predicted that soon people around the world would understand his
> scientific proof of God, and bring bloody justice to scientists
> all around the world for covering up his giant discovery, etc.

Xcott Craver argues by the disingenous rhetorical sophistry of
spurious linking (unfounded association) of a valid position with
obviously non-credible positions in order to discredit (irrationally)
the former.

He also argues this way:

Eastman says ADL is heckling the 9-11 evidence in a coverup.
But I Xcott Craver heckel Eastman without being a Jew.
Therefore the ADL must not be involved.

Which is like saying:

Eastman says fish swim.
But I am an otter and not a fish, yet I swim.
Therefore fish do not swim.

From which I conclude Xcott might as well be Jewish.

Despite exposure, ADL newsgroup psy-ops continue the accessory coverup
of the Anglo-American-Israeli deviant ruling-elite 9-11 mass-murder
frameup for a profitable and geopolitically advantageous war leading
to zionist world debt-slavery domination.

If the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, then the above statement
most likely true.

The Pentagon was hit by a small attack plane. The Boeing went on and
landed at Reagan National Airport only one mile away.

More-than-ample evidence for this is provided below.

Dick Eastman
Every man is responsible to save mankind from the Jewish menace.

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

It is no longer reasonable to defend the official verson
of the Pentagon Attack. THe Boeing simply did not hit
that building. So now we must face up to everything
that that firmly established fact implies about the state of
our country and the world.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart

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

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.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)
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

My findings on the WTC attack (Radio Free America interview, Tom

Valentine host, with Christopher Bollyn also a guest):
http://www.rfausa.com/Audio/rfa1125.wma

The history of Bernard Baruch, the master war-profiteering organizer
(industry and debt financing) of World War One, the Great Depression,
World War Two and the Cold War. (I am again interviewed by Tom
Valentine here) -- hitherto untold history of 20th-century war
profiteering:

http://arc3.m2ktalk.com/val1002/6.ram

Alternatively:
http://www.rfausa.com/Audio1/audio1.html (Adobe Acrobat needed)
Tom Valentine and guest DE discussing:

[Everyman]

Press Release March 17th 19:40
www.reselect.org.uk

New "reselect your Labour MP website" set up on eve of war

If Labour MPs get the chance to vote on George Bush's planned Iraq
war, they
may be casting a wary eye at www.reselect.org.uk a new website set up
to
help Labour Party members deselect their MPs.

The website, which includes headings such as "How to reselect and
deselect
a Labour MP", "Tony Blair's techniques of deceit " and "MPs'
positions on
war - the full list", has been established by Dr Glen Rangwala, the
Cambridge University professor who unearthed Downing Street's infamous
dodgy
intelligence dossier
The section on Tony Blair's techniques of deceit has 4 headings.

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

Subject: NEWSBREAK: 9-11 Hijackers funded by US Government

NEWSBREAK: 9-11 Hijackers funded by US Government

NOTE: Dr. Len Horowitz has been saying for years that the Bush Family
is
behind the 4th Reich Rising. If we don't stop it now, it will be a lot
harder to stop later. The audio replay is "required listening" for all
true
patriots. Network this to your address book. And pray for divine
intercession. -CR

Stanley Hilton, Bob Dole's former senior advisor and Wolfowitz
schoolmate
appeared on the Alex Jones Show. (03/11/03)

He discussed information that he was privy to, based on classified
depositions of 9-11 witnesses.

Interviews with an American ex-wife of one of the 9-11 hijackers
revealed
that she met Mohammed Atta and his younger brother and that this group
were
double-agents operating in a series of cells that were aided and
abetted by
the US government.

She mentioned that these "cells" were not comprised of muslim
fundamentalists, but "playboys" and that they also participated in the
OKC
bombing and the first WTC attack.

And as has been verified with 8 other supposed hijackers, her husband
is
still alive. It was the Global Hawk technology that flew the planes
into the
towers.

Most people oversees know the story on the Bush Crime family and their
accomplice role in 9/11. But most Americans believe the lies in the
controlled media, just like in Hitler's Germany.

Hilton is representing 400 families suing Bush and others in the
federal
government for "causing, aiding and abetting 9/11".

It's time that you now heard... THE REST OF THE STORY.

Replay in real audio at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/hilton_03_11_03.mp3

========

The Anglo-American Military Axis
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 10 March 2003
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html

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

The second text is an excerpt from War and Globalisation, the Truth
behind
September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky

The first text is a brief update which examines the broader
significance of
the rift in the UN Security Council.

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

The Rift in the UN Security Council
The "disagreements" within the US Security Council pertaining to Iraq
are
casually presented by the media as a mere diplomatic rift.

In fact we are dealing with something far more complex. The Bush
Administration's war plans have nothing to do with "Saddam's weapons
of mass
destruction" or his alleged links to Osama bin Laden.

The proposed invasion of Iraq is intended to exclude rival European,
Russian and Chinese interests from the Middle-East and Central Asian
oil
fields. While in the Balkans, the US "shared the spoils" with Germany
and
France, in the context of military operations under NATO and UN
auspices,
the invasion of Iraq is intended to establish US hegemony, while
weakening
Franco-German and Russian influence in the region.

The clash between Great Powers ("Old Europe" versus and the
Anglo-American
military axis) broadly pertains to:

1 Defense and the military-industrial complex,

2. Control over Oil and Gas Reserves,

3. Money and currency systems: clash between the Euro and the Dollar.

1. Defense and the military-Industrial complex

Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, fundamental
changes
in the structure of military alliance have occurred. Since 1999,
France and
Germany have established military cooperation agreements with Russia.

NATO is divided. While Britain and the US have joined hands through
the
so-called "Atlantic Bridge" in defense production, coupled with close
cooperation in military and intelligence operations, significant
divisions
have developed between the US and several of its "European partners".
The
Anglo-American axis in weapons production is clashing with its
powerful
Franco-German rival, the European Aerospace and Defence Corporation
(EADS).
The Western defense industry is split down the middle with British
Aerospace
systems now firmly aligned with the big five US weapons producers
against
the competing Franco-German conglomerate EADS.

2. Control over Oil and Gas Reserves

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70%
of
the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. According to U.S. Central
Command: "The purpose of U.S. engagement... is to protect U.S. vital
interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to
Gulf
oil." In other words, this is a war of conquest, which also targets
rival
oil conglomerates including those of Russia and France which have
sizeable
oil interests in Iraq and Iran.

In turn, the Anglo-American oil giants (BP-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco,
Exxon-Mobil, Shell) - supported by the Anglo-American military axis
are
clashing with Europe's oil giant Total-Fina-Elf and Italy's ENI, which
have
sizeable interests in Iraq, Iran, and Central Asia. Washington has in
recent
years attempted to break France's deal with Teheran on the grounds
that it
openly contravened the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. What this suggests is
that
Europe's largest oil conglomerate dominated by French, Belgian and
Italian
oil interests - in association with their Iranian and Russian partners
- are
potentially on a collision course with the dominant Anglo-American oil
consortia, which in turn are backed by the Anglo-American military
axis:

"Iraq currently possesses 11% of the world's oil and ranks only second
to
Saudi Arabia in the size of its reserves (112 billion barrels).
Exploitation
costs are less than half those of deep sea drilling. Direct access to
the
Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean ensures strategically secure oil
supply
routes. The Anglo-american oil giants (BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
Exxon) are
all absent from Iran and Iraq, which have signed oil contracts and
production sharing agreements with French, Russian and Chinese oil
companies. Because of the UN sanctions on Iraq, the agreements signed
by
Baghdad are not ("officially") operational." (Eric Waddell, The Battle
for
Oil, Global Outlook, Issue. No. 3, Winter 2003).

According to the Washington Post (15 September 2002): "A U.S.-led
ouster of
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil
companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad
and
Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum
markets.
A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also
reportedly
includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in
Iraq's
western desert. The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for
rights
to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may
contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil."

The war is not only being carried out with a view to taking over
Iraq's oil
reserves, it is intended to cancel the contracts of rival Russian and
European oil companies as well as exclude France, Russia and China
from the
region.

3. Money and currency systems: clash between the Euro and the Dollar.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global
currencies: the
Euro and the U.S. dollar, The process of European monetary integration
has
encroached upon the hegemony of the US dollar.

The process of dollarisation, which is ultimately an instrument of
economic
conquest is undermined by the Euro.

Wall Street is clashing with competing Franco-German financial
interests.
The war in Iraq pertains not only to control over reserves of
petroleum, the
control over money creation and credit is an integral part of the
process of
economic conquest. .

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

The Anglo-American Military Axis
The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic,
military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After
the war in Yugoslavia, U.S. Defence Secretary William Cohen and his
British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a "Declaration of Principles
for Defence Equipment and Industrial Cooperation" so as to "improve
cooperation in procuring arms and protecting technology secrets" while
at the same time "easing the way for more joint military ventures and
possible defence industry mergers." 25

Washington's objective was to encourage the formation of a
"trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [U.S. Department of Defence]
can take its globalisation policy to Europe. .Our aim is to improve
interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via closer industrial
linkages between U.S. and allied companies." 26

In the words of President Clinton's Defence Secretary William Cohen:

[The agreement] will facilitate interaction between our [British and
American] respective industries so that we can have a harmonized
approach to sharing technology, working cooperatively in partnership
arrangements and, potentially, mergers as well.27

The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly after the creation of British
Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting from the merger of British
Aerospace (BAe) with GEC Marconi. British Aerospace Systems was
already firmly allied to America's largest defence contractors
Lockheed Martin and Boeing. 28

The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American "trans-Atlantic bridge" is
to eventually displace the Franco-German military conglomerates and
ensure the dominance of the U.S. military industrial complex (in
alliance with Britain'
s major defence contractors).

Moreover, this integration in the area of defence production has also
been matched by increased cooperation between the CIA and Britain's
MI5 in the sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to
mention the joint operations of British and U.S. Special Forces.

The United States and Germany

The British military-industrial complex has become increasingly
integrated into that of the U.S. In turn, significant rifts had
emerged between Washington and Berlin. Franco-German integration in
aerospace and defence production is ultimately directed against U.S.
dominance in the weapons market. The latter hinges upon the
partnership between America's Big Five and Britain's defence industry
under the trans-Atlantic bridge agreement.

Since the early '90s, the Bonn government had encouraged the
consolidation of Germany's military industrial complex dominated by
Daimler, Siemens, Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany's
defence industry took place in response to the mega-mergers between
America's aerospace and weapons producers.29

Already in 1996, Paris and Bonn had set up a joint armaments agency
with the mandate "to manage common programs [and] award contracts on
behalf of both governments." 30 Both countries had stated that they
"did not want Britain to join the agency."

In turn, France and Germany now control Airbus industries which is
competing against America's Lockheed-Martin. (Britain's BAES owns the
remaining 20 per cent). The Germans are also collaborating in the
Ariane Space satellite-launching program in which Deutsche Aerospace
(DASA) is a major shareholder.

In late 1999, in response to the 'alliance' of British Aerospace with
Lockheed Martin, France's Aerospace-Matra merged with Daimler's DASA
forming the largest European defence conglomerate. And the following
year, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS) was formed
integrating DASA, Matra and Spain's Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA.
EADS and its Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement
of weapons to NATO's new Eastern European members. (Europe's third
largest defence contractor is Thomson, which in recent years has
several projects with U.S. weapons producer Raytheon.)

While EADS still cooperates with Britain's BAES in missile production,
and has business ties with the U.S. "Big Five", including Northrop
Grumman, the Western defence and aerospace industry tends to be split
into two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and Germany on the
one hand, the Anglo-US "Big Six", which includes the U.S. Big Five
contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and
Northrop Grumman), plus Britain's powerful BAES.

Integrated into U.S. Department of Defence procurement under the
Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was in 2001, the Pentagon's fifth
largest defence contractor. Under the Anglo-American "transatlantic
bridge", BAES operates freely in the U.S. market through its
subsidiary BAE Systems North America.31

Franco-German Integration in Nuclear Weapons

The Franco-German alliance in military production under EADS opens the
door for the integration of Germany (which does not officially possess
nuclear weapons) into France's nuclear weapons program. In this
regard, EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic missiles,
including the M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic submarine-launched ICBMs
for the French Navy.32

Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Financial Conglomerates

The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic
and political divisions. London's decision not to adopt the common
European currency is consistent with the integration of British
financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, not to
mention the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in
BP-Amoco) and weapons production ("Big Five" plus BAES). In other
words, this shaky relationship between the
British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the new
Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global
currencies: the Euro and the U.S. dollar, with Britain's pound being
torn between the European and the U.S.-dominated currency systems. In
other words, two rival financial and monetary systems are competing
worldwide for the control over money creation and credit. The
geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they
are also marked by splits in the Western defence industry and the oil
business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under
State jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking
sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt - although
officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union - is, in
practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks including
Germany's largest banks and business conglomerates.

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board is formally under State supervision -
marked by a close relationship to the U.S. Treasury. Distinct from the
European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled
by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions. In
other words, "the Fed" as it is known in the U.S., which is
responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the
nation, is actually controlled by private interests on Wall Street.

Currency Systems and 'Economic Conquest'

In Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union the Balkans extending into
Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another.
Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon
which countries are colonized. While the U.S. dollar prevails
throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the U.S. dollar are
clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa
and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as
colonial style "currency boards" invariably using the Euro as a proxy
currency. What this means is: German and European financial interests
are in control of money creation and credit. That is, the pegging of
the national
currency to the Euro - rather than to the U.S. dollar - means that
both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of
German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany's hinterland: Eastern
Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the U.S. dollar
tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries
(which have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the
dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the
Euro.

The 'Dollarisation' of national currencies is an integral part of
America's Silk Road Strategy (SRS). The latter consists in first
destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American
greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to China's
Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of
the Federal Reserve System - namely, Wall Street - over a vast
territory.

What we are dealing with is an 'imperial' scramble for control over
national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an
integral part of the process of economic conquest, which is in turn
supported by the militarisation of Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the
control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have
also agreed on "sharing the spoils" - i.e. establishing their
respective "spheres of influence." Reminiscent of the policies of
'partition' in the late 19th Century, the U.S. and Germany have agreed
upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over
national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo where the Euro is
legal tender. In return, the U.S. has established a
permanent military presence in the region (i.e. the Bondsteel military
base
in Kosovo).

Cross-cutting Military Alliances

The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German weapons producers -
including the rifts within the Western military alliance - seem to
have
favoured increased military cooperation between Russia on the one
hand, and
France and Germany on the other.

In recent years, both France and Germany had entered into bilateral
discussi
ons with Russia in the areas of defence production, aerospace research
and
military cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and Moscow agreed to
undertake
joint infantry exercises and bilateral military consultations. In
turn,
Moscow has been seeking German and French partners to participate in
the
development of its military industrial complex.

In early 2000, Germany's Defence Minister Rudolph Sharping visited
Moscow
for bilateral consultations with his Russian counterpart. A bilateral
agreement was signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation projects
including the training of Russian military specialists in Germany. 33
This
agreement was reached outside the framework of NATO, and without prior
consultation with Washington.

Russia also signed a "long term military cooperation agreement" with
India
in late 1998 which was followed a few months later by a defence
agreement
between India and France. The agreement between Delhi and Paris
included the
transfer of French military technology, as well as investment of
French
multinationals in India's defence industry. The latter includes
facilities
for the production of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads in which
the
French companies have an expertise.

This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on Indo-Pakistani
relations. It also impinges upon U.S. strategic interests in Central
and
South Asia. While Washington has been pumping military aid into
Pakistan,
India is being supported by France and Russia.

Visibly, France and the U.S. are on opposite sides of the
India-Pakistan
conflict.

With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the wake of September
11,
the U.S. Air Force had virtually taken control of Pakistan's air
space, as
well as several of its military facilities. Meanwhile, barely a few
weeks
into the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, France and India conducted joint
military exercises in the Arabian Sea. Also in the immediate wake of
September 11, India took delivery of large quantities of Russian
weapons
under the Indo-Russian military cooperation agreement.

Moscow's New National Security Doctrine

U.S. post-Cold War era foreign policy has designated Central Asia and
the
Caucasus as a "strategic area." Yet this policy no longer consists of
containing the "spread of communism", but rather in preventing Russia
and
China from becoming competing capitalist powers . In this regard, the
U.S.
has increased its military presence along the entire 40th parallel,
extending from Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet republics of
Georgia,
Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, all of which have entered
into
bilateral military agreements with Washington.

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak of war in
Chechnya in
September 1999 was a crucial turning point in Russian-American
relations. It
also marked a rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing, and the
signing of
several military cooperation agreements between Russia and China.

U.S. covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through
Pakistan's
ISI) was known to the Russian government and military. (For further
details,
see Chapter II.) However, it had previously never been made public or
raised
at the diplomatic level. In November 1999, the Russian Defence
Minister,
Igor Sergueyev, formally accused Washington of supporting the Chechen
rebels. Following a meeting held behind closed doors with Russia's
military
high command, Sergueyev declared that:

The national interests of the United States require that the military
conflict in the Caucasus [Chechnya] be a fire, provoked as a result of
outside forces", while adding that "the West's policy constitutes a
challenge launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of weakening her
international position and of excluding her from geo-strategic
areas.34

In the wake of the 1999 Chechen war, a new "National Security
Doctrine" was
formulated and signed into law by Acting President Vladimir Putin, in
early
2000. Barely acknowledged by the international media, a critical shift
in
East-West relations had occurred. The document reasserted the building
of a
strong Russian State, the concurrent growth of the Military, as well
as the
reintroduction of State controls over foreign capital.

The document carefully spelled out what it described as " fundamental
threats" to Russia's national security and sovereignty. More
specifically,
it referred to "the strengthening of military-political blocs and
alliances"
[namely GUUAM], as well as to "NATO's eastward expansion" while
underscoring
"the possible emergence of foreign military bases and major military
presences in the immediate proximity of Russian borders." 35

The document confirms that "international terrorism is waging an open
campaign to destabilize Russia." While not referring explicitly to CIA
covert activities in support of armed terrorist groups, such as the
Chechen
rebels, it nonetheless calls for appropriate "actions to avert and
intercept
intelligence and subversive activities by foreign states against the
Russian
Federation." 36

Undeclared War Between Russia and America

The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has been to encourage - under
the
disguise of "peace-keeping" and so-called "conflict resolution" - the
formation of small pro-U.S. States which lie strategically at the hub
of the
Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:

The U.S. must play an increasingly active role in conflict resolution
in the
region. The boundaries of the Soviet republics were intentionally
drawn to
prevent secession by the various national communities of the former
USSR and
not with an eye towards possible independence. . Neither Europe, nor
our
allies in East Asia, can defend our [U.S.] mutual interests in these
regions. If we [the U.S.], fail to take the lead in heading off the
kinds of
conflicts and crises that are already looming there, that will
eventually
exacerbate our relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. And
it
will encourage the worst kind of political developments in Russia.
This
linkage, or interconnectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central
Asia a
strategic importance to the United States and its allies that we
overlook at
huge risk. To put it another way, the fruits accruing from ending the
Cold
War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the Transcaucasus and
Central
Asia could mean that a large part of that harvest will never be
gathered.37

Russia's Military Industrial Complex

Alongside the articulation of Moscow's National Security doctrine, the
Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial control
over key
areas of Russia's military industrial complex. For instance, the
formation of "a single corporation of designers and manufacturers of
all anti-aircraft complexes" was envisaged in cooperation with
Russia's defence contractors.38

This proposed 're-centralization' of Russia's defence industry in
response to national security considerations, was also motivated by
the merger of major Western competitors in the areas of military
procurement. The development of new production and scientific
capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russia's
military potential as well as its ability to compete with its Western
rivals in the global weapons market.

The National Security Doctrine also "eases the criteria by which
Russia could use nuclear weapons . which would be permissible if the
country's existence were threatened." 39

Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its disposal,
including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression creates a
threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an
independent sovereign state. 40

In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow had
developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear Shield". The Russian
government announced in 1998, the development of a new generation of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These
new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are
currently in "full combat readiness", against a "pre-emptive first
strike" from the U.S., which, (in the wake of September 11),
constitutes the Pentagon's main assumption in an eventual nuclear war.
"The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a
vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based
missile from a pre-emptive first strike."41

Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD), in
2000, the
Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude "a first-strike use" of
nuclear
warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional means." 42

Political 'Turnaround' under President Vladimir Putin

Since the very outset of his term in office, President Vladimir Putin
-
following in the footsteps of his predecessor Boris Yeltsin in the
Kremlin -
has contributed to reversing the National Security Doctrine. Its
implementation at a policy level has also been stalled.

At the moment, the foreign policy directions of the Putin
Administration are
confused and unclear. There are significant divisions within both the
political establishment and the Military. On the diplomatic front, the
new
President has sought [to establish] a 'rapprochement' with Washington
and
the Western Military Alliance in the so-called "war on terrorism."
Yet, it
would be premature to conclude that Putin's diplomatic openings imply
a
permanent reversal of Russia's 2000 National Security Doctrine.

In the wake of September 11, a significant turnaround in Russian
foreign
policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has nonetheless
occurred.
The Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has
accepted the
process of "NATO Enlargement" into the Baltic states (Latvia,
Lithuania and
Estonia) implying the establishment of NATO military bases on Russia's
Western border. Meanwhile, Moscow's military cooperation agreement
signed
with Beijing after the 1999 war in Yugoslavia is virtually on hold:

China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia surrendering
these
positions. China is also concerned by the presence of the U.S. Air
Force
close to its borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz
Republic. .
Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular
improvement of
Russia's relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and some other
countries, collapsed nearly overnight. What has surfaced is a
primitive
Gorbachev concept of 'common human values' - i.e. the subordination of
Russia's interests to those of the West.43

Ironically, the Russian President was supporting America's "war on
terrorism", which is ultimately directed against Moscow. Washington's
hidden
agenda is to dismantle Russia's strategic and economic interests in
the
Eurasian corridor, close down or take over its military facilities,
while
transforming the former Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian
Federation) into American protectorates:

It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO expressed by Mr.
Putin in
an offhand manner last year [2000], reflected a long matured idea of a
far
deeper (i.e. in relation to the positions previously taken by
Gorbachev or
Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into the so-called
"international community." In fact, the intention is to squeeze Russia
into
the Western economic, political and military system. Even as a junior
partner. Even at the price of sacrificing an independent foreign
policy.44

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

The above text is an excerpt from the later part of Chapter 5 of War
and
Globalisation . The numbering of the notes indicated below is the same
as in
the original chapter 5 from which the excerpt was taken.

Notes

25. Reuters, 5 February 2000

26. For further details see Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to
Europe",
Defence Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, Dec. 01, 1999

27. Ibid.

28. Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to Europe", Defence Daily,
Vol.
204, No. 40, Dec. (See also Michel Collon's analysis in Poker Menteur,
Editions EPO, Brussels, 1998, p. 156

29. See also Michel Collon's analysis in Poker Menteur, Editions EPO,
Brussels, 1998, p. 156

30. American Monsters, European Minnows: Defence Companies. The
Economist,
13 January 1996

31. British Aerospace Systems' home page at:
http://www.BAESystems.com/globalfootprint/northamerica/northamerica.htm

32. BAES, EADS Hopeful That Bush Will Broaden Transatlantic
Cooperation,
Defence Daily International, 29, 2001

33. Interfax, 1 March 2000

34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also the article of
Steve
Levine, The New York Times, 20 November 1999

35. To consult the document see Federation of American Scientists
(FAS),
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm

36. Ibid.

37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton Administration's
Fight for
Baku- Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson Case Study, No. 1. Princeton University,
1999

38. Mikhail Kozyrev, the White House Calls for the Fire Vedomosti,
Nov. 1,
1999, p.1

39. See Andrew Jack, Russia Turns Back Clock, Financial Times, London
, 15
January 2000, p.1

40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, Russia's New National Security Concept:
The
Nuclear Angle, Centre for Non Proliferation Studies, Monterrey,
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokov2.htm, January 2000

41. BBC, Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles, London, 27 December
1998.

42. Stephen J. Blank, Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear Proliferation in
Russian
Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United
States,
Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers, Federation of American
Scientists
(FAS), http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/toc-3.htm.
Washington
DC, undated.

43. V. Tetekin, Putin's Ten Blows, Centre for Research on
Globalisation
(CRG) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TET112A.html, 27 December
2001.

[Everyman]

1) US Disinfo Warfare has Begun;

2) Russia says War is Illegal;

3) Most on Counsel Oppose War;

4) List of Labour Party Resignations from Blair Government;

5) Call for UN Special Session

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

The War of Misinformation Has Begun
by Robert Fisk

All across the Middle East, they are deploying by the thousand. In the
deserts of Kuwait, in Amman, in northern Iraq, in Turkey, in Israel
and in Baghdad itself. There must be 7,000 journalists and crews "in
theatre", as the more jingoistic of them like to say. In Qatar, a
massive press center has been erected for journalists who will not see
the war. How many times General Tommy Franks will spin his story to
the press at the nine o'clock follies, no one knows. He doesn't even
like talking to journalists.But the journalistic resources being laid
down in the region are enormous. The BBC alone has 35 reporters in the
Middle East, 17 of them "embedded" – along with hundreds of reporters
from the American networks and other channels – in military units.
Once the invasion starts, they will lose their freedom to write what
they want. There will be censorship. And, I'll hazard a guess right
now, we shall see many of the British and American journalists back to
their old trick of playing toy soldiers, dressing themselves up in
military costumes for their nightly theatrical performances on
television. Incredibly, several of the American networks have set up
shop in the Kurdish north of Iraq with orders not to file a single
story until war begins – in case this provokes the Iraqis to expel
their network reporters from Baghdad.The orchestration will be
everything, the pictures often posed, the angles chosen by "minders",
much as the Iraqis will try to do the same thing in Baghdad. Take
yesterday's front-page pictures of massed British troops in Kuwait,
complete with arranged tanks and perfectly formatted helicopters. This
was the perfectly planned photo-op. Of course, it won't last.Here's a
few guesses about our coverage of the war to come. American and
British forces use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells – widely
regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as
thousands of child cancers in present day Iraq – to batter their way
across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. Within hours, they will enter the
city of Basra, to be greeted by its Shia Muslim inhabitants as
liberators. US and British troops will be given roses and pelted with
rice – a traditional Arab greeting – as they drive "victoriously"
through the streets. The first news pictures of the war will warm the
hearts of Messrs Bush and Blair. There will be virtually no mention by
reporters of the use of DU munitions.But in Baghdad, reporters will be
covering the bombing raids that are killing civilians by the score and
then by the hundred. These journalists, as usual, will be accused of
giving "comfort to the enemy while British troops are fighting for
their lives". By now, in Basra and other "liberated" cities south of
the capital, Iraqis are taking their fearful revenge on Saddam
Hussein's Baath party officials. Men are hanged from lamp-posts. Much
television footage of these scenes will have to be cut to sanitize the
extent of the violence.Far better for the US and British governments
will be the macabre discovery of torture chambers and "rape-rooms" and
prisoners with personal accounts of the most terrible suffering at the
hands of Saddam's secret police. This will "prove" how right "we" are
to liberate these poor people. Then the US will have to find the
"weapons of mass destruction" that supposedly provoked this bloody
war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will
do for the moment.Bunkers allegedly containing chemical weapons will
be cordoned off – too dangerous for any journalist to approach, of
course. Perhaps they actually do contain VX or anthrax. But for the
moment, the all-important thing for Washington and London is to
convince the world that the causus belli was true – and reporters, in
or out of military costume, will be on hand to say just that.Baghdad
is surrounded and its defenders ordered to surrender. There will be
fighting between Shias and Sunnis around the slums of the city, the
beginning of a ferocious civil conflict for which the invading armies
are totally unprepared. US forces will sweep past Baghdad to his home
city of Tikrit in their hunt for Saddam Hussein. Bush and Blair will
appear on television to speak of their great "victories". But as they
are boasting, the real story will begin to be told: the break-up of
Iraqi society, the return of thousands of Basra refugees from Iran,
many of them with guns, all refusing to live under western
occupation.In the north, Kurdish guerrillas will try to enter Kirkuk,
where they will kill or "ethnically cleanse" many of the city's Arab
inhabitants. Across Iraq, the invading armies will witness terrible
scenes of revenge which can no longer be kept off television screens.
The collapse of the Iraqi nation is now under way ...Of course, the
Americans and British just might get into Baghdad in three days for
their roses and rice water. That's what the British did in 1917. And
from there, it was all downhill.Weasel words to watch for'Inevitable
revenge' – for the executions of Saddam's Baath party officials which
no one actually said were inevitable.'Stubborn' or 'suicidal' – to be
used when Iraqi forces fight rather than retreat.'Allegedly' – for all
carnage caused by Western forces.'At last, the damning evidence' –
used when reporters enter old torture chambers.'Officials here are not
giving us much access' – a clear sign that reporters in Baghdad are
confined to their hotels.'Life goes on' – for any pictures of Iraq's
poor making tea.'Remnants' – allegedly 'diehard' Iraqi troops still
shooting at the Americans but actually the first signs of a resistance
movement dedicated to the 'liberation' of Iraq from its new western
occupiers.'Newly liberated' – for territory and cities newly occupied
by the Americans or British.'What went wrong?' – to accompany pictures
illustrating the growing anarchy in Iraq as if it were not predicted.
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK)

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

http://truthout.org/docs_03/031903E.shtml

Russia Says War in Iraq a Mistake and Illegal
By Viktor Korotayev

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

Reuters

Monday 17 March 2003

Russia called for last-minute attempts to solve the Iraq crisis
peacefully on Monday, saying any resort to force would be both a
mistake and illegal.

Russia has aligned itself with France and Germany in calling for
further U.N. arms inspections to ensure that Iraq is free of what the
United States says are illegal weapons. Like France, a fellow
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, it has threatened to
veto any new resolution endorsing military action.

President Vladimir Putin, speaking before the United States and
Britain said they would no longer seek a vote for a new resolution
endorsing force, said any approach other than peaceful
disarmament would be a mistake.

"We would like to resolve it through political and diplomatic means,"
he told reporters. "I am convinced that any other solution would be a
mistake."

Putin, who has made infrequent statements at home on the crisis, said
war "will not only bring about human casualties but also destabilise
the international community in general.

"There are 20 million Muslims living in Russia. We cannot afford not
to consider their opinion and we fully share their alarm," he added.

Both Washington and Britain say military action now against Iraq would
be legal.

But Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, speaking after the abandonment of
Washington's bid to seek U.N. endorsement for war, said existing U.N.
Security Council resolutions gave no one any legal
right to launch a strike on Iraq.

"We believe the use of force against Iraq, especially with reference
to previous resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, has no grounds,
including legal grounds," Ivanov told reporters.

NO ENDORSEMENT FROM CURRENT RESOLUTION

Ivanov said resolution 1441 of last November, under which U.N.
weapons inspections were resumed, gave no endorsement.

"Resolution 1441, to which so many references are made, does not give
anyone the right to use force automatically," he said.

That resolution, approved unanimously, spoke of "serious consequences"
if Iraq failed to comply with demands to disarm.

Ivanov said the resolution contained a clause obliging Security
Council members, if necessary, to meet immediately to ensure Iraq's
strict implementation of its terms.

There was still a chance, he said, for diplomacy to succeed.

The Foreign Ministry said no decision had been made on whether Ivanov
would fly to New York to press an 11th hour case. France, Germany and
Russia called at the weekend for a Tuesday meeting of
ministers of Security Council members.

Georgy Mamedov, a deputy foreign minister, said Russia would do its
best to minimise differences with Washington.

"Russia will not launch an anti-American campaign, but will try its
utmost to return the situation to a proper legal basis," Mamedov was
quoted as telling Itar-Tass news agency.

"We will not gloat over a tragic mistake by the United States or
start a noisy campaign. Our relations are too important for
international peace to hold them hostage to differences over the Iraq
problem."

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

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

France: Most on Council Oppose War
CNN

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

Monday 17 March 2003

France said Washington and its allies abandoned their proposed U.N.
resolution on Iraq after they realized they lacked a majority on the
Security Council.

French U.N. ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said the United
States, Britain and Spain "realized that the majority in the council
is against and oppose a resolution authorizing the use of force."

The U.S., UK and Spain announced Monday that they had abandoned
efforts to seek a vote on their proposed second U.N. resolution on
Iraq. (No resolution)

A short time later, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said weapons
inspectors and humanitarian workers were to be pulled out of Iraq.
(U.N. withdrawal)

De La Sabliere said a "huge majority" of the Security Council
remained opposed to war.

He said: "It would not be legitimate to authorize the use of force
now while the inspections set out by resolution are producing results.

"The co-sponsors made some bilateral consultation last night and this
morning and the result is that the majority of the council confirmed
that they do not want to authorize the use of force."

Later Monday, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said
France regretted the decision by the United States and its allies to
abandon diplomacy.

"Despite the clearly expressed will of the international community,
the United States, Great Britain and Spain are today underlining their
determination to resort to force," Villepin said in a statement.

"France regrets a decision which nothing justifies today and which
could have heavy consequences for the region and for the world.

"True to its convictions, France reaffirms that in any case, the
United Nations, the only bearer of international legitimacy, must play
a central role in the settlement of the Iraqi crisis," he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, speaking in Moscow after the
United States and its allies abandoned their proposed U.N. resolution,
said no one had the legal right to go to war with Iraq under existing
U.N. resolutions.

"We believe the use of force against Iraq, especially with reference
to previous resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, has no grounds,
including legal grounds," Reuters quoted Ivanov as telling reporters.

Both Washington and London say military action would be legal.

"Resolution 1441, to which so many references are made, does not give
anyone the right to use force automatically," he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his first direct comments since
Sunday's summit, said on Monday that war in Iraq would be "a mistake
fraught with the gravest consequences which may result
in casualties and destabilize the international situation in general."

Speaking to a group of Muslim clerics, Putin said Moscow continues to
support exclusively a peaceful resolution of the crisis and "any other
option would be a mistake."

Germany, a non-permanent member of the Security Council, also
reiterated its opposition to military action, and Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder said he would continue fighting for peaceful disarmament.

"I think it is always worth it -- even in the last minute -- to push
for peace and to fight for a peaceful disarmament," Schroeder told
German television ZDF late Sunday, The Associated Press reported.

Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunner Plugger said it was important to make
a "100 percent effort" even if there's only a "1 percent chance of
keeping the peace."

Despite military action appearing imminent, France, Russia and German
have asked the Security Council to schedule a meeting among foreign
ministers on Wednesday to set a timetable for key disarmament tasks to
be carried out.

It wasn't clear how many of the 15 council foreign ministers would
attend, AP said.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)

===========

List of Labour resignations
Last Updated: Tuesday, 18 March, 2003, 12:15 GMT

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860583.stm

Some members of the Labour Government are reconsidering their role in
Parliament over the issue of a possible war with Iraq. Here is a list
of the ones who feel they cannot support the prime minister's
position.

Monday

16:17GMT -- Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook resigns after a
meeting with Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street.

He said: "Neither the international community nor the British public
are persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this
action in Iraq."

Tuesday

07:00GMT -- Lord Hunt of Kings Heath announces his resignation as
junior health minister on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, saying: "At
the end of the day I don't support this action and it would be
hypocritical for me to stay in government."

11:11GMT -- Home Office Minister John Denham resigns saying: "I cannot
support the government in tonight's vote."

11:39GMT -- Bob Blizzard, Labour MP for Waveney, resigns as Private
Parliamentary Secretary to work and pensions minister Nick Brown.

11:56GMT -- Anne Campbell, Labour MP for Cambridge, resigns from her
role as Private Parliamentary Secretary to Patricia Hewitt, secretary
of state for trade and industry.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety --Benjamin Franklin, 1759

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

New Stop the War demo THIS WEEKEND

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

Details at http://www.stopwar.org.uk/ and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859873.stm

Same meeting points as the last demo, assembling at noon.

Also, for people already in London, Lobby of Parliament: TODAY Tuesday
18 March 2003, 12:00

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

Reader comment:

"The US is being set-up bigtime. These people's loyalties only are to
The New World Order not to the US. "

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

Call for a special session of the UN General Assembly to stop Bush's
immoral war

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

CALL FOR A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO STOP BUSH'S
IMMORAL WAR

By Jackson Thoreau

Bush is on the verge of his immoral invasion of Iraq. It's clear Bush
wants to get his friends in the oil business a piece of the Iraqi oil
pie, to improve his polling numbers, to boost U.S. and worldwide
military spending that will help his defense contractor buddies, to
allow the Pentagon to test some new weapons on human Arab guinea pigs,
to gain some personal revenge against
Hussein for daring to go after his dad, to bully what's left of the
rest of the world through even more effective ways than surprise
attacks and bombings.

But we can stop Bush. We can and we must. Not by protests, which are
noble and necessary to make a
statement. But Bush doesn't listen to such statements, even when tens
of millions of people make them.

No matter what you think of it, the United Nations is our best hope to
stop Bush. We must stop what we are doing right now and contact our UN
representatives to demand they convene an emergency special session.
The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, Greenpeace, and
others are calling on all members of the UN to convene an emergency
session of the General Assembly to avoid Bush's immoral war on Iraq by
using little-known UN resolution 377.

We must answer the call, once again. We must join this campaign.

Known as "Uniting for Peace," the resolution allows the General
Assembly to call an emergency session
when the Security Council is split on the issue of how to maintain
international peace and security. As Michael Ratner, president of the
Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "The 'Uniting for Peace'
resolution may be the last hope to avert war. If passed, it will put
the U.S. and the U.K. on notice that a war without Security Council
authorization is utterly illegal and a crime against the peace."

As labor author Jeremy Brecher recently wrote, when Egypt nationalized
the Suez Canal in 1956, Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded
Egypt. Then-U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a real Republican and
patriotic American, demanded that the invasion stop. The UN Security
Council called for a cease-fire, but Great Britain and France vetoed
such measures.

Then the United States did what we MUST do now - it appealed to the UN
General Assembly, where
countries like Britain and France and the U.S. do not have veto power.
The U.S. proposed a resolution calling for Great Britain, France, and
Israel to withdraw its forces from Egypt. The General Assembly
convened in an emergency session and approved the resolution. Great
Britain and France withdrew from Egypt within a week.

Resolution 377 says that if there is a "threat to peace, breach of the
peace, or act of aggression"
and the permanent members of the Security Council do not agree on
action, the General Assembly can meet immediately and recommend
collective measures to UN members to "maintain or restore
international peace and security." Since adopted by the UN in 1950,
the "Uniting for Peace" mechanism has been used ten times, most
frequently and ironically by the U.S. The last time was in 1997 over
the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

One UN member state must request that such a meeting be convened to
consider adoption of
a resolution. Either seven members of the Security Council or a
majority of the members of the General Assembly must agree.

"It's now up to all the world's countries, not just a few of the
powerful, to meet together to avert this
march to war," said Steve Sawyer, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "If it
wanted the world to be ruled by the cowboy with the biggest guns, the
international community wouldn't have created the UN in the first
place. The UN, including the General Assembly, was created to preserve
the rule of law and promote
multilateralism. It's time the UN fully exercises its mandate and
unites as a whole to defend its founding
principles and stop the impending attack on Iraq, which would be the
most horrific example of unilateralism. It must take this last chance
for peace."

Indeed. STOP what you are doing right now. Go to
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/govcontacts/govindex.html
or
http://www.uvpeaceandjustice.org/UN_and_media.html
and contact as many UN representatives as you can.

Phone them. Fax them. Email them. Tell them to convene an emergency
session of the General
Assembly to stop this war.

Start by phoning Secretary-General Kofi Annan at
212-963-4475 or faxing him at 212-963-7055.

If you live in the U.S. like me, then phone U.S. Ambassador John D.
Negroponte at 212-415-4000,
fax him at 212-415-4443, or email him at u...@un.int.
Then keep going.

I contacted, at least by email, everyone on those lists. I will
continue to do so. If anyone has any better UN General Assembly
contacts, please let me know.

To repeat, the US can't stop a resolution in the General Assembly, as
it can in the UN Security Council.
The US does not have veto power in the General Assembly. For more info
on this action, go to
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=o3ONGr1exC&Content=207

Even if the UN General Assembly passes such a resolution, Bush can
still ignore it. But he does so
at the risk of the UN invoking some sanctions on the U.S. or some
European countries boycotting trade with the U.S.

This is another tool we need. Keep going to the protests and vigils.
Keep writing your politicians and the media. But contact the UN as
well.

Once the war is stopped, the UN can form a tribunal to try Hussein and
whoever else on crimes without
shedding innocent blood. The UN can work if we support it. But we must
support it.

So tell the UN to find its backbone. Tell it to do its job.

Jackson Thoreau is co-author of We Will Not Get Over It: Restoring a
Legitimate White House.
The updated, 120,000-word electronic book can be downloaded on his
Internet site at
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/ebook.html

Citizens for Legitimate Government has the earlier version at
http://www.legitgov.org/we_will_not_get_over_it.html

Thoreau can be emailed at jacks...@justice.com.

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

Dick Eastman, the new "Reinhardt Heydrich" until this war is called
off)

[Everyman]

"DJ" <mrfuzz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<DQqca.4492$UE.18...@twister.socal.rr.com>...

> > > > Was september 11th an act of terrorism or
> > > > an attack planned by the American Government??

> Go live in Iraq for awhile, and then
> decide whether you want to really ask
> this stupid question!

Don't let him bulldoze you, young lady. He is the ADL
(Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith) and is here to keep inquiries
like yours from getting started.

But not the reason he gives for closing you off and insulting your
intelligence: "go live in Iraq for a while"

In other words his argument is:

If people believe conditions in Iraq are
bad they should suppress their curiosity
about who really is behind the 9-11 mass
murders.

I insinuate that "conditions are bad in
Iraq"

Therefore you questions about 9-11 is
stupid and you must not ask it.

I started out as a liberal -- now I design massive ovens in my spare
time.
But that is me. Of course

It is no longer reasonable to defend the official verson

of the Pentagon Attack. THe Boeing simply did not hit

that building. So now we must face up to everything
that that firmly established fact implies about the state of
our country and the world.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
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.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html (en francais)
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

My findings on the WTC attack (Radio Free America interview, Tom

[Everyman]

1) Russian Expert Predicts Half a Million Iraqi Dead by War

2) Tory's Rally to Blair at Number 10

3) "Gilchrist walks away contrary to umpire's decision just like Tony
Blair."

Russian Expert Predicts 500,000 Iraqi Dead in War Designed To Test
Weapons

Interview with military analyst Vladimir Slipchenko by Aleksandr
Khokhlov; Vladimir Slipchenko, is military analyst, doctor of military
sciences, professor, and major general of reserves, is a major Russian
specialist on future wars.

His predictions of the course of US military operations in Iraq (1991,
1996, and 1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001) coincided
almost 100% with what subsequently happened in reality. Today the
military analyst predicts the course and outcome of the next US war
against Iraq, which the
American military themselves have already dubbed Operation "Shock And
Awe."

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

Khokhlov: Vladimir Ivanovich, so much has already been said about the
reasons and causes of the new war in Iraq, but I cannot get rid of the
feeling that they are either talking about something entirely
different, or not telling the full story...

Slipchenko: The main purpose of the war is indeed being left out of
the picture and nobody is saying anything about it. I see the main
purpose of the war as being the large-scale real-life testing by the
United States of sophisticated models of precision weapons. That is
the objective that they place first All the other aims are either
incidental, or outright disinformation.

For more than 10 years now the United States has conducted exclusively
no-contact wars. In May 2001 George Bush Jr., delivering his first
presidential speech to students at the Naval Academy in Annapolis,
spoke of the need for accelerated preparation of the US Armed Forces
for future wars. He emphasized that they should be high-tech Armed
Forces capable of conducting hostilities throughout the world by the
no-contact method. This task is now being carried out very
consistently.

It should be observed that the Pentagon buys from the
military-industrial complex only those weapons that have been tested
in conditions of real warfare and received a certificate of quality on
the battlefield. After a series of live experiments -- the wars in
Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan -- many corporations in the US
military-industrial complex have been granted the right to sell their
precision weapons to the Pentagon. They include Martin Lockheed,
General Electric, and Loral. But many other well-known companies are
as yet without orders from the military department. The bottom line is
$50-60 billion a year. Who would want to miss out on that kind of
money? But the present suppliers of precision weapons to the Pentagon
are also constantly developing new types of arms and they must also be
tested The US military-industrial complex demands testbed wars from
its country's political leadership. And it gets them.

And that is the main aim of the new war in Iraq.

Peculiarities of the War

Khokhlov: How will this war differ from the no-contact wars previously
waged by the United States?

Slipchenko: First, in terms of its political objectives. For the first
time since 1991 the United States sets the goal of changing the
political system in the enemy state and removing or physically
eliminating the country's leadership.

They have not previously succeeded in this. Remember, the Americans
did not previously try to remove Saddam Husayn from politics, and even
Milosevic was not removed from the post of Yugoslav leader by military
means. The US Armed Forces carried out their required tests of new
weapons and then packed up their guns and went home. Now they face a
very difficult mission.

Therefore, second, because of the change of objective the strategy of
the war also changes radically For the first time the war aims mean
that the United States must without fail achieve total victory. To
that end it is necessary to achieve three objectives: rout the enemy's
Armed Forces, destroy his economy, and change the political system.

The Iraqi army will be subjected to very powerful blows. It will be
physically annihilated. In order to impose a new puppet government in
the country (and I am sure the Americans have already formed that
government) and to give that government the opportunity to get on with
its work, the United States will be forced actually to occupy Iraq.
The occupation of territory within which seats of organized resistance
could persist would lead to large losses among US Army personnel.
Guerrillas, and in the context of the Arab world also shahid martyrs
wearing explosive belts -- naturally the Americans do not need this
Therefore they will totally annihilate the Iraqi army. Practically all
Iraq servicemen will die. There will be terrible carnage.

Khokhlov: Does Iraq have any chance of offering resistance to the
United States?

Slipchenko: In Iraq we will once again see a situation where two
generations of warfare meet. Iraq is strong and prepared for a war of
the last generation -- on land and for land, for every target. But
600,000 soldiers, 220 military aircraft, something like 2,200 tanks,
1,900 artillery guns, around 500 multiple rocket launchers, 6 SCUD
missile launchers, 110 surface-to-air missile systems, and 700
anti-aircraft installations will prove useless when they meet the
aggressor.

In fact, there will not be a meeting on the battlefield as such. The
Americans, waging a no-contact war, will methodically use precision
missile strikes to destroy all the key facilities of Iraq's state and
military infrastructure, and will then wipe out enemy manpower with
missile and bombing raids.

Progress of the War

Khokhlov: How will the Americans begin hostilities?

Slipchenko: First of all there will be precision strikes against
bunkers and command posts where Saddam Husayn and the Iraqi leaders
might be hiding, against Army headquarters and troop positions, and
against components of the air defense system. Sophisticated
ground-penetrating vacuum-type precision munitions will be used to
destroy buried targets. Even if one of these weapons explodes not
exactly inside, say, an underground bunker, in any case the exits from
the shelter will be blocked. The bunker will become a mass grave for
everyone who is unfortunate enough to be in it.

To destroy armored equipment, in the very first days the Americans
will use cluster aviation bombs with self-guided munitions. The
"mother"-cluster bomb gives "birth" to several tens or hundreds of
"baby" bombs, each of which independently chooses its own target to
destroy on the ground.

I am confident that in the very first hours of the war the United
States will also use new pulse bombs They are also called microwave
bombs. The principle by which these weapons operate is as follows: an
instantaneous discharge of electromagnetic radiation on the order of
two megawatts. At a distance of 2-2.5 kilometers from the epicenter of
the explosion the "microwaves" instantly put out of action all
radioelectronic systems, communications and radar systems, all
computers, radio receivers, and even hearing aids and heart
pacemakers. All these things are destroyed by the meltdown method.
Just imagine, a person's heart explodes!...

As a result of the use of these weapons Iraqi systems for command and
control of the state and troops will be destroyed practically
instantaneously.

Khokhlov: What other new types of arms could be tested?

Slipchenko: Since this war will be experimental for the United States,
several new types of precision cruise missiles will be tested with a
view to obtaining quality certificates. I believe attention will be
devoted first and foremost to missile launches from submarines. The
Americans are planning to make their submarine fleet the main
launchpad.

The Pentagon will continue to perfect the mechanism for targeting
precision weapons. In 2000 with the help of the space shuttle Endeavor
the United States scanned around 80% of the surface of the Earth and
created an electronic map of the planet in three-dimensional
coordinates. The level of
detail of objects on this map is down to the size of a window. That is
to say, you could train a lens -- installed in a military satellite --
first on Baghdad, then on the city center, then on Saddam's palace,
and on his bedroom window. You give the command -- and in a few
minutes' time a targeted cruise missile flies into that window...

Khokhlov: How long will this war go on?

Slipchenko: I predict that Operation Shock And Awe will last not more
than six weeks. The first period of the war -- the "shock" -- will
last around 30 days. Some 400-500 sea- and air-based precision cruise
missiles will be launched against targets in Iraq every 24 hours.
During that month Iraq's
troops and its economic potential will be annihilated. Anything that
survives for any reason will be guaranteed destruction in the next two
weeks. In the second stage -- "awe" -- the Americans will conduct a
piloted version of a total cleanup of the territory. To this end the
United States will use B-52 and B-2 Stealth bombers. In four hours of
flight one Stealth is capable of detecting and destroying as many as
200 stationary or moving targets on the ground. The United States
intends to use at least 16 B-2 bombers The Stealths will be in the air
constantly, one replacing the other.

Khokhlov: Will the Iraqi air defense system be able to counter the
American planes and cruise missiles?

Slipchenko: Iraq already has no air defense facilities in the north
and south of the country -- US aviation is constantly bombing these
areas. What remains in the center of the country will be destroyed in
the first 10 minutes of the war. Iraq's anti-aircraft system is based
on the classical active radar detection system: emit -- detect --
illuminate -- destroy. The Americans will exploit this for their own
purposes. As soon as an Iraqi radar reveals itself by emitting
electromagnetic energy, a precision cruise
missile will be dispatched against the "revealed" air defense facility
using this same beam. Iraq has no chance of countering this.

Khokhlov: How much will this war cost?

Slipchenko: According to my estimates, $80 billion. But the total sum
spent could rise to 100 billion. We will never know the exact figure
of expenditure, if only because the war will be partly funded by
private companies offering the Pentagon their experimental models of
precision weapons for free in the hope of future dividends. The
program for rearming the US Armed Forces is about $600 billion
Therefore today the military-industrial complex need not stint, it can
give weapons to the Army for free.

Khokhlov: What human losses could Iraq suffer?

Slipchenko: Very considerable ones. Since the Americans are planning
to physically annihilate the Iraqi army, I reckon that at least
500,000 people will be killed. This will be a very bloody war.

After the Apocalypse

Khokhlov: What will come after the war?

Slipchenko: The Americans will have to occupy Iraq. The occupation
corps will apparently consist of four mechanized and armored
divisions, one parachute division, and one division of the British
Armed Forces. All these troops will not fight. There will be no ground
operations in Iraq! The US Army will enter a burning desert -- the
Iraqis will certainly set fire to the oilfields -- without a single
shot being fired. There will simply be nobody to shoot at them.

Khokhlov: How long will the direct occupation last? Will the
Americans stay in Iraq forever?

Slipchenko: They will certainly leave Iraq. There is no point in their
staying there. The occupation will last one and a half, two, or at the
most three years and will cost American taxpayers a further $80-100
billion to maintain the troops in Iraq. Then the United States may
enlist in an
operation that they will undoubtedly call "peacekeeping" the Poles,
Czechs, and other "new recruits" to NATO, the Estonians, but they
themselves will leave. The "peacekeepers" will stay a further one to
one and a half years in Iraq.

During this time major investments will be made in the country with a
regime friendly to the United States, and in two years' time Iraq's
oil sector will reach a level of oil extraction of 2-2.4 million
barrels a day. In five years they will be extracting up to 5 million
barrels of oil a day. The world oil price will fall to $12-15 a
barrel. The currently stagnant US economy will soar.

Khokhlov: And what will happen to Russia's economy, which is currently
supported exclusively by "petrodollars"?

Slipchenko: I have no answer to that question. I am an expert in wars.

----

I T E M # 2 :







































.

[Everyman]

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page249.asp

It is a little known fact that the British Prime
Minister must seek the Queen's approval before
declaring war. It is said that he will be doing this
shortly.

Please spread this to all U.K. contacts you may
have---and as a citizen of the world send a message
to the Queen at her official website comments section.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page249.asp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The monarch is Head of the Armed Forces and
it is the monarch alone who can declare war and
peace. (This dates from the times when the monarch
was responsible for raising, maintaining and
equipping the Army and Navy, and often leading
them into battle.) These powers, however, cannot
now be exercised on the monarch's own initiative.
The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that 'the raising
or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom
in time of peace, unless it be with the consent
of Parliament, is against the law'. The monarch's
powers today cannot be exercised except upon
the advice of responsible Ministers.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page342.asp

>>>>>> URGENT <<<<<<
=========

While you have her on the line, mention these points as well:

The Forgotten Power Of The General Assembly
By Robert Fisk
The Independent - UK
3-15-3

For 30 years, America's veto policy in the United Nations has been
central to its foreign policy. More than 70 times the United States
has shamelessly used its veto in the UN, most recently to crush a
Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli killing of the
British UN worker Iain Hook in Jenin last December.

Most of America's vetoes have been in support of its ally Israel. It
has vetoed a resolution calling for the Israeli withdrawal from the
Syrian Golan Heights (January, 1982), a resolution condemning the
killing of 11 Muslims by Israeli soldiers near the al-Aqsa mosque
(April, 1982), and a resolution condemning Israelis slaughter of 106
Lebanese refugees at the UN camp at Qana (April, 1986).

The full list would fill more than a page of this newspaper. And now
we are told by George Bush Junior that the Security Council will
become irrelevant if France, Germany and Russia use their veto? I
often wonder how much further the sanctimoniousness of the Bush
administration can go. Much further, I fear.

So here's a little idea that might just make the American
administration even angrier and even more aware of its obligations to
the rest of the world. It's a forgotten UN General Assembly resolution
that could stop an invasion of Iraq, a relic of the Cold War. It was,
ironically, pushed through by the US to prevent a Soviet veto at the
time of the Korean conflict, and actually used at the time of Suez.

For UN resolution 377 allows the General Assembly to recommend
collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of
unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security".

This arcane but intriguing piece of UN legislation - passed in 1950
and originally known as the "Uniting for Peace" resolution - might
just be used to prevent Messrs Bush and Blair going to war if their
plans are vetoed in the Security Council by France or Russia.
Fundamentally, it makes clear that the UN General Assembly can step in
- as it has 10 times in the past - if the Security Council is not
unanimous.

Of course, the General Assembly of 1950 was a different creature from
what it is today. The post-war world was divided and the West saw
America as its protector rather than a potential imperial power. The
UN's first purpose was - and is still supposed to be - to "maintain

international peace and security".

Duncan Currie, a lawyer working for Greenpeace, has set out a legal
opinion, which points out that the phrase in 377 providing that in
"any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of
the peace or act of aggression", the General Assembly "shall consider
the matter immediately" means that - since "threat" and "breach" are
mentioned separately - the Assembly can be called into session before
hostilities start.

These "breaches", of course, could already be alleged, starting with
the American air attack on Iraqi anti-ship gun batteries near Basra on
13 January this year.
The White House - and readers of The Independent, and perhaps a few UN
officials - can look up the 377 resolution at
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/amajor.htm If Mr Bush takes a
look, he probably wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. But today the
General Assembly - dead dog as we have all come to regard it - might
just be the place for the world to cry: Stop. Enough.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=386906

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

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377
... United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 (A) November 3,
1950 ... dangerous scale, Recalling its resolution 290 (IV) entitled
"Essentials ... further to the objectives of that resolution,
Reaffirming the importance ...
http://www.mnstate.edu/conteh/uniting%20for%20peace.htm - 14 KB

Uniting for peace, General Assembly Resolution 377 (C)

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 (C) November 3, 1950 C
The General Assembly ... to threaten world peace, Recalling General
Assembly resolution 190 (III) entitled "Appeal to the Great Powers to
renew their ...

Description: Cyber encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture that
covers everythingfrom anti-Semitism to Zionism. It includes a
glossary, bibliography of web sites and books, biographies, articles,
original documents and much more!
more hits from: http://www.usisrael.org/jsource/UN/unga377c.html - 5
KB

CCR
... prevent a possible war in Iraq by using UN resolution 377,
"Uniting for Peace", a little known resolution that can be used when
the Security Council ... CCR Urges New York City Council to Adopt
Resolution in Opposition to War with Iraq - CCR ...
Description: Lengthy article from the the Center for Constitutional
Rights.
http://www.ccr-ny.org/ - 17 KB

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

Could U.N. use military force on U.S.?
Americans urge invoking obscure convention to halt 'aggression'
Posted: March 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Could the U.N. use military force to prevent the United States and
Britain from waging war on Iraq without a Security Council mandate?

United Nations headquarters in New York

Some anti-war groups are urging the world body to invoke a
little-known convention that allows the General Assembly to step in
when the Security Council is at an impasse in the face of a "threat to
the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression."

The willingness by the U.S. and Britain to go to war with Iraq without
Security Council authorization is the kind of threat the U.N. had in
mind when it passed Resolution 377 in 1950, said Michael Ratner,
president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights
group in New York City.

In a position paper, Ratner wrote that by invoking the resolution,
called "Uniting for Peace," the "General Assembly can meet within 24
hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures
to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to 'maintain or
restore international peace and security.'"

The U.N. taking military action against the U.S.?

"It would be very difficult to say what that means," said Ratner in an
interview with WorldNetDaily, emphasizing that he did not believe the
situation would evolve to that "extreme."

"I don't consider that within the framework I'm talking about," he
said.

Shonna Carter, a publicist for Ratner's group, said she believed it
would be legitimate for the U.N. to use military force to stop "U.S.
aggression."

"But I doubt it would happen," she said. "I don't think that as part
of Uniting for Peace they would include military action, but that
would have to be something those countries agreed on. …"

Steve Sawyer, spokesman for Greenpeace in New Zealand – which has
joined Ratner's group in the campaign – told WND he was not aware of
the U.N. being able to use force under any circumstances.

Ratner explained that Resolution 377 would enable the General Assembly
to declare that the U.S. cannot take military action against Iraq
without the explicit authority of the Security Council. The assembly
also could mandate that the inspection regime be allowed to "complete
its work."

"It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would ignore
such a measure," Ratner said in his paper. "A vote by the majority of
countries in the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous,
would make the unilateral rush to war more difficult."

Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the
Security Council or by a majority of the members of the General
Assembly, he said.

'Ways to make U.N. more important'

Ratner, who also teaches at the Columbia University Law School, told
WND that the idea of invoking the resolution "came up when I started
thinking about the fact that we could get into a situation where the
U.S. may go to war without a Security Council resolution or with a
veto."

He had two of his students at the law school research the resolution
and now has sent out the word to every U.N. mission in New York.

In addition, about 12 missions a day are being visited by campaigners,
he said, and the response has been generally very positive.

He expects there to be support from the 116 countries in the
non-aligned movement, who are "already saying inspectors should be
given more time."

Greenpeace's involvement has greatly expanded the campaign's reach, he
said, since "we're just a small human-rights litigation organization."

"I've done a lot of work with international law and with the U.N.," he
said, "and we're always interested in figuring out ways to make the
U.N. more important."

Sedition?

A circular e-mail letter promoting the campaign said in the first
paragraph that "if Iraq is invaded, it would empower the General
Assembly to restore peace, including an authorization to use military
action to accomplish this, if necessary."

The letter includes Ratner's name and e-mail address as a contact, but
he says he did not send out that particular version, which included
the line about the U.N. using military action.

A political science professor at the University of Michigan who
forwarded the letter to colleagues, added a note above the text,
obtained by WND, that said: "Below you will find an excellent and
urgently needed proposal for stopping the war before it starts from
the Center for Constitutional Rights. …"

"Please make this major peace action a high priority and forward this
message to others," said Susan Wright, who indicated she is with the
university's Institute for Research on Women and Gender.

Is Wright essentially urging foreign countries to be willing to take
military action against her own country?

"I wouldn't say it's necessarily sedition," said Ratner. "Advocacy is
one thing, having the means to carry it out is another. It's not
something I would ever recommend."

Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.

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

From: "Norma J. F. Harrison" nor...@pacbell.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:32 PM
Subject: Fw: PLEASE Urge UN Security Council to Invoke Resolution 377
To Stop War !

I urge the UN Security Council to invoke the "Uniting for Peace
Resolution (UN Resolution 377)," which empowers the General Assembly
to act to keep or restore the peace when the Security Council, due to
lack of agreement among the permanent members, is not able to do so.

invoke UN Resolution 377.

Dear Ambassador,

As you are the representative of a nation sitting on the UN Security
Council, I request that you ask the General Assembly to invoke the
'Uniting for Peace Resolution' (UN Resolution 377), which empowers the
General Assembly to act to keep or restore the peace when the Security
Council, due to lack of agreement among the permanent members, is not
able to do so.

The UN has now reached that stage. If there is a veto in the Security
Council today, the issue may and should be sent to the GA. An
immediate vote by the General Assembly is necessary in order to
prevent a war of aggression from being waged against Iraq.

Within 24 hours of a stalemate in the Security Council, the General
Assembly can meet to consider the matter. This can happen if seven
members of the Security Council or 50% of the General Assembly
requests an emergency meeting for that purpose. The General Assembly
can recommend collective measures, including the use of armed force to
"maintain or restore international peace and security". The 'Uniting
for Peace Resolution' has been used ten times since 1950.

The General Assembly should vote to prohibit an invasion of Iraq, and
immediately to send peacekeepers to station themselves in the
demilitarized zone between Kuwait and Iraq. Mandatory trade sanctions
on all goods and all air traffic to and from the US should be required
of all members of the UN if the US were to stage an attack in
violation of the General Assembly's resolution.

I believe that such action would be supported by the vast majority of
the citizens of all UN member nations. Please, the fate of the world
is in your hands.

Norma J F Harrison
1312 Cornell
Berkeley 94702 Ca
nor...@pacbell.net
510-527-9584 non-business
510-526-3968 Summit Bay Realty/& facs
866-264-9029 toll free
L.A.U.G.H. O.E. Let's All Unite to Gain Heaven On Earth
__________
more info on 377

"How to use UN security council resolution 377 and the General
Assembly to override a veto and stop the war."
Bob Reuschlein

What Can the World Do if the US Attacks Iraq?

by Jeremy Brecher

If the US attacks Iraq without support of the UN Security Council,
will the world be powerless to stop it?

The answer is no. Under a procedure called "Uniting for Peace," the UN
General Assembly can demand an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal. The
global peace movement should consider demanding such an action.

When Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain, France, and
Israel invaded Egypt and began advancing on the Suez Canal. U.S.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded that the invasion stop.
Resolutions in the UN Security Council called for a cease-fire -- but
Britain and France vetoed them. Then the United States appealed to the
General Assembly and proposed a resolution calling for a cease-fire
and a withdrawal of forces. The General Assembly held an emergency
session and passed the resolution. Britain and France withdrew from
Egypt within a week.

The appeal to the General Assembly was made under a procedure called
"Uniting for Peace." This procedure was adopted by the Security
Council so that the UN can act even if the Security Council is
stalemated by vetoes. Resolution 377 provides that, if there is a

"threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and the
permanent members of the Security Council do not agree on action, the
General Assembly can meet immediately and recommend collective

measures to U.N. members to "maintain or restore international peace
and security." The "Uniting for Peace" mechanism has been used ten
times, most frequently on the initiative of the United States.

The US would undoubtedly use its veto should the Security Council
attempt to condemn and halt its aggression. But the US has no veto in
the General Assembly.

Lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights (www.ccr-ny.org) have
drafted a proposed "Uniting for Peace" resolution that governments can
submit to the General Assembly. It declares that military action
without a Security Council resolution authorizing such action is
contrary to the UN Charter and international law.

The global peace movement should immediately mobilize pressure on
governments that claim to oppose the war -- the great majority of UN
members -- to demand that they initiate and support such a resolution.

Countries opposed to such a war can be asked to state now that they
will convene the General Assembly on an emergency basis to condemn the
attack and order the US to cease fire and withdraw. Wide public
advocacy will help governments overcome their probable reluctance to
take such a step. Further, the threat of such global condemnation may
help deter the Bush administration -- and to a much greater extent
deter its wobbling allies -- from launching such an attack in the
first place.

Prepared by Jeremy Brecher (jbre...@igc.org).
Information on Uniting for Peace based on "A U.N. Alternative to War:
'Uniting for Peace'" by Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional
Rights
and Jules Lobel, University of Pittsburgh Law School

http://www.ccr-ny.org
http://www.plainviewpress.com
Plain View Press
P O 33311
Austin, TX 78764
512-441-2452
1-800-878-3605

cut and paste into your bcc, or, into your To, or your Cc address
space - copy at once, not each, for ease of use of this mailing.
This is just one of doing everything we can - being U.N. we don't hold
out much hope... N.

france...@un.int
ru...@un.int
chinami...@fmprc.gov.cn
bulg...@un.int
in...@cameroonmission.org
gui...@un.int
mex...@un.int
sy...@un.int
ang...@angolamissionun.org (needs correction. N.)
ch...@un.int
con...@germany-un.org
Paki...@un.int
remote-print...@12129637055.iddd.tpc.int

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

a letter to Security Council Members from Lawyers against the war

Dear Security Council Members;

Lawyers against the War congratulates Security Council members on
holding firm to the Principles and Purposes of the United Nations
Charter and refusing to authorize the American war against Iraq. Your
principled stand can only mean that you, along with almost all of the
world's peoples, consider this war to be unjustified either in the
collective interest or in any nation's self-defence. In other words, a
war of aggression, now deprived of any pretense of legality by reason
of its lack of your authority.

As you know, the Nuremberg Tribunal characterized such an aggressive
war as the 'supreme international crime.'

In our respectful submission, the Security Council must now follow
through to protect world citizens and the people of Iraq from the
inevitable devastation that will result if the threatened war
proceeds.

We therefore urge you to immediately act, under Chapter VII, to
contain the threat to international peace and security posed by the
illegal invasion and bombing campaign of Iraq which, according to the
March 17 announcement by US President Bush may start as early as March
19.

We urge you to act pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter to call upon
the government heads of the United States, Britain, Bulgaria, Spain,
Turkey, Jordan, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and Australia to
forbear from any military aggression against Iraq, to desist from
invading Iraq's territory and to immediately issue all orders
necessary to stop preparations for such actions.

The world community relies on you to ensure adherence to the UN
Charter and international law and to do everything in your power to
prevent the loss of life and destruction that will result from the
threatened 'Shock and Awe' campaign.

The Security Council has emerged proudly from the recent attempts to
replace judicious consideration and weighing of evidence with
bullying, bribery and the intentional misrepresentation of facts,
including the
deliberate misrepresentation of prior Security Council Resolutions.

In our respectful submission, the Security Council now faces an
equally important challenge, the attempt by the American government to
flagrantly overthrow international law. We urge to you to meet this
challenge by
acting immediately to condemn and order the cessation of aggression
against Iraq. Nothing less will suffice to protect the rights of
those dependent on the Security Council for their lives.

Michael Mandel and Gail Davidson for Lawyers against the War

Lawyer Against the War is a committee of jurists residing in 11
countries.
We would be most grateful for any opportunity to be of further
assistance on these questions.

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

http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney03182003.html

March 18, 2003
Something is Terribly Wrong in America
by CYNTHIA McKINNEY

(Remarks at March 15 Anti-War Rally San Francisco, California.)

We stand here together. Shoulder to shoulder. Refusing to be denied
the right to say no to George Bush's war!

This Iraq war is about oil and regional interests.

If it was about ending tyranny, destroying weapons of mass
destruction, and restoring democracy to Iraq then George Bush's father
could have done that in 1991. But he didn't. Saddam Hussein and his
murderous regime were kept in power.

And if we care about civilians suffering under the heel of brutal
regimes, and if we really want to defend human rights worldwide, why
are we starting and stopping at Iraq?

Why not do something about the suffering in Congo, Sierra Leone,
Sudan, Burma, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Tibet, Afghanistan, just to name a
few?

But as we all know nothing will be done.

In fact our military forces and intelligence agencies will actually
worsen the suffering in those countries because it suits our interests
to do so. Just like when the American government killed Salvadore
Allende and replaced him with Augusto Pinochet.

American style regime change is nothing new.

But when we dare to stand up and tell the truth about how unjust this
war is and question the motivations of its protagonists we are called
unpatriotic and accused of hating our flag.

I don't hate my country and I certainly don't hate my flag. In fact I
love them so much I refuse to be quiet!

No more should we allow special interests to lead yet another
generation of young Americans off to war.

Our Founding Father, George Washington, in his Farewell Address of
1796, warned us about the false patriots who would wrap themselves in
the American flag and at the same time sell our precious American
values to special interests.

George Washington didn't know it then, but we know it now, that he was
talking about people like George W. Bush who would betray our values
and our country in pursuit of an unnecessary war.

You, gathered here today, are the true patriots.

The day our streets are free from protestors like you will be the day
our democracy is dead.

Those of us who oppose Bush's war span the spectrum.

We are conservative, radical Democrats, Republicans, Independents,
Reform, and we are Green.

We come from all walks of life.

We are the thinkers and the workers that make America strong.

We are all religions and we are all races joined together today.

That's why George W. Bush proposes to spend $200 million on a public
relations campaign to convince you and the world that war in Iraq is
justified. Telling the truth shouldn't be so expensive.

If war in Iraq is truly justified and is about restoring freedoms to
the people of Iraq then why doesn't the Bush Administration restore
our freedoms here at home?

Why does the San Francisco Police Department need to collect, in
violation of their own department rules, dossiers on peaceful anti-war
protesters?

What does our government fear from us?

The Bush Administration has even failed to convince our most important
opinion leaders when it comes to war and peace: the veterans.

Veterans increasingly are being counted among the ranks of anti-war
protesters. Why? Because more than anyone else, our veterans know the
horror of war.

They know it's easy to talk about war if you've never been to war.

They know the horror of coming back to face the Pentagon and the
Department of Veterans Affairs for help with post-traumatic stress
syndrome, Gulf War syndrome, exposure to Agent Orange and depleted
uranium, cancer, birth defects, Lou Gehrig's disease, infertility,
memory loss, and homelessness.

In fact, 25% of all our homeless are veterans. And they sleep on the
streets of America every night. Many even living across the street
from the White House.

While our military spend billions of dollars on aircraft, ships,
tanks, and laser guided missiles already just to get the troops in
position for this war-- our government can't give a warm meal and
shelter to the veterans who have served our country and who are now in
need.

Something is terribly wrong; and that's the thanks of a grateful
nation.

Now President Bush would have you believe that he cares about our
young service men and women.

But he doesn't.

Just like he doesn't care about the veterans.

And let us remember . . .

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, where were
you when America needed you?

Part of that $200 million in public relations money the Administration
is spending is to make us think that George Bush follows in the
footsteps of the world's greatest wartime leaders.

But while Saddam Hussein can be counted among the world's tyrants,
George W. Bush is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Tony Blair is no
Winston Churchill.

Because now the entire world knows that Bush Daddy and the Carlyle
Group are doing big business in weapons systems, recently purchasing a
British weapons lab.

Dick Cheney's Halliburton Company which, by the way, just announced
that it had a radioactive device stolen in Africa, not only has an
unprecedented 10-year, unlimited contract to feed and supply US
troops, but it also has a $33 million contract to build the detention
camp at Guantanamo Bay.

And now we learn that Halliburton will also repair Iraqi oil fields in
case of damage in the war.

In addition, The Guardian newspaper informs us that Halliburton still
pays the Vice President up to $1 million each year in deferred salary
payments.

Meanwhile, back on the Chickenhawk farm, we learn from the most recent
New Yorker magazine that Richard Perle incorporated the Trireme
Partners company after September 11 and now stands to gain financially
from a war in Iraq.

Now, sadly, this is the same gang that just succeeded in denying women
access to emergency contraceptives, even in the event of sexual
assault.

And that soon will start drilling in Alaska.

Sadly, with faked documents, plagiarized material, and unconvincing
evidence, George Bush wants to rush us into a war that America's poor
will be fighting.

And in the process, the poor of the world are being asked to give up
their resources, for little or nothing.

It is a stick-up of global proportions.

And we are being asked to go along with it.

America used to be loved around the world. Now we are feared.

And so, in the absence of an America that stands up for justice, and
dignity; we are the ones who must stand up for peace.

In my election, 47,000 Republicans crossed over and hijacked the
Democratic Primary becuse they were afraid of the truth. Sometimes
telling the truth comes at a high personal price.

Let us leave here today and make the change this country needs to be
loved and respected around the world once again.

Cynthia McKinney is a former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia.

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

March 18,2003

WWIII Is Coming ´Whether They Like It Or Not´ -Top Sharon Aide
By Stephanie Innes
Arizona Daily Star

"The terror attacks on Sept. 11 and extreme turmoil in the Middle East
point to one thing - World War III, a spokesman for Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday during a visit to Tucson.

"We´ve been fighting a war for the past 18 months, which is the
harbinger of World War III. The world is going to fight, whether they
like it or not. I´m sure,´´ Ra´anan Gissin, a senior adviser to
Sharon, said in an interview Friday.

"Sept. 11 was a watershed event, and things will never be the same.
The battle lines have been drawn.´´

Gissin, 53, is in Tucson this weekend as part of a 12-day tour of the
United States to promote the purchase of Israel Bonds. The bonds are
part of a program that began in 1951 in which securities are sold to
individuals and corporations to finance economic growth in Israel.

"The Israeli government pays them back. . . . The collateral is the
eternity of the Jewish people,´´ Gissin said, dismissing an April 1
Newsweek story that questioned the future of his country.

"We believe the state of Israel will continue to exist forever.
Therefore, it´s a sure investment."

On Friday night he spoke to an audience of about 300 people at the
Reform Temple Emanu-El, 225 N. Country Club Road, as police stood on
guard at the doorways of the synagogue. Today at 5 p.m. he is
scheduled to speak at the conservative Congregation Anshei Israel,
5550 E. Fifth St.

Gissin called the war a clash between the civilized and uncivilized
worlds.

"It´s a clash between the forces of evil, as (President Bush) so
neatly described it, and forces of life."

Mohyeddin Abdulaziz, 54, a Tucson resident and Palestinian who grew up
near Ramallah, did not attend Gissin´s talk. But in an interview
Friday night he said the Israeli point of view does not take into
account the suffering of Palestinians who live in the occupied
territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

"This is a war that is being fought against a largely civilian
population. It is a one-sided war,´´ said Abdulaziz, who still has
family living in the West Bank. "The Palestinians do not have one
tank, one airplane, one helicopter. These are people who have been
under a brutal occupation for 35 years and every nation on this Earth
has recognized it as an illegal occupation.

"We have generations of Palestinians who know nothing but brutal
occupation,´´ he said. "The West Bank and Gaza are only 22 percent of
the geographic area of Palestine, and it´s all the Palestinians are
asking for. They want a place to call home."

Gissin said he did not believe that the Israeli incursion at the West
Bank refugee camp in Jenin earlier this month was a massacre as some
Palestinians have said. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat,
has accused Israel of trying to hide "terrible things" at the camp.
Palestinians say hundreds died. The United Nations is sending a
fact-finding team there.

"Real peace can only exist or come about when there is an
understanding and a commitment among our Arab and Palestinian
neighbors to a process of reconciliation - to accept the fact that
Jews also have a right to their own land, to their ancestral
homeland," Gissin said. "

[Everyman]

sil...@nwinfo.net (Everyman) wrote in message news:<73d08839.03031...@posting.google.com>...

> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page249.asp
>
> It is a little known fact that the British Prime
> Minister must seek the Queen's approval before
> declaring war. It is said that he will be doing this
> shortly.
>
> Please spread this to all U.K. contacts you may
> have---and as a citizen of the world send a message
> to the Queen at her official website comments section.
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page249.asp

So does the Royal Family need to go too, or just Blair and the poodlehawks?

Now to business:

Life and death questions:

Is Bush dumb or evil?

Mistaken or lying?

Anti-terrorism or terrorism user?

Defender or attacker?

For Americans or out to finish them?

9-11 target or 9-11 perpetrator?

President or psy-op?

Misguided friend or mortal enemy?

-------

If you have answered correctly and if you value the power of truthfulness in
human affairs - - then the emphasis of the Anti-War Movement must shift from
insisting upon cessation of hostility operations to insistence that those
responsible for the 9-11 mass-murder frameup must be stopped by all mankind
as the highest priority of human business.

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

Preguntas de la vida y de la muerte:
¿Es Bush mudo o malvado?
¿Equivocado o mentira?
¿Contra-terrorismo o un usuario del terrorismo?
¿Defensor o atacante?
¿Para los americanos o hacia fuera acabarlos?
¿9-11 blanco o perpetrator 9-11?
¿Presidente o psy-de Op. Sys.?
¿Amigo equivocado o enemigo mortal?
Si usted ha contestado correctamente y si usted valora la energía de la
verdad en asuntos humanos - - entonces el énfasis del movimiento pacifista
debe cambiar de puesto de insistir sobre la cesación de las operaciones de
la hostilidad a la insistencia que ésos responsables del 9-11 masa-asesinan
el frameup se deben parar por toda la humanidad como la prioridad más alta
del negocio humano.
=============================
Questions de la vie et de la mort:
Bush est-il sourd-muet ou mauvais?
Erroné ou mensonge?
Utilisateur d'Anti-terrorisme ou de terrorisme?
Défenseur ou attaquant?
Pour des Américains ou les finir dehors?
9-11 cible ou perpetrator 9-11?
Président ou psy-op?
Ami mal orienté ou ennemi mortel?
Si vous avez répondu correctement et si vous évaluez la puissance de
l'exactitude dans des affaires humaines - - puis l'emphase du mouvement
pacifiste doit décaler d'exiger sur le cessation des opérations d'hostilité
à l'insistance que ceux responsables du 9-11 masse-assassinent le frameup
doivent être arrêtées par toute l'humanité comme priorité la plus élevée des
affaires humaines.

Life and death questions:

Is Bush dumb or evil?

Mistaken or lying?

Anti-terrorism or terrorism user?

Defender or attacker?

For Americans or out to finish them?

9-11 target or 9-11 perpetrator?

President or psy-op?

Misguided friend or mortal enemy?

-------

If you have answered correctly and if you value the power of truthfulness in
human affairs - - then the emphasis of the Anti-War Movement must shift from
insisting upon cessation of hostility operations to insistence that those
responsible for the 9-11 mass-murder frameup must be stopped by all mankind
as the highest priority of human business.

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

Preguntas de la vida y de la muerte:
¿Es Bush mudo o malvado?
¿Equivocado o mentira?
¿Contra-terrorismo o un usuario del terrorismo?
¿Defensor o atacante?
¿Para los americanos o hacia fuera acabarlos?
¿9-11 blanco o perpetrator 9-11?
¿Presidente o psy-de Op. Sys.?
¿Amigo equivocado o enemigo mortal?
Si usted ha contestado correctamente y si usted valora la energía de la
verdad en asuntos humanos - - entonces el énfasis del movimiento pacifista
debe cambiar de puesto de insistir sobre la cesación de las operaciones de
la hostilidad a la insistencia que ésos responsables del 9-11 masa-asesinan
el frameup se deben parar por toda la humanidad como la prioridad más alta
del negocio humano.
=============================

Questions de la vie et de la mort:

Bush est-il sourd-muet ou mauvais?

Erroné ou mensonge?

Utilisateur d'Anti-terrorisme ou de terrorisme?

Défenseur ou attaquant?

Pour des Américains ou les finir dehors?

9-11 cible ou perpetrator 9-11?

Président ou psy-op?

Ami mal orienté ou ennemi mortel?

Si vous avez répondu correctement et si vous évaluez la puissance de
l'exactitude dans des affaires humaines - - puis l'emphase du mouvement
pacifiste doit décaler d'exiger sur le cessation des opérations d'hostilité
à l'insistance que ceux responsables du 9-11 masse-assassinent le frameup
doivent être arrêtées par toute l'humanité comme priorité la plus élevée des
affaires humaines.

[Everyman]

contents
1) ­Unfolding Tragedy
2) Victory won't end distrust of Bush
3) "Once we assert the unilateral right to act
as the world's policeman, our allies will
quickly recede into the background. Eventually,
we will be forced to spend American wealth
and American blood protecting the peace
while other nations redirect their wealth to
such things as health care for their citizenry. "
4. Horrid facts and hair-raising biographical sketches
(Pearle, Wolfowitz, etc.) from USAJewish

I T E M # 1 :

Brave Iraqis, facing 3.000 satelite guided missiles, for freedom, for
faith in their God, for you and I to blinded to see that the Iraqis
resist the international debt slavery for all humanity

Editorial: ­Unfolding Tragedy
20 March 2003
Published on 20 March 2003

"My question was and remains," Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said
yesterday, "does the degree of threat stemming from the Iraqi dictator
justify a war that will bring certain death to thousands of innocent
men, women and children?"

The "shock-and-awe" strategy the Pentagon has threatened during the
initial hours of the war on Iraq will rain down upon the country more
than 3,000 satellite-guided bombs. It will be an assault of such
awesome power that, in the words of an official who wisely withheld
his name, "they are not going to know what hit them."

These bombs, smart or otherwise, are headed for thousands of targets
in Iraq, most of them in Baghdad. People close to these "command
centers," or employed there in any number of civilian and menial
functions, will die. So, of course, will the soldiers stationed there.

If only a few of the smart bombs should prove to be dumber than
expected — or, as is likely, the US actively targets water and power
supplies, or sewage facilities — cholera and typhoid will spread like
wildfire. Hospitals will be rendered useless in the face of such a
catastrophe, if they too are not bombed to smithereens.

On June 10, 1991, US soldiers slaughtered as many as 100,000 Iraqi
conscripts who, after an agreed cease-fire, were retreating en masse
along the Basra highway. It was an attack of such barbarity that
British pilots refused to continue flying missions; and even American
commanders expressed reservations about the morality of the operation.

Few of those teenagers had been given any choice about whether to
participate in the war.

The Iraqi front lines, where most of the killing will be done, will
once again be manned by conscripts, while the Republican Guard,
Saddam's elite squadron, are going to be well back in the rear.

If there is an alternative for these conscripts, it is the same as for
ordinary Iraqis: To run.

The United Nations has estimated that the war could result in as many
as two million refugees, who will be placed indefinitely in desert
camps in Syria and in Jordan, where Oxfam alone has set up facilities
for 30,000 refugees. They have already started to arrive.

A humanitarian tragedy of immense proportions, then, is beginning to
unfold. As we are shown endless pictures of ordnance and other
paraphernalia of war from the invader's point of view, of this or that
military-looking structure precision-bombed off a video screen, the
dead and the dying — and the displaced people who were lucky enough to
escape the carnage — will not be much talked about.

Footage showing their plight will be at best unsuitably depressing, at
worst deemed "offensive" for the viewers of the evening news. Once
again, the media and the Pentagon will collude to sideline the
millions whom the war will hit worst.

There can, therefore, be only one answer to Gerhard Schroeder's
question: The one he himself gave. Does the situation justify a
humanitarian catastrophe of such proportions?

"My answer was, and remains, no."

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23941

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

I T E M # 2 :

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

Paul Krugman: Victory won't end distrust of Bush
Paul Krugman
Wednesday, March 19, 2003

After Saddam
NEW YORK Of course America will win on the battlefield, probably with
ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: The most
recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only
$1.4 billion.

What frightens me is the aftermath - and I'm not just talking about
the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen
beyond Iraq - in the world at large, and in the United States.

The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill
will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to
believe that other countries will change their minds once they see
cheering Iraqis welcome American troops, or that U.S. bombs will shock
and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis), or that what the world
thinks doesn't matter.

They're wrong on all counts.

Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States,
because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over
again, that it doesn't play by the rules.

Remember: This administration told Europe to take a hike on global
warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told
developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving
pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally
insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court
- all in just two years.

Nor, as we've just seen, is military power a substitute for trust.
Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the UN
Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned
otherwise. "What can the Americans do to us?" one African official
asked. "Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?"

Meanwhile, consider this: The United States needs $400 billion a year
of foreign investment to cover its trade deficit, or the dollar will
plunge and its surging budget deficit will become much harder to
finance - and there are already signs that the flow of foreign
investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about
to fight a whole series of wars.

It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the
brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as
a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team
told Newsweek: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go
to Tehran." In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli
newspaper, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials
that after defeating Iraq the United States would "deal with" Iran,
Syria and North Korea.

Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely - and
not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of
wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been
targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: They're
going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first.

People who really know what they are talking about have the
heebie-jeebies over North Korea's nuclear program, and view war on the
Korean Peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at
the rate things are going, it seems America will fight that war, or
the war with Iran, or both at once, all by itself.

What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war
happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind
that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing
campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration
ever made.

Instead Americans heard assertions about a nuclear program that turned
out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; they got assertions about
a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard
as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by
U.S. domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest
of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once
the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any
criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.

So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated
claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that
saber-rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will
honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can't help
worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war
will turn out to have been the shape of things to come.

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

I T E M # 3 :

The president's real goal in Iraq
By JAY BOOKMAN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that
the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida
has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to
believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a
major war based on such flimsy evidence. The pieces just didn't fit.
Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into
place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about
weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N.
resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence
of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole
responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the
culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by
those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for
global domination, even if it means becoming the "American
imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For
example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit
strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States
will create permanent military bases in that country from which to
dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed
aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet
other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World
War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will
do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and
deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even
if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion
of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did
not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of
brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush
administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what
they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far,
the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that
ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in
which each administration outlines its approach to defending the
country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a
significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it
attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a
newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive
attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it
calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion
if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense,"
the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of
"convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign
responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and
economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by
international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it
envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond
Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as
temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S.
troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however,
because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly
not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the
same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for
the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists
outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its
chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as
conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated
two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve
and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush
defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has
tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the
repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a
global missile defense system. The administration has taken that
course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce
Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense
spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8
percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a
defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its
expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded
defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the
message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in
targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being
built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led
U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon,
called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so
far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly
surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed
to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is
undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's
Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon
Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld.
I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov
Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of
the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they
were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they
clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term
targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil.
In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against
North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no
consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat
an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be
required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting
as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand
American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to
challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger
military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the
roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in
the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in
Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain
another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the
Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the
Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to
assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier
document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had
also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world,
imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and
economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal
drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by
the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was
drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for
policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right
to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into
the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth
and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect
their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an
influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served
as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that
likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't
stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given
its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as
a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate
Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something
that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American
people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore,
Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position
calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as
empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it
would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has
thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that
the United States would establish permanent military bases in a
post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a
major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of
time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having
it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in
our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no
disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will
produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations
such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position,
puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq,
other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the
message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not
favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he
notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet
since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we
spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11
nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378
billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from
1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China,
our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it
has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the
end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a
global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States.
To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part
because the American people have never been comfortable with
themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those
advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new
president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really
debating the role that the United States will play in the years and
decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and
international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary
to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global
dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision
knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is
always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it
would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the
New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or
contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six
who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the
Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint
for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

http://64.176.94.191/article2319.htm

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

I T E M # 4 :

Regarding Bush, I believe (which I base this on his body language and
changes in his policies), I believe Cheney is knee deep in his
involvement
in 9/11. Bush knew something was coming down - but I think Cheney is
really
running the show along with the Cabal. They probably just told Bush
to shut
up and do as they say.

Anyhow, I don't think Bush can come clean - they'd hurt him and/or his
family, I'm sure. He would need the backing of the Military Brass in
the
Pentagon and the Support of the CIA which he has, and the FBI. It
would be
very hard for him to arrange this - because the Cabal monitors Bush's
every
move and every phone call.) They are powerful. Here are two
articles. One
shows how the Jewish community complained about no Jews in the Bush's
early
Admin. Then the second article shows what happened once
Cheney/Rumsfeld (I
suspect) opened the gates.

Regards, Cynthia

USA Jewish Site:

Mr. Bush's Cabinet Looks Like America -- But Without the Jews
Washington, DC: In sharp contrast to the unprecedented number of
American
Jews holding cabinet-level posts in the outgoing administration of
President
Bill Clinton (see list below), at this time it appears that none of
President-elect Bush's cabinet appointments are Jewish.

Some American Jewish leaders, such as Phil Baum of the American Jewish
Congress, have commented that the situation is "a little distressing."
And
an editorial by The Forward on Friday opined, "Mr. Bush reached out to
blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans not because those groups vote
Republican - they don't - but because he wanted to send a message. He
chose
not to include Jews in that message."

"I am struck not only by the sharp contrast between the historic
number of
top Jewish decision-makers in the Clinton Administration and the
paucity of
Jews in President-elect Bush's circles," said National Jewish
Democratic
Council Executive Director Ira N. Forman. "And it's not just the
precipitous
drop from the Jewish political 'high-water mark' of Senator
Lieberman's
vice-presidential candidacy to the dearth of Jewish figures in the
proposed
cabinet.
(David A. Harris, NJDC --Read More-->)

http://www.usajewish.com/scripts/usaj/paper/Article.asp?ArticleID=1045

http://www.njdc.org

Mr. Bush's Cabinet Looks Like America -- But Without the Jews

By David A. Harris

Washington, DC: In sharp contrast to the unprecedented number of
American
Jews holding cabinet-level posts in the outgoing administration of
President
Bill Clinton (see list below), at this time it appears that none of
President-elect Bush's cabinet appointments are Jewish.

Some American Jewish leaders, such as Phil Baum of the American Jewish
Congress, have commented that the situation is "a little distressing."
And
an editorial by The Forward on Friday opined, "Mr. Bush reached out to
blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans not because those groups vote
Republican - they don't - but because he wanted to send a message. He
chose
not to include Jews in that message."

"I am struck not only by the sharp contrast between the historic
number of
top Jewish decision-makers in the Clinton Administration and the
paucity of
Jews in President-elect Bush's circles," said National Jewish
Democratic
Council Executive Director Ira N. Forman. "And it's not just the
precipitous
drop from the Jewish political 'high-water mark' of Senator
Lieberman's
vice-presidential candidacy to the dearth of Jewish figures in the
proposed
cabinet. The American Jewish community of 2001 is the most politically
active demographic grouping in America, out of all proportion to its
numbers. Unlike our recent ancestors, American Jews today are top
office
holders, policy analysts, and political journalists, consultants and
theorists - on both the left and the right. It seems to me that the
only
explanation for this discrepancy - between disproportionate Jewish
political
involvement and the stark absence of Jews in the coming Bush cabinet -
is
that President-elect Bush's cabinet is comprised of a close circle of
friends and trusted advisors, and Jews just aren't well-represented in
that
grouping."

Jewish cabinet-level Clinton Administration officials have included
Secretary of Labor Robert Reich; Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and
Lawrence Summers; Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman; National
Security
Advisor Sandy Berger; former Commerce Secretary and US Trade
Representative
Mickey Kantor; current US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky;
Director
of the Office of Management and Budget Jack Lew; National Economic
Council
director Gene Sperling; and US Ambassador to the United Nations
Richard
Holbrooke. Additionally, both Secretary of Defense William Cohen and
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have Jewish background or
heritage,
and other senior sub-cabinet level advisors to President Clinton have
included current Deputy White House Chief of Staff Maria Echaveste,
former
Counsel to the President and White House Communications Director Ann
Lewis,
and former Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategy Rahm Emmanuel.

http://www.usajewish.com/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the
chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli
government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's
office in
the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing
Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli
Embassy. He
later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the
leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within
the
administration and now in the media.

2). Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's
Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate
of
Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His
sister
lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the
administration behind this Iraq war mongering.

3). Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at
the
Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special
Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist,
who has
advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated
with the
extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even
attacks
Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently
speaks at
ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which
only has
one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work
is
representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior
to his
appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer."
Feith
basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and
Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against
Iraq.

4). Edward Luttwak----Member of the National Security Study Group of
the
Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an
Israeli
citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and
pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist
whose
main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging
war
against Iraq.

5). Henry Kissinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits
on the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information
about
Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power:
Kissinger
in the Nixon White House). Kissinger had a part in the Watergate
crimes,
Southeast Asia mass murders, Chile dictatorship, and more recently
served as
Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently
advocates
going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S.

6). Dov Zakheim----Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, and Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) for the Department of Defense. He is an
ordained
rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended
attended
Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi
in
1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva
University.
Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

7). Kenneth Adelman-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also
sits on
the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another
extremist
pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Adelman
frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and
often
ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his hatred or
stupidity,
he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when
he
could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by
definition are Semites.

8). I. Lewis Libby -----Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.
The
chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why
Cheney is
so gun-ho to invade Iraq. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz.
Libby
was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Mark Rich, whom
Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president.

9). Robert Satloff----U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff
was
the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington
Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts"
come
from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

10). Elliott Abrams-----National Security Council Advisor. He
previously
worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy
Center.
During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of
State,handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played
an
important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally
selling
U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra
rebels
fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also
actively
deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and
thereby
faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in
1991 to
two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours
of
community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior)
granted
Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews
in the
Reagan Administration's State Department.

11). Marc Grossman-----Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
He
was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human
Resources
at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel
Jewish
officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to
higher
posts.

12). Richard Haass-----Director of Policy Planning at the State
Department
and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security
Programs
and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was
one of
the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration
who
sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocates
going
to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense
Department's
National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

13). Robert Zoellick-----U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level
position.He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the
Bush (Jr)
Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of
the
country in order to set up setting up a Vichy-style puppet government.
He
consistently advocates going to war against Iraq.

14). Ari Fleischer----Official White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr)
Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state
that
he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the
extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who
follow the
Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews.
Fleischer
was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the
Young
Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October,
2001.

15). James Schlesinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger
also
sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another
extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq.
Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's
National
Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

16). Mel Sembler-----President of the Export-Import Bank of the United
States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance
Chairman
of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank
facilitates
trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries,
specifically those with financial problems.

17). Michael Chertoff ----Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division, at the Justice Department.

18). Joshua Bolten----Bush's Chief Policy Director, banker and former
legislative aide. Prominent in the Jewish community.

19). Steve Goldsmith----Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush's
Jewish
domestic policy advisor. He also serves as liaison in the White House
Office
of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within
the
Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of
Indianapolis.
He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often
visits
Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

20). Adam Goldman-----White House's Special Liaison to the Jewish
Community.

21). Joseph Gildenhorn-----Bush Campaign's Special Liaison to the
Jewish
Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as
well as
campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.

22). Christopher Gersten-----Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the
former
Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of
Labor
Secretary, Linda Chavez, and reportedly very pro-Israel. Their
children are
being raised Jewish.

23). Mark Weinberger-----Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax
Policy.

24). Samuel Bodman-----Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the
Chairman and
CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

25). Bonnie Cohen-----Under Secretary of State for Management.

26). Ruth Davis-----Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports
to
the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is
responsible for
training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

27). Lincoln Bloomfield-----Assistant Secretary of State for Political
Military Affairs.

28). Jay Lefkowitz-----General Counsel of the Office of Budget and
Management.

29). David Frum-----White House speechwriter.

30). Ken Melman-----White House Political Director.

31). Brad Blakeman------White House Director of Scheduling.

Now that Bush has hired these pro-Israel Jewish lobbyists to the
highest
positions in the land, they have escalated the fanatical war-mongering
against Iraq, all the while they support the Israeli war-criminal
Sharon in
his terrorism and mass-killings of Palestinian civilians. It seems
that the
price of the acheiving the White House involves selling out to the
Israeli
lobby, much like Clinton, before him.

There are some hopeful signs coming out of the adminstration, however.
Despite this strong pro-Israeli presence within the administration, it
seems
that Bush has not yet jumped on their band-wagon, and instead is
listening
to the sensible leaders and advisors, like the U.S. intelligence
community,
other groups within the federal government, as well as from America's
friends and allies around the world. No one wants this war except
Israel,
its agents, and its lobbies around the world.

The question that remains unanswered is, will the Israeli lobby use
(or
create) some scandal to blackmail Bush into attacking Iraq, like they
used
Monica Lewinsky against Clinton to force him to launch "Operation
Desert
Fox," in December 1998? Watch how many of the media outlets and some
politicians are blaming Bush for the all the corporate scandals and
the huge
recession the U.S. is going through.

What Bush needs to do is use some common sense, and have some courage
to
stand up to these pro-Israel bullies, and act in the best interests of
America, and not Israel. The first act for Bush should be to replace
these
pro-Israeli fanatics with patriotic Americans.

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

[Everyman]

US and British Rush to Holocaustfest

More breaking stories:

http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&scoring=d&q=baghdad&btnG=Search+News

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56752-2003Mar19.html

By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 19, 2003; 10:13 PM

The United States launched a military strike against Iraq on Wednesday
night after President Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to surrender
power passed unheeded.

"The opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime have
begun," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Bush planned to address the nation at 10:15 p.m. EST, little more than
two hours after the deadline the president set for Saddam Hussein to
flee his nation or face war.

Fleischer spoke as anti-aircraft fire and explosions were heard across
Baghdad after air raid sirens went off at the capital at dawn.

An American-led invasion force of 300,000 troops awaited the order to
strike. U.S. and British forces massed in the Kuwaiti desert close to
the Iraqi border, giant B-52 warplanes were loaded with bombs and
Tomahawk missile-carrying ships were in position, all awaiting an
attack order from Bush.

The deadline came at 8 p.m. EST, which was 4 a.m. Thursday in Baghdad,
its population shrunken in recent days by an exodus of thousands of
fearful residents.

"The disarmament of the Iraqi regime will begin at a time of the
president's choosing," said his press secretary, Ari Fleischer,
moments after 8 p.m. "The American people are ready for the
disarmament of Saddam Hussein. They understand what's at stake. The
military is ready, the nation is ready and the cause is just."

Just after the deadline, White House chief of staff Andrew Card
informed the president that intelligence officials had no information
that Saddam had left Iraq.

Saddam's regime gave every appearance of digging in.

In the minutes after the deadline, Iraqi TV showed footage of a
pro-Saddam march Tuesday in Baghdad, with members of the crowd
chanting pro-Saddam slogans, some brandishing rifles and carrying
pictures of Saddam.

"We are dedicated to martyrdom in defense of Iraq under your
leadership," a loyal Iraqi parliament assured the Iraqi dictator, and
armed members of the ruling Baath party deployed behind hundreds of
sandbagged defensive
positions in Baghdad.

Even so, 17 Iraqi soldiers surrendered to American GIs during the day,
eager to give up before the shooting started.

Bush met periodically throughout the day with his top aides at the
White House and sent formal notice to Congress that reliance on
"further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone" would not suffice
to counter "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Fleischer, said the nation "ought to be prepared for the loss" of
American lives once the military effort begins to depose Saddam and
recover weapons of mass destruction.

Aides said the commander in chief would decide on timing based on the
advice of his military commanders.

More than 25 protesters were arrested outside the White House, part of
a larger group of demonstrators that chanted, banged drums and carried
signs that read, "Stop the War on Iraq."

It seemed unlikely in the extreme.

Along with the U.S.-led force approaching 300,000 troops massed in the
Persian Gulf region were 1,000 combat aircraft and five aircraft
carrier battle groups. The United States claims the public and private
support of 45 other nations in a coalition to topple Saddam. But only
Britain, with about 40,000 troops, was making a sizable contribution
to the military force.

In a run-up to war, U.S. aircraft also dropped nearly 2 million
leaflets over southern Iraq with a variety of messages, including, for
the first time, instructions to Iraqi troops on how to capitulate to
avoid being killed.

Hundreds of miles away, at an air base in England, crews loaded bombs
aboard giant B-52 combat aircraft.

Apart from the desire to capture weapons of mass destruction, Bush's
submission to Congress said a military attack could lead to the
discovery of information that would allow the apprehension of
terrorists living in the United States. An attack, it said, "is a
vital part of the international war on terrorism."

Despite deep divisions at the United Nations, Bush also claimed "the
authority - indeed, given the dangers involved, the duty - to use
force against Iraq to protect the security of the American people and
to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions."

The diplomatic wheels turned still at the United Nations where foreign
ministers were meeting in the Security Council at the request of the
French and Germans, prominent critics of the American military
operation.

"This is a sad day for the United Nations," said the organization's
secretary general, Kofi Annan said. "I know that millions of people
around the world share this sense of disappointment and are deeply
alarmed."

Bush abandoned diplomacy on Monday, and administration officials
blamed French intransigence for the lack of consensus on a new
Security Council resolution that would have given Saddam an ultimatum.

The signs of imminent conflict were abundant.

Israel ordered its citizens to start carrying their gas masks to work
and to school. And hundreds of Israeli residents fled Tel Aviv,
fearful that Iraq would launch missiles against their seaside city, as
happened in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Royal Jordanian - the only commercial airline with regularly scheduled
flights to Baghdad - said it was canceling them in anticipation of
war.

And Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak offered a dual-edged analysis. He
blamed Iraq for the approaching military conflict. But he also said he
hoped that "different international forces will realize the dangerous
repercussions of any military action on the safety and stability of
the Middle East region."

Another country in the region, Bahrain, publicly offered exile to
Saddam "in a dignified manner that should not be seen as undermining
Iraq's position and capabilities."

"It's the last-hour chance and we hope that Iraq will accept this
offer to avoid war," Information Minister Nabil al-Hamer told The
Associated Press.

Exile for the Iraqi leader "is absolutely unthinkable," said Saadoon
Hammadi, speaker of Iraq's parliament.

"He will be in front of everyone. He will fight and guide our country
to victory."

© 2003 The Associated Press

[Everyman]

Fw: [the911coverup] "Purim war" Pearle-Wolfowitz-Sharon celebrate
Purim with Halocaustfest in Iraq -- who says Jews don't offer human
sacrifice?

You tax dollars (remember earning all that dough?) -- are going up
in smoke in Iraq, smoke that is adumbrated with drops and chunks of
Iraqi mothers, fathers, daughters, babies, grandmothers, cooks, taxi
drivers, teachers, doctors, bus drivers, ambulence drivers, and maybe
a guy who stood up to Globalization and to implacable zionist hatred
for his country.

Iraqis -- with the Taliban people of Afganistan -- the most
courageous friends of humanity -- we are shit next to them.

Only mass awareness that Bush and Comapny are responsible for the 9-11
mass-murder frameup will move the people of the 50 states to
overthrow this illegitamate government -- the two evil city states
that rule us, namely Washington D.C. and New York City.

But we will NOT throw the baby out with the bath water -- our
Jeffersonian Constitution stays as does our national sovereignty. The
United Nations and the rightly indignant peoples of the earth had
better understand that.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

[Everyman]

The fool watches the TV propaganda and is convinced he is with the
heroes in a Speilberg action flick. Men who still have their minds
look at the facts that matter and the principles that interpret their
working.

contents

1) Rachel Corrie is still dead. Here's a witness account.

2) How Did We Become an Outlaw Nation?

3) U.S. Marine General Blew the Whistle on Our Military being used as
Hit-Man Goons for Corporations back in 1935

5) "Military strength is like a flame which consumes the very stuff
from which it springs." -- Charles. Lindberg

Henry Kissinger in an address to the super secret Bilderberg
Organization
meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 said the following as
transcribed
from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates:

"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles
to
restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true
if
they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real
or
promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all
peoples
of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this
evil.
The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this
scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the
guarantee
of their well being granted to them by their world government."

Dear all,

Here is an entirely reliable eyewitness account of the death of
American peace activist Rachel Corrie. I hope it stops the headlines
passing by in a blur...

Theo

Many of you will of heard varying accounts of the death of Rachel
Corrie, maybe others will have heard nothing of it. Regardless, I was
10 metres away when it happened 2 days ago, and this is the way it
went.

We'd been monitoring and occasionally obstructing the 2 bulldozers for
about 2 hours when 1 of them turned toward a house we knew to be
threatened with demolition. Rachel knelt down in its way. She was
10-20 metres in front of the bulldozer, clearly visible, the only
object for many
metres, directly in it's view. They were in Radio contact with a tank
that had a profile view of the situation. There is no way she could
not have been seen by them in their elevated cabin. They knew where
she was, there is no doubt.

The bulldozer drove toward Rachel slowly, gathering earth in its scoop
as it went. She knelt there, she did not move. The bulldozer reached
her and she began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth. She
appeared to be looking into the cockpit. The bulldozer continued to
push Rachel,
so she slipped down the mound of earth, turning as she went. Her faced
showed she was panicking and it was clear she was in danger of being
overwhelmed. All the activists were screaming at the bulldozer to stop
and gesturing to the crew about Rachel's presence. We were in clear
view as Rachel had been, they continued. They pushed Rachel, first
beneath the scoop, then beneath the blade, then continued till her
body was beneath the cockpit.

They waited over her for a few seconds, before reversing. They
reversed with the blade pressed down, so it scraped over her body a
second time.

Every second I believed they would stop but they never did.

I ran for an ambulance, she was gasping and her face was covered in
blood from a gash cutting her face from lip to cheek. She was showing
signs of brain hemorrhaging. She died in the ambulance a few minutes
later of massive internal injuries. She was a brilliant, bright and
amazing
person, immensely brave and committed. She is gone and I cannot
believe it.

The group here in Rafah has decided that we will stay here and
continue to oppose human rights abuses as best we can. I want to add
that more than 10 palestinians have died in the Gaza strip since
Rachel.

Please: forward this message.
Boycott caterpillar
Take direct action against the Caterpillar Corporation - please do not
let this be without cost to them. Legally, i shouldn't ask you to do
anything destructive or against the law.

=========

http://www.counterpunch.org/gray03202003.html

March 20, 2003
The Sun Never Sets
How Did We Become an Outlaw Nation?
By KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY

"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.... No grievances or policies will justify resort to
aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument
of policy."

--Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, a U.S. representative to
the International Conference on Military Trials at the close of World
War II.

Of course the war on Iraq is not just about oil. It's about
imperialism, capitalism, the spread of white supremacy and privilege
and the extension of unchecked American power, directed by people who
look or think like George Bush, Dick Chaney, John Ashcroft, Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bob Jones and their big
business and religious fundamentalist buddies. But "no blood for
imperialism, capitalism, white supremacy and the extension of
unchecked American power" is too much for a bumper sticker. And it's
harder still to get many white Americans (or people of color) to
reject, let alone fight, to dismantle such an unjust way of existence.

Whether the killing is inspired by the imperatives of "Manifest
Destiny", "Divine Right", "God's chosen people", the "Master Race" or
"the sun never sets", someone's land and resources end up being stolen
and the people enslaved, oppressed or killed by their so-called
"liberators". Bush can adorn his war with the nonsensical adjectives
"pre-emptive" or "preventative"-a war to pre-empt war? --but the
United States is clearly the aggressor nation. This is not a war of
self-defense.

Now, I wouldn't want to live in Iraq, nor do I have any fondness for
Saddam Hussein. But imagine Hussein is the most racist, unpleasant
Klansman on an average American block. And people are scared of him,
because they know what he's already done, and they think he could do
just about anything. What would happen if, unprovoked except by their
own fear, the black folks from another block decided to firebomb his
home, killing him and his family--or maybe just his family, because he
was at a meeting? They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. No
prosecutor, no jury in the land would accept an argument of
pre-emption, or prevention and a weasel apology, "Sorry about the
kids, collateral damage." But this is exactly the argument Bush is
demanding that Americans and the world accept.

There are far more reasons to be against Bush's war than for it. The
biggest reason to oppose war is that it is an instrument of death.
Even if the inspectors had found chemical weapons products in Iraq
that does not give anyone the right to kill its children. Even if they
had found elements for the production of nuclear bombs, that does not
give anyone the right to kill its children. Because that's what war
means. That's what the past twelve years of sanctions have meant -
Iraqi children dying. To take the additional step of committing
American young people to attack a nation of young people-because over
50% of Iraq's population is under 15 years of age-and to do this in
the name of a plan for empire building hatched by Paul Wolfowitz
twelve years ago: now that is criminal.

Bush and his backers hope for a quick war. First, they hope to seize
the oil fields while waging a bombing campaign they have named "Shock
and Awe," dropping 3,000 or more bombs in the first 48 hours of the
attack. This is the so-called "Baghdad First" strategy. It has another
name: terror bombing. As one Pentagon official said, "There won't be a
safe place in Baghdad." One of the basic features of terrorism is that
it makes anyone a target, civilian or military, guilty or innocent.
Everyone is afraid, because no one is safe. Still, immediate surrender
isn't a given. There could well be some bloody door-to-door urban
fighting. And with all of this, let's remember, Baghdad is a city of 4
to 5 million people who aren't all named Saddam Hussein.

A few years ago, former U.N Ambassador Madeline Albright was asked
what she thought about a report that sanctions had led to the death of
500,000 Iraqi children, from lack of medicine, food, clean water. "Is
it worth it?" CBS's Leslie Stahl asked her. Albright, after a
considered pause, said, "Yes, we think the price is worth it." Now mix
Albright's morbid calculus with the Bush Administration's casual
approach to instigating a human catastrophe. (Once again the power
grid, on which the water purification system depends, will be a
target.) What we are faced with is something quite simple and easily
understood: the cheapening of human life. But not any human life -
Iraqi human life, foreign human life. Their life, their children, not
ours. American, more often, white, life is priceless. American
children are priceless, worth so much that only the idea that they
might not be safe, that they might live in a world where everyone
doesn't just love
them, is used to justify threatening and snuffing out the lives of
other children, lesser children, lesser people.

It is a fundamental moral precept that every human being is of equal
value. If we in this country condone or ignore what this present
administration is doing, we will be accomplices to mass murder.

As hard as Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice tried to conjure one,
there is no hardheaded geopolitical consideration of the normal kind
precipitating war on Iraq. This time, Hussein hasn't gassed the Kurds
or the Iranians--which when he did he was receiving military
intelligence and biological and chemical weapons agents from the
United States. The running joke in Washington is that "America knows
Saddam has these weapons because it has the receipts."

This time, Iraq has invaded no one, seized no land, occupied no
territory, committed no sudden international atrocity, nor put the
lives of people in other countries in particular peril. Even Iran,
Iraq's next-door neighbor and the country it gassed, opposes a U.S.
invasion. And our next-door neighbor, Canada, opposes the war.

Vice-President Dick Cheney calls Hussein a "mortal threat" but let's
be real. The United States has a $400 billion Pentagon budget; Iraq's
military budget is about $4 billion. America has thousands of nuclear
weapons, many of which are produced right here in South Carolina at
the Savannah River Plant; Iraq doesn't have one yet, or the means to
deliver it. And although chemical weapons have been internationally
banned, the U.S. still has 75% of its stockpile. Anniston, Alabama,
alone has enough sarin, VX nerve agent, and mustard gas to kill or
incapacitate millions. So, even if Iraq obtained one nuclear weapon or
two, would that present a "mortal" danger to the United States? The
United States has survived for four decades against two formidable
foes - Russia and China - with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at
us. And when it comes to the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, "We're number one!"

If Iraq is a "mortal threat", what about the 16 other countries in the
world that have or might have nuclear weapons, the 25 countries that
have or might have chemical weapons, the 19 other countries that have
or might have biological weapons, and the 16 other countries that have
or might have missile systems? Is the United States going to invade
them too?

Ironically, an American invasion may actually increase the odds that
Hussein will use chemical or biological weapons. Back in 1991, he had
chemical or biological weapons loaded onto missiles. The elder Bush
warned Hussein that if he used those weapons, he would face
devastating retaliation. Everyone, including Hussein, understood that
meant having a nuclear bomb dropped on his country. So he backed down.
Today, Bush the son is talking "regime change". So Hussein has
absolutely no incentive not to fire whatever chemical or biological
weapons he might have hidden at U.S. troops, Israel, Turkey or Kuwait.

War on Iraq is not about enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution
1441 or any other resolution. If that were the case, the U.S. would
have to invade Israel, a country in violation of numerous resolutions
(223, 242,267,271, 298, 446,452 and 465) and led by Ariel Sharon, a
war criminal. Sharon has effectively transformed Gaza and towns in the
West Bank into concentration camps, where people are under constant
curfew, penned in by barbed wire, surrounded by tanks and soldiers and
threatened constantly with homelessness by bulldozing. Israeli
soldiers kill Palestinians every day. On March 16 they killed an
American, crushed her under a bulldozer. The death of Rachel Corrie, a
U.S. peace activist, was not a mistake; it was a warning that the
Israeli government doesn't care who is opposed to its policies of
oppression and occupation.

Bush can talk about the United States not being at war with Islam or
the Muslim world, but after a while, as the brutality escalates or
America tires of "nation building" and paying to rebuild what it has
destroyed, many in that world will find the argument insulting. Sooner
or later the "chickens will come home to roost", with a greater
likelihood of suicide bombers striking here in America. Already the
run-up to war has inflamed Muslim fundamentalists, who had previously
despised Saddam Hussein as an infidel. Even the government reports it
has been a boon for al Qaeda's recruiters. Hard to see how that is in
the interests of the United States.

As a civil libertarian, I believe an invasion of Iraq is
unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution gives
the right to Congress and only to Congress to take the United States
to war. But Congress has been silent and impotent from the start. It
gave Bush a blank check use-of-force authorization after 9/11, with
Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) as the sole voice of dissent.
Now the most passionate voice of opposition to an imperial presidency
and war without Congressional declaration or even debate is an
ex-Klansman, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va). Byrd accused his colleagues
of "sleepwalking through history" and hoped "that this great nation
and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of
awakenings."

Since just after World War II, presidents have usurped this power of
Congress, and Congress has abdicated it. There has not been a
Congressional declaration of war since December 1941, though there
have been plenty of wars since then--Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada,
the Dominican Republic, and the Gulf War. There also have been
numerous other nations the United States has assaulted directly or
covertly over the last six decades.

In regards to Iraq, some argue that Bush has the authority to wage war
by virtue of three Congressional actions. First, in 1991, Congress
gave his father the authorization to wage war against Hussein (though
technically it did not declare war). But was that authorization an
open-ended go-ahead to wage war against Iraq forever, or anytime any
president happened to feel like it? And did Congress grant the son the
right to change the regime there now, more than a decade later?

The second Congressional act that Bush backers cite is the September
14, 2001, use-of-force authorization, which allows Bush to attack any
person, group, or country that he believes was involved in the attack
of 9/11. But while Powell, Rice and others (to include corporate
media) have been doing their damnedest to lay some of the blame for
the 9/11 attack on Hussein, there is no evidence connecting the two
and no credible link has been established between Hussein and al
Qaeda, or between Iraq and the anthrax-laced letters that killed
several Americans.

Then, in October of last year, prior to offering 1441to the U.N.
Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force, if
necessary, against Iraq. But none of these measures was ever a
Congressional declaration of war.

Presidential candidates Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton have been
the most critical of Bush's war, but other Democratic presidential
candidates use anti-war sentiment to the extent that they can carve
out votes. Sharpton is the only candidate challenging both the
legitimacy of the war and the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. No
one has dared utter the world impeachment, yet.

Most Democratic candidates have not challenged Bush's legitimacy to
wage war because in their heart of hearts most want to join the
I-can-make-war Club. One of the qualifications for being president,
after all, is the willingness to use America's nuclear
"deterrent"-that is, to threaten or commit mass murder in the name of
national security.

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential front-runner claims to
oppose war but said, "When the war begins, I support the troops and I
support the United States of America winning as rapidly as possible.
When the troops are in the field and fighting remembering what it's
like to be those troops, I think they need a unified America that is
prepared to win."

Presidential candidate Howard Dean, who calls Bush's foreign policy
"ghastly" and "appalling," has been painted as the Democrats' most
vocal opponent of a unilateral war against Iraq. But once war breaks
out, he says, "Of course I'll support the troops."

The impulse to support the troops is understandable. They're our kids,
cousins, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, neighbors, friends and
even grandparents. We want our soldiers--young people who risk too
much for too little pay--to come home in one piece. Many don't want to
be where they are. There is an economic draft in this country, and
many are there because of it. But blindly supporting the troops while
they're fighting an immoral and illegal war is misguided and wrong.
Perhaps the best way to support the troops is to increase the effort
to get them home. The government is spending a billion dollars a day
to keep soldiers in foreign lands for this war; we should demand that
the money be used to educate kids and give them options other than the
military. We should also be encouraging kids not to join the military.
It makes them the imperialists' apprentices. In the era of modern
warfare especially, it forces them to be murderers and terrorists. And
when the war is over, if it doesn't kill them-and a low rate of U.S.
battlefield casualties is becoming common-it kicks them to the curb.
More than 164,000 Gulf War veterans are officially disabled. High
percentages of every city's homeless population are veterans. Somehow
the money always runs out when it comes time really to support the
troops.

There have been only lies and immorality in the drive to war. Sure,
Hussein is a bad guy but it really isn't about him. It's about what
the U.S. stands for. Bush and all his apologists must be called to
account, including Rice and Powell. In the African-American community,
the two should be granted the same pariah status as Clarence Thomas:
Rice as the "devil's handmaiden" and Powell as a company man. At this
point Rice is just a mouthpiece, but many portray Powell as a man of
principle. Remember the Powell Doctrine? It states that the U.S.
should only go to war after addressing the following concerns:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?

By Powell's standard, war on Iraq is without foundation. His doctrine
has been replaced with the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which claims America's
right to war by virtue of its superpower status and the rest be
damned. Yet Powell has gone along with it.

The Bush Administration is using 9/11 as an excuse to terrorize and
brow beat the world while simultaneously stripping away our rights
here at home. Under Bush, the government has instituted a foreign and
domestic policy of revenge, pre-emptive killing, support of political
assassination and torture and the creation of a class of individuals,
groups and countries with absolutely no human, legal and civil rights.
Once labeled a terrorist an individual, group or country has no rights
that anyone is bound to respect. Sound familiar?

The terrorist label has been extended from those that fly planes into
buildings to those who sell and buy weed on the street to those who
oppose the Bush plan for world domination. While the faces on the
anti-drug television ads that tie the drug trade to terrorism are
white, the faces that go to jail are black. The war on drugs has
already stripped countless black Americans of their rights, once
branded terrorists ­ they will be reduced to below nothing status.

While opinion polls show only 19.2 percent African Americans
supporting Bush's war aims, black people have not attended anti-war
rallies in huge numbers. Blacks don't have any special obligation or
greater urgency to oppose this war than whites, although we have a
greater, far more bitter familiarity with the way lives are unequally
valued. African Americans, because of our history, understand white
supremacy and privilege. And those of us who understand the difference
between movement and opposition know that confronting these demons by
creating a peace alternative is the movement that must be built.

African Americans must also be mindful that well over 30 percent of
those U.S. Army troops sent to fight Bush's war are black. And while
Bush gives lip service to diversity, he attacks affirmative action. He
condemns Trent Lott one day and places wreaths on Confederate
soldiers' tombs the next. While he takes the country down an economic
spiral, which affects blacks disproportionately, he is willing to run
huge deficits to wage an illegal and immoral war. Bush may hoist
Powell and Rice as the new black leader archetypes, but they are not
acting in the best interests of black Americans, or any Americans for
that matter.

Maybe things will go well, the smart bombs will hit only military
targets, and U.S. soldiers will make short work of the war. But what
about the peace? Even if the war is a success by its authors'
standards, the question of winning the peace in a pursuit that is so
very wrong from the beginning is hard to fathom. What this moment in
history does, in a sense, is sharpen what should have been the task
for the black movement, the labor movement, the progressive movement,
all along. Martin Luther King defined the real "axis of evil" 36 years
ago. He warned, "that the problem of racism, the problem of economic
exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are
the triple evils that are interrelated." As for America, King said, "A
nation that will exploit economically will have foreign investments
and everything else, and will have to use its military to protect
them. All of these problems are tied together."

Those "triple evils" of racism, economic inequality and militarism
King talked about didn't just come together during the Vietnam era and
are now coming together again. They where together from the beginning,
one feeding the other in a relentless loop. Some say that under Bill
Clinton we had "peace and prosperity", but the number of poor people
stayed about constant with what it was 30 years ago, and more bombs
were dropped on Iraq ton-for-ton during his administration than during
the entire Vietnam War.

There's always a war somewhere; there's always a military system
sucking the life out of societies at home and abroad, just as there's
always racism and economic inequality. War makes all of those things
worse. But the reason to oppose it, other than to save the lives of
innocents, is the same as the reason to struggle in this world at all:
because the present set-up is not serving the people, is not serving
humanity, is not just or equitable or enlivening. It's a death trip.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds more radical every
day.

In wartime we must not lay down and be quiet for the sake of "unity."
We must take to the streets, to the steps of Congress and the White
House. Locally, we must go to those government institutions that feed
the war machine to make the peace presence known, our voices heard and
our demands met. We must support any international call for sanctions
against this government. And we must call for a full investigation,
debate, or whatever you want to call it, on how George Bush made
America an international outlaw nation. We must resist the impulse and
drive to try to control the world.

Let us remember as Dr. King said, "There is a creative force in this
universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power
that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays
into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is
long but it bends toward justice. Let us realize that William Cullen
Bryant is right: Truth crushed to earth will rise again. Let us go out
realizing that the Bible is right: Be not deceived, God is not mocked.
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Thanks to JoAnn Wypijewski for her constant help and Matthew
Rothschild of The Progressive Magazine for his earlier case against
war.

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

U.S. Marine General Blew the Whistle on Our Military being used as
Hit-Man Goons for Corporations back in 1935

Major General Smedly D. Butler headed the Marine Corps for
many years when he wrote this article in Common Sense in the
November,1935 issue:

"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military
gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men" (to point out enemies),
its "muscle men" (to destroy enemies), its "brain guys" (to plan
war preparations), and a "Big Boss" (supernationalistic capitalism).

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a
comparison. Truthfulness compels me to do so. I spent 33 years
and four months in active military service as a memeber of our
country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served
in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General.
And
during that period I spent more of my time being a high-class muscle
man for
Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for captialism.

"I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure
of
it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an
original
thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in
suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is
typical with
everyone in the military service.

Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and CUba a decent place for
the
National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the
raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall
Street. The
record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought
light
to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In
China
in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way
unmolested.

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a
swell
racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking
back on
it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he
could do
was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on
three
continents."

=====

Charles Lindberg, excerpted from Of Flight and Life, 1948:

Our survival, the future of our civilization, possibly the existence
of mankind, depend on American leadership -- upon the wisdom of our
policies and action. On the one hand, we know that peace has never
existed for long where some great power has not enforced it by
military strength. On the other, we have seen that military strength
is like a flame which consumes the very stuf from which it springs.
Great military peoples have conquered their known world time and time
again through the centuries, only to die out in the inevitable ashes
of their fire. Well over two thousand years ago, the Chinese
philospher, Laotzu, concluded that:

"Weapons often turn upon the wielder,
An army's harvest is a waste of thorns."

We may have to resort to arms in the future, as we have in the past.
We may have to use them to prevent atomic war from being launched
against us. But let us have the wisdom to realize that the use of
force is a sign of weakness on a higher plane, and that a policy based
primarily on recourse to arms will sooner or later fail.

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

"Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution
requires."

War Means Rights May Be Scaled Back
By Associated Press
March 18, 2003, 10:46 PM EST

UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, Ohio -- The government has room to scale back
individual rights during
wartime without violating the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia said Tuesday.

"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at
John Carroll University in suburban
Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the
Constitution requires."

Scalia, one of the court's most conservative judges, was responding to
a question about the Justice
Department's pursuit of terrorism suspects and whether their rights
are being violated.

Scalia did not discuss what rights he believed are constitutionally
protected, but said that in wartime,
one can expect "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the
constitutional minimum. I won't let it
go beyond the constitutional minimum."

Scalia was interrupted once briefly by a protester who shouted an
anti-war statement. The protester
was taken from the room by security officers but was not arrested.

Scalia stopped speaking during the scuffle, then joked that the
protest probably was more interesting
than his topic, which was the constitutional protection of religions.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-scalia-rights,0,4037278.story
--

[Everyman]

Rush these news urls and articles downstream -- we must stay ahead of
the disinfo teams of the gloablists.

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

Dozens and Dozens of UK Anti-War Groups on the Net

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/groups.asp

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

http://news.com.com/1200-1028-993540.html
WASHINGTON--Israel's top government censor has warned Web sites in her
country not to publish sensitive information about the war with Iraq.

Chief Censor Rachel Dolev sent a letter on Wednesday to "scoop" news
sites, instructing editors to seek government permission before
publishing information about "materials that could pose a threat to
the security of the State of Israel and its residents."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/03/is031903.html?tag=nl

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

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War

Off the What's New on Corpwatch, Holding Corporations Accountable,
E-list.
Received from list member Leigh Tremaine - March 20
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
To subscribe - corp-w...@lists.corpwatch.org

--
As the first bombs rain down on Baghdad, CorpWatch has learned that
thousands of employees of Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's
former company, are working alongside United States troops in Kuwait
and Turkey under a package deal worth close to a billion dollars.
According to US Army sources, they are building tent cities and
providing logistical support for the war in Iraq in addition to other
hot spots in the "war on terrorism."
===============

Nuclear Bunker Busters:
The Medical Consequences
International Physicians Warn Use of Nuclear Bunker Busters in Iraq
Could Result in Thousands of Radiation Victims
http://www.ippnw.org/NukeEPWs.html
The full report (PDF)
http://www.ippnw.org/IPPNWEPWReport.pdf

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has
released an important new study on the medical consequences of the use
of nuclear earth-penetrating weapons (EPWs), also known as bunker
busters. ...

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

THE PERFECT STORM - Part I by Michael C. Ruppert
Part I of a Special Two-Part FTW Series -

March 19, 2003 - Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications,
www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or
posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only. -

--

1700 PST, (FTW) - Diplomacy ended on Monday and the reality and risks
of a global war are now placed in the immediate and unavoidable focus
of a world which has for the most part chosen not to understand what
is at stake. This war will not be fought solely with bullets and
bombs. The chain of events which is about to be set in motion dictates
that the United States, assuming its Iraqi conquest is successful,
continue upon a series of global military occupations to control the
last remaining significant oil reserves on the planet. With the
shedding of the first blood, the dropping of the first bomb, the
killing of the first Iraqi child, and the death of the first American
serviceman, a one-way border will have been crossed. And with that
crossing economic and political forces that might combine to form the
Perfect Storm aimed at America have made themselves visible. ....

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

When oil fields become battlefields
If Saddam repeats his Gulf War strategy of torching oil wells, he
could set
off one of the worst environmental disasters in history.
By Farhad Manjoo
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/20/oilwells/

March 20, 2003 | In the early hours of the U.S. attack on Iraq,
there were several unconfirmed news reports of oil wells burning near
Basra, the oil-rich southern city not far from Iraq's border with
Kuwait. If accurate, the reports would be the first evidence that
Saddam Hussein plans to repeat the scorched-earth strategy of
oil-field destruction that he used in Kuwait in 1991 -- a strategy
that could result, analysts say, in one of the worst environmental
disasters in history. .......

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

Comment
Thank God for the death of the UN
Its Abject Failure gave us only Anarchy. The World needs Order

By Richard Pearle

Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.html

[Pearle writes:} "Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He
will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the
UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will
survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the
chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the
fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift
the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to
understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety
through international law administered by international institutions.
..."

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

March 21, 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-618821,00.html
Up to 30 Iraqi oil wells set on fire, Hoon says

As many as 30 oil wells in Iraq have been deliberately set on fire by
Iraqi forces in the south of the country, Geoff Hoon said today. The
Defence Secretary is due to make statement to the House of Commons at
11am GMT.

"The latest estimate I received before I left the Ministry of Defence
this morning was that perhaps as many as 30 oil wells had been set on
fire deliberately," Mr Hoon said speaking on the BBC's Breakfast
programme. ...

==========

{ The Aggressor strategy for the US soldiers on the ground ccompanied
with whore newsmen is twofold:

1. distract with minutiae -- the drama of little lives -- watching
trucks with men "scouting" and "looking for enemy" -- when this is a
fraud, a hoax -- all that is done by satellite, by high-tech
electronics in the air -- to distract from the high-tech murder
(shooting kittens in a barrel -- only they are innocent people whose
country has just been invaded by you) --

2. THEN THEY WILL SHOW SOME OF THESE CHILDREN OF OURS THAT WE HAVE
BEEN FOLLOWING AND GETTING ATTACHED TO AND IDENTIFYING WITH -- THEY
WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET KILLED BEFORE LIVE AUDIENCES -- IN ORDER
TO ARROUSE HATRED OF IRAQ AMONG THE IGNORANT AND UNSUSPECTING. THEY
WILL GUIDE THEM INTO KNOWN TRAPS OR THEY WILL STRIKE THEM WITH
US-BRITISH WEAPONS AND BLAME IT ON IRAQI FIRE -- THAT IS HOW A
PROPAGANDA WAR IS WON -- AS THE ADMINISTRATION WELL KNOWS, IN THIS
AGE "WARS ARE WON OR LOST ON THE TELEVISION SCREENS"

-- Dick Eastman

======================
Don't idealise the soldiers fighting this unjust war
By Natasha Walter
20 March 2003
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/natasha_walter/story.js
p?story=388823

Tony Blair has entered a plea yesterday for the country to stop
bickering and to unite behind our armed forces. And members of
Parliament have responded, with even the most vigorous rebels,
including Charles Kennedy and Robin Cook, pledging their support for
the troops.

As we were shown those moving images of individual British soldiers
biting their pens as they wrote what might be their last letters home,
or burning love-letters so that they are carrying no identification
with them, dissent from all sides became muted. With the fresh faces
of young soldiers appearing on the front pages of newspapers, the
number of people prepared to tell pollsters that they are against the
war has begun to fall. The sense
that it might be traitorous not to support British soldiers who are
facing death may also bring down the number of people who are prepared
to protest physically on the streets.

Even commentators who were once virulently against the war are now
eager to tell us how much they sympathise with our courageous
soldiers. Their innocence and vulnerability is constantly emphasised.
One "beardless boy who tears at the heartstrings" appeared in an
article by a commentator who had previously protested against the war.
"He can have no idea whether the cause is just or not, poor lad, but I
dashed away a maternal tear at the thought of him not letting me
down," she said. And journalist after journalist

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

US is criticized for its plans to use land mines with timers
By Ross Kerber, Globe Staff, 3/20/2003
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/079/nation/US_is_criticized_for_its_plans_
to_use_land_mines_with_timers+.shtml

To deny Iraqi forces access to sites containing chemical or biological
weapons, US military commanders have plans under certain scenarios to
drop small land mines from warplanes around enemy weapons sites,
preventing Iraqis from taking away or using dangerous arms.

Leftover land mines take a huge toll on civilians, 800 deaths per
month worldwide, according to the United Nations Children's Fund.

To minimize civilian casualties during and after an assault, US
military doctrine calls for almost all mines to include timers that
cause them to self-destruct after a preset period.

The mines also include deactivation features, so they will eventually
disarm themselves, even if the timers fail. A newer generation of
computer-controlled land mines meant to further reduce civilian
casualties won't be ready in time for an invasion of Iraq. .......

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

Bubbles of fire tore into the sky above Baghdad
Robert Fisk in Baghdad
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=389208
21 March 2003

It was like a door slamming deep beneath the surface of the earth; a
pulsating, minute-long roar of sound that brought President George
Bush's supposed crusade against "terrorism" to Baghdad last night.

There was a thrashing of tracer on the horizon from the Baghdad air
defences - the Second World War-era firepower of old Soviet
anti-aircraft guns - and then a series of tremendous vibrations that
had the ground shaking under our feet. Bubbles of fire tore into the
sky around the Iraqi capital, dark red at the base, golden at the top.

Saddam Hussein, of course, has vowed to fight to the end but in
Baghdad last night, there was a truly Valhalla quality about the
violence. Within minutes, looking out across the Tigris river I could
see pin-pricks of fire as bombs and cruise missiles exploded on to
Iraq's military and communications centres and, no doubt, upon the
innocent as well.

The first of the latter, a taxi driver, was blown to pieces in the
first American raid on Baghdad yesterday morning. No one here doubted
that the dead would include civilians. Tony Blair said just that in
the Commons debate this week but I wondered, listening to this storm
of fire across Baghdad last night, if he has any conception of what it
looks like, what it feels like, or of the fear of those innocent
Iraqis who are, as I write this, cowering in their homes and
basements.

Not many hours ago, I talked to an old Shia Muslim lady in a poor area
of Baghdad. She was dressed in traditional black with a white veil
over her head. I pressed her over and over again as to what she felt.
In the end, she just said: "I am afraid."

That this is the start of something that will change the face of the
Middle East is in little doubt; that it will be successful in the long
term is quite another matter.

The sheer violence of it, the howl of air raid sirens and the
air-cutting fall of the missiles carried its own political message;
not just to President Saddam but to the rest of the world. We are the
super-power, those explosions said last night. This is how we do
business. This is how we take our revenge for 11 September.

Not even George Bush made any pretence in the last days of peace to
link Iraq with those international crimes against humanity in New
York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But some of the fire that you could
see bubbling up through the darkness around Baghdad last night did
remind me of other flames, those which consumed the World Trade
Centre. In a strange way, the Americans were - without the permission
of the United Nations, with most of the world against them - acting
out their rage with an eerily fiery consummation.

Iraq cannot withstand this for long. President Saddam may claim, as he
does, that his soldiers can defeat technology with courage. I doubt
it. For what fell upon Iraq last night - and I witnessed just an
infinitely small part of this festival of violence - was as militarily
awesome as it was politically terrifying. The crowds outside my hotel
stood and stared into the sky at the flashing anti-aircraft bursts,
awed by their power.

Š 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

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

HOW COMMUNISTS SUBVERTED AMERICA
WALL STREET'S UTOPIAN HOAX
By: Henry Makow

http://www.etherzone.com/
www.savethemales.com

Bella Dodd was a leader of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in
the 1930' s and 1940's. Her book,
"School of Darkness" (1954) reveals that Communism was a hoax
perpetrated by financiers "to
control the common man" and to advance world tyranny. Naturally this
important book is out-of-print and not in any used bookstores. (I
found it through interlibrary loan.) Bella Dodd was born Maria Asunta
Isabella Visono in Italy about 1904. A brilliant and dedicated woman,
she graduated from Hunter College and NYU Law School. She became head
of the New York State Teachers Union and was a member of the CPUSA's
National Council until 1949.

Dodd describes Communism as "a strange secret cult" whose goal is the
destruction of Western (i.e.
Christian) Civilization. Millions of naďve idealists ("innocents") are
tricked by its talk of helping the poor, but it cares only for power.
For example, Dodd found there was no social research at party
headquarters. "We are a revolutionary party, not a reform party," she
was told. (163)

CREATING "HUMAN BEINGS THAT WOULD CONFORM"

The Communist Party operates by infiltrating and subverting social
institutions like the churches,
schools, mass media and government. Its aim was "to create new types
of human beings who would conform to the blueprint of the world they
confidently expected to control." (162) For example, Dodd reveals
that the CPUSA had 1100 members become Catholic priests in the 1930's.
It also subverted the American education system by taking over the
teacher's unions and learned societies. Only people who accepted the
"materialistic, collectivistic international class struggle approach"
advanced. (98)

Involving women in the war effort fitted the long-range program: "The
party did all it could to
induce women to go into industry. Its fashion designers created
special styles for them and its
songwriters wrote special songs to spur them.... War-period
conditions, they planned, were to become a permanent part of the
future educational program. The bourgeois family as a social unit was
to be made obsolete."
(153)

There was to be no family but the party and the state. Dodd helped
organize the Congress of American Women, a forerunner of the feminist
movement."Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted
many women. But it was really only a renewed offensive to control
American women... Like youth and minority groups, they are regarded as
a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved
by emotional appeals."
(194-195)

SUBVERSION OF U.S. COMPLETED IN THE 1930's

When FDR recognized Russia in 1933, he deliberately turned a blind eye
to the CPUSA's massive program of espionage and subversion. Liberals
denied that this took place and complained about a "witch hunt." Guess
what? The "loony right" was correct. A new book (The Secret World of
American Communism, based on newly opened Kremlin archives, confirms
that CPUSA was a puppet of Moscow and the Roosevelt and Truman
administrations were practically run by Soviet agents, Alger Hiss,
Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White to name a few.

The war years saw the CPUSA actually renounce the class struggle and
join the so-called "Roosevelt camp
of progress" which included "progressive capitalists."

"The Communist Party now assumed the responsibility of establishing a
rigid discipline over the working
class. No employer was more effective or more relentless in checking
strikes among the workers, or
minimizing complaints...while wages rose a little during those years,
they did not compare with the rise in profits and in monopoly control
of basic necessities ...war production was chiefly in the hands of ten
large corporations...the Communists carefully muted such information."
(153)

The war years saw amazing coordination between the Communist Party and
America's financial elite. The elite financed a sophisticated
propaganda agency called the Russian Institute located on Park Ave.
across 68th Street from Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations.
Here "famous names like Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney and Morgan mingled
with those of Communist leaders. "(153)

At Roosevelt's insistence, Stalin "dissolved" the Comintern in order
to make the CPUSA look like an
American party. The CPUSA leader Earl Browder achieved national
prominence and consulted with senior Roosevelt cabinet ministers.

The joint US-Russian war effort was to be the basis of the new world
order. But, inexplicably, the policy changed and Browder instantly
became a non-person. Apparently the financial elite had decided the
time
wasn't right for world government. A cold war would be much more
lucrative. Dodd was told that in
the future, the party would often find itself opposed not only to the
government, but also to U.S. workers.

"I now saw that with the best motives and a desire to serve the
working people... I and thousands like me,
had been led to a betrayal of these very people.... I had been on the
side of those who sought the destruction of my own country." (229)

Like frightened mice, the CPUSA membership scurried to adopt the new
party line. Dodd tried to quit but was told: "No one gets out of the
party. You die or you
are thrown out." (197)
Eventually Dodd was expelled and smeared as "anti-Negro, anti-Puerto
Rican, anti-Semitic,
anti-labor and a defender of the landlord." (220). Sound familiar?
After more than 20 year of tireless sacrifice, she was without family
or friends. The party had been her family. Its "hates had become my
hates."

"This is the key to the mental enslavement of mankind. The individual
is made into nothing ... he operates as the physical part of [a]
higher group intelligence... he has no awareness of the plans the
higher group intelligence has for utilizing him." (158)

"A SECRET WELL-ORGANIZED WORLD POWER"

Bella Dodd was circumspect about the people behind the Communist
Party. She once was told to phone two
multi-millionaires who live in the Waldorf Towers if she lost contact
with Moscow. Elsewhere, she refers to "a secret well organized world
power." She is obviously afraid to be candid. She suspects that one
CPUSA leader's "suicide" was in fact murder. (172) But she does drop a
possible clue. She says that each of the nine floors of the
party-owned headquarters at 35 E. 12th St. was devoted to CPUSA
business. The Sixth Floor held "the publication offices of the Yiddish
newspaper, the Freiheit, and the "Jewish Commission." (162) Indeed
Jews were prominent among Communist dupes.

"What now became clear to me was the collusion of these two forces:
the Communists with their timetable for world control, and certain
mercenary forces in the free world bent on making profits from blood."
(229) As "one piece of the puzzle that finally became a picture,"
Dodd tells the story of the ship "Erica Reed" typical of "hundreds of
other stories." During the Spanish Civil War, Americans donated money
to load the ship with medical supplies and food for Spain. The
Communists diverted the ship to Russia instead. (89)

Censorship is crucial to Communists, Dodd says. "I have often seen
leaders pull books from shelves in homes and warn members to destroy
them."(223) Communism is essentially a deceitful system of
international elite control.

It was not suppressed during the McCarthy era. Rather it morphed into
the New Left, Counter Culture, Civil
Rights, Anti War and Woman's Liberation Movements, and later into a
plethora of elite-sponsored NGO's, and media, Democratic and
Republican party factions, Liberal, Zionist, Labor, and Gay Rights
groups. Like the CPUSA itself, these groups are controlled from the
top so their memberships are unaware of being used.

To the objection that some of the above mentioned groups oppose
globalization, Dodd refers to examples where the CPUSA ostensibly
supported causes they wished to sabotage. (205)

In conclusion, Communism was/is a plot designed to substitute a cabal
of the rich for the rule of God. It is a utopian fraud hatched by the
rich to thwart the dreams of ordinary people and stunt human progress.
The same cabal is behind most wars including the impending attack on
Iraq.

A precursor to the new world order, Communism espouses brotherhood,
peace and equality in order to deceive us. It has taken over society's
eyes, ears, mind and spirit. Much of what passes for truth in the
media and schools is part of this monstrous con job. The expression
"politically correct" in widespread use in America is an old Communist
Party term. Our politicians are mostly traitors.

Feminism is Communist both in origin and spirit. It pretends to
champion women but in fact neuters both
sexes and destroys the basic social unit, the family. The promotion
of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" for heterosexuals is also
part of this brazen elitist fraud designed to "create new types of
human beings who would conform..."

Western Civilization is like a ship floundering in a sea of evil, yet
the passengers are too duped and distracted to realize it. Bella Dodd
had the courage to sound the alarm 50 years ago. It is never too late
to begin to resist tyranny.

There are no lifeboats.
==========================

Bush had Iraq in his sights before he became President
By Mary Dejevsky
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=389193
21 March 2003

How the American administration moved, after 11 September 2001, from
its pledge to hunt down Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" to launching
all-out war on Iraq is one of the imponderables of international
diplomacy. According to new inside accounts, the rout of the Taliban
in Afghanistan was less a prelude to war on Iraq than a temporary
distraction from it.

George Bush arrived in the White House with Iraq already in his
sights. The United States Congress had set "regime change" in Iraq as
an objective, but Mr Clinton had neither the desire nor the
opportunity to act on it. He spent the last months of his presidency
vainly trying to bring peace to the Middle East.

Mr Bush, who came to office with an "ABC" policy ("anything but
Clinton"), wanted as little as possible to do with the Middle East,
which he saw as intractable. But Iraq became a preoccupation. The
attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon confirmed his view
that the greatest threat was where terrorists and a "rogue" regime
came together. Iraq was back in the
frame.

When Tony Blair visited Washington days after 11 September, he found
Mr Bush determined to strike not only al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan, but
Iraq as well. Mr Bush was persuaded that Afghanistan should be tackled
first and only then should planning turn to Iraq. Consequently, after
the Taliban were overthrown, Mr Bush's attention swung back to Iraq.

The White House was divided over the wisdom of seeking international
support for this venture, but by August 2002 Mr Bush had decided to
take the United Nations route on Iraq. The one remaining question was
whether he should call formally for a UN resolution that authorised
the eventual use of force - and
then whether there should be just one resolution or two. Only 24 hours
before Mr Bush addressed the UN General Assembly, British officials
were confident that their argument - for a single UN resolution - had
prevailed.

Mr Bush makes his decisions, apparently, rather like a diner
contemplating a sushi restaurant conveyor belt. He watches as the
options are paraded before him, then grabs one that matches his view,
and another, and perhaps another, even if they are not necessarily
compatible. The 28th draft of his speech was what Mr Bush delivered at
the UN on 12 September 2002. The crucial sentence relating to the
resolution, though, was missing from his autocue. Knowing it should
be there, he improvised, with one crucial error. He called for "UN
resolutions", in the plural.

What seemed a tiny distinction took on huge importance in talks over
the resolution that became 1441. France and Russia insisted on two
resolutions - one to get weapons inspectors into Iraq; the second to
authorise military action, if necessary. That same dispute,
essentially, is what finally scuppered UN diplomacy.

British diplomats felt they understood Mr Bush and enjoyed his trust.
And, in fact, most of the post-Clinton relationships have worked well,
except for one of the most crucial, that between Britain's urbane
Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, and the swashbuckling Pentagon chief,
Donald Rumsfeld.

Their non-comprehension was finally buried on a flight between
Washington and Brussels. The secret of dealing with Mr Rumsfeld, one
insider said, was
not to allow yourself to be intimidated, to get straight to the point.
But understanding between the two is still not perfect, as was shown
by the public difference last week over whether British troops would
go into battle without UN or British public support.

The Washington War Cabinet

President Bush's inner circle of war advisers includes key members of
his foreign policy team who worked on the invasion of Afghanistan.

They are Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence
Secretary, Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice,
the National Security Adviser.

His military and security service advisers, including General Tommy
Franks, the Central Command chief, and George Tenet, the CIA director,
are also permanent members of the War Cabinet.

Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, and Ari Fleischer, the
White
House press secretary, provide a close link between the cabinet and
the media. Yesterday President Bush met his war council to receive
briefings on results on the strike against Iraqi leaders.

On Wednesday afternoon, Mr Tenet told the Cabinet that US intelligence
had a probable fix on the residence where Saddam Hussein and other
Iraqi leaders would be sleeping in the early-morning hours in Baghdad.

Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September President Bush has had
regular early-morning "home security" and intelligence briefings
Robert Mueller, from the FBI director, and Mr Tenet.

The Bush War Cabinet meets at least once day at the White House and
keeps in regular contact with the Blair Cabinet in London.

Š 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

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

According to the White House this action is anything but war
By Tony Stephens
March 21 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749879550.html

If truth is the first casualty of war and God the first conscript,
language is one of the first weapons.

Once upon a time, when "war" referred to nations clashing head on, one
nation declared war on the other.

That has all changed. There was no such declaration yesterday. "The

opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime have begun,"

said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

President George Bush said allied forces had begun the "early stages
of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to
defend the world from grave danger".

Bush said the dawn attack on Baghdad was designed to strike "selected
targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability
to wage war". He did not say that the United States itself was waging
war. And this conflict is not a war in the old sense of a head-on
clash between nations.
It is an invasion.

The United States has not formally declared war since World War II,
although it has invaded or bombed 18 countries in that time and its
leaders have spoken of this invasion as part of the war on terror.

This invasion is called Operation Iraqi Freedom and it began with the
President's order to blitz "targets of military opportunity", a phrase
widely interpreted as meaning a direct attack on Saddam Hussein and
his family.

The air attack was called a "decapitation". US spokesman Marine
Colonel Chris Hughes said: "These strikes are being characterised as a
decapitation targeted at command and control nodes. If successful, it
will radically change the way we do things."

However, a Pentagon official said reports that the initial strikes
were aimed at "decapitation" of the regime were exaggerated. Another
Pentagon official, referring to the slogan for the start of the air
war, said of yesterday's attack: "It is a limited thing. It ain't
A-Day."

Bush concluded: "We will pass through this time of peril and carry on
the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom
to others. And we will prevail. May God bless our country and all who
defend her."

Many people will wonder how God could bear to watch what's happening
and listen to the words being uttered.

Some will recall the words of Reinhold Niebuhr, the American
theologian: "The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan
values and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism."

Copyright Š 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald.

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

September 11 group condemns Iraq war
Thursday, March 20, 2003 Posted: 1848 GMT ( 2:48 AM HKT)
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/20/sprj.irq.911.reaction/

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A group representing family members of victims of
the September 11 terrorist attacks Thursday condemned the U.S. strikes
against
Iraq.

Quoting late civil rights leader The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,
the group -- called the "September 11th Families for Peaceful
Tomorrows" -- described the attacks as "illegal, immoral, and
unjustified" in a statement
sent to the media and families of September 11 victims.

The group said it was speaking out because members know how it feels
to experience "shock and awe," and it does not want "other innocent
families to suffer the trauma and grief that we have endured."

The United States has promised its punishing early airstrikes on
Baghdad will instill "shock and awe," a war plan with roots in a new
doctrine called "rapid dominance," introduced in the military theory
book "Shock and Awe" and embraced by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld.

The group also condemned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime, and
expressed support and concern for American troops.

But it said the resulting civilian deaths of a war on Iraq and the
consequences of destroying Iraq's environment and infrastructure could
lead to many deaths in the future.

The group's members have traveled to Kabul, Afghanistan; Hiroshima,
Japan; and Baghdad to express their opposition to military aggression
as a response to terrorism.

Others disagreed with the group.

"I think it's very important that you support our troops even if you
don't support the war," said Jill Pall, who founded Adam's Angels in
memory of Adam Rand, a friend who died on September 11.

"Contrary to popular opinion, Saddam Hussein has not had three months
to disarm, he has had 10 years and that's important for the public to
know," Pall said. "We aren't rushing into this. If we don't act now to
get these weapons away from him, we are going to suffer."

Bruce DeCell, a member of the 9-11 Family Coalition, said: "I want the
soldiers over there to know that I support them because they're in
harm's
way. But I really think that instead of sending them all there, he
(President Bush) should strengthen our borders and worry about our
airports and homeland security. He should be spending the money he's
spending in the Middle East on our country."

DeCell's son-in-law died in the September 11 attack while working at
the
World Trade Center.

Š 2003 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.

========================
Operation Inflate the Coalition
During the last Gulf War, 32 nations sent troops to support the U.S.
This
time around, 3 nations did. So how is Donald Rumsfeld claiming
Operation
Iraqi Freedom is larger than the '91 coalition?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/21/willing/index_np.html
By Jake Tapper

March 21, 2003 | President Bush's critics are constantly slamming
his "unilateral war against Iraq," as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean,
a Democratic presidential candidate, constantly puts it. So it must
have been a shock to hear the president say Wednesday night that "more
than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval
and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the
deployment of combat units." The White House calls this group the
"Coalition of the Willing."

Some critics have questioned how much of a coalition this is, given
that only three countries -- the U.S., U.K., and Australia -- have
actually sent soldiers. Asked about this apparent weakness in the
"coalition," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Tuesday said
that the White House has "all along said, in terms of actual active
combat, there will be very, very few countries."

Since that admission, the White House has gone on an offensive to
prove how multilateral this coalition is. It's No. 1 in the
administration's talking points. But they may have gone too far. On
Thursday, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that
the coalition behind Operation Iraqi Freedom is even bigger than the
one behind Operation Desert Storm, even some military leaders and
veterans of Republican administrations disagreed. Meanwhile, some
countries the U.S. counts as among the "willing" are continuing to
criticize the U.S. military moves against Iraq, raising questions
about how willing they really are.

Operation Inflate the Coalition began on Tuesday, when Secretary of
State Colin Powell said that the Coalition of the Willing "includes
some 30 nations who have publicly said they could be included in such
a listing" as well as "15 other nations, who, for one reason or
another do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the
coalition."

The 30 original countries in the Coalition of the Willing, as listed
on the State Department Web site, include Afghanistan, Albania,
Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El
Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan
(post conflict), Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua,
Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey,
the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

On Thursday Rumsfeld escalated the rhetoric. The defense secretary
said that the Operation Iraq Freedom coalition is "large and growing"
and "not unilateral action as is being characterized in the media."

"Indeed, the coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition
that existed during the Gulf War in 1991," Rumsfeld said.

Many countries have committed combat and combat support forces,
Rumsfeld said, while others are contributing other things -- "access,
basing, refueling, force protection, intelligence sharing, and the use
of airspace. Still others have pledged to participate in stability
operations and post-Saddam reconstruction efforts."

Throughout the Pentagon, eyes no doubt rolled.

"I think it's a little disingenuous to compare the number of countries
willing to send soldiers into battle in 1991 with the number of
countries who are willing to put their names on a list in 2003," a
retired senior
military officer who served in Operation Desert Storm told Salon,
declining to be named. Some 32 countries provided troops in 1991,
compared with three this time around.

On Thursday, Fleischer, as is his wont, offered some intriguingly
applied numbers to back the argument that the multilateralism of
Operation Iraqi Freedom is much like the multilateralism of the
previous Gulf War.

Recalling nothing so much as his Florida recount-era claim that "Palm
Beach County is a Pat Buchanan stronghold," a claim that Buchanan and
all his campaign staffers laughed at, Fleischer engaged in a some
crafty comparative mathematics. The percentage of the total military
force that the U.S. provided in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, where the
international coalition was much heralded, was in the mid-70s. "This a
little higher but not much higher," Fleischer said. "It's comparable:
in the mid-80s. The numbers are not all that far off from where they
were before."

That claim was met with some skepticism. "I find that hard to
believe," Lawrence J. Korb -- a former assistant secretary of defense
in the Reagan administration and now director of national security
studies for the Council on Foreign Relations -- told Salon. "In terms
of combat capability it's not even close."

In the 1991 Gulf War, Korb says, "take a look at what the Middle East
countries provided not only in terms of troops but planes and fighter
aircraft." Countries in the region "provided 295,000 troops the last
time."

Of course, the buildup to the first Gulf War was very different. In
November 1990, the U.S. won its war resolution against Iraq by a U.N.
Security Council vote of 12-to-2, with China abstaining. Iraq was
given a six-week deadline, which it failed to meet, after which the
world united and ousted Iraq from Kuwait. In "A World Transformed,"
the former President Bush attributed this all to "a lot of very
effective diplomacy by the whole
team -- particularly [former Secretary of State James] Baker and Tom
Pickering," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

In an interview with NPR, Pickering recently said that the current
coalition was so small because the current Bush team "began the effort
saying we really didn't need anybody else's help, and I think that
that became the self-fulfilling prophecy, almost as if we didn't want
anybody else's help, and that's certainly where we have ended up.

"They played the unilateral card too hot, too heavy, too fast and too
early," Pickering said, "and then shifted to having a multilateral
strategy." Even after that, he said, the current Bush administration
"continued to do a unilateral shtick on the issue at every occasion
that it
found possible to do so."

The first Gulf War began with the United States, Britain, France, and
Saudi Arabia launching intensive air strikes against Iraq. The United
States had 425,000 troops; Britain 35,000; Saudi Arabia had 20,000
troops; France sent 9,800 troops; Canada 1,700; Morocco sent 2,000
troops; Egypt pledged 35,000
troops; Pakistan had 8,000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates; Syria had 20,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and 50,000
troops on its border with Iraq; Turkey deployed 100,000 of its own
troops along the Turkish border; Bangladesh sent 6,000 troops; Niger
and Senegal sent 500 men apiece; Honduras 150 troops; and Argentina
sent 450 soldiers in a transport boat. Myriad other countries sent
backup support, ships, and planes.

"The world has answered Saddam's invasion with 12 United Nations
resolutions, starting with a demand for Iraq's immediate and
unconditional withdrawal, and backed up by forces from 28 countries of
six continents," President George H.W. Bush said in his January 1991
State of the Union address. "With few exceptions, the world now stands
as one."

In the current conflict, conversely, the United States has
approximately 300,000 troops in the Gulf, Britain has pledged 45,000
soldiers and Australia has sent 2,000 of its elite SAS troops. As for
the other
countries, it's a rather odd hodgepodge of coalition efforts,
including the sending of chemical and biological warfare
decontamination personnel and allowing U.S. planes to fly through
their airspace without trying to shoot them down.

The robust multilateralism of the first Gulf War was significant not
only because of manpower, Korb says, but "because it didn't look like
it was the United States against an Arab country, it was the
international community against Iraq. But this time we don't have any
Arab countries with us."

This may be why the concept of this war as a multilateral task is so
important to the White House. The Coalition of the Willing, Rumsfeld
said Thursday, "includes countries from every part of the world,
including a large number of Muslim-majority countries. Some are
supporting the effort publicly; others are doing so privately. This is
not a war against a people or a country," he said. "It is most
certainly not a war against a religion. It is a war against a
regime."..............

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

Third veteran US diplomat quits over Iraq war
Thursday, 20-Mar-2003 9:20AM - Story from AFP
Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)
http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/aa/Qiraq-war-us-diplomat.R6d2_DMK.html

WASHINGTON, March 20 (AFP) - Another veteran US diplomat has resigned
from the State Department in protest over President George W. Bush's
policy toward Iraq, becoming the third and the highest-ranking career
foreign service officer to do so since last month, officials said
Thursday.

Mary Wright, the number two at the US embassy in Ulan Bator, Mongolia,
told Secretary of State Colin Powell she was resigning because she
could no longer perform her job in good conscience, the officials
said.

"She was a good officer and very well respected," said one official.
"We'll miss her."

In a letter to Powell, Wright, who joined the State Department 15
years ago after a 26-year stint in the army and army reserves, also
said she disagreed with Bush's Mideast policy, his approach to North
Korea and could not support the domestic consequences of the war on
terrorism.

"I believe the administration's policies are making the world a more
dangerous, not a safer place," she said in the March 19 letter that
arrived in Washington just hours before the war with Iraq began.

The United States had squandered its international reputation and
alienated many of its friends and allies, Wright said in the letter a
copy of which was obtained by AFP.

"In our press military action now, we have created deep chasms in the
international community and in important international organizations.
Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in
much of the world," she said.

"I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep
and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government
service as I cannot defend or implement them," said Wright, who before
Mongolia served in Micronesia, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone where she
won an award for heroism in 1997.

Wright's concerns echoed those of the two other US diplomats known to
have resigned in protest due chiefly to Iraq.

John Brown, who joined the State Department in 1981, resigned on March
10 because he said he could not support Washington's Iraq policy,
which he said was fomenting a massive rise in anti-US sentiment around
the world.

The first diplomat to quit was J. Brady Kiesling, who served at the US
embassy in Athens. He submitted his resignation to Powell in late
February.

mvl/mac

Iraq-war-US-diplomat

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

From: Gordon Elcock
To: Everyman
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:16 AM
Subject: [Aftermath] B52s

Have just taken off from RAF Fairford :o(

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

Gorbachev Says U.S. Attack Big Mistake, Unjustified
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58160-2003Mar20.html

Gorbachev Says U.S. Attack Big Mistake, Unjustified
Reuters
Thursday, March 20, 2003; 12:53 AM

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who gave tacit
approval for the 1991 Gulf War, said on Thursday the
U.S. attack on Iraq was a major mistake that would do
huge damage to international relations and security.

Gorbachev, who was president of the Soviet Union when
the first Gulf War broke out in January 1991, told
reporters at an international water conference in
Japan that it seemed the United States was trying to
make the world its own province.

"I believe not only that this war is unjustified, it
is a major political mistake," Gorbachev said.

"It will do tremendous damage to international
relations and to world security," he said.

"It is an attempt to teach a lesson to all other
states and shows that the U.S. administration is
trying to make the world its own province."

Gorbachev tried to act as a middleman to prevent the
Gulf War in 1991 but the Soviet Union did not use its
right of veto within the United Nations Security
Council to oppose the war.

This time Russia strongly opposed U.S. plans to attack
Iraq.

Its opposition, along with that of France, contributed
to the decision earlier this week by the United
States, Britain and Spain to drop the idea of a second
U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force to disarm
Iraq. Gorbachev, in Japan to attend the World Water
Forum in the city of Otsu, some 225 miles west of
Tokyo, said the reasons given for the war were an
illusion.

"It certainly has nothing to do with real leadership
in international affairs to which the United States is
making a claim," he said.

"Now that war has broken out I think we are facing a
totally new situation where our worst fears are being
realized. We need to act with a cool head, we need
cool analysis.

"Let us act to minimize the loss of life and the
destructive consequences to international relations,"
he said.

Gorbachev, who resigned as president of the Soviet
Union on December 25, 1991, currently heads Green
Cross, a non-governmental organization. He is taking
part in a series of discussions on "Water and Peace."

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

Treasured past once again at risk
Many Iraqis convinced U.S. wants to blunt resurrection
of Babylon
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/19/MN67869.DTL

Treasured past once again at risk
Many Iraqis convinced U.S. wants to blunt resurrection
of Babylon

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday,
March 19, 2003

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

Babylon, Iraq -- If many Western anti-war protesters
believe America's real motive for invading Iraq is its
oil, many Iraqis point to another treasure they are
convinced lies behind U.S. war aims: Babylon.

This ancient city was the cradle of world civilization
thousands of years ago and hit its golden era during
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II in the sixth century
B.C. Now, it is a repository of the Iraqi regime's
ambition and fears.

"We are sure that the Americans, like they were in the
Gulf War, are intent on occupying Iraq for religious
purposes," said Muayad Damerji, who was in charge of
Babylon as director of Iraq's Antiquities Department
from 1977 to 1998 and is now an adviser to the
minister of culture.

Many Iraqis, from high officialdom down to average
folk, seem obsessed with the idea that the Americans
want to invade Iraq to stop the rise of Babylon as an
Islamic counterpart to Jewish Jerusalem. And
archaeologists, from Baghdad to the United States, are
worried that a U.S. invasion could put many of Iraq's
ancient treasures at risk.

In his speeches, President Saddam Hussein constantly
refers to Iraq's ancient glory, as if to drum into
average citizens the fact that their country deserves
an exalted spot on the world stage, and he has long
envisioned a grand reconstruction of the ancient city
of Babylon.

By the 1970s, little remained of the storied site.
Centuries of sand and wind had eroded the walls and
buildings of mud brick. No trace remains of the
Hanging Gardens -- one of the ancient Seven Wonders of
the World -- nor of the Tower of Babel.

But since he took power in 1981, Hussein has rebuilt
large sections of the ruins, leaving his fingerprints
everywhere. Every rebuilt wall in the central temple
has a brick at the center with a message stating,
"This was built by Saddam Hussein, son of
Nebuchadnezzar, to glorify Iraq." Reconstruction work
was halted due to lack of funds after the Gulf War,
but hovering over the Babylon site is a monstrous
presidential palace, built on a man-made 100-foot-
high hill during the past decade, as if to show who is
the new emperor.

As the likelihood of U.S. invasion has grown stronger,
American archaeologists have raised loud warnings that
Iraq's historical treasures -- as politicized as they
may be -- could be in danger from bombs, fighting and
subsequent rioting.

UR DAMAGED IN FIRST GULF WAR
By all accounts, protecting this country's
archaeological treasures will not prove easy. During
the Gulf War, heavy damage was done at Ur, in southern
Iraq, which was occupied by U.S. troops for several
weeks. American bombing raids left 400 holes in one
side of the pyramid, or ziggurat, which dates from
2142 B.C. And at the nearby unexcavated site of Tell
al-Lahm, U.S. soldiers dug trenches in what they
thought were hills but were actually ancient mounds
containing ruins.

During the Gulf War, U.S. officials accused the Iraqis
of deliberately moving military equipment close to
archaeological sites in an attempt to make the
Americans shy away from targeting the war materiel. In
fact, the Iraqis seem somewhat reckless in choosing
sites of military bases. At Ur, for example,

a major military base is only a mile way, and at
Nineveh in northern Iraq, the seventh century B.C.
palace is adjacent to a radar tower guarded by the
Iraqi military.

But far more severe than bomb damage was the postwar
looting by anti- Hussein mobs. Nine regional museums
were ransacked, Damerji says, and 4,000 artifacts were
stolen -- including antiquities from the Iraqi
National Museum in Baghdad, which had come under heavy
bombing as U.S. warplanes targeted a
telecommunications facility across the street.

SANCTIONS TAKE A TOLL
John Russell, an archaeologist at the Massachusetts
College of Art, and other U.S. experts praise and
defend their Iraqi counterparts, saying the Iraqi
researchers' inability to prevent deterioration in the
country's cultural heritage is a result of the
economic crisis brought on by U.N. sanctions.

"The absolutely, positively stupidest thing I can
think of that the United States could do for
archaeology in a . . . postwar scenario would be to
try to take over the operation of the antiquities
department or to change Iraq's state-of-the-art
antiquities policies," Russell said. "The smartest
thing would be to ask the department what it needs and
then make sure they get it."

In a recent petition to the Pentagon, dozens of
prominent American archaeologists and museum curators
appealed to U.S. war planners to prevent damage to
Iraq's historical treasures.

The Defense Department requested further information,
and the petitioners supplied a list of the locations
of over 5,000 known sites. The State Department has
indicated that it would establish a working group on
antiquities and heritage as part of its "Future of
Iraq" project.

"These are good omens for the preservation of
archaeology in a possible war, " said Russell, who has
excavated at Nineveh and is one of the petitioners,
"but the follow-through will be crucial."

Many Iraqi museums have taken their treasures off
display and have crated them in secure basements to
protect them from bombing and looting. In addition,

the roofs of museums have been painted with the logo
of UNESCO, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization.

"We just hope the American pilots know what the logo
is," said Damerji. "But then again, they'll probably
be firing their missiles from 50 kilometers away, so
it might not help anyway."

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

SEAT OF CIVILIZATION, HOME TO INVENTOR OF LAW
Iraq's illustrious history is treasured by Iraqis and
cited often as proof of their destiny.
Around 3500 B.C., the Sumerians developed the world's
first great civilization in the area that is now Iraq,
and cuneiform writing on clay tablets was developed
300 years later. Empires rose and fell in ancient
Mesopotamia, from the Akkadians to the Babylonians,
Assyrians, Chaldeans, Parthians and Romans.

Abraham, the patriarch of the Torah and Old Testament,
came from the southern Mesopotamian city of Ur.
Hammurabi, who virtually invented the concept of law,
ruled in Babylon, as did Nebuchadnezzar, the conqueror
of Jerusalem, and Alexander the Great.

Baghdad became the richest city in the world under the
Abbasid Caliphs for 500 years. Arabic numbers, the
decimal system and algebra were invented there, and
important advances were made in medicine. But
everything was destroyed in A.D. 1258, when the
Mongols conquered and destroyed Baghdad -- an event
frequently alluded to by Saddam Hussein, who compares
the United States under President Bush to the Mongol
hordes.

E-mail Robert Collier at rcol...@sfchronicle.com.

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

received from Afterman News:

Now, let me explain the position of these crazy people from S.F. Even
though I may not agree with the way it was done there was a purpose
and a method to their madness!

The plan: Have a lot of people on the streets holding back traffic
and get other groups to enter the Citi Bank and the Bechtel Corp
offices and shut them down. The cops would pay attention to the
problems on the street and the demonstrators in the corp. offices
would not be hassled or moved for a while. This way they could shut
down two of the biggest companies in San Francisco, known for their
abuse of third world countires and U.S. citizens. Bechtel, as you
know, was the company who tried to privatize water in Bolivia and lost
the battle after the countries workers went on strike. Bechtel left
but not after putting up a fight and causing the deaths of many of the
protesters. They also have received a contract from our government to
help rebuild Iraq. And Citi Corp I know I do not have to explain
their evil ways.

The protesters plans worked well. The corporations shut down their
offices and lost approx. 1 million dollars an hour in lost business.
They were closed for the day and will probably be closed again
tomorrow since the demonstrators are arriving at their doorsteps again
early am once again.

I understand your concerns and I may not agree with their tactics but
it has cost those companies dearly and I am proud of the protesters
for putting thier bodies where there mouth is. Takes a lot of guts
and stratigic thinking to get these big guys where it hurts, in their
pocket books.

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

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

Bush Proposes Detention for Iraqi Asylum Seekers
Operation Liberty Shield Could Mean Years in Jail for Immigrants
March 19th, 2003 9:00 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C.-Amid throngs of wandering cops, this jittery city
counts the hours until the attack begins. This is the second day of a
standoff between security forces and a lone farmer who in a protest
at agricultural prices drove his tractor into a pond on the capital's
Mall and threatened to blow himself up.

And today marks the beginning of Bush's crackdown on immigrants. The
president's proposed detention of Iraqis and others seeking political
asylum will involve "tens of thousands," according to the ACLU. Under
the administration's new Operation Liberty Shield, asylum seekers
from Iraq and 33 other countries will be detained until their cases
have been decided. As it now stands, anyone seeking asylum must go
through a hearing to show they have a "credible fear." The asylum
seeker has the burden of proving to the INS that they are not a
threat to the U.S. Under the new rule, they'll go to jail awaiting
the final outcome of their case.

"We're going to do to the people of the Arab and Muslim world what
we've done to the Haitians," Timothy Edgar, the ACLU legislative
counsel in Washington, told the Voice yesterday, explaining that
under this policy of mandatory detention, asylum seekers would be
imprisoned without individualized hearings. "We believe that
imprisoning people of the Arab and Muslim world without hearing
violates principles of due process."

What does detention for asylum seekers mean? Take a look at
Australia's Woomera Detention Center, where people seeking political
asylum are held for as long as two years. A doctor there reported
last year that people try to kill or hurt themselves daily. On one
night three men-a Palestinian, an Iranian, and an Afghan along with a
16-year-old boy-tried to hang themselves. Two hundred people had gone
on a hunger strike, some of them sewing their lips closed. "We have
no hope, we see no future," a letter from one of the asylum seekers
said, "We are ready to die."

How long would asylum seekers be detained under Bush's plan? For the
duration of the processing of their case, which "could take years,"
Edgar said. The policy drives a wedge between the U.S. and the Arab
world, and the brutish injustice of it is clear. "A woman from
Afghanistan facing persecution on account of her gender . . . would
be mandatorily imprisoned under this policy. And she would be
occupying a place in prison that could be given to someone who poses
a real threat," Edgar claims. The INS has been trying to process
claims within six months, but has found this deadline hard to meet.
Further, it is extremely difficult to work effectively with an
attorney when you're imprisoned. "There are significant restrictions
on contact with attorneys if you're in detention. Also you can't earn
money to live on or to pay for lawyers, which is another serious
problem for asylum seekers."

Out of more than 58,000 people who sought entry into the U.S. last
year, 577 people from 34 countries, including 348 from Iraq, asked
for asylum.
===================

George W. Bush Must Answer to the People

adapted from Ramsey Clark's address to the half a
million demonstrators at the January 18th National
March on Washington to Stop the War on Iraq
organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to
Stop War & End Racism).
The U.S. Constitution provides the means for
preventing George W. Bush from engaging in a war of aggression against
Iraq, and from advancing a first
strike potentially nuclear preemptive war. It's
called impeachment.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
>mpeachment is the direct constitutional means for
removing a President, Vice President or other civil
officers of the United States who has acted or
threatened acts that are serious offenses against
the Constitution, its system of government, or the
rule of law, or that are conventional crimes of such
a serious nature that they would injure the
Presidency if there was no removal.
A Constitutional Imperative
Impeachment appears six times in the U.S.
Constitution. The Founders weren't concerned with
anything more than with impeachment because they had
lived under King George III and had in 1776 accused
the king of all the things that George W. Bush wants
to do: Usurpation of the power of the people; Being
above the law; Criminal abuse of authority.
Power Remains in the Hands of the People
Impeachment is the means by which We The People of
the United States and our elected representatives in
Congress can prevent further crimes by the President
and the human catastrophe they threaten and force
accountability for crimes committed.
Save the Constitution, the U.N., and Countless Human
Lives
Congressional proceedings for impeachment can bring
about open, fearless consideration of the most
dangerous acts and threats ever committed by an
American President. If courageously pursued, they
can save our Constitution, the United Nations, the
rule of law, the lives of countless people and leave
open the possibility of peace on earth.

The Time for Action is Now
Each of us must take a stand on impeachment now, or
bear the burden of having failed to speak in this
hour of maximum peril.

Notes for the Consideration of the Impeachment of President George W.
Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft

1. Provisions on Impeachment in the U.S. Constitution
2. British Experience With Imperial Power and Abuse
3. The Intention of the Founders to Grant the Power of Impeachment
4. Impeachment of U.S. Presidents
5. President George W. Bush and Other Named Officials of the U.S.
Have Committed Impeachable Offenses of Unprecedented Danger to the
Constitution and People of the United States
6. We Must Act Now to Prevent Catastrophe and Ensure
Accountability

View the
Articles of Impeachment,
drafted by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General during
the Johnson Administration has drafted articles of
impeachment setting forth high crimes and
misdemeanors by President Bush and other civil
officers of his administration. Click here to read
he Articles of Impeachment.Mr. Clark has also
prepared historical notes on the power of
impeachment, for consideration in the impeachment of
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General
Ashcroft.Click here to view these notes.Click here
for a paper ballot for collecting signatures to send
to the campaign. (pdf format)Votes cast in this
campaign will be hand delivered to the Chair of the House Judiciary
Committee, and to the ranking
Democrat on the Committee.Cast Your Vote HereI want
my representative in the U.S. House of
Representatives to vote to impeach President George
W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary
of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General
John D. Ashcroft for high crimes and misdemeanors,
and to have the case prosecuted and tried in the
U.S. Senate.Salutation
First name:* Mary
Last name:*Davis
Email:* mugs...@yahoo.com
Address:* 807 4th st
Address line 2:
City:* Garden City> State:* Kansas
Zip code:* 67846

[Everyman]

This woman's letter is worth passing around:
==========

Well everyone...

Did we ever think that we would live to see the day that an America
was looked at this badly. ;o((

I happen to agree with Walther Cronkite.

It still behooves me where CNN gets there poll records that 80 percent
of Americans stood behind this war???

"We are going to be in such a fix when this war is over, or before
this war is over. Our grandchildren's grandchildren are going to be
paying for this war. I look at our future as, I'm sorry, being very,
very dark." - Walter Cronkite, March 19, 2003

Thomas Friedman in The New York Times called Wednesday this
generation's D-Day. But for most Americans, the invasion is just
another reality TV program, without the sex.

American tax dollars paid for the bombs, so we're glued to our TV
sets, trying to get our money's worth. Bush politely waited until
after American Idol wrapped up to issue his four-minute kick-off
speech.

The networks seem to have become a full-employment program for retired
soldiers, every channel features their own white-haired, old codger
holding forth on the "real deal" of war to our expertly coiffed
presenters. Fox News Channel even has ol' Ollie North (U.S. Marines,
Retired), the disgraced Iran-Contra criminal, reporting live in a gas
mask via video phone from Kuwait.

The peace movement appears to be scrambling to find a response. Code
Pink, a group of angry women, said they will march outside Sec. of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld's home in suburban Washington this weekend, I
guess in an effort to take their message to our leaders' domestic
help. A protestor hanging a banner fell to his death from the Golden
Gate Bridge, a bad omen if there ever was one.

The one piece of good news: The print media has really stepped up,
providing valuable perspective and cutting critiques. Bob Herbert
writes in today's Times:

"There is tremendous unease at the highest levels of the Pentagon
about this war and its aftermath. The president and his civilian
advisers are making a big deal about the anticipated rejoicing of the
liberated populace once the war is over. But Iraq is an inherently
unstable place, and while the forces assembled to chase Saddam from
power are superbly trained for combat, the military is not well
prepared for a long-term occupation in the most volatile region in the
world.

What's driving this war is President Bush's Manichaean view of the
world and messianic vision of himself, the dangerously grandiose
perception of American power held by his saber-rattling advisers, and
the irresistible lure of Iraq's enormous oil reserves.

Polls show that the public is terribly confused about what's going on,
so much so that some 40 percent believe that Saddam Hussein was
personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. That's really scary.
Rather than correct this misconception, the administration has gone
out of its way to reinforce it."

Backlash Begins

Anti-war protests erupted across the globe following the start of the
U.S.-led war against Iraq, with hundreds of thousands expected to
march to demand a quick end to air strikes on Baghdad.

An Australian uses his surfboard as a placard as thousands march
towards the U.S. Consulate and the Prime Minister's office in Sydney,
March 20, 2003. A wave of anti-war protests began to roll across
Europe and the Middle East on Thursday after the opening salvos of the
war against Iraq sparked angry demonstrations in Asia and Australia.
Barely three hours after the first U.S. missiles struck Baghdad, a
crowd that organizers put at 40,000 and which police said numbered
'tens of thousands' brought Australia's second largest city,
Melbourne, to a standstill.

Between 80,000 and 100,000 demonstrators thronged central Athens in
response to the launch of targetted strikes against Iraqi targets,
according to initial police estimates, but organizers put the figure
at at least 200,000.

"It's unprecedented. People continue coming," said Vera Michailidou of
the leftist anti-globalization group Action 2003, as protestors
marched past the British embassy to the US mission, both heavily
guarded by riot police.

Greek demonstrators, many of them high school students, adopted "Bush
-- killer" as their slogan of choice, condemning US President George
W. Bush for attempting to disarm Iraq and topple Iraqi leader Saddam
Hussein by force.

Anti-war groups around the world have organized protests on Thursday
to voice anger over the way in which Washington and London have defied
popular opposition to launch a second Gulf war.

Millions have marched to oppose the war in past weekends, dogging
world leaders that have backed Bush's campaign, like Prime Ministers
Tony Blair of Britain, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi
of Italy.

The protest in Athens, the biggest so far for the day, followed angry
anti-U.S. demonstrations across Pakistan and spirited marches in
Australia, which has contributed some 2,000 troops to the U.S.-led
coalition against Saddam.

"Saddam Hussein is a hero of Muslims," shouted one protestor in the
Islamist-ruled city of Peshawar in northwest Pakistan, where hundreds
of students, lawyers and journalists denounced U.S. "aggression" in
Iraq.

A coalition of secular anti-war groups launched a boycott of U.S. fast
food outlets like McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken, which are
enormously popular with Pakistanis. More rallies were expected later
Thursday.

In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-populated nation, about 1,000
protestors gathered outside the heavily guarded U.S. embassy in
Jakarta, carrying signs reading, "Bush, go to hell" and "Terrorism No,
Justice Yes."

In Australia, thousands took to the streets just hours after the first
air strikes against Iraqi targets, with more than 10,000 protesting in
central Sydney and 20,000 in the country's second city Melbourne.

One woman was arrested at the U.S. consulate in Melbourne for
splashing red paint and scrawling "killing has started" on statues
outside the building, police said.

"It's about sending the Americans a message, and this is their
address," said one demonstrator outside the consulate, Catherine
Robson.

Security has been stepped up at U.S. embassies and consulates around
the world as many anti-war groups have called for demonstrations
outside the diplomatic missions to show contempt for the U.S.
insistence on ousting Saddam by force.

Some 20,000 students in Berlin peacefully marched toward the U.S.
embassy near the city's Brandenburg Gate, carrying placards reading
"Give peace a chance" and "War is not the answer". Another 5,000
students rallied outside the U.S. consulate in the southern city of
Munich, with 7,000 demonstrating in Saarbruecken in the west. Peace
groups said some 250 protests would be staged in Germany -- where
opposition to war in strong -- throughout the day.

Thousands of students streamed out of classrooms across Denmark,
Switzerland, Spain and Italy, with Swiss schoolchildren carrying the
rainbow-striped flags which have become a symbol for peace in Europe.

In Italy, the country's main unions called for a two-hour general
strike due to begin at 3:00 pm (1400 GMT).

The U.S. embassy in central Paris, where French police have set up a
tight security cordon, was closed to the public on Thursday ahead of a
demonstration planned for 1700 GMT. In Russia, two hundred Communists
and ultra-nationalists -- confronted by three times as many police --
decried what they called the "barbaric" U.S.-led military campaign in
Iraq, chanting "Yankee go home" and "No to war".

A major protest is planned for Saturday in New York City, following
the success of a similar march one month ago that drew around 250,000
demonstrators.

(AFP)

To discuss this Article and other issues please visit the Guerrilla
News Forum

[Everyman]

1. Missile Attack 'Came From Jordan'

2. Veteran American Fighting Man now Humanitarian Peace Worker, Tom
Cahill, reports from Iraq:

3. Dreaming a New America: Dreaming a New America: Peaceful Regime
Change in 2004 by Farai Chideya

Missile Attack 'Came From Jordan'
Mohammed Alkhereiji, Arab News War Correspondent
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24014
JORDAN-IRAQ BORDER CROSSING, 21 March 2003 - A rest stop 200
kilometers west
of Baghdad was pulverized by a missile attack yesterday, which Iraqi
soldiers claim originated from Jordan.

A Jordanian truck driver named Ahmed Youssef was killed in the attack
in the area of Badiea Al-Ambaar.

Iraqi military claims that their radar shows the missile originated
from Jordan, although Jordanian authorities claimed that no attacks
would be launched from there.

A Jordanian bus driver was harassed and verbally abused by Iraqi
soldiers after the incident and was told: "You're next. Your time will
come."

According to eyewitness reports, another missile hit a communication
tower five kilometers outside the Jordanian-Iraqi border in an area
called Trabil.

The Iraqi-Jordanian border was closed for journalists, and the whole
of the border region has been declared a closed zone. The military at
the checkpoint is only allowing Jordanians to return home.

According to a soldier, in the first seven hours after the start of
the bombing over 200 people returned from Iraq. None of them are
Iraqis. Many were students, mostly from Baghdad University.

Amjad a 20-year-old student, told Arab News: "I was pressured to come
back by my family. The Iraqi Army is ready, and won't give up for 60
years."

There are a number of privately owned buses on the border ready to
ferry Jordanians to Amman.

In the black desert area of Al-Azraq, Iraqi truck drivers carrying oil
are stuck.

Jasem Khalef has been there for three days. "I would rather have a
bullet in my head. It is sad I can't go back to Iraq and fight," he
said.

UN relief bodies warned yesterday of a major humanitarian crisis. "It
can be catastrophic...The humanitarian situation at the moment is very
bad," Veronique Taveau, spokesperson for the UN humanitarian
coordinator for Iraq told reporters.

The collapse of the UN-backed oil-for-food program after the United
Nations ordered its international staff to leave Iraq on Monday
threatens food supplies to 60 percent of the country's 25 million
people.

Taveau said electricity cuts could lead to water contamination and a
spread of epidemics with approaching hot summer weather.

"Being on the ground in Iraq we know the fragility of the Iraqi
population because of 13 years of sanctions and because of the
dependency of the population on the oil for food program," Taveau
added.

Khaled Mansour, spokesman for the World Food Program (WFP), the
world's largest food aid agency, said Iraqis have about six weeks of
food supplies in reserve but warehouse stocks were almost empty.

UN agencies have already positioned hundreds of tonnes of relief
supplies in the region, including medicines, nutritional supplements
for children and water equipment as part of broader UN effort to help
victims.

Geoffrey Keel, spokesman for the UN children's fund UNICEF, said they
were racing to bolster the strength of over 400,000 malnourished Iraqi
children across the country to improve their chances of survival in
war.

Half of Iraq's population are children, and although conditions have
improved in the last few years, malnutrition remains very high, Keel
said.

Keel said it was still unclear the extent of damage a war would
inflict.

"It depends on what shape a conflict will take and how long the
conflict will last and what impact it will have on the infrastructure
- these are questions that do not have answers at this point," Keel
said.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) spokesman Barry Camf said
major war would worsen the already desperate food situation in Iraq.

Peter Kessler, spokesman for the UN refugee agency UNHCR, said the
agency was bracing for a possible 600,000 Iraqi refugees. The refugee
camps in Ruweished are empty.

There are tents, mobile toilets, but no medical facilities. A mobile
hospital is likely to be positioned courtesy of Ruweished Hospital.

Meanwhile, the European Union said yesterday it was allocating 21
million euros in humanitarian aid for Iraq and promised to seek extra
resources from the general emergency reserve of the community's budget
if further need arises.

Poul Nielson, the European Commissioner for Development and
Humanitarian Aid, said the funds would be channeled through ECHO, the
Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office, and would provide basic relief
items such as medical supplies, tents, blankets and food to assist
displaced Iraqis.

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

Veteran American Fighting Man and Humanitarian Peace Worker, Tom
Cahill in Iraq reports:

From Fellow Worker Tom Cahill:

There are 13 of us from eight countries now at the
7th of April Water Treatment Plant ten or twenty miles
northwest of downtown Baghdad. Although we put on a
brave front with lots of black humor, we are all
terrified but so angry with our respective governments
that we are more determined than ever to fullfill our
mission--to try to protect our site from United States
'smart' bombs. Washington has been notified more than
once of every site the more than 100 Human Shields
from 25 countries are trying to protect under the
Geneva Convention. In Baghdad there are hundreds of
others--ambassadors of peace--including Kathy Kelly
and Charlie Lietkey (sp), a medal of honor winner
turned peace activist.
We've taped the windows in our dormitory and have
gathered a large supply of bottled and bagged water
and a smaller but growing supply of food. Our
vacation is over. We are no longer 'peace tourists'
as we used to call our selves. We are now trully
human shields and are getting organized for siege. We
have a large medical kit which includes surgical
instruments.
I badmouth the Bush Administration so much to the
world media that my comrades here are convinced the
U.S. government wants me home alive for trial as a
traitor. For this reason they think our site is
safest. We joke about them sticking to me like
glue--all sleeping close to me, all going to the
bathroom with me--you get the picture.

I welcome a trial. If Tony Serra won't represent
me, I'll do it myself. And there will be no plea
bargains, thank you. If found not guilty, I'll sue to
have George Bush et all committed to a hospital for
the criminally insane.

Last night during the bombing of Baghdad, I played
on my harmonica 'The Internationale' while Helene
Dryer of Denmark and Mitsuo Tsukushi of Japan sang the
words in their respective languages and everyone else
hummed along as we watched the flashes in the sky. We
repeated the song over and over until Donna Mulhearne
of Australia asked us to pipe down. She was on the
phone being interviewed by the media in Sidney.
We can't phone out but can receive calls at 443
6039 (7th of April Water Plant) or our downtown office
at 00-964-1-719-2303 or 00-964-1-718-4290. There is
usually someone in the the lounge of our site 24
hours. We of course call the late night crowd 'lounge
lizards.'' What else?

Anna Marie Stenberg of Fort Bragg, California, is
the most outrageous, courageous, brilliant and
committed activist I've ever known in my 40 plus years
as a political troublemaker. She and I go back
fifteen years, first in Earth First and the Industrial
Workers of the World (Wobblies) and later in the Gulf
War peace movement of 1991. When she takes nonviolent
direct action, she stops traffic. Her idea of civil
disobedience makes headlines.

Think I'm exagerating? My sister called me last
night and told me 'Anna Banana' made the front page of
the 'San Francisco Chronicle' yesterday, March 20, the
day the war started here. Broken foot and all, she
layed down in front of a bus in San Francisco to stop
business as usual. Five hundred others were also
arrested for civil disobedience in the City of St.
Francis. You know this cheers us Shields here.

Anna Marie was the last of my loved ones I saw
before leaving for Iraq last month. I delivered to
her a pair of crutches loaned by a mutual friend. She
confided in me her plans before she broke her foot.
She was on her way to join the Human Shields in Iraq,
she told me tearfully. The reason I didn't tell her
my own plans to go there was because I knew she would
have broken one of my legs to keep me safely at home
because she kinda loves me that much. My sister and
others would also have hospitalized me too, so I
sneaked away without telling anyone.

Anna Marie's example will have to be repeated a
million fold to telegraph the Bush Administration,
'We're going to hurt you where it hurts you most--in
your off-shore bank accounts until you not only stop
this war but also leave the White House for good, you
greedy ghouls, you.'

Two Wobbly mottos--'Direct action gets the goods'
and 'The longer the picket line, the shorter the
strike' --have held water more than a century as the
only real way to create radical solutions for radical
problems such as the massive corruption in U.S.
government and industry. We need large numbers of
activists, willing to fill the jails, nonviolently
stopping business as usual. And I think the New Left
is indeed resurgent. We must also police our own to
stop even the trashing of businesses and the wearing
of face masks. Nonviolent civil disobedience is not a
little league sport.

We need to brainstorm fresh new ideas of how to
resurrect democracy that died in Dallas with JFK forty
years ago. There is a brainstorming technique played
like a game that is fun and gets results. Check out
on the Internet 'the San Francisco Brain Exchange'
and/or 'Joy-Lily.'

Please all, do what you can to stop galloping
corporatism. If I can't e-mail again, goodbye, good
luck and may the good Lord take a linking to you.
(Remember Gene Autry?)

I am a former resident of Fort Bragg, Napa, and San
Francisco, California; Corpus Christi, Austin, and San
Antonio, Texas; and Belleville and Jersey City, New
Jersey. I'm now a resident of Baghdad as in 'Ich bin
ein Berliner.' (Remember JFK at the Berlin Wall about
1961?)

I am a member of Veterans For Peace, Peace Navy,
Industrial Workers of the World, and Earth First and
am president of Stop Prisoner Rape. All these
organiizations of course have web sites.

If you pass on this report, please correct my
spelling, typos, grammar, etc. and edit as you wish.
If you wish to be removed from this list or want to
e-mail me, it's difficult at the best of times here.
Phone might be best.

==========

Dreaming a New America: Dreaming a New America: Peaceful Regime Change
in 2004

By Farai Chideya, AlterNet
March 20, 2003
<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15433>;

Our dreams are the North Star by which we navigate. In
hard times, they should get bigger rather than smaller.
I think of the first enslaved Africans in America,
standing on auction blocks, someone's dirty thumb
checking their teeth as if they were horses. They
dreamed of freedom, and passed that dream to children
and children's children until some modicum of freedom
was achieved.

Today we face another freedom struggle. It's time to
retake, and remake, American democracy.

There are no inalienable rights and no self-evident
truths. We live in a time when our government erodes
civil rights daily, not just those of black and brown
Americans, immigrant or poor Americans, but all
Americans. We live with relentless Orwellian
doublespeak. President Bush argued in his Monday address
that the war on Iraq would promote "liberty and peace."
A classified State Department report says it will
increase Mideast anti-Americanism.

All of this is being done in the name of patriotism. But
in the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of the few
Founding Fathers who neither owned slaves nor condoned
slavery, "They that can give up essential liberty to

obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty

nor safety." Instead of feeling comforted by America's
military posturing, many of us feel neither safe nor
free.

The financial costs of the government's actions are
staggering. The 1991 Gulf War cost $61 billion. This new
war will likely cost $100 billion. That just buys the
military campaign, not the peacekeeping and "nation-
building," which will cost just as much or more.
Meanwhile, we are embroiled in a series of wars at home
that could make America a shell of itself.

Take the War on Education. In January, the Republican-
led Senate passed a spending bill that cut $29 million
from after-school programs, $13 million from programs
for abused children, and $61 million from child care
programs. To put this in context, a single Tomahawk
cruise missile can cost up to a million dollars.

The lack of federal support for schools is having deep
ramifications. A veteran Oakland, Calif. schoolteacher
wrote me: "The district sent out letters to 1,000
teachers as notice of possible layoffs, San Francisco
sent out almost 800. California is a disaster and George
wants to go to war."

It's not just California. Portland, Oregon has had to
shorten its school year by five weeks because of a
budget shortfall. The state of Oklahoma cut education
funds by over $100 million in 2001-2002, leading to
thousands of staff cuts each of the past two years. In
Baltimore, where members of my family teach, there is
lead in the schools' drinking water and so few
substitutes that when a teacher gets sick, students are
split between other classes.

In the face of this, I dream. I dream an America that is
a democracy and not a kleptocracy, where we bail out the
schools before the airlines.

I dream technology that increases our freedoms rather
than curtailing our liberties. The merging of private
and public databases for Soviet-style spying on citizens
is now doing the latter.

I dream that every single American votes, and we
collectively decide our future.

I know a lot of people share my dreams. How do we make
them real?

The best hope is to awaken the sleepers, the 100 million
Americans who do not vote in presidential elections. How
can anyone claim to know the will of the people when
half of Americans have given up on politics? After the
debacle of the 2000 elections, more may abstain in 2004.

The anti-war movement has provided a blueprint for
mapping constituencies, some new or long dormant, who
can collaboratively restore democracy. It would be a
shame if the National Council of Churches and American
Muslims, the hip hop activists and the suburban anti-war
moms lived through this war, then never met on common
ground again. We must find a way of convening Americans
with an interest in peaceful regime change at home --
what we call an election -- and make plans for 2004.

I mentioned slavery not simply because it illustrates
not only the power of dreams, but also the ways in which
our struggles are linked. America has always suffered
from a crisis of belief in mutual advancement. This
country has always tolerated exploitation in the name of
personal gain, whether of slaves, immigrants, or Enron
employees. Our fear that we will move from being
temporarily secure to suddenly exploited keeps us silent
on some of the most important issues of our time. The
opposite is also true. My belief that improving my life
does not require diminishing yours lifts my spirits.
Hope is contagious.

Our struggles are not the same, but they are linked.
Whether we are worried about the economy, education,
privacy or civil liberties, we have a vested interest in
working together. We must devote the coming months to
building connections between grassroots coalitions,
building independent media, holding politicians
accountable for their actions (like the White House's
secret meetings with energy companies), and entering our
concerns into the policy debates. And we must increase
participation in one of the most simple and critical
aspects of democracy, voting. If we join together, to
quote President George W. Bush, "The tyrant will soon be
gone. The day of ... liberation is near."

[Everyman]

Media (600 in field looking for photo ops) shows 4 dead American
soldiers -- American people enraged -- seething for revenge!!!
Grieving nation rallys behind our brave fallen!!!!

Chants of "Kill!!!! Kill!!! " are heard in every American church,
schoolyard and bar.

Four US Troops Killed in Savage Iraqi "Terror" Ambush

In what may have been a serious breech of international law, Iraqi
terrorists in Iraq brutally murdered four soldiers in a cowardly
ambush attack. The Iraqis employed WMDs in the form of illegal rocket
propelled genades.

THe United States has 600 journalists on the battlefront to fill the
TV with every little detail of the brutality of the Iraqi terrorists
and the heroism of the coalition defenders.

"It wasn't fair. We weren't ready! The Iraqis are cowards to attack
United Nations troops this way." That is what every American is
thinking now, as news of this new Muslim atrocity is seen on every TV
screen in the world. "They'll be made to pay for this!"

(Don't ask us why we need reconnaisance scouts in humvies taking the
lead, when we have satellites and spy planes showing every grain of
sand ahead of them for 800 miles, but maybe they need to be their
for the photo ops -- for propaganda opportunities like this one. I
am sure professional soldiers don't mind being set up so they can be
killed and make a good photo op and propaganda coup to help the war
effort. After all, modern wars are all about information, right?
They should be proud to give their lives like this for what it does in
building morale and the drive for revenge back home. Isn't that
right? --DE)

---

Here is "more" such "information" on this very conveniently useful
event and story:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12756048&method=full&siteid=50143

TROOPS KILLED IN ROCKET GRENADE ATTACK
Mar 22 2003
By Shiraz Lalani, Ben Rankin and Neil Roberts

Four US soldiers were killed in an ambush today as the American
advance on Baghdad met resistance in central Iraq.

The reconnaissance scouts died when their two Humvee jeeps were hit by
rocket propelled grenades.

Sky TV reporter Colin Brazier, who was travelling in the same convoy,
revealed: "Rocket-propelled grenades were fired, one at each Humvee,
killing both sets of occupants.

"There was a position we were heading to for refuelling at about the
same time - it was clearly a coordinated attack...that came under
mortar fire."

Meanwhile allied forces continued their speedy advance deep into Iraq.
American troops took Nassiriya, securing a crucial bridge across the
Euphrates.

The Battle for Basra continued as British and American troops
surrounded the key city in a bid to force an Iraqi surrender.

The southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr was under allied control after
stiffer than expected resistance from defending forces.

The American General in command of the invading force said the outcome
of Gulf War 2 was in no doubt.

General Tommy Franks said the first 72 hours of the war had gone
according to plan. "We believe we are on our time-line," he said at US
Central Command in Qatar.

He added: "This will be a campaign unlike any other in history. It
will be characterised by shock, by surprise, by flexibility, by the
employment of precise munitions on a scale never before seen, and by
the application of overwhelming force."

Meanwhile a British television reporter and two of his crew were
missing in Iraq after being caught in a machine gun ambush. Terry
Lloyd of ITN, a familiar face from news bulletins, disappeared after
his car was hit by a hail of bullets on the road to the city of Basra.

Cameraman Fred Nerac and translator Hussein Othman, were also missing.
A second cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, was injured in the attack, but
managed to escape.

Earlier six British servicemen and a US officer were killed when two
helicopters collided in the Gulf. The Sea King helicopters, based on
aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, crashed over international waters at
1.30am British time killing everyone on board.

Ark Royal's captain, Alan Massey, called the crash a "tragic accident"
but said flying in zones at night was not without risks.

"We all know that military flying is an inherently risky business and
those risks increase when you fly at night," he told the BBC.

"They increase perhaps still further when you fly under operational
pressure but this is what we're paid to do.

"These aircrew, like all the other aircrew out here, are extremely
professional, well-trained. This was a tragic accident."

An investigation was launched into the collision.

British and American forces launched daytime attacks on Baghdad today,
starting just hours after waves of Cruise missiles and bombs pounded
the Iraqi capital.

Three huge explosions shook the city centre and sent mushroom clouds
of white smoke billowing into the sky. It was the first time strikes
had been carried out in daylight since the start of the war.

Last night allied forces brought "shock and awe" to Baghdad in a
bombing onslaught of a size unprecedented in military history.

Massive blasts rocked the city in a campaign designed to shatter the
resistance of Saddam's regime.

Missiles slammed into Iraq's intelligence headquarters and key
government buildings. Saddam's presidential complex in the city centre
was also hit.

The Pentagon said several hundred targets were targetted in the raids
and some 1,000 bombs and missiles were used.

Fresh attacks were carried out on the outskirts of the city early
today before the dawn strikes on the centre.

Soon after the first strikes on Baghdad at 6pm British time yesterday
the smoke-filled night sky was coloured red by fires raging across the
city after a devastating display of firepower.

Dozens of missiles and bombs landed across the city in the relentless
aerial assault. It was not known if there were any civilian
casualties.

There was speculation over the fate of Saddam with both British and
American government spokesman unable to confirm reports that he had
been injured or even killed.

A squadron of B-52 bombers which took off from RAF Fairford in
Gloucestershire yesterday morning was believed to have been involved
in the Baghdad blitz. The massive warplanes arrived back at 2am GMT.

More blasts were reported in the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul
and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

The RAF confirmed British jets were involved in the strikes. US
Warships fired 320 Tomahawk Cruise missiles.

This story will be updated as reports arrive from the Gulf...

===========

===========

Pentagon confirms "Precision guided missiles" "stray" and hit .....
Iran !!!

Confirms Missiles May Have Struck Iran --Two Pentagon officials now
confirm that three U.S. cruise missiles may have gone astray in Iran.
The
officials say U.S. and Iranian officials are discussing the matter and
that
Iran realizes that any hit was unintentional. [Oh. I thought they were
'precision guided' ?!?!!! --Lori Price]

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

Brits enjoy Blitzing weak country while US Firebombing Continues:

1,500 $1-million-apiece guided bombs destroying Bagdhad in
precision "Dresden" Infernos

Iraqis soldiers surrendering to end genocidal civilian holocaust

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

Missiles rain on Baghdad as Iraqi troops surrender --The US unleashed
a withering air assault on Iraq yesterday, striking Baghdad and
targets throughout the country with 1500 precision-guided bombs and
cruise missiles in an escalating campaign to drive Saddam Hussein from
power.
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
Night of Punishing Raids

Raids Reduced Many Buildings to Rubble --Senior Iraqi officials struck
a posture of defiance today in the face of advancing coalition troops
and a night of punishing air attacks on Baghdad that reduced many of
Saddam Hussein's palaces and other key government buildings to
hollowed-out, smoldering wrecks.

Baghdad Blitz Resumes --Air raids on the Iraqi capital resumed at
first light this morning. At least three missiles were heard striking
in or around Baghdad at 5.30am (1330 AEDT), the satellite network
al-Jazeera said.

[Everyman]

alt.dear.whitehouse begins campaign: "EASTMAN-OFF-THE-NET" --read how
groups official "bouncer" Don Ocean tries to take me down

Don Ocean is the official guarddog of alt.dear.whitehouse.

I usually write to five goups, including alt.dear.whitehouse -- but I
do not read from that group and he knows it. Here is what he is
sending out.

From: Don Ocean (oc...@amerion.com)
Subject: EASTMAN-OFF-THE-NET:
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.dear.whitehouse
Date: 2003-03-21 19:51:16 PST

Don Ocean <oc...@amerion.com> wrote in message news:<3E7BDE32...@amerion.com>...

> Have you folks noticed that alt.dear.whitehouse has become that
> lunatic from Yakima, Washingtons private news group. Of course
> he allows the Canadian pedophilic fruitcake post a few notes.
>
> I suggest a blitz of abuse notices to help him lose yet another ISP.
> This fellow is preaching sedition and treachery. He has yet to post
> even anything remotely true or provable. His anti-American rhetoric
> should get him tossed out of our beautiful country. Help us clean the
> trash and litter out of our NG...Abuse notice Dick Eastman.
>
> groups...@google.com
>
> ab...@pita.alt.net

[Everyman]

Another germ scientist dead.

Want to kill off the populists before they can take away your stolen
trillions? Use plague -- but kill their microbiologists first.

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

Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:49 PM

CASTLE ROCK - Denver car dealer Kent Rickenbaugh, his wife, Caroline,
and their son Bart were killed Sunday in a plane crash near
Centennial Airport. Pilot Dr. Steven Mostow also died.

Kent Rickenbaugh, 64, owned two car dealerships in the Denver area.
Caroline Rickenbaugh, 62, was known for her involvement in the
community. Bart Rickenbaugh, 35, lived in Bozeman, Mont.

Mostow, 63, was one of the country's leading infectious disease
experts and was associate dean at the University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center.

Mostow was a crusader for better health, an early advocate for
widespread flu vaccinations and more recently an expert on the threat
of bioterrorism. He was a champion for rural health care and
childhood immunizations. For the past three years, he had been
helping to expand the 9Health Fair, a program that benefits thousands
of people in Colorado.

Investigators returned to the scene of the plane crash Monday to try
to figure out why the twin-engine Cessna 340 went down.

The plane was headed to Centennial from Gunnison when Mostow reported
engine trouble around 4:30 p.m., Federal Aviation Administration
spokesman Jerry Snyder said.

The plane crashed near mile marker 190 in unincorporated Douglas
County.

Witnesses say they saw the plane go down. "As we came over the hill
we saw the plane coming fairly straight toward the highway actually,
and swerving from side to side, losing altitude fast," Willen Guyer
said. "I think the guy saw the highway and turned away from it and
when he turned left he just went nose down into the ground."

The weather was cloudy with snow flurries; however, National
Transportation Safety Board investigators said weather did not appear
to be a factor in the crash, Douglas County Sheriff's Office
spokesman Bernie Harris said.

Click here for video of the plane crash
http://linqstream.alinq.net/pub/9newskusa/planecrash3-25-02-61513.asx

http://9news.com/storyfull/refresh.asp?id=1519

>
> ================

[Malcolm McMahon]

On 22 Mar 2003 11:41:13 -0800, sil...@nwinfo.net (Everyman) wrote:

>Four US Troops Killed in Savage Iraqi "Terror" Ambush
>
>In what may have been a serious breech of international law, Iraqi
>terrorists in Iraq brutally murdered four soldiers in a cowardly
>ambush attack.

Don't judge people according to your own levels of paranoia. Most people
do have some grasp of what war involves, they're just more rational
about it than you imagine.

[Everyman]

Everybody is a big dumb marshmallow until they are shown the truth.

The truth is that the September 11 attacks did not happen as you have
been told; it was not an attack by people who are jealous of our
coka-cola, our two mortgages and our privilvege of having lived under
two Bush presidents. It was an attack perpetrated by men jealous of
Iraq's oil; envious of Islamic clean living and genuine faith.

9-11 was a mass-murder frameup.

But big dumb marshmallows can't think in terms of evidence and what
the evidence adds up to. Big dumb marshmallows, because they are good
in heart in a simple way, can see that there is something wrong with
the Bush "argument" for war and they can see that the war is a lot of
deaths and a lot of tax-paid-for means of our national defense being
thrown down the toilet -- where it will all have to be replaced ( we
must pay for two wars -- $500,000,000,000 for this one (Afganistan
plus Iraq plus War on Terror plus diversion of production of consumer
and national investment in productivity and infrastructure goods that
we have had to foregoe plus the un-measured disruption of families and
their affiars) -- but also we must pay for re-arming again for the
next war (or for the perpetual war of defending the elites of
globalization zionism finance capitalism that we have been promised).

So let's cut to the point.

When zionism has conquered Iraq and put its Jewish boss in control of
occupation forces and an American-CIvil-War-type hypocritical
plundering "reconstruction" fait accompli -- then the movement
against perpetual coercion-sustained globalization zionism will simply
fade away.

ANd when North Korea is defanged and all possible enemies of a
Rockefeller, Soros, Rothschild or any Bilderberg member are being
hunted like dogs around the world -- free dogs being hunted by slave
dogs who hunt for the masters because that is the only way they will
ever see a dog biscuit!!! -- THEN we will learn the meaning of
arbitrary power weilded by an untouchable aristocracy unchecked by
christian, moslem or judeaic morality of any kind -- aristocracy with
the ethics and conscienceless hedonism of a Marquis de Sade -- a
society that hold abosolute power by the very tools of perverted
superscience that we feared when we resisted, half-correctly (the
enemy is also our "power elite") Hitler and Stalin and Mao -- BUT IT
WILL BE TOO LATE, because every atrocity will be against "mere"
individuals and not worth a world rallying to right the wrong. When
Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz win this war for zionist globalization THEN WIN
EVERYTHING UNLESS WE STOP BEING BIG DUMB MARSHMALLOWS AND STAND IN
THE UNITY AND JUSTICE OF THE SOLID BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT SEPTEMBER 11
("9-11") WAS A DELIBERATE ACT OF MASS-MURDER BY BUSH, PEARLE, SHARON,
WOLFOWITZ, MEYER, AND PERHAPS 500 MORE -- THE REST ONLY IN INFORMED
OF COMPARTMENTALIZED DETAILS ON A "NEED TO-KNOW" BASIS -- ALTHOUGH
MOST OF THESE HAVE PROBABLY BY NOW FIGURED OUT, AFTER THE FACT, WHAT
THEY WERE PART OF.

WE MUST -- BEFORE THE WAR ENDS -- SWITCH OUR CAUSE FROM MERE PACIFISM
AND AN OFFENDED SENSE OF FAIRNESS AND A RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE --
TO A BROADER CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE, FOR THE REMOVAL OF ORGANIZED CRIME
NETWORKS FROM THE LEADERSHIP OF EVERY GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATION AND
ESSENTIAL INSTITUTION AND FOR THE WORKING OF JUSTICE IN THIS ONE
MONSTROUS CRIME -- THE MOTHER OF ALL CRIMES -- THAT IS EXPOSED BY
THE PENTAGON ATTACK EVIDENCE (TOO SMALL A HOLE, TOO SHORT A PLANE IN
THE VIDEO, PLANTED FALSE EVIDENCE, AIR DEFENSE STAND DOWN,
INSUFFICENT DEBRIS AND OF THE WRONG KIND, AND MUCH MORE BESIDES.

you can't wait until after the war to take this advice.

it is now or never -- I am Joshua, the Promised Land is a planet
Earth without globalization zionism sucking the people of life --
either you go into the promised land and take on the "giants" -- or
you live under a string of Caligulas like Bush, each worste than the
last, for forty fucking WASTED years -- like the last 100 years have
been wasted ONLY WORSE.

Get the fucking picture yet?

Dick Eastman
Yakima

[Mister]

Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ncjp7v4d31cb3dup6...@4ax.com>...

We have to believe this.

Anyone have the facts on this?

Anyone got anything on this?

From: senhor san
To: anti-glob...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: Israeli woman on way to Texas just caught with 9 inch packet
of Anthrax in her suitcase!

Israeli woman on way to Texas just caught with 9 inch packet of
Anthrax in her suitcase!

Please let the world know!

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

From news wire stories -- see how the story is systematically being
covered up in successive "local copy" dispatches!

3/22/03
LaGuardia Airport evacuated "The central terminal of LaGuardia
Airport was
evacuated. It happened Friday when a gas mask and white powder were
found in an Israeli
woman's bag. She was traveling from Israel to Texas. The first test
came up positive for
anthrax, but a second test in a Federal lab "proved negative."

" local copy*

3/22/03 LaGuardia Powder Incident This seems to be the same story
which
was initially reported,
then removed, on CNN. This version says the powder was harmless, but
fails
to say why the screeners still had to be decontaminated. Note that in
this
version of the story, the powder was found in a checked bag and the
woman
was on the plane before she could be questioned. local
copy*

3/22/03 Ten people made ill by harmless powder local copy*

3/22/03 In this story, the powder was found on the Israeli woman's
handbag, not the checked luggage So how did she escape arrest and get
on
the plane to Texas? local copy*

3/22/03 Another report on the "harmless" powder that made people ill.
Again the report that the powder was found in the woman's handbag, so
why
wasn't the woman detained? local copy*

3/22/03 Powder was in 9 inch cylinder alongside gas mask. Screener
developed rash on hands after handling. local copy*

3/22/03 Suspicious Vial Found In Luggage At LaGuardia local copy*

3/22/03 Vial from luggage OK but screeners decontaminated local copy*

3/22/03 Authorities Close a Ticketing Area At LaGuardia Due To
Suspicious Substance
local copy*

3/22/03 Texan Questioned in NYC Airport Incident Strange mutation,
the
woman originally identified as Israeli, is now a Texan! local copy*

3/22/03 Powdery substance found at New York's LaGuardia This article
shows "story creep". Earlier reports had the screeners feeling sick.
This
artticle says they were just "itchy".

3/22/03 NY airport screeners decontaminated This report tries to
claim
that the 9 inch cylinder of
powder was just a vial of talcum. Now, talcum is a pretty well known
substance, and the containers it is sold in are clearly marked and
are
usually described in words like "bottle" or "can", whereas this item
is
described as a "cylinder", a very unusual word to use for a common
household product package. Left
unexplained si why ten screeners became sick from Talcum, why talcum
would
cause a rash on the hand of the man who opened it, and why the people
had
to be decontaminated for talcum.

Powder and gasmask found in luggage but Israeli woman not detained,
allowed to board
plane to Texas. The powder tests positive for anthrax, then is
declared to
be harmless, but ten people become sick and are treated, plus the
screeners
(one of whom gets a rash on his hands) are decontaminated.

Contrast the handling of this woman with the men who were thrown in
jail
for three weeks for soap powder.

Why do I get the feeling that a staged terror attack to blame on
Iraq
just fell apart?

More to the point, how many other Israelis are now inside the US with
9
inch cylinders of "harmless powder" and gas masks?

* The local copies are saved because of the lesson learned from Carl
Cameron's news story of the Israeli Spy Ring and the existance of
evidence,
classified by the US Government, linking the arrested spies to 9-11.
That
story was yanked from the Fox News servers almost immediatly. So,
while
the original URLs are linked
above, there are also local copies to deter changes and erasures.

[Everyman]

First, if you can bear it, take a look at globalization zionism's
handiwork:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/massacre.html

dha...@nwinfo.net (Mister) wrote in message news:<65b229bd.03032...@posting.google.com>...

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

military assessments -- US not doing well and propaganda is not
covering it up

===============
First, if you can bear it, take a look at globalization zionism's
handiwork:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/massacre.html

Now, the abstract analysis of warfare:

This site http://www.aeronautics.ru/ is a trove of intel quite
different from CNN, etc. When I was in the Army, I worked for an
EW/SIGINT company, which was tasked with providing the types of intel
detailed on this site. So, yes, I think it highly credible. As for
other info, check out this discussion at
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=58847&group=webcast
regarding another great credibility gap. Personally, I think the brass
is FUBAR on this for thinking the Iraqi soldiers wouldn't fight to
defend their homeland and will have forgotten little things like the
"highway of death" and other atrocities from GW1, not to mention the
12 years of sanctions and bombings and Bush's Hitlerian provocation
charade. Sincerely, if I were an Iraqi, I would fight because this
invasion goes beyond Saddam Hussein and is centered on the history of
western colonialism in the Middle East. And although it's too early to
tell, I believe this could become like Iwo Jima or Stalingrad and that
Bush et al deserve what their Axis kin of 60+ years ago got for
exactly the same reasons.

K

=========

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news074.htm

March 23, 2003
www.iraqwar.ru
The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of
journalists and military experts from Russia to provide accurate and
up-to-date news and analysis of the war against Iraq. The following is
the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report based on the Russian
military intelligence reports.

[ < previous report | next report > ]

March 22, 2003, 1300hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - Additional information
about the situation in the primary combat areas in southern Iraq
became available by 1300hrs (Moscow time, GMT +3). The US command
reports about the supposed surrender of the entire Iraqi 51st Infantry
Division turned out to be a complete fabrication. According to our
sources the 51st Division continues to fight on the approaches to
Basra and we can only talk about individual cases of Iraqi soldiers
being captured in combat.

Elements of the US 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Infantry
Division ended up in an exceptionally difficult situation. While
attempting to encircle Basra from the north and to block An-Nasiriya
elements the 3rd and 1st infantry divisions found themselves wedged
between the defending Iraqi forces. The Iraqi command used this
situation and delivered a decisive counterattack with up to 80 tanks
in the open flank of the US forces, slicing through their combat
orders. As the result of this counterattack these US units are now at
risk of being separated from the main coalition forces and being
surrounded.

By 1100hrs MSK Iraqi units advanced into the US attack front by 10-15
kilometers and Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of the coalition
forces, ordered his troops to switch entirely to defensive operations.
At the same time he issued orders to the forward-deployed coalition
tank units to halt their reconnaissance operations in the directions
of Es-Samaba and An-Najaf and to move immediately to support the
defending US forces. However, the situation is complicated by the fact
that a part of the coalition tanks are currently disabled due to the
lack of fuel and are awaiting the arrival of fuel convoys. Thus the
tanks are able to gradually rejoin combat in small numbers as the fuel
becomes available.

Currently the US and the Iraqi tank forces are engaged in mobile
head-on combat approximately 70-90 kilometers to the south of
An-Nasiriya. Combat orders have been received by the carrier borne
aviation in the Persian Gulf, which until now did not take part in
this battle. At the same time orders were issued to all available
coalition strike aircraft in Qatar to scramble in support of the
defending coalition forces.

Intercepted radio communications indicate that during the morning
period of March 22 the US forces lost 10-15 tanks destroyed or
disabled and up to 30 other armored vehicles. Medevac helicopters flew
more than 30 search-and-rescue missions, which suggests heavy
coalition losses.

Our sources report that during the early morning hours in southwestern
Iraq in the vicinity of Akashat the Iraqi forces have engaged and
surrounded a tactical paratroop unit of the 101st Airborne Division.
Some of the surrounded paratroopers were able to break out into the
desert, where they request air support and finally lost their Iraqi
pursuers. However, up to 30 US troops were killed or captured in this
engagement. Additionally, [Russian] radio intercept units report that
one the US attack helicopters providing close air support was shot
down.

The top US military command is planning to enhance the coalition
command. During the Joint Chief of Staff meeting its Chairman Gen.
Richard Mayers expressed strong criticism of the actions by the
coalition commander Gen. Franks and proposed to strengthen his
headquarters with several other senior military commanders. Gen.
Franks is required to do everything he can to change the current
situation on the front. Analysts believe that, if during the next 3-5
days Gen. Franks fails to achieve any significant results, than it is
entirely possible that he will be replaced as the commander of the
coalition forces.

Update: The coalition forces were able to capture a bridge in the
suburbs of Nasiriya. Their control of the Basra airport is tentative
at best as large numbers of Iraqi forces continue to resist with heavy
artillery and machine gun fire. Around Basra the coalition forces have
advanced at most by 1.5 kilometers. Gen. Franks has announced a change
in plans: the coalition forces are no longer set on capturing Basra so
not to "create military confrontations in that city." The coalition
forces still do not control Umm Qasr and appear to be losing
territory.

(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-22-03, translated by Venik)

===========

http://www.GuluFuture.com/news/nuke_war030321.htm
THE United States and China are now in a nuclear face-off by proxy
over US actions in Iraq, with strong likelyhood that Russia will also
escalate it's response. A strongly worded warning carried today by the
China People's Daily online, reports North Korea warning that US South
Korea military exercises risk imminent nuclear conflict.

The commentary by the Korean Central News Agency(KCNA) considers the
scale of military exercises indicate the US is preparing to "mount a
preemptive attack on nuclear facilities in the DPRK" as part of a
"strategy of fighting two regional wars at the same time." The
commentary describes the US actions as "part of its efforts to
dominate the world."

The commentary alleges the United States has mobilized "massive"
numbers of fighter-bombers and stealth fighters around the Korean
Peninsula. It also accuses the US of turning down Democratic People's
Republic of Korea proposals for a non-aggression treaty, and that the
exercises drive the military situation on the Korean Peninsula to the
"brink of a nuclear war."

This commentary and it's reporting by the People's Daily indicate the
US and China are now in a nuclear face-off over the current global
situation.

A People's Daily article yesterday 20th March, 2003, reported China's
Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan saying that China strongly called
for an immediate halt to military actions against Iraq, and a return
to a political solution to Iraq issue. The Foreign Minister also
"hoped" Japan would be "very prudent" in participating in any military
actions overseas.

PREDICTED BY GULUFUTURE

In our 13th March analysis on GuluFuture.com

http://www.gulufuture.com/news/nuclear_looms030313.htm

we warned that a Global War was threatening following the assasination
of the Serbian Prime Minister Zolan Djindjic in belgrade. We saw that
as a Russian move against US interests. Mr. Djindjic was effectively
the US State Department's man in former Yougoslavia.

We interpreted the US tests of the so-called Mother of All Bombs(MOAB)
thus:
"a clear sign to US enemies, that faced with possible conflicts on
multiple fronts, the US will not risk depleting it's forces and
resources in protracted battle in any individual region, but will seek
quick victories by means of battlefield nuclear weapons."

We also warned in that analysis that:
"The next logical step in this sickening game of international war
poker would be the sudden escalation of Korean Peninsular tensions and
perhaps even a manufactured crisis over Taiwan."

Our GuluFuture analysis concluded thus:
"We are lurching toward a conflict of global dimensions, in which the
major powers may well loose control of the geopolitical situation and
which will feature both chemical and nuclear weapons."

We now stand over those comments and further advise that unknown to
the public in Europe and the US, the current US administration is in a
high-stakes manouver which has potential to escalate at any time into
a nuclear conflict.

We further advise that Russia, China and some countries in Europe are
implacably opposed to the current US Administration and have allowed
it to make the first agressive moves for propaganda reasons and
certain strategic advantages. The same reasons underlie the lack of
Iraqi opposition in the early stages of the conflict.

There will be continuing serious escalations in the response of those
opposed to the US Iraq war and concurrent global ambitions in the next
few days. We expect Russia to respond in a similar though less overt
fashion. A limited nuclear exchange would affect US internal public
support more than it would other countries.

FULL TEXT OF PEOPLE'S DAILY ARTICLE ON KOREA

March 21, 2003 --The large-scale joint military exercises conducted by
the United States and South Korea have made the situation on the
Korean Peninsula more tense and a nuclear war may break out at any
moment, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)said on Friday in a
commentary.

Timed to coincide with the US military attack on Iraq, which began on
Thursday, the military exercises prove that the United States is
implementing its strategy of fighting two regional wars at the same
time as part of its efforts to dominate the world, said KCNA, the
official news agency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK).

With use of massive numbers of troops and modern military equipment,
and the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in a South Korean port, the March
4-April 2 Foal Eagle and the March 19-26 RSOI joint exercises by the
United States and South Korea are the largest yet, and are intended to
threaten and stifle the DPRK by force, the commentary said.

While staging exercises by air, sea and land, the United States
focuses its aerial strategy by mobilizing fighter-bombers and stealth
fighters around the Korean Peninsula. This means that it is going to
"mount a preemptive attack on nuclear facilities in the DPRK and take
it as an opportunity of escalating the war."

As the US strategy of mobilizing international pressure failed to work
on the DPRK, it is turning to military means, the commentary pointed
out.

The United States has turned down the DPRK's proposal for a
non-aggression treaty and staged the largest ever military exercises
directed against the DPRK. The exercises drive the military situation
on the Korean Peninsula to the "brink of a nuclear war", it said.

The DPRK will increase its self-defense capacity and eliminateany
aggressors at a single stroke, the KCNA warned.

FULL TEXT OF PEOPLE'S DAILY ARTICLE ON IRAQ

March 20, 2003 --China strongly calls for immediate stop of military
actions against Iraq, return to track of political solution to Iraq
issue, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said at the press
conference Thursday.

The military actions against Iraq, carried out despite opposition from
most governments and peoples across the world and bypassing the United
Nations Security Council, violated the United Nations Charter and the
basic norms of international law, he stressed.

China is very concerned about, and keeps a close watch on, this
situation and Chinese government's position on Iraq issue accords with
world people's strong aspiration for peace, according to the
spokesman.

Kong Quan also said China will continue to call for world peace and
will take actions with other countries to make the countries concerned
stop their military actions in Iraq.

China's concern lies in three aspects

Firstly, China is concerned about the military actions that relevant
countries have launched against Iraq, disregarding the strong hope and
appeal of most countries and their people for peace and bypassing the
United Nations Security Council, Kong said at the regular press
conference.

China is also concerned about the lives and property of the Iraqi
people and the profound influence the military actions may bring to
regional and global peace.

The spokesman said in resolving the Iraq issue, China keeps in mind
that the unity and authority of the UN Security Council should be
maintained and the seriousness of the Council's Resolution 1441 and
other previous resolutions upheld.

Among the 190-plus members of the United Nations, the overwhelming
majority stand for a political solution of the Iraq issue, and so do
most members of the Security Council.

China evacuated all its nationals, including diplomats and
journalists, from Iraq and closed its embassy in Bagdad two days ago.

Kong said that the safety of foreign citizens and embassies in China
"will be ensured", as the Chinese government attaches great importance
to the safety of foreign citizens, embassies and organizations in
China.

On Japan's support of the military actions against Iraq, Kong said
China hopes Japan would be "very prudent" in participating in any
military actions overseas.

==^==^====================================

[Everyman]

Henry H. Lindner lists 27 great improbabilities surrounding the 9-11-01 mass-murder.

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

From: "Henry H. Lindner" <hhli...@earthlink.net>

(1) Subject: The chance that George Bush's version of 9/11 is true Date:
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:34:47 -0500

Consider each of these items and put an estimate of a chance of the
occurrence of the event described . for example, one in a hundred, one
in a thousand, etc. The chance of all of the following events happening
is equal to one in a number equal to the product of all of the numbers
estimated along the way. Have fun!

1. Chance of a 47 story building (heavily alarmed and with more than
adequate sprinkling systems) catching fire and collapsing in a perfectly
vertical "implosion." (This was Building seven, two blocks north of the
North Tower and a building not struck by an airplane nor anywhere near
the aviation fuel burning in building two blocks south of it ? this
building was even further north than the North Tower, about as far from
the fires and collapses of the other towers as is possible for a WTC
building). The collapse of Building #7, another "skyscraper," occurred
more than five hours after the Twin Towers disaster; that is, fully
eight hours after Flight 11 struck the North Tower-the tower closest to
Tower #7 .

2. Chance of Item #1 above happening on the same day that two 110-story
buildings also collapsed -- by fire, according to official Government
statement, and not the impact of being struck by a commercial airplane.

3. Chance of three such "implosions" occurring on the same day. These
were the first, second and third time in history that high-rise
buildings have imploded and vertically collapsed as a result of fire ?
and not as a result of a deliberate well-planned and supervised
demolition of an old building.

4. Chance of three aircraft crashing (two into tall buildings, one into
a relatively short building) and then disintegrating to the extent of
their engines, wheel housings and black boxes (and everything else) were
literally pulverized.

5. Chance of the passport folder (with undamaged passport) of the
senior-most perpetrator of items #1 through #4, above, surviving the
fire and crash and wafting to the ground from 90 stories up to three to
four blocks away from the first tower struck.

6. Chance of that same perpetrator (Atta) choosing to barely catch the
plane he was planning to fly into the North Tower of the WTC on the day
he was to produce the most electrifying event on America's soil in more
than two centuries.

7. Chance of Atta's baggage that missed that flight (of course) carrying
incriminating evidence against him, including an airline pilot's or
navigator's uniform. Had it made the plane, what value would that
uniform have been in the baggage compartment?

8. Chance of the perpetrator's (Atta's) rent-a-car being in the airport
of departure point of the intermediate flight (the one that crashed) and
not the airport from which he (Atta) originally took off that morning.

9. Chance that not one of the perpetrators (19 in all) was caught on
videotape before boarding any of the four flights that crashed. Atta was
videotaped boarding a flight in Maine on its way to Boston where he
nearly missed his connection. I doubt that was expected by the real
perpetrators. Maine?

10. Chance that all four planes, all floors near the impact points in
the Twin Towers and the wing and floor of the Pentagon where the plane
crashed there . were substantially below their usual occupancy levels.
All of the building locations had construction ongoing and the planes
were basically half-full.

11. Chance that Mayor of New York and city officials would choose to
have NYC Command Center and bunker for senior New York City Government
officials located on the 23rd floor of a Trade Center Tower ? the same
mysterious Building #7 ? that at least explains why it was so well fire
alarmed and sprinkler-protected.

12. Chance of both United Airlines and American Airlines stock being
shorted (short sells means expectation of going down, down, down) well
beyond those of other airlines on the days prior to the crashes (two
American Airlines and two United Airlines planes).

13. Chance of a disintegrating plane putting a ten-feet in circumference
hole in the inner wall of the third ring in at the Pentagon -- that's
six walls, in and out from the outer wall.

14. Chance of a plane with a 125 feet wingspan hitting Pentagon and
leaving a hole less than 90 feet wide in outer wall ? with no visible
trauma to building's outer wall outside of the hole. Further, the
ingress was at an angle of about 45 degrees.

15. Chance of the President of the US recalling that he "saw" the first
plane crash into the first tower ? as stated and recorded on the White
House.gov site ? not once but twice. Since the only films known of this
event didn't surface until late that evening, this must be one in a
billion or something .

16. Chance that so many businesses moved out of all three buildings
during previous two weeks. Many of these businesses were Jewish-owned,
which leads to .

17. Chance of Mossad and other Jewish intelligence personnel warning the
US of an impending terrorist attack involving planes attacking large
buildings, monuments and high profile targets, and of the US Government
ignoring their serious and now-known-to-be-credible warnings.

18. Chance of four Arab terrorists with minimal training in flying
commercial jets (largely from flying Cessna's and practicing on a
simulator) flying letter-perfect maneuvers into the two towers and the
Pentagon and after having navigated from as far as Ohio. (Their
instructors referred to the entire group as "bunglers" who would be
incapable of flying large aircraft ? whereas experienced pilots
repeatedly state that they doubt that they could have flown the
maneuvers and simply could NOT have attacked the Pentagon from a
horizontal pattern similar to that executed by AA77 (presumably a Boeing
757).

19. Chance of four aircraft with experienced pilots and navigators
having been hijacked without even one pilot transmitting the 7-7-0-0
code to the ground controllers.

20. Chance of dedicated terrorists who are fundamental Muslims being
both so fundamental as to be willing to die for sake of Allah, yet
willing to drink and womanize up until two nights before the terrorist
attacks occurred.

21. Chance of same "dedicated terrorists" being willing to leave
substantial amounts of evidence so as to incriminate Al Qaeda network
(for whom they worked and to whom they owed allegiance), and yet have
the leader of the organization (Osama bin Laden) deny that he had
anything to do with the attacks within several days of the attacks.

22. Chance of Government officials (NYC and Federal) disposing of all of
the steel girders that didn't "pulverize" before trained investigators
could be put to work on the scene. Same, same for all other debris at
the site of the three buildings that collapsed in New York and the
Pentagon. (To make it easier for you, that would be the same probability
as that of a policeman tossing a murder weapon into a trash compactor
before a detective arrived on the scene.)

23. Chance that Congressional Investigation panel (into the 9-11
tragedy) would not have sufficient clearances more than a year and a
half later ? panel members including former US Senators and others of
similar stature and having had very high clearances in the recent past ?
so as to even begin their investigation. Even the somewhat conservative
former US senator Slate Gorton complained about the delay in his
clearance as recently as March 16.

24. Chance of complete plans for the attacks onto Afghanistan and
removal of the Taliban being in place before the attacks of 9-11. (You
might include plans to attack Iraq and remove the Saddam Hussein regime
too.)

25. Chance of FBI to be able to name the 19 Arabs who commandeered the
hijacked aircraft (with photographs for the newspapers to publish)
within 48 hours of the attack ? assuming they knew absolutely nothing of
the attacks one moment earlier than the first hijacking.

26. Chance of the USAF (and all of NORAD) being incapable of scrambling
even one jet (save two out of Massachusetts, far to the north) during
the hour (actually more) between first knowing of hijacked aircraft and
preceding the final crash into the Pentagon.

27. Chance of manifests (lists of passengers on planes) given to
reporters over full week after crash not including a single name of even
one of the 19 Arabs mentioned above in #25. The reason given by airlines
was that next of kin of not all of the deceased had yet been notified.
(Huh?)

With your imagination and sense of logic, I'll bet you could take these
improbable events and wind them into a coherent "story" of sorts. Simply
mutiplying the probabilities gets me one divided by a number larger than
the number of atoms in the known universe, yet our Government [sic]
expects me to believe that it is 1.0 !

[Malcolm McMahon]

On 23 Mar 2003 23:35:08 -0800, sil...@nwinfo.net (Everyman) wrote:

>Consider each of these items and put an estimate of a chance of the
>occurrence of the event described . for example, one in a hundred, one
>in a thousand, etc. The chance of all of the following events happening
>is equal to one in a number equal to the product of all of the numbers
>estimated along the way.

Any statistician will tell you what bullshit that is. Whatever
combination of events actually happens is vanishingly unlikely before it
happens.

[Everyman]

I, Dick Eastman predict that a genetics-discriminating plague will be
unleased at Passover (Pesach) April 17, 2003 to rid the Jews of their
enemies.

by Dick Eastman

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

Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, called in the Talmud and Midrash
the Day of Judgement, but also,The Day of Awe, was celebrated on
September 11, opening the lunar year 5762 (1999), but seven days later
in 2001. On Rosh Hashanah the Shofar (ram's horn) is blown, according
to Talmud, in order to confuse Satan and his hosts.

The attack on Iraq was begun on the day of Purim -- it is the day
celebrating the events in the Book of Esther in the Hebrew scriptures.
Esther was a nightclub dancer who did bumps and grinds for Persian
king Ahasuerus (Aratxerxes II?) who immediately dumped his frigid
first wife (who wouldn't dance at his parties) whereun she was able to
thwart the plan of wicked Hamon, the anti-Semitic guy, through her
inside connections and a tip-off from a local investment banker,
Mordecai. Haman, after being made to lead Mordecai, mounted on a
horse in pomp and splender, around town heralding Mordecai, as the
Kings great favorite -- and soon after, Esther, at Mordecai's word,
informed the king that Haman was out to get all the Hebrews in the
land, and, that she herself was to be one of his victims and added,
rubbing her breasts against his beard, suggested that Haman and a list
of all his gang that she just happened to have with were the cause of
everybody's problems.

From the Megillah:

"While they were still conversing with him, the king's eunuchs arrived
and conducted Haman quickly to the banquet that Esther had prepared.
The king and Haman went to Queen Esther's banquet and again on the
second day, while they were drinking wine, the king asked Esther,
"What is your petition, Queen Esther? It will be granted you. What
is your request? If it were half the kingdom. It shall be executed."

"Queen Esther replied, "If I have won favor, O king, and if it
pleases your majesty, then may my life be granted me at my petiton and
my people at my request; because we have been sold, I and my people,
to be destroyed, to be killed, to be obliterated. Had we merely been
sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept still; although the
enemy cannot compensate for the damage this will work to the king.

"King Ahasuerus spoke up. He said to Queen Esther, "Who is he,
and where is the person who dared contemplate such a thing?" Esther
replied, "An oppressor, an enemy, this wicked Haman!" Then Haman was
in terror at the looks of the King and Queen. ANgrily the king arose
from his wine and walked into the palace garden; but Haman remained
standing to plead with Queen Esther for his life; because he saw that
utter ruin had been decided against him by the king.
"When the king came back from the palace garden to the banqueting
hall, Haman had dropped down on the courch on which Esther was
reclining, and the king remarked, "Violating the queen before me in my
house!" No sooner had the word left the king's lips than they covered
Haman's face. Harbonah, one of the eunuchs in waiting on the king,
observed, "Then there is the gallows, 75 feet high, standing at
Haman's hourse, which he errected erected for Mordecai, who spoke on
behalf of the king.
"Hang him on it," said the king. So they hanged Haman on the
gallows he had set up for Mordecai. And the king's anger calmed down.
On that same day King Ahasuerus transferred to Queen Esther the
belongings of Haman, the Jew-hater, and Mordecai became the king's
right-hand man; for Esther had made known how they were related. The
king took off his signet ring, which he had taken back from Haman and
gave it to Mordecai; while Esther appointed Mordecai in charge of the
Haman affairs.

"Once ,more Esther addressed the king, fell at his feet with tears
begged of him to frustrate the wicked plot of Haman that Agagite and
the scheme he had framed against the Jews. The king held out the
golden scepter to Esther, so that Esther arose, stood before the king,
and said: "If it pleases your majesty and I am in your good graces, if
it seems right in the king's judgement and I am pleasing him, then let
a dispatch be issued to revers the letters with the scheme that Haman
the son of Hammedatha the Agagite concocted, written to destroy all
the Jews in your majesty's provinces. For how could I look on while
disaster strikes my people, and how, Oh, how, could I bear the ruin of
my race!"

"King Ahasuerus then told Esther and Mordecai the Jew, "Look! I have
handed Haman's belongings over to Esther, and im they have hanged on
the gallows; because he would lay hand on the Jews. Now you
yourselves write for the Jews as you think best, in the king's name
and seal it with the royal signet ring; for a document that is written
in the king's name is sealed with the royal signet ring no one may
reverse."

"The royal scribes were immediately summoned, that twenty-third day of
the third month, the month Sivan. As Mordecai ordered, so the
dispatch was written to the Jews, to the deputies, to the governors
and to the princes of the provinces from India to Ethopia, 127
provinces, to each province in its own script, to each people in their
own language, and tothe Jews, too, in their own writing and tongue.

"They wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, sealed it with his
signet ring and sent the letters by swift post riding on royal horses
and muels, raised from young mares, to the effect that the king gave
the Jews in all cities permission to unite for the defense of their
lives; also to destroy, kill, and exterminate all forces of people
and provinces that armed against them, including women and children,
and to take over their property, all on an appointed day in all the
provinces of King Ahasuerus, the theirteen day of the twelfth month,
the month Adar. A copy of this letter, which in all the provinces
must bve executed as law, must be brought to the knowledge of all the
peoples, and the Jews must be ready against that day to get the better
of their enemeies. So the swift posts, riding royal horses, sped
forth, hastened by the king's command, when the mandate had been
proclaimed from the Shushan palace. Mordecai went out from the king's
presence wearing royal robes, blue and white, a large golden diadem,
and a pruple robe of fine linen. THe sity of Shushang shouted and was
glad; for the Jews had there was illumination and happiness, enjoyment
and honour. Similarly in province after province and in every city
whereever the king's mandate and decree penetrated, the Jews had joy
and gladness, feat and frolic. And many among the people of the land
called themselves Jews, because fear of the Jews had overtaken them."
(Book of Esther, from Chapters 5-8)

The celebration of Purim, tells Jews that tyrants and fanatics can be
defeated if you use your head and cultivate the right connections.

Draw your own conclusions.

Pesach ( Passover, Festival of Freedom) celebrates the Angel of
Death coming over Egypt and killing the first born of every gentile,
passing the Jewish houses marked with blood on posts and lentels of
their doors. A celebration prepared for, in part, by removing all
mycota fungi (yeast) from Jewish houses and diets. The leader in the
celebration at one point raises a cup and declares: "Not only once
have they risen to destroy us, but in every generation,: and "But the
Holy One, blessed be he, always delivers us from their hands."

And so I see a selective plague, attacking only those who did not eat
the yeast available in the Egyptian markets. I note too that,
generations before Joseph ,was put in charge of the grain food supply
of all Egypt -- but in the days of Moses Jews worked as slaves and
presumably were not bared from food-production toil. I see Moses as
a leader of a great sabotage and information warfare againt Egypt. (I
also have concluded that the walls of Jericho fell because the
prostitute Rahab, had men working in the walls of the city with
shovels to bring them down as the Hebrews marched around the city
blowing horns to create a distraction -- her brothel being, according
to scripture, built in the wall. Also, when Joshua crossed Jordan,
the Jordan "dried up" -- actually the river was divered by Hebrew
engineers up stream -- the part about Jehovah doing it was pure
"psy-op". Also, when the prophet Elijah poured "water" on his alter
and, in a challenge to the 400 priests of Baal, told them to try and
call down fire from heaven like he was going to do, the water was
actually crude oil -- after all, this happened in the Middle East,
crude can be lit when it comes out of the ground -- one of the great
"magicians secrets" of the times) -- and it looks like dirty water (I
have worked with it as a roustabout in Texas fitting oil pipe and
painting oil holders, and I have done this with crude) -- so Elijah
called down the fire, after the priests of Baal failed to do so, and
the Bible actually says that "the flames licked up the water"

From 1 Kings, Chapter 18: "He errected an altar with the stones to
the name of the Jehovah. He dug a trench around the altar big enough
to hold two bushels of seed. Next he arranged the wood, cut up the
bullock, and laid it on the wood. Then he said, "Fill four jars with
water and pour it over the sacrifice and over the wood." note: This
is definitley NOT a practice called for in the very particular
formulae for a proper sacrifice -- and remember what Jehovah does to
those who don't follow the rules (touch the arc, enter the holy of
holies, or disobey and of the ritual prescriptions of Mosaic Law!) He
said, "Do it again," and they did it again." 9Ever pour on extra
charcoal fluid on your barbacue? always a little extra for good
measure!) He said, "Do it a third time," and they did it a third time,
so that the water ran all around the altar and the trench was full of
water, too.
"At the time for the sacrifice, Elijah the prophet came up and
said, "O Jehovah, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, today let it be
known that Thou art God in Israel, that I am They servant, and that I
have done all this in accordance with Thy word. Here me, O Jehovah,
hear me, that this people may see that Thou, O Jehovah, art God and
that Thou hast turned their heats back again." THen fire from Jehovah
came down and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, and the
dust; it even licked up the water in the trench." get the picture?
Now back to Pesach or Passover which this year falls on April 17,
2003.

With the the above introduction I am ready to give you my prediction.

The group of men who planned the 9-11 mass-murder frameup that occured
just before Rosh Hashanah, and who arranged that operation "Shock and
Awe" would occur on Purim, March 18, 2003 (as Israeli radio was
predicting before the event, claiming that Israeli intelligence had
picked up US military transmissions), I believe that this same group
are ready to unlease a plague virus that has been genetically
engineered to attack organs possessing only certain genetic
characteristics -- a gene-pool-specific plague -- or a coctail of
plague viruses to attack a broad spectrum of humanity while skipping
those with specific characteristics.

When I was researching clandestine weather modification, I learned
that the fastest computer in the world belongs to the National Science
Foundation, which is not an institution of the Federal Governemnt, but
a private institution, managed, like the Federal Reserve, by a group
of individuals from the ruling elite and doing much of its basic
research according to grand research strategies that are not
publically disclosed -- although compartmentalized findings are
published in isolation. It is interesting that the National Science
Foundation was the second owner of the entire internet, after the
military privatized it -- BUT THAT THE INTERNET WAS TOO SLOW FOR
PROJECTS NSF WANTED TO UNDERTAKE. And when I researched what the new
NSF super computer was working on, I found its mighty crunching power
was divided between two projects: modelling world weather movements
(as I then surmised, and still believe, to instruct the cloud-laying
aircraft where to put their "chemtrails", thereby changing ground
heating and, thus, ground pressure, etc. -- I also noted that this
info, the best there is, was not going to the National Weather
Service, but WAS being shared with China, who are the world's experts
in short-term weather modification!) BUT I ALSO LEARNED, and filed it
away in the back of my mind for future reference, THAT THE OTHER HALF
OF THE NSF SUPER SUPER COMPUTER WAS INVOLVED IN MODELING THE
PERMUTATIONS OF VIRUS GENETICS -- at a time when the human genome
(total genetic mapping for the human organism) was also being
investigated elsewhere. WHY? AND WHY THE SECRECY.

I also have learned, through my discursive search for useful bits of
information that are suggestive of what is going on in the world --
THAT NELSON ROCKEFELLER TOOK THE JOB OF UNDERSECRETARY OF HEALTH UNDER
EISENHOWER (that CFR yes-man -- who got the presidency instead of
patriots Robert Taft or Douglas MacArthur) -- and I noted that many
citizen investigators have looked at ROckefellers connections and
actions at the time, and concluded that he was developing population
control viruses (well in keeping with the universal Malthusianism --
"people are cheap and there are far to many of them" views of the
ruling elites who gave us abortion on demand and, yes, according to
these investigators, the designer virus AIDS, as well -- which is now
clearing Africa of blacks so that rich guys can build nice mansions in
the beautiful jungles with giraffs and elephants, but no undesirable
elements to smell up the place and spoil the enjoyment. etc. (Yes, I
believe that.)

MOST IMPORTANT I NOTE THAT TOP MICROBIOLOGISTS HAVE BEEN BEING
MURDERED AROUND THE WORLD -- THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND MISSING, THEIR
KEYS IN THEIR CARS -- THEY HAVE DIED IN NO LESS THAN 5 SEPERATE PLANE
CRASHES, THAT THE NUMBER OF THESE DISEASE CONTROL EXPERTS WHO ARE DEAD
IS NOT APPROACHING 20 -- a statistical impossiblity for so many
accidental deaths (remember accidental death insurance is so cheap,
buecause it is so improbable 0-- especially for the highly educated.

How sure am I?

Very sure.

What do I want you to do.

Spread the word and react in ways that, frankly, I don't think you are
capable of -- unless you wake up, grow up and act with clarity of
thought and decisivness of action and fearlessness in the face of what
"people might think of you" or how this will "affect your job."

We must make it clear to the perpetrators of 9-11 and the Iraq
halocaust -- that if they proceed with their plans to unleash
biological warfare that will kill gentiles or kill any particular
subset of the human race that they have targeted for destruction --
that the entire human race will act in severest retaliation against,
not only the perpetrators, but against the very existence of the state
of Israel -- and no amount of terror, or H-bombs, or neutron-bombs or
plague or weather disasters will stop us.

That is what you must do.

Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington
alt.con