Skip to first unread message

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 5:41:51 AM4/4/04
Let's see. Anti-war candidate Dean was leading in polls and primaries, then
he gave an undignified yell and so everyone switched to Kerry the pro-war
Bonesman. Now 51 percent want Bush and 47 per cent want Kerry -- leaving
2 percent who oppose the war and had better shut up if they don't want Bush
to beat Kerry. You believe that, right?

If you do, then please consider this proposition:



"Dick Eastman" <de1...@nwinfo.net> wrote in message news:...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dick Eastman
> To: michael d. rectenwald ; Lori R. Price ; Hon. Cynthia McKinney McKinney
> AntiwarCom Yahoo Group ; oldr...@yahoogroups.com ;
> standf...@yahoogroups.com ; Libertar...@yahoogroups.com ;
> LibertyP...@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 11:56 AM
> Subject: how the people will win -- in every message you send say: If the
> Democratic Party goes with the WarProfitBonesman I bolt for peace!
> How the people will win In every message you send affirm the following:
> "If the Democratic Party goes with the WarProfitBonesman I bolt for
> Here is why it will work:
> If the people have the disciple to give the Democracy "tough love" -- so
> that the DNC realizes that war and the police state and financial slavery
> and rule by billionare shadow government and the no-production uncreative
> no-future "servant economy" spell the end of their power, of their
> or their bi-partisan scam on the American people.
> The American people are beautiful and good and talented and capable of
> making the nation a paradise and blessing humanity around the world with
> example of our freedom and faith in each other -- yet we are oppressed,
> deformed and crushed by a machine of inferior "betters" who prove the
> claims of their own superiority by tieing our hands behind our backs and
> pushing down blindfolds on our heads, by sabotaging our institutions,
> dumbing us down, lying to us, modeling failure and dysfunction in their
> monopoly media, hobbling or science, our invention, and our enterprise,
> robbing us, wasting our productive efforts and rendering our entire
> existence futile -- only so they can feel superior and have all the wealth
> of the world.
> The Democrat Party, from the days of Jefferson -- has been opposed to
> who since Wilson and World War One have now come to control it.
> All we ask for is Kucinich -- not William Jennings Bryan, not Huey Long,
> not Andy Jackson -- only Kucinich -- to end the war, to end the reign of
> the plutocrats, to bring the criminals in our corporations to justice --
> that is not asking too much.
> And if we can't have Kucinich -- then it is irrational to hold on to the
> Democratic Party merely for tradition's sake, merely because of its
> to the common man of the old days.
> Give us Kucinich, you party bosses who have rigged these primaries to give
> us the WarProfit-Bonesman, or we will find an anti-war
> anti-globalization peace-and-justice candidate who will -- be he or she
> libertarian, green, populist, taxpayer party, People's Party or
> whatever --(whichever at the time of the DNC's rejection of the People has
> the peace candidate with the broadest national appeal) we will go to
im --
> and that is a promise.
> I believe it will work. What do you think? (Ask yourself: What holds me
> to a party that merely gives me back the same oligarchy serving
> people-hurting country-disgracing criminal policies of the GOP Neo-con
> tyranny? What office, what pork, what patronage can be worth that
> of democratic principle and the common good?
> They think they can count on your vote for a war and ruin candidate simply
> because you are a woman, a black, a union member, a government employee, a
> seasoned Democratic pol, a liberal, a progressive, an environmentalist,
> educator and they have all those groups "in their pocket" so they can be
> taken for granted.
> The heck with that noise. Tell them it won't work this time -- AND TELL
> They can't give us another WarProfitBonesman and expect us to stay in the
> fold -- they can't bake a cake out of crap and expect us to eat it as
> always once we know that they have done.
> Dick Eastman
> Yakima, Washingto

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 5:41:46 AM4/4/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 5:42:07 AM4/4/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 5:41:59 AM4/4/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 4:41:27 PM4/4/04

Hold on tight -- rough fun riding ahead

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 4:41:32 PM4/4/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 4:41:22 PM4/4/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 4, 2004, 4:41:38 PM4/4/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 6, 2004, 12:55:16 AM4/6/04
Did you forget??? Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco, said that he was
warned not to fly by Condolezza Rice -- warned not to fly on September 11th.

"911 was a Reichstag Fire, the CIA's Operation Northwoods realized, staged
by the US military and the CIA, using planes on automatic pilots to hit the
twin towers, using construction explosives to bring down the twin towers and
building 7 in New York and using a guided missile to hit the Pentagon.
Condolezza Rice admitted on CNN that it was she who called Willie Brown to
warn him 8 hours before this staged event not to fly, proving that it was
certainly an inside job."

If the 9-11 Commission doesn't publically ask Condolezza why she warned
Willie Brown not to fly on September 11th they all must face charges of
obstruction of justice in the worst case of treason, mass-murder, crimes
against humanity by American officials since Pearl Harbor.

Condolezza Rice 3/00 "slip" announces power elite willingness to use
fraud-disinformation of "threat" to unit people behind globalist foreign

Look at this letter to me from a journalist, which I, in turn, put out
Saturday, October 06, 2001 reporting statements made by Condolezza Rice in
March, 2000 that give away the whole game. When I first forwarded it I
remember thinking that this letter would be the downfall of the perpetrators
of 9-11. I am still waiting.

From: "Dick Eastman" <eas...@wolfenet.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: verifiable: Condolezza Rice 3/00 "slip" announces power elite
willingness to use fraud-disinformation of "threat" to unit people behind
globalist foreign policy

Verifiable: Condolezza Rice 3/00 "slip" announces power elite willingness
to use fraud-disinformation of "common threat" to unit people behind
globalization foreign policy

Two letters recieved this morning from someone unknown to me:

Letter #1, what Condolezza Rice said in March of 2000:

I very much enjoy and appreciate your posts.

I cannot exercise my Freedom of Speech at this time. So I am very happy to
see someone else giving voice to the exact same thoughts, analysis, and
sentiments that I have.

Here is some information you will find interesting;

Condolezza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, was in Houston to give a
speech in March of 2000. This was prior to Bush assuming the Presidency and
her assuming her new position in his administration. She had worked under
Bush Senior as head of Russian and East European Affairs. Her words were
most prophetic. She said, and these are exact quotes:

"We need a common enemy to unite us."

"We need a new threat as a marker to where we will lead."

"Seperation of powers is a problem for foreign policy."

These statements were not in response to questions but were in the body of
her speech.

Afterwards XXX asked about about American losing it's moral authority which,
I believe, was the greatest contributing factor in our victory in the Cold
War. This led to the destruction of the Soviet Union which our military
might could not do. She was visibly angered and disturbed by XXX comments
and simply retorted. "We have other means of asserting our authority".
Meaning, of course, military might and deception.

It is clear to me that the September 11 crashbombing fit perfectly into her
idea of what "we need", what Bush wants. Bush has, to date, been the
greatest benefactor of the events of September 11 and for the foreseeable
future will continue to be.

(end excerpt of excerpt)

Letter #2, on following the money even if they won't:
Remember what Deep Throat said "Follow the Money". It brought down the Nixon

The best lead on who was behind this was the puts purchased (stock option
contracts betting the price will fall). On one of the cable shows on finance
a analysist said the number of puts in United Airlines, American Airlines
(only in the airlines used by the hijackers) and businesses in the WTC that
were going to be substantially impacted, was 90 times the number of puts
purchase on a daily average THE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACK and this was WORLDWIDE
purchases. He gave some examples of a put purchased for $375,000 that was
worth $2.4 million the day after the attack. Who would gamble that much
without insider knowledge? The numbers of puts purchased, in addition to the
size of the investments, indicate that an extremely large number of people,
possibly thousands, knew the exact day of the attack, the exact target, and
the exact means.

The "money trail" was a big story for a day and then very suddenly no
further mention has been made of it. It was used just long enough to secure
the seizure of money from targeted groups and additions to the
anti-terrorist legislation.

I look forward to seeing the information I am providing you included in your

One more thing I picked up on the news. Some bigwig in the military, I don't
remember his name, was being interviewed on the 17th day following the
attack. He was asked "when can we expect some action in Afganistan". His
reply "The buildup there has been going on for several weeks so it could be
very soon." 17 days is a little short of "several weeks". The quick response
indicates the buildup was beginning even before the attack took place.

A thought I had - If you know, or suspect, you are going to be attacked, it
might be strategic to stage an attack on yourself so you can be ready with
the response. Thus catching your enemy off-guard and unprepared. When
comparing this operation with the attack on WTC in 1993 it appears far too
sophisticated and effective for the type of group it is being blamed on. It
would seem that Some intellegence would have been picked up on an operation
of this size. It could be that some in the intellegence community allowed,
or even assisted, in it happening for the strategic purposes of those they
answer to.

If not guilty for the actual attack there are those in the US governmnet
that are guilty of knowing about it and letting, if not aiding and abetting,
in making it happen. It is interesting to note how little criticizm there
has been of the CIA, FBI, or the intellegence community for letting this
happen. Rather they have been rewarded with bigger budgets and more power.

What people need to continue to ask themselves is not just "who had motive"
(end of letter)

Is there a real investigative journalist in the house?

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


Found: The 911 "Stand Down Order"?
Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very
important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD
procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing
intercept orders.
Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This
amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint
Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces
"Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction,
as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to
issue orders in a timely fashion.
The relevant documents are on the Web at:



Jerry Russell



Conspiracy Theory?
9/11 International Inquiry - Phase One
By Gregor Holland

conspiracy theory n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed
case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather
than an individual or isolated act.

Mainstream media pundits, government officials and well-intentioned
patriots have been quick to point a finger at skeptics of the
official White House 9/11 story and brand them 'conspiracy theorists'.
The flaw in this approach, however, is the failure to recognize
that the official White House story about the events of 9/11
is itself a conspiracy theory. The theory that fanatic Muslim
terrorists organized by the secretive Al Qaeda network and led
by Osama Bin Laden hijacked four airliners ramming two into the
World Trade Center, leveling them, one into the Pentagon, and
one to the ground in Pennsylvania, is a theory of conspiracy.

The pressing issue it would therefore seem is not whether one
is a conspiracy theorist, but rather in which conspiracy theory
does one believe? And what is the evidence to support that belief?
To make any inquiry into the events of 9/11 requires that one
become a conspiracy theorist.

The common sense and reasonable expectation is that the official
9/11 Commission would thoroughly investigate, analyze, interview,
and pick apart all available data to determine what happened,
and what didn't, on that day, and the days leading up to it,
to allow the spectacular success of the conspiracy to terrorize
America. The purpose of a meticulous investigation is, of course,
to ensure that the proper actions are taken to prevent and thwart
the success of future terrorist conspiracies. The official 9/11
Commission is, therefore, a commission created for the express
purpose of investigating a conspiracy theory.

According to a growing group of skeptics who have been tracking
the investigations and doing their own research the commission
is not living up to the job. Indeed some have gone so far as
to call it a whitewash. They are beginning to organize an independent
investigation of their own. A gathering of hundreds of 9/11 activists
met for two and a half days this past weekend at the "International
Inquiry Into 9/11 - Phase One" at the Veterans War Memorial Herbst
Theatre in San Francisco. Participants presented research, screened
films, shared information, and strategized methods for informing
a public which is only now beginning to become aware of the complex
and largely unreported issues and unanswered questions surrounding
the events of 9/11.

Presenters included well-known authors, scholars, career activists,
as well as amateur researchers who presented detailed examinations
into many of the unanswered mysteries surrounding the events
of 9/11. A few of these include: the failure to scramble jets
to intercept the hijacked airliners, the unprecedented WTC collapse
of Building 7 as well as virtual disintegration of the North
and South towers, the incredulous appearance of Mohammed Atta's
passport on the pile of WTC rubble after an explosion that disintegrated
everything else, the strange behavior of George Bush and his
secret service on that day, including a failure to assume that
Bush was in danger during an attack on the nation, the apparent
failure of the events to catch the attention of top brass military
leaders including the Secretary of Defense and the acting Head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the failure to investigate anomalous
spikes in 'put' options on American, United and several other
stocks in the days before the attacks, the odd meeting between
the money-man of the hijackers Mahmoud Ahmed of the Pakistani
Intelligence Services and several Washington leaders the morning
of 9/11 in Washington, connections between the CIA, the Pakistan
Intelligence Service, and the funding of the Taliban and al Quaeda,
statements from top officials including Condoleeza Rice immediately
after 9/11 that no one ever imagined terrorists would use commercial
airliners as missiles, the disappearance of the fuselage, wings,
indeed the entire physical body of Flight 77 after striking the
Pentagon, the existence prior to 9/11 of plans to invade Afghanistan,
and many, many others. At a lunch break on Saturday, participants
converged on San Francisco City Hall to hand deliver a letter
to Mayor Daly requesting that he investigate statements made
by former Mayor Brown that he was warned not to fly on the morning
of 9/11.

Included among the presenters were Ellen Mariani, a 9/11 widow
who has filed a RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act] lawsuit against President Bush and other high level members
of his administration based upon prior knowledge of 911, along
with her attorney Phil Berg, Nafeez Ahmed, author of "The War
on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked", Michel Chossudovsky,
author of "War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September
11", Mike Ruppert, publisher of From The Wilderness, Daniel Hopsicker,
author of "Welcome to Terrorland", the only detailed investigation
into Mohammed Atta and the Venice airfields where Atta and other
hijackers trained, Jim Marrs, author of New York Times Bestsellers
"Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" (part of the basis
of the Oliver Stone film 'JFK'), and "Rule by Secrecy".

Fortunately for the activists, while the mainstream media has
failed in its role of Fourth Estate to challenge or question
the Bush administration in any of its policies, tactics, or agenda,
the rest of the world is not so complicit. The book "Against
All Enemies" by former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke
has finally blasted the lid off the Pandora's Box of 9/11 issues.
Clarke's authoritative and credible claim that Bush was not interested
in counterterrorism and al Quaeda prior to 9/11 has switched
the spotlight on. In addition, the controversy over National
Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice's refusal to testify in public
before the 9/11 commission has increased suspicion that the White
House has something to hide. "The New Pearl Harbor", a brilliant
and dispassionate analysis of key unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 by theologian David Ray Griffin, is steadily climbing the
charts. Surely this is only the beginning.

In her CBS "60 Minutes" interview with Ed Bradley this past Sunday,
Condoleeza Rice aptly, though most likely unintentionally, summed
up the core issue. Rice said that the official commission was
rightly not focused on the events of 'that day', but rather,
on policy. This would prohibit her from testifying, as a Security
Advisor to the President does not testify to Congress about policy.
Later in the interview, gaining her composure in promoting the
war on terrorism and warning of the inevitability of future events,
Rice emphasized how important it is to stay focused on the events
of 'that day'. Herein lies the anomaly, it is impossible to stay
focused on the events of that day without fully investigating
and understanding them. Though Rice has since changed her mind
and decided to testify, the stunning incongruity of her remarks
serve to ignite the mission of the 9/11 activists and their burning
desire to know the truth. Whether the White House is willing
participant or not, it is unlikely that the 9/11 activists, and
the public at large, will settle for anything less. The activists
agreed to converge peacefully and steadfastly on the streets,
in homes and meeting places, and at websites worldwide including
http://www.septembereleventh.org, the Ellen Mariani website
at http://www.911forthetruth.com, and the website of International
Inquiry organizer Carol Brouillet at http://www.deceptiondollar.com,
among many, many others. They resolved to compensate for the
silence of a complicit press by 'becoming the press'. The Inquiry
continues with Phase II in Toronto in June ( http://www.911inquiry.org)
and Phase III under discussion. March 30, 2004.


- Gregor Holland is a writer, producer, and conspiracy theorist
living in Los Angeles. g...@earthlink.net.


02 April 2004

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she
has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks
which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US
with aircraft months before the strikes happened. She said the claim by
the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such
information was "an outrageous lie". Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than
three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators
providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and
summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months
away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile,
has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by
citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". She told The Independent
yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation
files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers
in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could
go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are
documented. These things can be established very easily." She added:
"There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be
used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people
being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There
were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."
The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks
Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over
whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That
controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former
counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring
his warnings. The issue ­ what the administration knew and when ­ is
central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing
testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence
officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a
U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the
commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will
also be questioned in a closed-door session.
Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially
constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She
was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13
September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to
translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps. She said said it
was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of
2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told
the commission ­ 90 per cent of it ­ related to the investigations that I
was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred
translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as
well." "President Bush said they had no specific information about 11
September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she
said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes
and that an attack was just months away.
To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration
did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The
Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have
suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to
attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts
speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held
terrorists." Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an
"outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all
people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am
saying that is
impossible." It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims.
However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when
she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence
and corruption within the FBI's translation department. 2 April 2004 12:53


Mar 29, 2004

Israel's Isolation - and America's

By Patrick J. Buchanan


"Israel has a right to defend itself," said President Bush. And against whom
was Israel defending itself at dawn on Monday?

A half blind and deaf paraplegic being wheeled out of a mosque after
prayers, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was struck by missiles that blew him to pieces.
In carrying out the assassination of the founder and spiritual leader of
Hamas, Ariel Sharon used a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship. Thus, in Islamic
eyes, we are passive accomplices in the killing.

Instantly, protests erupted in Mosul and Basra. Ayatollah al-Sistani, the
Shi'ite leader on whom we depend for a peaceful transfer of power in Iraq,
was enraged: "(T)his morning, the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly
crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes,
scholar-martyr Ahmed Yassin."

Sharon's defenders say the sheik had sanctioned terror attacks on innocent
Israelis. But why did Israel not then seize him, expose his complicity in
murder, and put him in prison, as Israel had before? Why convert this
crippled old sheik into a martyr-saint? Why enhance the prestige of Hamas?

Has the killing made Israel more secure? If so, why were Israeli buses
deserted all week? Has it made us more secure? Why then were the travel
advisories issued to Americans in the Middle East? Why are U.S. embassies
shutting down? How does inflaming the Islamic world against us advance the
president's goal of persuading the world that Islam is not America's enemy?

President Bush must begin to realize that his blind solidarity with Sharon,
who has shown himself contemptuous of America's interests in the larger
region, is among the greatest crosses we have to bear in the war on terror.

A year after the fall of Baghdad, Bush's men are boasting of his triumphs -
the overthrow of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, not one act of terror
on U.S. soil in two years. But consider the war from bin Laden's vantage

The murderous strike of 9-11 electrified America-haters, but produced
blowback and near total disaster for bin Laden. In weeks, Bush had united a
great coalition, smashed the Taliban and almost finished Osama himself at
Tora Bora. Then came Iraq.

Here Bush played straight into bin Laden's hand. By attacking a prostrate
Arab nation that played no role in 9-11, we united Arab and Islamic peoples
in hatred of America. We shattered alliances and ignited a guerrilla war.

According to a Pew poll, U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has never been
lower. Bush is widely detested. In Pakistan, 65 percent of the people hold
Osama in high regard, while 8 percent are positive on Bush. We are losing
the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of
which future terrorists will emerge.

Now, an attack in Madrid has left 200 dead and blown a hole in our
coalition. A socialist has come to power who intends to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq. Poland, too, has begun to waver

As Bush wins battles, Osama advances toward his strategic goals:
Demonization of America as the enemy of Islam, isolation of America as an
imperialist aggressor against Arab nations and the enabler of Sharon,
and unification of Islam's young behind bin Laden's ultimate war aim: the
expulsion of America from all Muslim lands.

The legendary Col. John Boyd described strategy as appending to oneself as
many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many
centers of power as possible.

Bush I did this brilliantly in the Gulf War, isolating Saddam. Bush II did
it brilliantly in the Afghan war, isolating the Taliban. Now Bush has fallen
into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the
perception that America's war and Israel's war are one and the same.

In the Middle East, Sharon has no friends. He does not care whom he
alienates. But we are a world power with friend, allies and interests in 22
Arab and 57 Muslim countries.

To protect our interests, to win our war on Al Qaeda, it is imperative that
we not let ourselves become as isolated as Israel is today.

Between America and Israel there are thus common interests and a collision
of interests. Sharon does not want us to confine our war on terror to those
who attacked us on 9-11. He wants us to expand our list of enemies to
include his list of enemies: Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Saudi
Arabia. He wants us to escalate "the firemen's war" into an American war on
Israel's enemies, so, together, we can establish joint hegemony in the
Middle East.

If Sharon and his acolytes in the Bush administration succeed in conflating
Sharon's war with America's war, we could lose our war. Why cannot the
president see what is going on?



5 April 2004

Centre for Research on Globalisation
Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

by Michel Chossudovsky

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the Golden
Crescent opium trade has soared. According to the US media, this lucrative
contraband is protected by Osama, the Taliban, not to mention, of course,
the regional warlords, in defiance of the "international community".

The heroin business is said to be "filling the coffers of the Taliban". In
the words of the US State Department:

"Opium is a source of literally billions of dollars to extremist and
criminal groups... [C]utting down the opium supply is central to
establishing a secure and stable democracy, as well as winning the global
war on terrorism," (Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Robert
Charles. Congressional Hearing, 1 April 2004)

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), opium
production in Afghanistan in 2003 is estimated at 3,600 tons, with an
estimated area under cultivation of the order of 80,000 hectares. (UNODC at
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html ). An even larger bumper harvest is
predicted for 2004.

The State Department suggests that up to 120,000 hectares were under
cultivation in 2004. (Congressional Hearing, op cit):

"We could be on a path for a significant surge. Some observers indicate
perhaps as much as 50 percent to 100 percent growth in the 2004 crop over
the already troubling figures from last year." (Ibid)

"Operation Containment"

In response to the post-Taliban surge in opium production, the Bush
administration has boosted its counter-terrorism activities, while
allocating substantial amounts of public money to the Drug Enforcement
Administration's West Asia initiative, dubbed "Operation Containment."

The various reports and official statements are, of course, blended in with
the usual "balanced" self-critique that "the international community is not
doing enough", and that what we need is "transparency".

The headlines are "Drugs, warlords and insecurity overshadow Afghanistan's
path to democracy". In chorus, the US media is accusing the defunct
"hard-line Islamic regime", without even acknowledging that the
aliban --in collaboration with the United Nations-- had imposed a
successful ban on poppy cultivation in 2000. Opium production declined by
more than 90 per cent in 2001. In fact the surge in opium cultivation
production coincided with the onslaught of the US-led military operation and
the downfall of the Taliban regime. From October through December 2001,
farmers started to replant poppy on an extensive basis.

The success of Afghanistan's 2000 drug eradication program under the
Taliban had been acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General
Assembly (which took place barely a few days after the beginning of the
bombing raids). No other UNODC member country was able to implement a
comparable program:

"Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on
the implications of the Taliban's ban on opium poppy cultivation in areas
under their control... We now have the results of our annual ground survey
of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year's production [2001] is around
185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of
over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago,
the decrease is well over 97 per cent.

Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like
this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to
weaken the achievement" (Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at
the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001,
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.html )

United Nations' Cover-Up

In the wake of the US invasion, a shift in rhetoric. UNODC is now acting as
if the 2000 opium ban had never happened:

"the battle against narcotics cultivation has been fought and won in other
countries and it [is] possible to do so here [in Afghanistan], with strong,
democratic governance, international assistance and improved security and
integrity." ( Statement of the UNODC Representative in Afghanistan at the
:February 2004 International Counter Narcotics Conference,
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/afg/afg_intl_counter_narcotics_conf_2004.pdf , p.

In fact, both Washington and the UNODC now claim that the objective of the
Taliban in 2000 was not really "drug eradication" but a devious scheme to
trigger "an artificial shortfall in supply", which would drive up World
prices of heroin.

Ironically, this twisted logic, which now forms part of a new "UN
consensus", is refuted by a report of the UNODC office in Pakistan, which
confirmed, at the time, that there was no evidence of stockpiling by the
Taliban. (Deseret News (Salt Lake City, Utah. 5 October 2003)

Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade

In the wake of the 2001 US bombing of Afghanistan, the British government of
Tony Blair was entrusted by the G-8 Group of leading industrial nations to
carry out a drug-eradication program, which would, in theory, allow Afghan
farmers to switch out of poppy cultivation into alternative crops. The
British were working out of Kabul in close liaison with the US DEA's
"Operation Containment".

The UK-sponsored crop eradication program is an obvious smokescreen. Since
October 2001, opium poppy cultivation has skyrocketed. The presence of
occupation forces in Afghanistan did not result in the eradication of poppy
cultivation. Quite the opposite.

The Taliban prohibition had indeed caused "the beginning of a heroin
shortage in Europe by the end of 2001", as acknowledged by the UNODC. Heroin
is a multibillion-dollar business supported by powerful interests. One of
the "hidden" objectives of the war was precisely to restore the
CIA-sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control
over the drug routes. Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium
markets were restored. Opium prices spiraled. By early 2002, the opium price
(in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.

In 2001, under the Taliban opiate production stood at 185 tons, increasing
to 3400 tons in 2002 under the US-sponsored puppet regime of President Hamid

While highlighting Karzai's patriotic struggle against the Taliban, the
media fails to mention that Karzai collaborated with the Taliban. He had
also been on the payroll of a major US oil company, UNOCAL. In fact, since
the mid-1990s, Hamid Karzai had acted as a consultant and lobbyist for
UNOCAL in negotiations with the Taliban. According to the Saudi newspaper

"Karzai has been a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the
1980s. He collaborated with the CIA in funneling U.S. aid to the Taliban as
of 1994 when the Americans had secretly and through the Pakistanis
[specifically the ISI] supported the Taliban's assumption of power." (quoted
in Karen Talbot, U.S. Energy Giant Unocal Appoints Interim Government in
Kabul, Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002. p. 70. See also BBC Monitoring
Service, 15 December 2001)

History of the Golden Crescent Drug Trade

It is worth recalling the history of the Golden Crescent drug trade, which
is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations in the region since the
onslaught of the Soviet-Afghan war and its aftermath.



The American People, having learned the truth about 9-11 call on all FBI
agents, Federal Marshalls, NSA, CIA, White House, DoD, Justice and Treasury
personel to choose at once whether you will side with the People and
Consititution of this land or with the treason and mass-murder crimes of the
Money interests. Many lives can be saved if you all will drop the pretence
of not knowing what is really going on -- take your principled stand for
your country and countrymen -- and not continue your yes-man prostitution
and betrayal for these ill-gottenly filthy rich dastards.

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


Just like you pretended not to know about the Opium Wars of the 1830s --
Britains pretend not to know that 9-11 and Afganistan were about Opium

Never pretend -- you self-righteous hypocrits that you did not know that
9-11 and the war on terrorism were frameups fraudulently rationalizaing the
conquest of Afganistan to re-open the opium flows that the Taliban had

You know because I told you -- and the fact that you found it convenient to
dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist of now consequence who can safely be
ingored does not buy you absolution.

In politics the British are as ruthless as ever -- Warren Hastings all over
again -- but on the internet it is as though they are in church --
talking up the gospel of liberalism, law and ethics -- all hypocritical

Robert Fisk is not representative of Britain -- he is merely their
Neverland peter pan.

13, 2001

From: "Dick Eastman" <eas...@wolfenet.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: WAR of ESTABLISHMENT on AMERICANS: Bin Laden, easy to hate,

A retrospectively amazing letter received August 7 about Sharon's plans for
a general mid-east war.

Here is a letter I received from an economist in Sweden on August 6 or 7.

Combine this with what you already know to draw your own conclusions.

Ariel Sharon seems more and more to be near the center of this war-provoking
crash-bomb frame-up.

On Monday, 9 July, Robert sent this from Gideon Levy: "What would happen if
the Palestinian cabinet were to meet and afterward press reports spoke of
the existence of a list of 26 to 30 senior officers of the Israeli Defence
Force (IDF) who were being targeted for liquidation? . . . What would happen
is that Israel would stir up a tremendous world-wide fuss. We would brand
that cabinet a 'regime of terror' - and rightly so. In the middle of last
week (Israel) decided to extend 'the strikes against Palestinian terror
activists'. The decision was made public, as was the list of between 26 and
30 names of people who are targeted for liquidation . . . Admitting to
carrying out liquidations and their transformation into official policy are
another stage in Israel's moral deterioration."

And on Wednesday Robert sent news items from the Middle East about Iranian
troops targeting rockets on Israel from positions in southern Lebanon; and
about Syria and Israel being on a 'warpath'.

Now today I hear from friends at the Shiller Institute's Stockholm office
(s...@nysol.se --
http://www.larouchepub.com) that the Institute has reliable insider
information that Ariel Sharon came to power with a war plan to use Hamas as
a tool for destabilizing Jordan, ultimately overthrowing King Abdullah II
and establishing Jordan as a 'Palestinian homeland' under Hamas control. "To
this end, Sharon, who was instrumental in the launching of the Hamas
movement earlier in his career, has dispatched his son as a personal
back-channel emissary to the Islamist group. Key Hamas personnel have
already been infiltrated into Jordan, in preparation for Sharon's
provocation of a new general Mideast war--in the days or weeks ahead, the
sources said."
end of letter of August

It seems this terror-frame-up-provoked war had its Versailles-type-carve-up
outcome pre-settled. The druglords would get their opium back, the oil
companies their pipeline,
and Ariel Sharon his solution to the Middle East problem. Certainly, they
apparently thought, 7,000 lives and some obsolete skyscrappers were a small
price to
pay for these great objectives.

My guess is that only when Americans take to the streets with specific
demands for investigations -- will the terror subside. Any Anthrax will be
coming from Ariel
Sharon -- my prime suspect for ordering the murderer of Yitzhak Rabin.

Isreal and Israelis are not served by this kind of defense. Israel is not
blame. Israel is victim just as Yitzkh Rabin was victim. Sharon and
economic criminals are responsible for the terro and the war.

"Milosevic, move on over, a BIG DOG is movin' in."

Now where is the cop big enough to put the cuffs on them?

(I'd sure like a little chat with the prosecutor before the trial.)

Dick Eastman (You think I hate your group? Then come and kill me.)
223 S. 64th Avenue
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.


5 April 2004

Centre for Research on Globalisation
Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

by Michel Chossudovsky

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the Golden
Crescent opium trade has soared. According to the US media, this lucrative
contraband is protected by Osama, the Taliban, not to mention, of course,
the regional warlords, in defiance of the "international community".

The heroin business is said to be "filling the coffers of the Taliban". In
the words of the US State Department:

"Opium is a source of literally billions of dollars to extremist and
criminal groups... [C]utting down the opium supply is central to
establishing a secure and stable democracy, as well as winning the global
war on terrorism," (Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Robert
Charles. Congressional Hearing, 1 April 2004)

Dick Eastman

Apr 6, 2004, 12:55:25 AM4/6/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 6, 2004, 12:55:31 AM4/6/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 6, 2004, 12:55:35 AM4/6/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 6, 2004, 3:36:00 AM4/6/04

"To restore a more equitable relationship between government authority
and popular control, [ there must be] contralized economic and social
planning ..centralization of power within Congress ... a program to lower
the job expectations of those who receive a college education..."
--Samuel Huntington (CFR), Michael Crozier, and Joji Watanuki

When one of JP Morgan's lawyers advised him about something he was about to
do, "I don't think you can do that legally," Morgan replied, "I don't know
as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how
to do what I want to do." (Ida M. Tarbell, The Life of Elbert H. Gary: The
Story of Steel, New York: D.
Appleton & Co, 1925, p. 81).

"Every Republican candidate for President since 1936 has been nominated by
the Chase National Bank."
--Robert A. Taft after his defeat at the 1952 Republican convention.

If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of government. I
do not expect monopoly to restrain itself. If there are men in this
country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are
going to own it.
-- President Woodrow Wilson

The freest government if it could exist would not be accepted if the
tendency of the laws was to create a rapid accumulation of property in a
few hands and to render the great mass of the people dependent.
(Daniel Webster, cited in The Monopoly Makers).

No nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization.
Abraham Flexner

One cultural excess is our ability to make and use killing tools, especially
long-range weapons. These make killing easy... mainly, because the use of
long-range weapons prevents the victim from reaching his attacker with his
appeasement, reassurance, and distress signals. Very few aircrews who are
willing, indeed eager, to drop their bombs 'on target' would be willing to
strangle, stab, or burn children (or, for that matter, adults) with their
own hands; they would stop short of killing, in response to the appeasement
and distress signals of their opponents.
Nikolaas Tinbergen

"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It
is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that
capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting
'intelligence' justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even
in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapons capability, to support
presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action
responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies."
Ralph McGehee spent 25 years in the CIA, from 1952-1977

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world
government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all
under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there
is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and
incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in
the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine
and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and
respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have
been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been
subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work
is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world
government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world
bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in
past centuries." (DAVID ROCKEFELLER, founder of the Trilateral Commission,
in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.)

"From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg,
and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This
conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French
Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during
the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities
from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped
the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed
masters of that enormous empire." (WINSTON CHURCHILL, stated to the London
Press, in l922.)

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and
powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men
high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most
influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to
control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only
necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid
for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly
supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness,
militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and
international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
(U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917)

Of course, it is tempting to close one's eyes to history, and instead to
speculate about the roots of war in some possible animal instinct.... But
war, organised war, is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and
co-operative form of theft. Jacob Bronowski (Polish-born Eng. scientist,
1908-74): The Ascent of Man, 1978)

The more horrible or depersonalized scientific mass war becomes, the more
necessary it is to find universal ideal motives to justify it... The more
prosaic the actual causes, the more necessary is it to find glowing sublime
(John Dewey)

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or
consent." (Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James
Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950.)

"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other
governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret
societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the
last moment upset all the governments' plans. " (British Prime Minister
Benjamin Disraeli, 1876)

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me
privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of
commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a
power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so
complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when
they speak in condemnation of it." (Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913))

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a
giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the
octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At
the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a
small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as
international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers
virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.
They practically control both political parties." (New York City Mayor John
F. Hylan, 1922)

"The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican,
had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power
and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semi-occult power
which....pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World
War I." (British Military Historian Major General J.F.C. Fuller, l941)

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that
were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't.
Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully
manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One
World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of
artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an
unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his
internationalist political support.

"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up
for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World
revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World
Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call
money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and
their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and
credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal
Reserve Bank." (Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My
Exploited Father-in-Law)

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days
of Andrew Jackson." A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st,

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind
the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure." Joseph Kennedy,
father of JFK, in the July 26th, l936 issue of The New York Times.

"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by
strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or
the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating
within our government and political system, another body representing
another form of government - a bureaucratic elite." Senator William Jenner,

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable." Senator William
Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is
Government by the People Possible?

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational
consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of
the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission
represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate
the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and
ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a
worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the
nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will
rule the future." U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No

"Oh Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our
shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their
patriot dead; help us to drown out the thunder of guns with the shrieks of
their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes
with a hurricane of fire; help us to turn them out roofless with their
little children to wander un-befriended the wastes of their desolated land.
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of

Love. Amen."

(Mark Twain)

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing
less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands
able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the
world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by
the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements,
arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the
system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a
private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were
themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made
possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power
for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other
economic groups." ( Carroll Quigley)

"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it
have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest
levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and
uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the
high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional
Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship." (Former
Congressman John Rarick 1971)

"All through history it has been the nations that have given the most to
generals and the least to the people that have been the first to fall."
(Harry Truman)

"The directors of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) make up a sort of
Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a
nation." (The Christian Science Monitor, September 1, l961)

"The battle will be lost, not when freedom of speech is finally taken away,
but when Americans become so 'adjusted or conditioned' to getting along with
the 'group' that when they finally see the threat, they will say, 'I can't
afford to be controversial." (Gus Hall, Communist Party Chief)

Let us disappoint the men who would raise themselves upon the ruin of our
country. (John Adams)

I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of
strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
(Thomas Jefferson).

"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and
decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it
means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with
his or her whole soul." (Gandhi)

"There must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
has and it never will."
(Frederick Douglass 1857)

Dick Eastman

Apr 6, 2004, 3:36:06 AM4/6/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 7, 2004, 7:47:03 AM4/7/04
Note: important news articles quoted and linked below following comment

Rice Before the Committee Tomorrow? Don't even bother!
by Dick Eastman

On Thrusday you will watch a scripted show in which Condoleezza Rice before
a handpicked cast of softball playing obstruction of justice accomplices, in
a morality play in which the national security adviser assure the committee
that the Bush Administration was competently alert in the days before the
Bush Administration perpetrated -- she will not say this -- the 9-11
mass-murder frameup devised by the Neo-Khan Pentagon. That will take all of
fifteen minutes. Rice will fill the rest of the two and a half hours
engaged in mock conflict response to the groundwork and stage setting of
with co-conspirator RIchard Clarke, the "limited hangout" spin agent whose
successfully executed job has been to define the hearings in the public mind
as an inquiry into whether 9-11 "could have been prevented," and away from
the much more potentially precipitating topic of "what went wrong"," or, the
topic that could lead the entire bi-partisan ruling oligarchy into free fall
to the center of the earth, "what actually happened on September 11, 2001?"
Remember, Al Falzenberg has directed all information directed by citizen
investigators working from the photographic evidence to "black-hole"
oblivion -- for example, the Pentagon pictures showing too-small a plane,
distinctive trail of missile smoke followed by a hugh white-hot explosion
characteristic only of military explosives of the type packed in missile
warheads; of damage to the Pentagon wall inconsistent with the crash of a
two- engine 757 jetliner; of a path of downed lampposts that is not the
approach path that witnesses saw the Boeing take, and much much more that
Condoleezza Rice will not have to take questions on -- nor will anyone else
in the administration take quesitons on this so-obvious and so-conclusive
evidence -- it simply proof of guilt that by tacit consent will not be
admitted by consideration by criminal investigators of a criminal
adminstration guilty of the most horrible and profitable murder crime in
American history.

And what of the unfortunate Sibel Edmonds? An FBI translator who saw
documents specifically warning of airplanes used as weapons in acts of
terror against skyscrapers and government buildings in New York and
Washington D.C. and observed an administration brushing aside the
information, Edmonds naming names, as if, I conclude, it might interfer
with other things they had going on -- a real risk, which if diligently
guarded against would have interfered with the real frameup in the works --
Edmonds remarks are going to be given the last 15 minutes and they will be
put by a questioner who will make more statements puffing the committee than
actually asking pointed questions -- Rice will say she did not know about
it and she will infer that untracable human error led to her not being
informed and then the bell will ring and by signed agreement Condoleezza
will be free for the rest of her life from any further questioning by
Congress on the topic of 9-11.

And yes, the entire Commission report will be censored line by line by the
White House -- not that that is necessary with a commission headed by Thomas
Kean and Lee Hamilton and the sleezy crooked and perverse characters cast in
this charade directed by Al Falzenberg who actually controlled the input so
that there will be very little output that the Whitehouse will have to vet.

The Adminstrations guilt has been proven by citizen investigators working
with the ample photo evidence and witness accounts already in the pubic
domaine -- the Committee is merely your tax dollars spent to keep you from
bothering to look at the easily comprehended conclusive evidence
presented, for example, here:


and here:



Meeting fierce resistance from Iraqi fighters, U.S. occupation forces
bombarded late Tuesday, April6 , the western city of Fallujah with tanks and
warplanes, killing scores of Iraqi citizens. At least ten Iraqis died when
American forces shelled the Golan neighborhood, reported the Doha-based
Aljazeera television. Hospital doctors said another 15 civilians had been
killed and dozens injured in the American offensive over the past 48 hours.
The U.S. army reported six Iraqis killed in fighting Monday, though
residents said five of them were killed when helicopters hit a residential

Supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ringed the Polish-led
military force's headquarters south of Baghdad for several hours Tuesday
before withdrawing peacefully, Polish media reported. Some 150 cars
surrounded Camp Bablyon, the headquarters of the 9,500-strong force and
remained there. No shots were exchanged, Polish news reports said.

Fighting has erupted between Italian troops and Iraqi gunmen in the southern
city of Nasiriyah (nah-sih-REE'-uh). A coalition spokeswoman tells Italian
media that at least 15 Iraqis were killed. She says insurgents used
civilians as human shields, and two children and a woman are among the dead.
(Human shields don't mean much to Italian soldiers, apparently -- or did a
coalition order come from the top?)

The American dream to bridge ancient Iraqi sectarian rivalries turned
nightmarish Tuesday as Shiite and Sunni religious and tribal figures put
aside their differences and publicly aligned against the occupation, vowing
to rid Iraq of the American-led invaders.
In the past 72 hours over 18 U.S. soldiers and well over 100 Iraqis have
died in vicious fighting across Iraq. U.S. aligned coalition forces also
took significant casualties of an unconfirmed number in fighting in four
southern cities. Before last week the primary forces resisting the U.S.
occupation were a combination of former Baath Party members and Sunni
religious figures, but after fighting broke out between the coalition and a
militia led by a young radical Shiite cleric, much of Iraq turned to
complete chaos.

Paul Wolfowitz: "There 's not going to be any difference in our military
posture on July 1st from what it is on June 30th, except that we will be
there then at the invitation of a sovereign Iraqi government, which I am
quite sure will want us to stay there until killers like the ones who
perpetrated these atrocities in Fallujah are brought under control. Thank

On the streets of Baghdad neighborhoods long defined by differences of faith
and politics, signs are emerging that resistance to the U.S. occupation may
be growing from a sporadic, underground effort to a broader insurrection by
militiamen who claim to be fighting in the name of their common faith,
Islam. On Monday, residents of Adhamiya, a largely Sunni section of
northern Baghdad, marched with followers of Moqtada Sadr, the militant
Shiite cleric whose call for armed resistance was answered by local Sunnis
the same afternoon, residents said. As protesters chanted anti-occupation
slogans in Abu Hanifa Square, militants were seen hustling toward the site
carrying AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, residents said. The
guerrillas opened fire on the U.S. armor deployed near the demonstration,
attacking from positions in a neighborhood where militants appear to be not
just tolerated but encouraged.

Almost a year ago, the Shiites of Sadr City threw flowers at the American
tanks that rumbled into Baghdad and ended the rule of their oppressor,
Saddam Hussein. This week, however, many Iraqis were filling plain wooden
coffins with the corpses of their kin, killed in a firefight with the U.S.
forces that now patrol their impoverished neighborhood.
"After American forces ended the regime, we wanted to welcome them," Mohsin
Ghassab, a 42-year-old unemployed resident of the district, said Monday.
"But now there is no stability. They have to withdraw."
Eight U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Iraqis died in the firefight that
erupted on Sunday in the teeming district of Sadr City, which lies on
Baghdad's northeastern rim and is home to more than two million Shiites.

Armed followers of the firebrand Shi'ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr took full
control of the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala yesterday as the radical
cleric sought to broaden support for his uprising among fellow Muslim
leaders. With Sadr's supporters demanding the withdrawal of all foreign
forces from the country, coalition troops remained outside the cities to
avoid provoking clashes, while Iraqi police withdrew in fear of his
well-organised and heavily armed fighters. Last night they took over all
government buildings in Najaf.
"Sadr demands the withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq - or face
destruction," said Sheikh Qasi al-Khazali, Sadr's representative in the

The word went out on Tuesday at noon, with the blast of the call to prayer:
American soldiers had raided an office of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical
Shiite cleric, and torn up a poster of his father, one of Iraq's most
revered martyrs. The Khadamiya bazaar exploded in a frenzy. Shopkeepers
reached beneath stacks of sandals for Kalashnikov rifles. Boys wrapped their
faces in black cloth. Men raced through the streets, kicking over crates and
setting up barriers. Some handed out grenades. Within minutes this entire
Shiite neighborhood in central Baghdad had mobilized for war. "We're going
to attack a tank!" yelled Majid Hamid, 32, waving an assault rifle.

Shiite radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, wanted by coalition forces in Iraq,
ended his sit-in at a mosque in Kufa and travelled to the holy city of Najaf
"to prevent more bloodshed".
"I have taken it upon myself to prevent more bloodshed," he said in a
statement, expressing concern the "sacred site of the mosque not be violated
... by people who do not back down from anything" out of respect for holy
Sadr said his decision to "observe a peaceful sit-in" at the mosque was
taken to protest against "the aggressions committed by the infidel occupier
against civilians".

Iraqi forces were in full control Wednesday of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, a
day after 12 US marines were killed and two dozen wounded in fighting with
anti-coaliton insurgents, a marine statement said. In Washington Tuesday, a
Defense Department official who requested anonymity said: "We had about 12
dead and a couple dozen wounded at the governor's palace in Ar Ramadi," some
50 miles (80 kilometers) west of the Iraqi capital.

Iraq is worse off now, after the U.S.-led invasion, than it was under Saddam
Hussein, Hans Blix told a Danish newspaper Tuesday.

Since the US invaded Iraq, the US Congress has approved about $US100 billion
to pay for military operations, as well as $US23 billion for Iraqi
reconstruction. Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments defence
analyst Steven Kosiak said the war had already cost far more than the 1991
Gulf War - which cost about $US84 billion and was paid for largely by US


China, Iran, the United States and Vietnam were the world's top users of the
death penalty in 2003, accounting for 84 percent of known executions, human
rights body Amnesty International said Tuesday.

More than half of known executions were in China, where the true toll could
be more than 10 times higher, according to the British-based Amnesty's
annual report.

But during the year, six countries either abolished capital punishment or
suspended it, bringing the total who have halted executions to 117 out of a
total of 195, the report said.

"This year's figures show that the majority of countries follow an
abolitionist path, while others choose to remain on the wrong side of the
justice divide," spokeswoman Judit Arenas Licea told a news briefing.

The report said the number of known executions world-wide last year had
dropped to 1,146 in a total of 28 countries from 1,526 in 31 countries in
2002. China was known to have executed at least 726, Iran 108, the United
States 65 and Vietnam 64, according to the group.

But Amnesty cautioned that its numbers -- based largely on official figures,
media monitoring and private reports -- might be showing only the tip of an
iceberg, especially in countries where the statistics were a closely-guarded

The report quoted an unidentified senior Chinese parliamentarian as saying
last month that his country executed nearly 10,000 people annually.

Arenas told the news briefing, called during the annual six-week session of
the United Nations Human Rights Commission, that Amnesty was especially
concerned at the introduction of "mobile units" to speed up executions in


War Crimes

A few years after the genocide in Rwanda, Daniel Pipes writing in the
National Post (7/18/2001), recommended that the Israeli government
intensify the brutality of the occupation. His specific recipe for new
forms of collective punishment against the residents of the West Bank and
Gaza was to accelerate the pace of economic warfare against the population
and "permit no transportation of people or goods beyond basic necessities.
Shut off utilities to the PA. Raze the PA's illegal offices in Jerusalem,
its security infrastructure, and villages from which attacks are launched."
Read that again and notice that he was advocating 'razing villages' a la

Not to be outdone by Daniel Pipes, Cal Thomas recommended the mass
expulsion of Palestinians. "It should now be clear that Israel cannot
tolerate a huge Arab population within its borders, so a political decision
must be made. Most Arabs and Palestinians appear to be nonviolent but it
can be difficult to tell the difference...Israel should declare its
intention to transfer large numbers of its Palestinian residents to Arab
nations...Eviction is a better avenue to stability. Will it happen?
Probably not. Should it? Yes." (June 6, 2001, Jewish World Review).

In 1946, Julius Streicher, the Editor of Der Sturmer, an anti- Semitic
paper, was sentenced to hang by the Nuremberg International Military
Tribunal for Nazi War Crimes. In sentencing him, the tribunal gave as cause
the evidence that "with knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the
Occupied Eastern Territory, this defendant continued to write and publish
his propaganda of death." Streicher was convicted of conspiracy to commit
crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. His partner in media
crimes, Joseph Goebbels, managed to avoid a similar sentence by committing
suicide after first killing his wife and children.

Half a century later, the Streicher case was cited as a precedent for
convicting three Hutus of using the media to incite genocide against
Tutsis. The three judges presiding over the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda set another precedent by declaring that "those who control the
media are accountable for its consequences". According to the BBC, the
chief prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, said that "The tribunal has
established an international precedent that those who use media to target a
racial or ethnic group for destruction will face justice." He also stated
that "the verdict would serve as a warning for journalists and editors in
other conflicts".

The Nuremberg Tribunal sent Streicher to the hangman's noose, even though
it found that "there is no evidence that he was ever within Hitler's inner
circle of advisers, nor during his career was he closely connected with the
formulation of policies that led to war." One of the Hutus convicted by the
Rwanda Tribunal was Hassan Ngeze, the editor of Kangura, an extremist
magazine. He was convicted based on articles that were written several
years prior to the onset of the Rwanda genocide. The court found that he
had participated in creating a psychological environment that made the
genocide possible.

Then you have the editors of the Los Angeles Times who, shortly after
Sharon's election, published an article by Edward Luttwak urging Sharon to
use his Sabra and Shatila 'talents.' "Sharon will now turn to his earlier
talents to direct the most effective uses of force, rather than confining
himself to the least provocative." (Los Angeles Times, 6/5/2001).

Three years on, we see the results of Sharon's latest war crime spree. What
we are witnessing in the West Bank and Gaza is another Sabra and Shatila
massacre on the installment plan. It appears that Sharon has resurrected
Unit 101, the notorious death squad that he commanded in the massacre at
Qibya in 1953. Hardly a day goes by, without a few unarmed Palestinians
getting shot by Israeli occupation soldiers. A suspicious percentage of the
casualties are shot in the back. Sharon knows that, at least for now, he
needs to keep his daily kill count in the single digits. Over the last
three years, his goon squads have killed 2,500 Palestinians and seriously
wounded thousands of others. He has razed enough homes to satisfy the
'Lidice' fantasies of Daniel Pipes and has systematically destroyed much of
the infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza. Now, collective punishment is
the daily lot of the Palestinians and Israel is using starvation as a
weapon of repression.

In a more just world, the unequivocal support given to Sharon by the lords
of the mass media should end up costing them their franchise. Ultimately,
it is publishers like Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black, Arthur Sulzberger and
Donald Graham who should be held to account for giving free reign to
journalists who cheered Israeli war crimes. Granted, both the Nuremberg and
Rwanda tribunals had limited jurisdiction to only prosecute atrocities
committed by Hutus and Nazis. But international law is a ticking time bomb
for media moguls who allowed their properties to be used as weapons by
those who advocate repression, collective punishment, expulsion and other
war crimes against civilian populations. One precedent leads to another.
As the law evolves over the next decade or two, it might very well extend
the extra-territorial jurisdiction of international courts.

Even in the absence of extra-territorial jurisdiction, the domestic laws of
sovereign nations is moving in the direction set by Belgium. It should be
recalled that the war crime charges against Sharon were not dropped because
of his innocence, but because he wasn't resident in Belgium. At the very
least, Rupert Murdoch, Sulzberger and Graham can be driven from the Belgian
media markets. Current French, Canadian and German laws, if properly
applied, might result in a shut down of the International Herald Tribune, a
joint operation run by Sulzberger of the New York Times and Graham of the
Washington Post. The Yahoo precedent, involving the sale of Nazi
memorabilia, can be quite useful in tackling and neutralizing these war
mongering media outlets.

Israel's partisans, the media cabal that controls much of the corporate
press in America and the English speaking world, need to have their day in
court. We need to recognize that we live in a world where media controlled
states give journalist and publishers the power to instigate war and
applaud war crimes. Their ability to goad vicious serial war criminals like
Sharon to use their 'talents' can have horrible consequences. The
Israeli/Palestinian conflict might well have been resolved had it not been
for the Likudnik bigots who hold sway at FOX, CNN, The New York Times, The
Washington Post and the LA Times.

At the very minimum, the course to take at this time is to compile the body
of evidence that will be needed to conduct successful prosecution when
international laws evolve to the point where journalists and publishers can
be tried as war criminals. International and National Associations of
concerned journalists need to be encouraged to join the fray by conducting
mock trials of these culprits. The evidence against them is irrefutable and
their crimes against the Palestinians are easy enough to document. The
Internet makes their archives readily available for detailed studies of
their conduct. A vast body of literature from the alternative press and
mass media critics can be used to gather incriminating evidence. Even
without the jurisdiction of handing down enforceable sentences, the results
of such proceedings, if properly circulated through alternative media
outlets, will have the salutary effect of damaging their media monopoly
franchise. Perhaps concerned citizens could set up a 'Journalist Hall of
Shame' in Europe or Canada. Nominees for the dubious privilege of having
their names permanently enshrined as criminals or racists would be judged
by a panel of judges from countries that are certified as having a free

If all this seems far-fetched, one needs only review the history of the
environmental movement. What started out as a fringe 'flower children'
enterprise a couple of decades ago has now become gospel even in developing
countries. Journalists and publishers can pollute our minds to the point
where ordinary people are driven to extraordinary bloodshed. In the case of
the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, a few media moguls have managed to create
an American constituency that actively incites murderous repression in the
Holy Land. We can bring a little justice to their victims by holding them
accountable for collaborating in the crimes of Ariel Sharon.

Ahmed Amr is the editor of NileMedia.com. This article can be published at


Dick Eastman

Apr 7, 2004, 7:46:58 AM4/7/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 9, 2004, 12:51:23 PM4/9/04
central to my understanding of everything economic and political is the
following distinction

corrective lens: discriminate true friend from foe in economics

note: this is a memo -- not polished prose -- but the ideas here are key
to our survival and I don't know the problem has been stated in this way
before -- and I think it is a good way to look at things because it
immediately suggests the kind of remedy needed. Please read it as such.
The memo is to spark your own thinking -- not to create a marketable essay,
but just a hint to activist reformers as to the functioning evil that should
behacked down and the good growth that should be left to flourish,
bettering the human condition. --Dick Eastman

corrective lens: discriminate friend from foe in economics.

I find the biggest problem in starting the needed reform is the inability of
people to discriminate from capitalists of the good type and capitalists of
the bad type.

The truth is that the communist is wrong that the conflict has been between
the capitalist and the proletarian. The real war is between the
international finance capitalist whose rule is plunder and contribution is
death on the one hand, and middle-class entrepreneurship which creates value
for life and whose "industrialists" are focused on the good of the people
(yes, such men have really existed in our history!).

The real war is between the industrialist and the financier-monopolist --
between Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller as archetypes.

I. Friends: Industrialist, Inventor, Single-branch state bank lending
officer, importers and exporters of goods and services

Goal: Profit from creating value to life -- labor saving, life improving,

Value: Serving mankind -- success in doing good.

Production: Goods and services to make goods that improve life. That sells
its goods and services abroad, but does not lend money abroad or attempt to
control foreign governments or their own government for their own gain etc.

Examples: Andrew Carnegie (built up steel, used his vast weath to put a
public libarary in every community); Henry Ford (his Model T car put the
automobile in every middle class household -- and he tried to stop World War
One with his own money, as Woodrow Wilson ( controlled by Bernard Baruch who
was an accomplice in the World War One world scam and who became economic
Tsar over the entire US economy and by Col. House) was definitely not
doing) ); Edison (light bulb, phonograph, etc.), Bell (telephone); Marconni,
Walt Disney (the man, not the the corporation his creations have become);
Gates (outlook express etc.)

II. Foes: Financier, Speculator, Monopolist Merchant Banker,

Goal: Cornering the market. Raising prices by cutting supply of
value-to-life production (monopoly control). Lending to governments for
wars, arms races, wars on terror.

Value: Maintaining class distinction -- superiority of the cunning and
aggressive as "natural rulers" over the "inferior"

Production, so-called: Financial services. Holding companies and other
arrangements to fix prices, destroy competitors by non-economic competition
(corrupt government for this purpose -- spotted owl preservation to shut
down lumber industry to raise the price of lumber and paper for example) --
DEFENSE INDUSTRY -- and creation of wars to speed along demand.

Examples: Rockefeller (monopolization of oil, monopoly finance), Harriman
(civil war profiteering and profiteering in all other wars - the Bush family
has traditionally served as agents of the Harrimans), Baruch (arranged WWI
war profiteering, arranged the great depression and centralization of
government over enterprise, invented the cold war in which keeping atomic
power was deployed for military purposes (A-bomb, H-bomb, atomic submarine
engines, atomic aircraft carrier engines) but not cheap power for mankind
that would eclipse the oil monopoly); Buffett (one of many who exploited
financial deregulaion for leveraged buyouts, "junk" investment of nation's
savings); Soros (one of those who currency control and international
investment control can bring boom and bust to entire nations making the
inflaiton and deflation his own personal seed-time and harvest at the
expense of millions of families livlihood, standard of living, quality of
Turner -- the consummate produce nothing monopolist -- all those old movies,
the herigage of a generation, somehow he as "ownership" of the work of film
makers long dead -- as if copyright laws like this serve to increase
incentive for new production -- what a tragic joke -- while today Turner has
anti-war movies on moratorium -- just one example -- the original "CHeaper
by the Dozen" with actor Clifton Web where the father was an efficiency
expert and really gave a role model of fatherhood and living versus
prostitute clown Steve Martin movie of the "Daddy Day Care" genre etc. ---
but I digress -- who gave Turner the right to control this vast heritage of
our society???, to withhold films from the public, and to charge $19.95 for
a copy of a movie made in the 1930's, 40's, 50's -- THE PATENT AND
FROM THEIR INVENTIONS AND CREATIONS. Today if a man has a good invention
his patent will be held up for years until the minute he sells out to a
corporation (and even then the good idea may never be employed because it
would upset some monopoly arrangement, i.e., interfere with the
oil-dominated economy )

Note: The "Foes" are, as mentioned, self-anointed aristocracy, and their
ideology is the doctrine of Malthusianism.

They say that if you give the common man any more than bare minimum of
wealth (they only let American have wealth and knowledge after sputnik when
they were afraid that true communism (represented by Khruschev, before the
western bribery-induced coup, that put corrupt Brezhnev who also believed in
a "new class" aristocracy, the nomenclatura, (forgive me if I don't look up
spellings -- this is just a memo to get across a concept because we are
all in a hurry)

Malthus taught that if you give common people too much wealth they will just
use it to have more babies or else will spend the extra on alcohol and
ce -- but then the question must be asked, if people are really like this,
then who made them that way?????

Is the problem really unemployment and surplus population -- or is it
monopolists cutting the production of value that people are capable of
creating this strange thing "unemployment" where men go from corporation to
corporation seeking work (or to whatever small-businesses still exist when
there are left in town) -- how many potential Leonardo DaVincis are today
selling shoes or making spy satellites and death lasers -- only to be turned
away with the message that they are "worthless" and unwanted by the world of
work, that they have nothing to contribute to humanities needs and


The Malthusians insist that war, plague and famine are necessary in nature
to control breeding humanity and that giving them a share of the wealth
they, as beasts of burden, create would only add to their numbers and the
strain on the resources of the earth. Better, "our betters" say, to have an
elite keeping the resources and productive wealth in their own safe keeping,
letting them be lords of the global plantation -- creating wars, weather
disasters (weather has been controlable since the early 1990's), and
famines (through control of seed supplies, weather, commodities markets
etc.) since these remove the surplus population that spoils the earth etc.

Whereas the truth is that man is the best keeper of the garden, that if
permitted to, if allowed to develope intellectually and ethically as we did
in "early American history -- all men woujld become middle class and mindful
of the quality of life in their local habitat (neighborhood, community
etc.), creating, inventing, landscapiong, husbanding, managing,
onserving -- taking all costs and potential gains into account etc. --
because there is always work that can be done to improve things and the
existence of "unemployed" merely shows the extent of monopoly power in the
culture -- the restraint on production for betterment of life in order to
raise prices for wealth monopolization by the Malthusian elite.

Is the problem really too many unneeded men in the economy, or is it that
there is too much to be done, which doing is prevented by a criminally
insane moneyed aristocracy?


The thinking I am suggesting to you is more in line with Jefferson and
Hamilton, Buckminster FUller, Lyndon Larouche -- in its trust of man as a
good and creative thing of great unrealized potential in the universe --
and not the views of the Marquis de Sade (who originally put forth the idea
that man helps nature by devising ways to destroy people), Malthus, and the
reigning Bilderberg-CFR-Trilateral Commission --WTO-World-Bank Club of
Rome -Globalization - Zero growth etc. thinking bankrolled by the people who
brought us the 9-11 mass-murder frame-up and the most recent genocidal wars
for profit and population control.

Dear reader, who has gotten this far -- you are my brother and I love you
and thank you for hearing me out.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

Dick Eastman

Apr 9, 2004, 12:51:33 PM4/9/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 10, 2004, 12:10:40 PM4/10/04

Condoleezza Rice Statements Examined
by Dick Eastman

[This is my first reading of the Rice statements -- I comment from a
position of knowing from the Pentagon evidence that the Administration is
guilty and with the pre-conceived suspicion that Richard Clarke is a
confederate whose purpose in his pre-Condoleezza-testimony disclosures and
the release of his book written a year before was to anchor the committee on
the single presumptuous and off-target question of whether the Bush
Administration had sufficient prior warning of what, in fact, they
themselves perpetrated. --de]

RICE: Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we
received was focused overseas, I was also concerned about possible threats
inside the United States.

[Her very first statement reinforces the anchoring on the bogus issue of
prior knowledge of possible attacks. Of course everyone understands that
with all the information in the world and with large organizations that
important information will be overlooked with serious consequences.
Condoleezza and the Commission are trying to pin the case that the
Administration were efficient but only human -- that while they were alert
and doing their best the system, which was decrepit because it is not
totalitarian enough and well-funded enough in the pre-homland security days,
let them down.]

On July 5, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked
Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat
period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not
have specific threats to the homeland.

[Establishes that anything good that Clarke did it was because Condoleezza
told him too and that she acted on the little information she had, i.e.,
non-specific notice of a heightened threat.]

Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well
as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At
that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to
increase security and surveillance.
[She is boosting Clarke as efficient -- after all he is still part of the
perpetration/coverup team.]
RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken
steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had
already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to
increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given
that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United

[The coverup has given Rice a narrow irrelevant area of issues in which all
she has to do is bring up all the defense systems that were in place on 9-11
as proof of her competence except for the one alleged failure due to system
inadequacies that the Administration has repaired with the Homeland Security
and Patriot Acts and 50 to a 100 billion dollars. etc. NOTE THAT 9-11 IS

GORTON: Would the program recommended on September 4th have prevented 9-11
had it been adopted in, say, February or March of 2001?

RICE: Commissioner, it would not have prevented September 11th if it had
been approved the day after we came to office.

[This statement pre-supposes a lot of knowledge of particulars about what
the Hijackers did and how they operated, doesn't it? The coverup made up
the hijacker scenario, so they can decide whether it was catchable or not,

KERREY: Let me ask you another question. Here's the problem that I have as
I -- again, it's hindsight. I appreciate that. But here's the problem that a
lot of people are having with this July 5th meeting.
["me," "I," "I," "I" --

You and Andy Card meet with Dick Clarke in the morning. You say you have a
meeting, he meets in the afternoon. It's July 5th. ... here's what Agent
Kenneth Williams said five days later. He said that the FBI should
investigate whether al Qaeda operatives are training at U.S. flight schools.
He posited that Osama bin Laden followers might be trying to infiltrate the
civil aviation system as pilots, security guards and other personnel. He
recommended a national program to track suspicious flight schools.

Now, one of the first things that I learned when I came into this town was
the FBI and the CIA don't talk. I mean, I don't need a catastrophic event to
know that the CIA and the FBI don't do a very good job of communicating.

And the problem we've got with this and the Moussaoui facts, which were
revealed on the 15th of August, all it had to do was to be put on Intelink.
All it had to do is go out on Intelink, and the game's over. It ends. This
conspiracy would have been rolled up.
[Kerry is staying within the rules. He is thickening the plot on the
already established red-herring question of whether alleged prior knowledge
of this never-happened Arab operation allegedly in the possession of some
people might have been handled better had there been a Kerry Administration
instead of a Bush Administration. Notice Kerry has forgotten is
pre-arranged plug for himself, referring only to "the Moussaoui facts"
instead of specifics (Senators are not in the habit of working too hard.
Still he gives Condoleezza more leave to spend the limited time on the
bogus issue that keeps us from the real issue of exactly what the suspects
did on the morning of 9-11, of exactly what happened, of exactly why the
event was handled in the odd way it was handled -- questions that would
likely catch her in the coverup.]

KERREY: And so I...

RICE: Commissioner, with all due respect, I don't agree that we know that we
had somehow a silver bullet here that was going to work.

[Not a direct answer to the elements raised. This merely answering by
repeating, in terms as general as before, her basic defense of admitting
that the system was flawed before the Bush Administration fixed it with the
Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act.]

What we do know is that we did have a systemic problem, a structural problem
between the FBI and the CIA. It was a long time in coming into being. It was
there because there were legal impediments, as well as bureaucratic
impediments. Those needed to be overcome.

Obviously, the structure of the FBI that did not get information from the
field offices up to FBI Central, in a way that FBI Central could react to
the whole range of information reports, was a problem..

KERREY: But, Dr. Rice, everybody...

RICE: But the structure of the FBI, the restructuring of the FBI, was not
going to be done in the 233 days in which we were in office...

KERREY: Dr. Rice, everybody who does national security in this town knows
the FBI and the CIA don't talk. So if you have a meeting on the 5th of July,
where you're trying to make certain that your domestic agencies are
preparing a defense against a possible attack, you knew al Qaeda cells were
in the United States, you've got to follow up.
[No follow-up on getting reference to the three specifics he raised. The
Senator has let her off and goes on to discuss FBI and CIA culture -- more
wasted time.

And the question is, what was your follow-up? What's the paper trail that
shows that you and Andy Card followed up from this meeting, and...
[So Kerry then jumps to the next number on his index card prepared by his
staff -- I suspect letting Condo now draw a deep breath as she sees what a
piece of cake this interview will be.]
RICE: I followed...

KERREY: Actually it won't be a question.
[Instead of letting her speak so we have some data to evaluate, Kerry
chooses to grandstand by telling Condoleezza everything he knows -- there
will be no trapping of Condoleezza with any of this bate. A Senator running
for President at a Nationally Televised Public Hearing, and a Bonesman to

In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo
said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious
activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.

That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th
of August.

RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to
warn of hijackings.
[Here is where the question of air-interception response time would have to
be brought up if this was a legitimate investigation of 9-11. But instead
of asking why air defenses were not on a hair trigger and alertness to
protect New York and Washington and why 40 minutes after the first crash the
Pentagon was able to be crashed by a plane that they knew was headed towards
Washington-Arlington, she stays in the pre-9-11 period and on the
single-point argument of systemic weakness.]

But when you cannot tell people where a hijacking might occur, under what
circumstances -- I can tell you that I think the best antidote to what
happened in that regard would have been many years before to think about
what you could do for instance to harden cockpits.
[Hardened cockpits? What about jet fighters signalling FLight 77 headed for
Washington that if the plane does not land it will be shot down. Why no
jets? The anchoring on the problem of "What could we have done to prevent
etc." will not be departed from during this hearing.]

But I think it is really quite unfair to suggest that something that was a
threat spike in June or July gave you the kind of opportunity to make the
changes in air security that could have been -- that needed to be made.
[Thinking in terms of new cocpit doors and proceedures for all planes,
yes -- but does that hold true for air-interception readiness, which was
the one obvious failing that was critical to 9-11 success -- in fact no
hijacker would really have attempted an attack on Washington D.C. so long
after the crashes at New York, would they. They would have timed the
attacks for the same moment, wouldn't they have? Rice has substituted the
issue of cockpit hardening for the bigger issue of why interception was so

LEHMAN: As a last question, tell us what you really recommend we should
address our attentions to to fix this as the highest priority. Not just
moving boxes around, but what can you tell us in public here that we could
do, since we are outside the legislature and outside the executive branch
and can bring the focus of attention for change? Tell us what you recommend
we do.
[Here is a former Secretary of the Navy skipping the opportunity to ask
Rice about the failure of air defense, instead asking her a softball
question consistent with the Commissions chartered purpose "to find out what
can be done to prevent Arab Fundamentalists from taking box cutters and
going after again." He is asking for her recommendations -- a piece of
cake -- a great time filler. ]

RICE: My greatest concern is that, as September 11th recedes from memory,
that we will begin to unlearn the lessons of what we've learned.
[In other words, she fears we will roll back Homeland Security and Patriot
Act --

RICE: Mr. Roemer, by definition, we didn't have enough information, we
didn't have enough protection, because the attack happened -- by definition.
And I think we've all asked ourselves, what more could have been done?

I will tell you if we had known that an attack was coming against the United
States, that an attack was coming against New York and Washington, we would
have moved heaven and earth to stop it.
[Yet surprisingly she does not even have a grasp of the prevention issue --
all she can do is revert to argument "A" yet again.]

But you heard the character of the threat report we were getting: something
very, very big is going to happen. How do you act on "something very, very
big is going to happen" beyond trying to put people on alert? Most of the
threat reporting was abroad.

[Her rhetorical , how do you react except by putting people "on alert" is a
distortion. Alerting people is not the same as putting people under your
command on alert. The Pentagon is not mentioned. Rumsfeld putting all air
interception under his direct command, even though he was in his own office
until after the Pentagon was hit and then went to make sure that victims
cleared to escape the building were the ones who allowed out the door,
before he showed up in the situation room. (See Carol Valentine's research
on this.) Clearly neither the Commission nor Rice want to go there.]

It appears that I do not have a full transcript after all.
Can someone tell me where the full transcript can be downloaded so I can
finish what I started here????

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington



And this is the information that no commission member has ever discussed or
acknowledge seeing -- that Al Falzenberg says he processed to appropriate
people (i.e., to a black hole where it will never emerge.)

Note too that Kerry has played an active part in the coverup -- that the
bonesman was hand picked by the administration to sit on this investigation.
Clearly they knew what they were doing.

Dick Eastman

Apr 10, 2004, 12:10:45 PM4/10/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 10, 2004, 4:34:30 PM4/10/04
From: "Thomas Conlon" <------>
To: <penta...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:14 PM
Subject: RE: [pentagon911] Rice -- some line-by-line comment

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Eastman [mailto:de1...@nwinfo.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:20 PM
> To: Michel Chossudovsky; Hon. Cynthia McKinney McKinney;
> standf...@yahoogroups.com; Red_...@yahoogroups.com;
> penta...@yahoogroups.com; antiw...@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [pentagon911] Rice -- some line-by-line comment
> ..
> >It appears that I do not have a full transcript after all.
> >Can someone tell me where the full transcript can be downloaded so I
> can finish what I started here????

> http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing9/rice_statement.pdf
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61252-2004Apr8.html
> The Washington Post site has a nice little collection under
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/.
> ..

> >Note too that Kerry has played an active part in the coverup -- that
> the bonesman was hand picked by the >administration to sit on this
> investigation. Clearly they knew what they were doing.

> *Also, I feel obliged to point out I believe you have "John Kerry"
> confused with "Bob Kerrey" in your comments.
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_kerrey.htm
> Thanks!
> PS So what do you think about the "Flight of the Bumblebee" theory that
> got ~rivero at whatreallyhappened.com so steamed?


I did have my Kerrys confused. Act in haste, repent at leisure.

I'm surprised, and grateful, that you would bother to help moronic me out
with the information I asked for. -- and you did it in such a charitably
polite way. Thank you for your help.

Think I'll go hide under a rock for a while..

About the bumble bee piece that first appeared on Carol Valentine's site --
it was one of the first articles on the subject -- I do not remember
finding anything wrong with it.

I was not aware that Mike Rivero had found fault with it. Rivero and I were
sharing information (he has been around much longer than I have and had been
a hero of sorts of mine on the newsgroujps) but soon after the Bosankoe
enlargement of the Pentagon security camera pictures he all-of-a-sudden
turned off to the idea that the Pentagon was not hit by the Boeing, accusing
me, two days after being friendly and collaborative, of being working for
the enemy to distract people from his findings regarding Israel. But he has
never given information to back his position -- he has never explained what
line of reasoning (if any exists) led him away from the conclusions we had
been converging on together.

Darn I feel like I botched it in my hasty analysis. My critique of the Rice
testimony is still valid -- I hope people will look at that part, rather
than rejecting all of it because I stupidly talk of John Kerry on the

With gratitude,


"There exists in this country a plot to enslave every man woman and child.
Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot." -
President John F. Kennedy - 7 days before he was assassinated.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair, 1906

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the
people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who
mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

Dick Eastman

Apr 10, 2004, 4:34:25 PM4/10/04

Dick Eastman

Apr 13, 2004, 1:54:07 AM4/13/04
Let's be smarter than they are for a change.

Yep, we know the Oligarchy was gunning for us as much as for Arabs when they
got us to do the fightn, cause everybody knows that when this country has
sought to overthrow any other country they have always done so by fomenting
conflicts of some kind between that country and some other country. But now
we know they are gunning for us, because instead of getting Iran to fight
Iraq or Afganistan to fight Russia or Serbia to fight Croatia this time they
pulled the 9-11 mass-murder frameup so's we middle-class folks would have to
do the killin' and payin'. ?

And now they think they got us over a barrel cause we are stuck with two
skull 'n Bones pirates, Kerry and Bush as the only candidates and they know
lack the brains or gumption to think for ourselves and not rely on our own
traditional habitual political parties to do our thinking and deciding for
us, right?

But hold on. I don't see where it is written in the Constitution that we
have to be stupid fools and fall for the same damn trick every damn time, do
you? In fact, it seems to me as we've got them over a barrel.

Think about it. Most of us don't want this killing of foreigners and
getting our sons and daughters killed, especially when there's no point to
it. Iraq never hurt America and neither did Afganistan, nor did any of the
other countries they're talking about taking over next, did they.
Especially since we now know from the those pictures taken by witnesses at
the Pentagon and by the security camera they had there that the whole stoary
of hateful Arabs taking box cutters and taking over those jetliners and
crashing them is all a hoax. Got the URLs that prove it right here:

Like I said, we've got them over a barrel and, in fact, they've painted
themselves into a corner to boot.

Here's what I mean. Only a select few people in this country really enjoy
the idea of killing Arabs time or tossing our sons and daughers into the
furnace of war or bankrupting the country or making the criminal bosses
running this country even more rich and powerful, right? And its becoming
more and more obvious that that's what we're doing, isn't it?

Now think about it. That small group of people who love getting innocent
people killed and bankrupting the country and setting up rich-kid Emperor's
with a taste for throwing people to the lions, those people are no going to
be dividing their votes between Bonesman pirate Bush and Bonesman pirate
Kerry, right? Which means that there is going to be a minority that's
divided in its vote between equally desirable-to-them but
rotten-to-the-rest-of-us candidates, right?

So how can we loose? Only one way. If they get you to think that Bush and
Kerry, Democrat and Republican, are the only possible choices that can be
made. But that is totally untrue, unless they can hoodwink us into thinking
it is true so that we give up without even trying to take what is really
plum ripe for the taking. Did you get that?

Now, I haven't heard a peep from the Libertarians, or the Prohibitionists,
or the Socialist, or the Taxpayer Party, or the Greens, or the Reform Pary,
or any of those other parties, have you? And I haven't seen any man against
these wars and this theft and corruption even looking like he is thinking
about getting up on a white horse and asking one of these parties if he can
be their champion and go up against the plundering pirates to get them off
our throats, have you? I suspect that there is a lot of big money and
favors and politicing going on in all those parties to either keep them from
fielding an anti-war anti-plutocracy candidate or else to field one who is
such a jackass and who is so fatally flawed in so many ways that he won't
have a chance of winning, someone the party will just go through the motions
of supporting, but not really intending that the candidate would win -- not
really fighting for the candidate. Remember Pat Buchanan running on the
Reform Party Ticket?

So that is what they are counting on to keep their two bloodthirsty bonesmen
from getting any competition from a candidate and a party that will provide
the country with what the country really desperately needs.

The question is can we beat that game and are you willing to try?

I think their game can be beaten if we use the internet to get the situation
explained to enough people and then offer them the only way out that makes
any sense.

In fact it make so much sense I don't even have to spell it out for you.

But I will make this suggestion -- don't get behind a third party or a
candidate unless they and he frankly acknowledge that the odd of them living
through the reforms they will have to initiate are going to be too slim for
any regular politician to want to throw in. Harry Brown is going to look
out for number one and stay free of bullets in an unfree world. Buchanan is
going to spend his campaign in the pub talking about the little people.
Nader is actually pro-war and pro-occupation too -- in fact he probaly
declared as a independent "me-too" because he was afraid the Greens might
pick him again and force him to offer himself as a target to another
disturbed Catcher in the Rye fan. Kucinich, of course, is prohibited by
new laws from running as a third party candidate after seeking a major party
candidacy. So who does that leave for a third pary candidate?

Actually any honest intelligent candidate would do if he (or she) had the
heroic character and a simple grasp of how the oligarchy works its scams.

And since it would be a coalition of third parties, there would have to be
patronage, giving each party its own segment of the government for promote
their ideas.

Secretary of the Treasury: Libertarian nationalist (not anarcho-capitalist)
Secretary of State: Buchananite
Secretary of Defense: Kucinich Democrat
Secretary of Interior: Naderite not beholden to lawyers
Attorney General: Populist willing to apply anti-trust where as it has
never been used before
Commerce: LaRouchian
Education: eliminate

Pooling all the best minds of each third party, plus the Kucinich and Dean
democrats and the paleoconservative Republicans to play rough and for
keeps with the old corruption -- who I think everyone will desert once they
are stripped of key power.

And I am sure we all have pet reforms we would like to put in to fix the
broken republic. Mine would be returning selection of Senators to the
respective state legislatures. Returning selection of the President to
locally elected electors who run as candidates in their own right tied to no
man or party -- but who convene in session until they agree on a President
and Vice President. That is the system the Founding Fathers gave us, and it
sure makes no sense to pretend that we support there principles when we have
let the criminals do away with the most important elements of the "checks
and balances" system, don't you think?

And of course I'd like to see international trade and the monetary system
re-regulated -- ending forever the practice of overseas investing, limiting
free trade to what it should be -- the trade in goods and in raw materials
and in tourism and nothing else.

So, tell me -- are you willing to foget about your past political party
habits and to get behind the first candidate of whatever third party who is
willing to end the war, end the occupation, and impose holy hell on the
corporations and the perverse corporation and financial system that made
these crimes inevitable.

They'll call him/her a dictator, like they did Huey Long, and they will
probably kill him or her like they did Huey too -- but that is what great
people do, isn't it? and we are about due for another crop of great people
arent we.

So let's watch the third parties and see which one has what it takes to
offer what it is going to take.

Dick Eastman

Apr 13, 2004, 1:54:13 AM4/13/04
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages