Saturday, February 19, 2005


SAIC Break-in Stresses Intertwined Nature of Physical and IT Security
Thieves broke windows to access building, made off with computers containing personal data on current and former stockholders


SAIC Break-in Stresses Intertwined Nature of Physical and IT Security
Thieves broke windows to access building, made off with computers containing personal data on current and former stockholders

Geoff Kohl, editor
SecurityInfoWatch.com
A break-in at a government contractor's offices has opened 45,000 former and current employees and stockholders up to identity theft.
In the break-in, which occurred at Science Applications International (SAIC), thieves grabbed SAIC computers that are believed to have contained personal data such as social security numbers.
The company, which experienced the break-in at one of its facilities on Jan. 25 in San Diego, saw the loss of information from numerous computers that were stolen. The computers included private data on stockholders according to an annoucement SAIC made on its website and released to its stock-holder community of the employee-owned company.
According to SAIC, "the stolen computers contained personal information of current and former stockholders, including name, social security number, address, telephone number and stockholder records, including shares bought, sold and held."
The break-in surprised many, especially since much of SAIC's work involved security consulting for the Department of Homeland Security and information security. In a Washington Post article, Iraq weapons inspector David Kay, who was one of the former executives at SAIC and a subsequent victim of the crime, asked why a company whose duties entailed national security would operate in a manner that simply allowed thieves to break windows and steal the company's computers.
This crime event, which occurred at a building that had surveillance cameras, reminds security directors that often the target of a physical break-in will be IT assets. SAIC has been busy since that break-in to reconstruct data and alert its stockholders -- many of whom hold government security clearances -- of the theft of their personal information. It is still not known whether the break-in was for the theft of data or a simple robbery of resalable hardware.

America's Senior Moment

February 18, 2005
Right-Wing Hit Squad Attacks Another Academic
Francisco Gil-White, assistant professor of Psychology and a fellow at

A Recent PNAC Article

This Post supports the Progressive Blogger Union Topic of the Week: PNAC (Project for the New American Century) Agenda.


War with Iraq
Original URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131523.asp


Neoconservative clout seen in U.S. Iraq policy
By BRUCE MURPHY
bmurphy@journalsentinel.com
Last Updated: April 5, 2003
Question: Why are we in Iraq?

Answer: The neoconservatives made us do it.

War with Iraq


The buzz in Washington and beyond has been that President Bush's attack on Iraq came straight from the playbook of the neoconservatives, a group of mostly Republican strategists, many of whom have gotten funding from Milwaukee's Bradley Foundation. The neoconservatives differ from traditional conservatives in favoring a more activist role for government and a more aggressive foreign policy.

Led by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the neoconservatives have offered a sweeping new vision for U.S. foreign policy: to restructure the Middle East and supplant dictators around the world, using pre-emptive attacks when necessary against any countries seen as potential threats. Traditional conservatives, such as Heritage Foundation fellow John C. Hulsman, suggest that this will lead to "endless war," while Jessica Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has charged that "announcing a global crusade on behalf of democracy is arrogant."

Whether Bush ends up sticking with the neoconservative playbook remains to be seen, but a wide range of observers suggest it is a key part of his current game plan.

"I think Bush has drawn upon that thinking," said Michael Joyce, who led the Bradley Foundation, a leading funder of neoconservative thinkers, from 1986 to 2001. Joyce added that Bush's "key people," including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "were clearly influenced by this thinking."

Under Joyce, the Bradley Foundation made 15 grants totaling nearly $1.9 million to the New Citizenship Project Inc., a group Kristol led and which also created the Project for a New American Century, a key proponent of a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy. The foundation also is a significant funding source for the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank with many neoconservative scholars.

Perhaps more important, noted Joyce, the Bradley Foundation was a longtime funder of Harvard University's John M. Olin Center for Strategic Studies, which until 2000 was run by Samuel P. Huntington, who wrote the influential book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" about the conflict between the West and the Muslim world. Huntington trained "a large number of scholars" who have helped develop neoconservative theories, Joyce noted.

Read by the right people
But it is Kristol's Weekly Standard, bankrolled by conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, that has popularized these viewpoints. The Standard may have a circulation of just 55,000, but it has aimed successfully at policy-makers rather than average readers, making it "one of the most influential publications in Washington," a story by The New York Times concluded. Hulsman calls the Standard the "house newspaper" of the Bush administration.

Kristol and Gary Schmidt, executive director of the Project for a New American Century, have accused the media of exaggerating their impact.

"I think it's ludicrous to see all these articles, in this country and in Europe, that somehow we are the diabolical cabal behind the war in Iraq. It wasn't the case that Bill (Kristol) was calling people in the White House advocating for things," Schmidt told the Journal Sentinel. Their influence came from "intellectual leverage, not personal leverage," he added.

In 1997, the Standard's cover story announced that "Saddam Must Go." In 1998, the Standard published a letter to then-President Clinton, calling on him to remove Hussein from power. The letter was signed by 18 people, eight of whom would join the Bush administration in senior positions, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who serves on the influential Defense Policy Board and was until last month its chairman.

Roman Empire of 21st century?
The neoconservatives argue that we no longer live in a bipolar world, as when Russia faced off against the United States. They see a unipolar world, with America as the Rome of the 21st century, a colossus that can dictate its will to the world, noting that America spends as much on defense as the next 15 countries combined and has troops stationed in 75 countries.

"The fact is," writes Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post columnist who espouses neoconservative views, "no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the late Roman Empire."

Hulsman summarizes the neoconservative view this way: "We should acknowledge we have an empire. We have power and we should do good with it."

In essence, the neoconservatives argue that national sovereignty is an outdated concept, given the overwhelming power of America, and the U.S. should do all it can to impose democracy on countries. Some have called this approach democratic imperialism. It echoes the do-gooder impulses of Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president who formulated the League of Nations as a solution to war, then paradoxically blends it with American military might. Hulsman dubbed it "Wilsonianism on steroids."

In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, the neoconservatives argue, you can no longer put the genie back in the bottle. "The hard truth is that unless you change some of these regimes, you're going to be hard-pressed to get rid of the threat," Schmidt noted. "Liberal democracies don't go to war with each other."

The theory behind this, developed by Michael Doyle, professor of international affairs at Princeton University, is that democratic governments are reluctant to go to war because they must answer to their citizens. And the history of liberal democracies, though comparatively short in the grand scheme of history, tends to buttress his point.

But for critics such as Hulsman, democracy arises from the bottom up and is "intimately connected with local culture and tradition. It can almost never be successfully imposed from the top down," he contends.

Neoconservatives cite Germany and Japan, but Hulsman noted that Japan is "98 percent ethnically homogenous," unlike Iraq, which is split among three major groups. Yet Japan still required five years of American occupation after World War II before it became an independent democracy.

The mission of democratizing the world may have no end, Hulsman says, because "there are always barbarians to convert."

But whatever his disagreement with it, Hulsman called the neoconservatives' approach "the first new thought in foreign policy for some time."

These ideas had little impact on presidential candidate George W. Bush, who espoused a humble foreign policy that emphatically rejected the kind of nation-building he now envisions for Iraq. In the early days of Bush's administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell's less aggressive views on foreign policy prevailed.

But after the attack on the World Trade Center, everything changed. Wolfowitz was soon declaring that America's intention was not just to target terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden, but to fight a "global war" and eliminate any sovereign states "who sponsor terrorism."

'Critical' voice in Pentagon
Wolfowitz had long held similar views. While third in command at the Pentagon (under Cheney) in 1991, Wolfowitz had argued in favor of pre-emptive action against countries such as Iraq and North Korea. "He was criticized as unduly hawkish prior to September 11th, but you don't hear that criticism now," Joyce said.

Wolfowitz was also unique in that he was comfortable in academia and connected to intellectuals.

"Wolfowitz is critical," Hulsman said. "He's the link between intellectual neocons like Kristol and the world of decision-makers."

Wolfowitz hammered away at the need to attack Iraq, backed by the Weekly Standard and the huge American Enterprise Institute. The institute has supplanted the more traditionally conservative Heritage Foundation, which was more influential with the senior George Bush as the key think tank for GOP insiders. Heritage scholars argue in favor of building alliances, as in the first Gulf War, while the American Enterprise Institute scholars say America's leadership can be decisive, with or without allies.

Turning point of Sept. 11
Joyce said it was inevitable that the younger Bush would embrace the neoconservative view. "I'm not sure September 11th did more than push the timetable up," he said. But press accounts suggest that the events of Sept. 11 were crucial for Bush, and even after this his thinking changed gradually in response to several things:

The anthrax attacks in New York, Washington and Florida in October 2001 raised fears of Saddam Hussein's involvement.
Evidence found in Afghanistan the next month that showed Osama bin Laden's group had been trying to secure weapons of mass destruction raised the question again of whether Hussein could be a possible supplier.
And by early 2002, a source told Time magazine, the stories of Hussein's cruelty to his own people had convinced Bush that the dictator was "insane" and therefore capable of giving weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists.
By January 2002, Bush signaled his embrace of the neoconservative vision, declaring Iraq, Iran and North Korea were an "axis of evil" that must be resisted. By May, Bush announced that the U.S. would take pre-emptive action against threats from such regimes.

To the neoconservatives, the question of what weapons Hussein might actually possess was less important than his intention to get them. "Once the nuclear materials are there, you're screwed," argued Schmidt of the Project for a New American Century. "When you can really do pre-emption is when it's early."

'Draining the swamp'
Overthrowing Hussein could also accomplish broader goals.

Neoconservatives often talk about "draining the swamp" in the Middle East. Once Hussein is removed, Hudson Institute co-founder Max Singer has predicted, "there will be an earthquake throughout the region" that could topple the leadership of Saudi Arabia.

Even more pressing, says Schmidt, is the need to create a more moderate regime in Iran, which could have a nuclear weapon in 18 to 24 months, he predicted. (By contrast, North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, would have to be approached very differently.)

If the goal is to transform the Middle East, the obvious place to start is with Iraq, which was already in trouble with the United Nations, had little international standing and was reviled even by some Arab nations.

A recent story in Time suggests that Cheney became convinced by his discussions with Fouad Ajami, professor and director of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University, that the people of Iraq would "erupt in joy" at the arrival of the Americans. Others have predicted a victory in Iraq could lead to regime changes in Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yemen and elsewhere.

"To these states," Richard Perle recently suggested, "we could deliver . . . a two-word message: You're next."

Some Middle Eastern leaders have already gotten this message.

"We are all targeted," Syrian President Bashar Assad told an Arab summit meeting on March 1.

Quick action required
If the war in Iraq lasts months rather than weeks, the theory that overwhelming American power can simultaneously pursue objectives in Iraq and beyond will be tested.

"If this is to be done, it has to be done rapidly," Schmidt said of the Iraq war.

Lawrence F. Kaplan, Kristol's co-author of the influential book "The War Over Iraq," has put it this way: "The real question is not whether the American military can topple Hussein's regime, but whether the American public has the stomach for imperial involvement of a kind we have not known since the United States occupied Germany and Japan."

The public's stomach could be affected not just by the war's cost in lives, but also by its costs in dollars. Beyond the $380 billion defense budget, the war already is expected to cost an additional $80 billion, with some administration officials estimating it could go as high as $200 billion.

War's naysayers
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense policy expert at the Brookings Institution, a liberal Washington, D.C., think tank, has argued that most university experts oppose U.S. policy in Iraq.

There are even naysayers within the Bush administration and among retired military officials.

Hulsman described the neoconservatives as "a very incestuous, self-referential group of people."

"It's like what we saw with Vietnam. If you surround yourself with people who agree, you get in trouble."

But Hulsman noted that the secretary of state and his staff have been less enthusiastic about the neoconservative vision and are probably more comfortable with the international "realists" at the Heritage Foundation, such as Hulsman himself. And whatever the seeming unity in the Bush administration is now, the president could change his mind again as world events change.

Which is just what Hulsman and other "outs" are waiting for.

"If Iraq goes badly, then I think the realists are ready to take control," he predicts.




A version of this story appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 6, 2003.

The buzz in Washington and beyond has been that President Bush's attack on Iraq came straight from the playbook of the neoconservatives, a group of mostly Republican strategists, many of whom have gotten funding from Milwaukee's Bradley Foundation. The neoconservatives differ from traditional conservatives in favoring a more activist role for government and a more aggressive foreign policy.

Led by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the neoconservatives have offered a sweeping new vision for U.S. foreign policy: to restructure the Middle East and supplant dictators around the world, using pre-emptive attacks when necessary against any countries seen as potential threats. Traditional conservatives, such as Heritage Foundation fellow John C. Hulsman, suggest that this will lead to "endless war," while Jessica Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has charged that "announcing a global crusade on behalf of democracy is arrogant."

Whether Bush ends up sticking with the neoconservative playbook remains to be seen, but a wide range of observers suggest it is a key part of his current game plan.

"I think Bush has drawn upon that thinking," said Michael Joyce, who led the Bradley Foundation, a leading funder of neoconservative thinkers, from 1986 to 2001. Joyce added that Bush's "key people," including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "were clearly influenced by this thinking."

Under Joyce, the Bradley Foundation made 15 grants totaling nearly $1.9 million to the New Citizenship Project Inc., a group Kristol led and which also created the Project for a New American Century, a key proponent of a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy. The foundation also is a significant funding source for the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank with many neoconservative scholars.

Perhaps more important, noted Joyce, the Bradley Foundation was a longtime funder of Harvard University's John M. Olin Center for Strategic Studies, which until 2000 was run by Samuel P. Huntington, who wrote the influential book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" about the conflict between the West and the Muslim world. Huntington trained "a large number of scholars" who have helped develop neoconservative theories, Joyce noted.

Read by the right people
But it is Kristol's Weekly Standard, bankrolled by conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, that has popularized these viewpoints. The Standard may have a circulation of just 55,000, but it has aimed successfully at policy-makers rather than average readers, making it "one of the most influential publications in Washington," a story by The New York Times concluded. Hulsman calls the Standard the "house newspaper" of the Bush administration.

Kristol and Gary Schmidt, executive director of the Project for a New American Century, have accused the media of exaggerating their impact.

"I think it's ludicrous to see all these articles, in this country and in Europe, that somehow we are the diabolical cabal behind the war in Iraq. It wasn't the case that Bill (Kristol) was calling people in the White House advocating for things," Schmidt told the Journal Sentinel. Their influence came from "intellectual leverage, not personal leverage," he added.

In 1997, the Standard's cover story announced that "Saddam Must Go." In 1998, the Standard published a letter to then-President Clinton, calling on him to remove Hussein from power. The letter was signed by 18 people, eight of whom would join the Bush administration in senior positions, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who serves on the influential Defense Policy Board and was until last month its chairman.

Roman Empire of 21st century?
The neoconservatives argue that we no longer live in a bipolar world, as when Russia faced off against the United States. They see a unipolar world, with America as the Rome of the 21st century, a colossus that can dictate its will to the world, noting that America spends as much on defense as the next 15 countries combined and has troops stationed in 75 countries.

"The fact is," writes Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post columnist who espouses neoconservative views, "no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the late Roman Empire."

Hulsman summarizes the neoconservative view this way: "We should acknowledge we have an empire. We have power and we should do good with it."

In essence, the neoconservatives argue that national sovereignty is an outdated concept, given the overwhelming power of America, and the U.S. should do all it can to impose democracy on countries. Some have called this approach democratic imperialism. It echoes the do-gooder impulses of Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president who formulated the League of Nations as a solution to war, then paradoxically blends it with American military might. Hulsman dubbed it "Wilsonianism on steroids."

In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, the neoconservatives argue, you can no longer put the genie back in the bottle. "The hard truth is that unless you change some of these regimes, you're going to be hard-pressed to get rid of the threat," Schmidt noted. "Liberal democracies don't go to war with each other."

The theory behind this, developed by Michael Doyle, professor of international affairs at Princeton University, is that democratic governments are reluctant to go to war because they must answer to their citizens. And the history of liberal democracies, though comparatively short in the grand scheme of history, tends to buttress his point.

But for critics such as Hulsman, democracy arises from the bottom up and is "intimately connected with local culture and tradition. It can almost never be successfully imposed from the top down," he contends.

Neoconservatives cite Germany and Japan, but Hulsman noted that Japan is "98 percent ethnically homogenous," unlike Iraq, which is split among three major groups. Yet Japan still required five years of American occupation after World War II before it became an independent democracy.

The mission of democratizing the world may have no end, Hulsman says, because "there are always barbarians to convert."

But whatever his disagreement with it, Hulsman called the neoconservatives' approach "the first new thought in foreign policy for some time."

These ideas had little impact on presidential candidate George W. Bush, who espoused a humble foreign policy that emphatically rejected the kind of nation-building he now envisions for Iraq. In the early days of Bush's administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell's less aggressive views on foreign policy prevailed.

But after the attack on the World Trade Center, everything changed. Wolfowitz was soon declaring that America's intention was not just to target terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden, but to fight a "global war" and eliminate any sovereign states "who sponsor terrorism."

'Critical' voice in Pentagon
Wolfowitz had long held similar views. While third in command at the Pentagon (under Cheney) in 1991, Wolfowitz had argued in favor of pre-emptive action against countries such as Iraq and North Korea. "He was criticized as unduly hawkish prior to September 11th, but you don't hear that criticism now," Joyce said.

Wolfowitz was also unique in that he was comfortable in academia and connected to intellectuals.

"Wolfowitz is critical," Hulsman said. "He's the link between intellectual neocons like Kristol and the world of decision-makers."

Wolfowitz hammered away at the need to attack Iraq, backed by the Weekly Standard and the huge American Enterprise Institute. The institute has supplanted the more traditionally conservative Heritage Foundation, which was more influential with the senior George Bush as the key think tank for GOP insiders. Heritage scholars argue in favor of building alliances, as in the first Gulf War, while the American Enterprise Institute scholars say America's leadership can be decisive, with or without allies.

Turning point of Sept. 11
Joyce said it was inevitable that the younger Bush would embrace the neoconservative view. "I'm not sure September 11th did more than push the timetable up," he said. But press accounts suggest that the events of Sept. 11 were crucial for Bush, and even after this his thinking changed gradually in response to several things:

The anthrax attacks in New York, Washington and Florida in October 2001 raised fears of Saddam Hussein's involvement.
Evidence found in Afghanistan the next month that showed Osama bin Laden's group had been trying to secure weapons of mass destruction raised the question again of whether Hussein could be a possible supplier.
And by early 2002, a source told Time magazine, the stories of Hussein's cruelty to his own people had convinced Bush that the dictator was "insane" and therefore capable of giving weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists.
By January 2002, Bush signaled his embrace of the neoconservative vision, declaring Iraq, Iran and North Korea were an "axis of evil" that must be resisted. By May, Bush announced that the U.S. would take pre-emptive action against threats from such regimes.

To the neoconservatives, the question of what weapons Hussein might actually possess was less important than his intention to get them. "Once the nuclear materials are there, you're screwed," argued Schmidt of the Project for a New American Century. "When you can really do pre-emption is when it's early."

'Draining the swamp'
Overthrowing Hussein could also accomplish broader goals.

Neoconservatives often talk about "draining the swamp" in the Middle East. Once Hussein is removed, Hudson Institute co-founder Max Singer has predicted, "there will be an earthquake throughout the region" that could topple the leadership of Saudi Arabia.

Even more pressing, says Schmidt, is the need to create a more moderate regime in Iran, which could have a nuclear weapon in 18 to 24 months, he predicted. (By contrast, North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, would have to be approached very differently.)

If the goal is to transform the Middle East, the obvious place to start is with Iraq, which was already in trouble with the United Nations, had little international standing and was reviled even by some Arab nations.

A recent story in Time suggests that Cheney became convinced by his discussions with Fouad Ajami, professor and director of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University, that the people of Iraq would "erupt in joy" at the arrival of the Americans. Others have predicted a victory in Iraq could lead to regime changes in Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yemen and elsewhere.

"To these states," Richard Perle recently suggested, "we could deliver . . . a two-word message: You're next."

Some Middle Eastern leaders have already gotten this message.

"We are all targeted," Syrian President Bashar Assad told an Arab summit meeting on March 1.

Quick action required
If the war in Iraq lasts months rather than weeks, the theory that overwhelming American power can simultaneously pursue objectives in Iraq and beyond will be tested.

"If this is to be done, it has to be done rapidly," Schmidt said of the Iraq war.

Lawrence F. Kaplan, Kristol's co-author of the influential book "The War Over Iraq," has put it this way: "The real question is not whether the American military can topple Hussein's regime, but whether the American public has the stomach for imperial involvement of a kind we have not known since the United States occupied Germany and Japan."

The public's stomach could be affected not just by the war's cost in lives, but also by its costs in dollars. Beyond the $380 billion defense budget, the war already is expected to cost an additional $80 billion, with some administration officials estimating it could go as high as $200 billion.

War's naysayers
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense policy expert at the Brookings Institution, a liberal Washington, D.C., think tank, has argued that most university experts oppose U.S. policy in Iraq.

There are even naysayers within the Bush administration and among retired military officials.

Hulsman described the neoconservatives as "a very incestuous, self-referential group of people."

"It's like what we saw with Vietnam. If you surround yourself with people who agree, you get in trouble."

But Hulsman noted that the secretary of state and his staff have been less enthusiastic about the neoconservative vision and are probably more comfortable with the international "realists" at the Heritage Foundation, such as Hulsman himself. And whatever the seeming unity in the Bush administration is now, the president could change his mind again as world events change.

Which is just what Hulsman and other "outs" are waiting for.

"If Iraq goes badly, then I think the realists are ready to take control," he predicts.

Got to agree with a lot of this about Al Franken:

No cover charge, No tipping

MSNBC Weekly Pics

"Let them have a sense of eating cake!"

Donald Rumsfeld was tired of being chastened

Tupak Okra rides again
oh this is just too, too good

Drudge Takes The Oscar For 'Clueless'


February 18, 2005
Scientists say they have found proof that man-made emissions have caused global warming (MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images)


New proof that man has caused global warming From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington



The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday. "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable." In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change. It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely. "What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable." Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down. Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said. "All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one. "This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming." Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said. "We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it." In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995. Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said. "The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US. "The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers."






Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website .

Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce
Lawrence H. Summers
Cambridge, Mass

THE prayers of those hoping that real television news might take its cues from Jon Stewart were finally answered on Feb. 9, 2005. A real newsman borrowed a technique from fake news to deliver real news about fake news in prime time.

Bill Maher: Kids Say the Darndest, Most Stalinist Things



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-oe-maher18feb18.story
COMMENTARY
Kids Say the Darndest, Most Stalinist Things
By Bill Maher
Bill Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."

February 18, 2005

A new survey found that a majority of high schoolers think newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval. And almost one in five said that Americans should be prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions.

Lemme tell you little darlings something: This is my livelihood you're messing with, so either learn the Bill of Rights or you don't deserve Social Security.

Now, to those of you who think I'm overreacting: Yes, I understand that when you're in high school you're still very young and that no one really cares what kids say anyway — it's not like priests are dating them for their brains.

But the younger generation is supposed to rage against the machine, not for it; they're supposed to question authority, not question those who question authority.

And what's so frightening is that we're seeing the beginnings of the first post-9/11 generation — the kids who first became aware of the news under an "Americans need to watch what they say" administration, the kids who've been told that dissent is un-American and therefore justifiably punished by a fine, imprisonment — or the loss of your show on ABC.

President Bush once asked, "Is our children learning?" No — they isn't. A more appropriate question might be, "Is our teachers teaching?" In four years, you can teach a gorilla sign language. Is it too much to ask that in the same amount of time a kid be taught what those crazy hippies who founded this country had in mind?

I know the Morals & Values folks want us to take time out of the school day for prayer and the Ten Commandments and abstinence training and at least two theories of evolution — the one agreed upon by every scientist in the world and the one that involves naked ladies and snakes — but, lest we forget, last month the people of Iraq risked death and danger to send a simple, inspiring message: America, get out of our country. But also, we want the freedoms you take for granted.

Now, I didn't mind being on the losing side of the last election. But as a loser, I guess I have some "unpopular" opinions — and I'd like to keep them. I'd even like to continue to say them right out loud on TV, because if I just get up there every Friday night and spout the Bush administration's approved talking points, that's not freedom or entertainment. It's Fox News.


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

Research News
Brain Region May Give Early Warning of Risk

Fake reporters

Video, Entertaining (PG)
Hollow MenExplaining Natalie Imbruglia's lyrics

Jeff Gannon

Side Note (from Washington Post profile of Jon Stewart):
Jon Stuart Leibowitz, who grew up in suburban New Jersey, is a physicist's son who found himself tending bar and doing puppet shows for schoolchildren after graduating from Virginia's College of William and Mary. He dropped his last name when he started doing stand-up at Manhattan comedy clubs, waiting tables to get by.

'Nobody is talking'

Music Review Segment from NPR


HERE’S TO HIM, MR. ROBINSON! The Post’s Eugene Robinson thinks he’s a liberal. Someone should tell him he’s not:

O'Reilly used phony stats to claim "staggering increase" in spending on food stamps, housing assistance

Presumably, that is because he managed to pull the wool over their eyes with his wordgame flimflam

Forest Service Becoming Rogue Agency

OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, Part 70

THE CLINTON SYNDROME
by Sherman H. Skolnick
2/7/5
Real-life events of the more or less recent past, could read like a super-hyped fiction book. The problem? Big-time book publishers are not inclined to tell the factual truth about the murder of JFK and a lot of other happenings.
Why? Simple.. The publishing cartel, made up of just a few handfuls of mega-corporations, like the rest of the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press, is not inclined to disturb the well-planted fairy tales of our era.
This non-fiction story could begin at the time Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vincent W. Foster, Jr., and Webster Hubbell were lawyer-strategists for a firm providing worldwide bank computer software services.
In retrospect, some claim there were "trap doors" built in to some of the software so that spying could be done on banks, both friend and foe. Of course, the firm denied it was occurring.
For various reasons called "The Rabbi", Foster was more or less the kingpin. All three were tight with the Espionage Establishment.
In the 1980s, Foster became the "mystery man" in the purloining of vast amounts of super-secret U.S. military missile codes. Friends of the U.S., Israel became the beneficiary of secrets relating such as to Iraq. Since Iraq regularly threatened harm to Israel, maybe these "secrets" should have been routinely shared with Israel.
No one within the U.S. bureaucracy was prepared to later explain how Jonathan Pollard, a low-level naval analyst, was able to walk right through security with such large quantities over a period of time of secret documents each having built-in devices to trigger off alarms.
All this happened while Foster law partner Hillary was wife of the Arkansas Governor,Willam ROCKEFELLER Clinton. [As to ROCKEFELLER Visit www.skolnicksreport.com , series on "Wal-Mart and the Red Chinese Secret Police".]
For the first few months of the Clinton White House, Foster was Chief Deputy Counsel. The FBI Director, William Sessions, had a very elite team investigating corruption of both top Democrats and Republicans, Most would consider that a forbidden task.
On flimsy and ridiculous accusations, Sessions was sacked in July 1993. The very next day, Foster was murdered. Each with different reasons, Bill and Hillary were part of the cover-up calling the Foster death a "suicide". He was found dead in a Civil War Memorial Park laying next to a cannon. The site is part of an area next to the American CIA headquarters in Virginia under twenty four hour satellite imaging surveillance. Every blade of grass is observed. The satellite imaging showed his dead body was moved from near the White House parking lot to Fort Marcy Park.
So there were images available to immediately disprove that Foster was a "suicide". [The National Reconnaissance Office, NRO, is in charge of such imaging. The head of that program, Daniel Potter, was later murdered to silence him.]
Because of Clinton domestic policy blundering, Clinton was faced in 1994 with a Republican majority in Congress. He offset this by having prior knowledge, and permitting a federal office building in Oklahoma City, to be blasted apart with multiple explosions, internal and external. [See "The Final Report" mentioned later.] 169 died as a result, including numerous children in the federal office building nursery for employees' children. Bill Clinton falsely publicly blamed it all on "domestic militias" threatening to "overthrow the U.S. Government"
Questions remain about the role of domestic surrogates acting for or with several thousand Iraqi military defectors resident in Oklahoma City, brought into the U.S. by Daddy Bush knowing full well some were double agents.
[Timothy McVeigh's Chief Criminal Defense Counsel, Stephen Jones, in a little-mentioned 185 page petition in a higher court prior to trial raised these issues from both the open public court and the secret court record. I was one of the first after the multiple bombings to publicly raise the question of domestic dissidents as surrogates for Iraqi military defectors implicated in the bombings. Some 2,000 Iraqi ex-soldiers with their families reside in and around Oklahoma City funded and paid for as to housing and expenses by the U.S. Government.
A recent book by a former Oklahoma City-area investigative TV reporter also goes into this. (She was fired for pursuing the issue.) "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection To The Oklahoma City Bombing", by Jayna Davis, April 2004.
Also see "Final Report of The Bombing of Alfred P. Murrah Building, April 19, 1995" published in 2001 by the "Oklahoma Bombing Investigative Committee", pages 476-477. Referring to the Washington Times, Oct. 18, 1993.
By 1996, there were several scandals possible to burst from just below the surface to wreck Bill Clinton.
[1] Appointed by Bill, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, had secretly arranged with Bill's blessings, U.S. financial, industrial, and MILITARY secrets to be conveyed to Red China.
Ron Brown told close friends he is not going "to take the fall" for Bill Clinton. Brown was facing federal criminal indictments. Brown went on a business trip to Yugoslavia with a planeload of engineering company executives promoting European business.
A small airport expecting the plane had their key employee under orders to intentionally move over the guide-in beam. On April 3, 1996, t he plane crashed into a hill. Of those onboard, only two survived. A woman stewardess who walked from the plane apparently uninjured. She somehow arrived at the hospital dead, her main artery mysteriously having been cut.
The airport official? What happened to him? Shortly after the crash, he was found shot in the chest, supposedly a "suicide". In violation of procedure, the U.S. Military and others conducted no air crash investigation, writing off the air crash as merely "an accident". And, of course, there was no inquiry into the airport employee's "suicide". And shortly after this "suicide", another airport employee was found dead, likewise explained away as a "suicide".
A whistle-blower later in a U.S. government laboratory showed a camera picture from the x-ray of Ron Brown's head, showing he had been shot through the top of his head with a .45 caliber weapon. For daring to speak out, the picture maker was fired and black-balled. [Search google.com "Ron Brown" for stories about the assassination of Ron Brown, such as one by WorldNet Daily.]
Ron Brown was a partner in the very clout-heavy lobbyist firm headed by Tommie Boggs, son of Congressman Hale Boggs (D., La. and having been a member of the Warren Commission as to the death of JFK.) who disappeared in a plane flight to Alaska after having made public statements expressing misgivings of the Warren Commission conclusion that Oswald was the "lone assassin”. The Congressman disappeared, October 1972, a month before Nixon was re-elected President. The Congressman's daughter, Cokie Roberts, later falsely said her late father was satisfied with the Warren Commission statements.
At the same time Ron Brown was murdered, his partner, Tommie Boggs, was the victim of an attempted assassination. [Tommie was no angel. According to a story in the Wall Street Journal in 1982, Tommie Boggs was the lobbyist for Central America Death Squad leaders. ]
[2] Somewhere embedded in U.S. History is the tradition that if the Commander-in-Chief is to be arrested for treason, that the ones to do it have to be the Navy and Naval Intelligence. So a group of dissident Admirals and Generals was formed. In military jargon called "flag officers", they had compiled proof that under the Uniform Military Code, they are authorized to arrest their Commander-in-Chief for treason. If he has them arrested for mutiny, the flag officers, if not assassinated, would prove at Courts Martial, that Clinton committed treason, aiding and abetting sworn enemies of the United States of America. Namely, that Clinton and a gang of confederates were conveying U.S. financial, industrial, and MILITARY secrets to the Red Chinese Secret Police. Further, that Clinton, like his predecessors, was allowing, permitting, condoning, and acquiescing in, that the Red Chinese Secret Police were, with impunity, operating in sizeable numbers. on U.S. soil. And were committing mischief and murders to the detriment of the U.S.
Moreover, from time to time in the White House, Clinton was breakfasting with Wang Jun, the head of the Red Chinese Secret Police. Of course, there were conflicting interests in the situation. Purported "Independent Counsel", Kenneth W. Starr, supposed to be investigating the wrongdoing of Bill Clinton and Hillary, was the UNREGISTERED foreign lobbyist for the Beijing Red Chinese government. And even more so, Starr had as a private law client, the selfsame Wang Jun.
So, the Clinton Justice Department, at any moment, could wreck Starr and have him arrested.
For security purposes, the dissident "flag officers" went out of uniform and were sheltered by French authorities in a Paris suburb. Seldom, if ever, mentioned. The French played a crucial role in assisting General George Washington cause the surrender of the British army at Yorktown. By the later Treaty ending the American Revolutionary War, there is a secret proviso, that France is to have the rights for ever, to come on U.S. soil with open or clandestine military force and intelligence operations, by way of assisting their bound-in-blood ally, the American people.
So, when Britain invaded America again, in the War of 1812, French troops aided America in driving the British off our soil, after the Brits in 1814 had burned down the U.S. Capitol. Many thousands of dead brave French troops are buried in the U.S.
So, as to Clinton, the dissident "flag officers" amounted to upwards of twenty four. Their team leader, according to historical tradition, was the highest naval officer in uniform, Admiral Jeremy Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations. Those that assassinated Boorda, on May 16, 1996, using two different caliber weapons, no doubt took especial delight that they had snuffed out an "American Jew", and thus had fulfilled their bloodlust revenge because "The Jews killed Jesus" and that "The Jews" were plotting against the rest of the world.
Another "flag officer", dissenting against Commander-in-Chief Clinton's treason was General David McCloud, head of the Alaska Military District. Assassinated by a sabotaged plane crash, McCloud had been in a position to know what the American CIA and FBI had done to cover-up what was done with Congressman Hale Boggs and his fellow airplane passenger, Congressman Nick Begich, Sr. (D., Alaska) when their plane was crashed and seized by a highly secret U.S. group in Alaska. By the way, WHO drove Cong. Boggs to the airport? Why a young man named Clinton.
So by assassinations, the patriotic military coup, attempting to counter Clinton White House treason, was aborted.
[3] After the murder of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., his widow, Lisa, on January 1, 1996, married an Arkansas Federal Judge, James Moody. [She had previously leaned on Bill Clinton to make her new intended husband a Federal Judge in Arkansas.] The Judge and his son Neil moved into the Foster residence. The new stepson was curious. In the absence of his parents, he from time to time rummaged through the home pursuing rumors that the house had records somewhere linked to reasons why Bill and Hillary covered up the murder of Vincent W. Foster, Jr.
It was late August 1996. The stepson had struck gold! He had records relating to the reasons Bill and Hillary had ulterior motives to falsely accept the conclusion that Foster was a "suicide".
Scheduled for Chicago was the Democrat Convention. The found documents could be revealed on the first Tuesday of the Convention. After all, some fifteen thousand journalists and media moguls and technicians were expected to be there.
A press conference by the Foster stepson would destroy Clinton. No doubt, the only other good choice for President candidate would be Albert Gore, Jr. The stepson contacted independent-minded journalists in Chicago who advised him to hold a Convention press conference upon very short if any notice, so as to be on the safe side.
The stepson did not mention to these journalists that he also contacted Washington Post hotshot Bob Woodward who promised one million dollars for the story.
The stepson had no understanding of the realities and dangers of the monopoly press. The stepson, still wet behind the ears at 29, bragged to his young pals he was about to become a millionaire. And that Bob Woodward told him that the Washington Post would go to press just about the time before the Tuesday Democrat Convention blockbuster press conference, and that Woodward would deliver him a certified check for the one million dollars.
On the Sunday before the supposed scheduled Tuesday press statement, Neil Moody drove his car to the parking lot of a pancake restaurant and there met Bob Woodward. Others in the parking lot heard shouting and screaming coming from the car with the stepson and Woodward. Some of the stepson's pals were nearby.
Suddenly, Woodward got out of the car with the stepson hollering at him, and Woodward shouting back and slammed the door. The car took off.
The police later discovered the car, with the stepson dead at the wheel, and the auto smashed up against a cement abutment. Interviewed by the Chicago independent-minded journalists, the local police said they cannot figure out how the car got that way. It was physically impossible, they said, for the car, on its own to get into that position. They said that the only way the car could be there as if some OTHER car slammed into the stepson's car at great speed and pushed the car into the cement abutment.
So the treacherous Bob Woodward, a creature of the intelligence apparatus, apparently was the pilot fish to put an end to the stepson's dream of getting one million dollars for the secrets of Vincent W. Foster, Jr.
[For background to Woodward's dirty business, see www.skolnicksreport.com Scroll way down to the story "The Late Grand Dragon of the Washington Post". Also, Overthrow, part 69, "The Secrets of the Monopoly
Press www.skolnicksreport.com through website links on home page. Also as to Bob Woodward and his Big Lie about Nixon and Watergate, see "Silent Coup: The Removal of A President" by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, published 1991. ]
[4] In July 1996, a group of elite French intelligence officers had completed their work in the U.S. They had proof of Bill Clinton's treason with the Red Chinese Secret Police. This data was useful to support the dissident American flag officers from time to time taking refuge in a Paris suburb.
These French intelligence operatives and their team leader were scheduled to take off from New York bound for Paris on TWA Flight 800. Of the upwards of 60 French nationals on Flight 800 were eight or more of the team. Was their team boss forewarned? He refused to join them on Flight 800.
An Israeli flight of El Al was supposed to be in the slot for take-off. Instead, Flight 800 took off and shortly thereafter was hit with two missiles. They came up from the water from a former Soviet submarine, by 1996 owned by Iran, with a Russian mercenary crew. Some contend the operation was also orchestrated by a renegade group of The Mossad, Israeli Intelligence.
The missiles caused the plane to blow up and all on board died and the plane parts ended up on the bottom of the ocean. With foreknowledge and so much as ordering it to happen, Clinton in the beginning refused to order a U.S. dredge operation to get up pieces from the ocean bottom. So, the French gathered a crew of some 300 technicians, and just as they were set to take off for New York, Clinton relented. He ordered a vast dredge operation.
From the way the plane pieces ended up on the ocean bottom, it was clear some external weapons had shot off the front of the plane.
Pieces by pieces, as retrieved, were located in a high-security warehouse operated by the FBI.
Later, the FBI accused an investigative reporter of somehow getting from that warehouse certain pieces of the plane which he apparently had a laboratory analyze. The reporter's conclusion was in a book contending missiles hit Flight 800. "The Downing of TWA Flight 800" by James Sanders. Also appearing on our Chicago-based public access cable TV program, Sanders contended the FBI wants to jail him because of the publication of his book. He asserts residue of missiles is on some piece of the plane retrieved from the bottom of the ocean.
Bill Clinton did not want any suspicious data showing foul play brought down Flight 800 to come out before his 1996 expected re-election as President. About a week after the re-election, Pierre Salinger made a highly controversial statement from Paris. For some years previous he had been stationed there as ABC TV Network Chief Foreign Correspondent. [It was in the period after 1988-89, when the American CIA subsidy had been transferred from CBS to ABC, to help fund ABC's overseas news bureaus. for intelligence gathering not news gathering.]
Salinger could be manipulated. Having been Press Chief in the John F. Kennedy Administration, Salinger knew plenty of JFK assassination secrets. After that period, he lost a great deal of money in a Bermuda venture. Some claim he should have been prosecuted and jailed for fraud and swindle. So he took up residence in Paris.
[Visit website www.skolnicksreport.com , for series on the murder of JFK, Jr., "What Happened to America's Golden Boy", particularly Part 4 and supplements and update of the same. As to how Salinger was apparently in a position in France to conceal the remains of JFK, Jr., and his wife and her sister, keeping the bodies secret when Senator Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) falsely stated to the press that the bodies were cremated when they were, in fact, shipped to France to be kept secret by Salinger. The bodies bear marks of an explosion, proving sabotage not accident in the plane crash of July 1999.]
Salinger's post -1996 election statement was that a U.S. warship, the USS Normandy, a guided missile cruiser, was part of a mock exercise offshore New York and by mistaken friendly fire shot down Flight 800. NBC right after his press release immediately heckled him down, riddling him with impolite so-called "questions" usually reserved to confront "enemies". Some later claimed the Salinger episode was disinformation by him to sidestep the Clinton order to take down that plane because it had French intelligence operatives with documents proving Clinton committed treason.
The several hundred eyewitnesses who saw missiles coming up from the water to Flight 800 were not allowed or asked to testify at hearings of the highly politicized, conflict-of-interest trap, called the National Transportation Safety Board.
The NTSB and the FBI released a flood of big lies, that Flight 800 was downed because of a defect in a fuel chamber being ignited somehow.
[For background visit www.skolnicksreport.com , series "The Secret History of Airplane Sabotage".]
[5] Instrumental in much of the foregoing has been Rahm Emanuel. In various of my prior website items, we mentioned how he raised three million dollars, by apparent blackmail, to jump-start Clinton's presidential campaign starting in 1991.
Rahm Emanuel is an expert in blackmail which he politely refers to as "opposition research". For the first couple of years of the Clinton White House, Emanuel, as White House advisor, had an office desk right up against the door to the Oval Office. He once bragged about this on a local TV Program in Chicago.
He has been the Acting Deputy Chief, for North America, of The Mossad, Israeli Intelligence. During the first Persian Gulf conflict, Emanuel, with dual U.S./Israeli citizenship, went to Israel to serve in their intelligence and defense forces. [Emanuel is no stranger to political assassination. His father was reputedly part of the Israeli assassin team that murdered Sweden's Count Bernadotte, part of a U.N. team in Palestine in 1948.]
About 1994, leaving Clinton White House service, Rahm Emanuel became Managing Director of Wasserstein, Perella Company, He and they were reputed experts in money laundering huge amounts of illicit funds, through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, for the Red Chinese Secret Police. The clandestine funds reportedly came from secret weapons transactions in which Red China, Israel, and others participated, as well as from stolen and smuggled gold dealings for and on behalf of reportedly international swindler Marc Rich. Other secret Red Chinese funds came from the selling of human body parts harvested from political prisoners in Red China, condemned to death as their heart, lungs, kidneys, livers, and such were needed, for example, by Rockefeller's hospitals at the University of Chicago, a center for such transplants.
To attempt to get the corrupt treasonous stink off themselves, Wasserstein, Perella with Rahm Emanuel, merged into Dresdner Bank.
[For details and background, visit www.skolnicksreport.com , series "Wal-Mart and the Red Chinese Secret Police", series on Marc Rich, series on "Red Chinese Secret Police In The United States", particularly Part 3 as to harvesting human body parts for sale in the U.S.]
From the huge profits of these clandestine dealings, Rahm Emanuel bought himself a chair in the U.S. House of Representatives. He became Congressman from Illinois' Fifth Congressional District. Some time previous, the district was represented by Cong. Dan Rostenkowski, who became a defrocked Congressman having been sent to federal prison for embezzling funds from the private bank of the House of Representatives.
Through family links, Emanuel is tight with those in Hollywood. That is what we call, by the German word, Hofjuden, Royal Court Jews who do the bidding of royalists, such as the British Monarchy which has been from before World War Two, pro-Nazi and tied to Adolf Hitler. They anger Christians
in that the movie -makers fail and refuse to produce any movies depicting holocausts against Christians such as perpetrated by Soviet butcher Josef Stalin.
[Visit www.skolnicksreport.com , series on "The Ash Wednesday Plot", on websites linked on that Home Page.]
"Rosty" as he is called,, was a sizeable stockholder in a Chicago-area bank, Garfield Ridge Trust & Savings Bank that reportedly was a transit point and money laundry link from the CIA dope funds from the Mena, Arkansas dope airport and the Mena Bank owned by the Clinton-Bush linked ethnic Chinese Riady Family also financially linked to Ron Brown. According to published reports, the Riadys apparently had one or more of their people as officials of the Commerce Department. linked to Ron Brown. The funds from Mena went up through Rosty's bank and then, reportedly, to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, laundered as some other supposed transactions, benefiting Bill Clinton, Daddy Bush, and Ollie North jointly with Marc Rich, the international swindler headquartered in Zug, Switzerland.
Aiding and abetting these political and financial gangsters has been Michael Chertoff. As a key official in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, Chertoff played an important role in falsely designating the death of Clinton White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., as a "suicide" when there was covered up plenty of evidence including satellite imaging, showing Foster was murdered.
Chertoff as Chief Counsel of a Senate investigating committee supposedly inquiring into the criminality of Hillary Rodham Clinton, reportedly sabotaged his own work to corruptly protect Hillary.
To help the American Gestapo go forward, White House occupant and resident George W. Bush has appointed Chertoff head of Homeland Security. Chertoff has previously demonstrated his suitability for all this by being an ostensibly corrupt Federal Appeals Judge.
The patriotic military coup to arrest Commander-in-Chief Clinton for treason was aborted by political assassinations of at least ten of the dissident "flag officers".
Now a much larger group of "flag officers" vows to grab their Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush for treason, as authorized by the Uniform Military Code. Some of their reasons include documented proof, that they have, that Bush Jr., under the supervision of Daddy Bush, had prior knowledge of 9-11 and together allowed, permitted, condoned, and acquiesced in a faction of the Anglo-American Aristocracy to murder three thousand Americans; that this dastardly treason was falsely blamed on "Arabs" as patsies; that the invasion of Iraq was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, and has caused many thousands of Americans to be slaughtered as foreign invaders, forty thousand Americans or more seriously wounded, and upwards of a hundred thousand Iraqis, some as partisans, resisting foreign invaders, to be killed while their country was defiled by a foreign army under command of a criminally insane leader.
No legitimate American purpose has been served by the foregoing treasonous acts and doings of Clinton and then Bush.
More coming. Stay tuned.
=======================================