Friday, April 14, 2006

[political-research] Trial Unnerves Some U.S. Jewish Leaders

[The fact that the militantly neoconservative Wall Street Journal is being forced to acknowledge the issues below reveals that the neocon mainstream media have a real problem.  Despite the heavy spin on the Mearsheimer/Walt controversy by Jay Solomon, many of the uncomfortable facts are leaking through.]

Trial Unnerves Some U.S. Jewish Leaders

As Ex-Lobbyists of Pro-Israel Group Face
Court, Article Queries Sway on Mideast Policy
April 14, 2006; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- The coming trial of two former representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is fueling concern among Jewish leaders that Israel and the Jewish-American community increasingly are being blamed for the Bush administration's troubles in the Middle East.

The trial comes amid a furor sparked last month by an article by two American academics that argues pro-Israel interest groups have undercut the U.S.'s standing in the Middle East by promoting a policy line too close to Tel Aviv's. They argue that the U.S. is too aligned with Israel in its position on the Palestinian question, weapons proliferation in the Middle East, and diplomatic ties with a number of Arab states. Meanwhile, leaders of such groups as the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League say they're tracking global media that they believe disproportionately focuses on the role Jewish officials inside the Bush administration played in building the case for war in Iraq.

Read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."1

A number of prominent strategists overseeing the Iraq invasion during President Bush's first term are Jews, such as former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Pentagon's then-No. 3 civilian official, Douglas Feith. Although they have been singled out for particular criticism, Jewish leaders say critics of the war often selectively bypass the scores of non-Jewish officials who also played central roles in developing the Iraq policy.

"Now you have an Iraq war that Americans are turning against, and you have people saying it's all a Jewish conspiracy," says Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress, which promotes religious tolerance and the rights of the state of Israel. "But look at President Clinton's team: You had many Jews who aggressively pushed for peace in the Middle East. But these same critics don't see this as part of the same conspiracy."

Despite the criticism of the pro-Israel lobby, many Jewish leaders in America say they don't believe their community ultimately will be blamed for the war in Iraq and unrest elsewhere in the Middle East. They cite polls showing that America's support for Israel has grown in recent years, and note that many indicators suggest that anti-Semitism in America is declining. While certain officials who are Jewish may be facing criticism, these leaders say, they don't see a wider threat.

"I don't see a gathering storm" against the Jewish community, says David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington. "Most people seem to be focusing on individuals rather than a conspiracy."

The trial of the former AIPAC lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, is scheduled to begin next month. The two men are charged under the Espionage Act with receiving and disseminating classified information provided by a former Pentagon Middle East analyst. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley are among the witnesses Messrs. Rosen and Weissman's defense team has indicated it may call.

[Lawrence Franklin]

The Justice Department's indictment details how Messrs. Rosen and Weissman allegedly sought to promote a hawkish U.S. policy toward Iran by trading information and favors with a number of senior U.S. officials. Lawrence Franklin, the former Pentagon official, has pleaded guilty to misusing classified information. Mr. Franklin was charged with orally passing on information about a draft National Security Council paper about Iran to the two lobbyists, according to people familiar with the case, as well as other classified information. Mr. Franklin was sentenced in December to nearly 13 years in prison, but his sentence could be reduced, depending on the testimony he provides for the prosecution.

Lawyers for Messrs. Rosen and Weissman, as well as many Jewish leaders, say the actions of the former AIPAC employees were no different from how thousands of Washington lobbyists work. They say the indictment marks the first time in U.S. history that American citizens -- outside government employees or contractors -- have been charged with receiving and disseminating state secrets in conversations. In court filings, the defense team argues that their clients couldn't have known that the information they received was classified, and they say a conviction in the case could cast a chill over the U.S. media and political process.

The actions of the men are "what members of the media, members of the Washington policy community, lobbyists and members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times per day," the legal team wrote this month in a brief seeking to have the case dismissed. "These meetings are a vital and necessary part of how our government and society function."

Several members of Congress have expressed concern about the case since it broke in 2004, fearing that the Justice Department may be targeting pro-Israel lobbying groups, such as AIPAC. These officials say they're eager to see the legal process run its course, but are concerned about the lack of transparency in the case.

"The administration hasn't been forthcoming on this case," said Lale Mamaux, a spokeswoman for Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida. Mr. Wexler wrote to the Bush administration seeking more information on the AIPAC case when it first broke.

The trial is scheduled to begin just weeks after publication of an article on the pro-Israel lobby by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University. In the paper, titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which was posted on the Web site of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, the authors argue that a bloc of pro-Israel interest groups, including Jewish-Americans and Christian evangelicals, have lobbied to align U.S. foreign policy with Israel's. They write that this trend has accelerated under the Bush administration, where neoconservative strategists in the Pentagon and White House have been ideologically aligned with hawks in Israel. (Read the paper2.)

Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt argue that rather than enhancing national security, America's ties to Israel have escalated terrorist attacks against the U.S., undermined moves toward democracy in the Middle East, and advanced a global race to acquire weapons of mass destruction. "Other special-interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest," their paper says.

The authors write that the broader Jewish community in America appeared to be generally against the invasion of Iraq. But they emphasize that many pro-Israel lobbying groups and U.S. officials close to Israel championed the conflict. "The war was due in large part to the [pro-Israel] Lobby's influence, especially the neoconservatives within it."


Reaction from the Jewish community and from many in the mainstream press has been strong and swift against the academics. Opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have attacked alleged factual and historical inaccuracies in the piece. Many Jewish leaders say the article rehashes centuries-old conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals with dual loyalties. They say similar sentiment arose during the first Gulf War, when some critics of the conflict saw it as designed to protect Israel.

Still, Jewish leaders say that such attacks traditionally have come from members of the extreme left or right wings, and that they are particularly concerned to see them presented by academics from such pre-eminent American institutions. "The notion that there's a so-called Jewish cabal continues to surface," said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee. "That it had currency in Czarist Russia was, tragically, par for the course. ... But at Harvard or Chicago in 2006? That's truly mind-boggling."

In their article, Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt emphasize that the pro-Israel lobby isn't a cabal or conspiracy, but rather a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that operates in much the same way that other U.S. interest groups do. Mr. Walt also said in an interview that the main aim of the article was to stimulate debate on an important foreign-policy issue.

Harvard, which left the article on the Web site but removed the Kennedy School's logo from it, has stressed that the paper reflects the authors' personal views and not that of the university. In a statement, Harvard said that "the Kennedy school does not restrict, interfere with, or take a position on the research conclusions reached by individual faculty members."

Trying to stifle a debate on Washington's relationship with Israel, or the pro-Israel lobby itself, could prove damaging to the Jewish community longer term. "It's bad for Jews in America if it's seen like you can't talk about this one specific issue," says M.J. Rosenberg, who heads the Washington office of the Israel Policy Forum.

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com3


Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at

Business intelligence Competitive intelligence Market intelligence
Emotional intelligence Military intelligence Critical thinking


[political-research] The Military Revolt Against Rumsfeld and the Neoconservatives

Nice collection of quotes:

Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at


[political-research] Loose Change 2nd Edition on Google Video

Loose Change 2nd Edition ranks 6 on Google Video's new Top 100 list:
One would think that the greedy mainstream media would be interested in commercially exploiting all this public interest in questions about 9/11, but instead they continue to censor all discussion of the issue, behavior which goes a long way toward proving a 9/11 conspiracy and cover-up.
It can't be repeated too often: the official story on 9/11 is so fragile, so ridiculous, that it can't bear the slightest pressure or scrutiny. Thus the total mainstream media blackout on topics that normally would be receiving detailed and sustained attention.

[political-research] On the Israel Lobby and Christian Armageddonism

Regarding Cravatts:
If the Israel lobby were able to attain its objectives through legitimate, rational and honest means, it wouldn't need to rely so heavily, and so conspicuously, on black ops, intimidation, bullying, threats, censorship, disinformation, blackmail, emotional appeals, illegal spying, lies, bribery, personal attacks, financial coercion, verbal violence, blacklisting and similar tactics.
The Israel lobby is a radically different kind of lobby than every other lobby in American political life: it is much more sinister.
Nothing has been more effective in proving Mearsheimer's and Walt's thesis than the methods that the Israel lobby has used to reply to it.  One can criticize the oil lobby, the tobacco lobby or the military-industrial complex in America without being subjected to the deluge of fanatical hatred which Mearsheimer and Walt have endured in recent weeks.  Where there is so much visible verbal violence in evidence, you can be guaranteed that there are less visible black ops in play.
The central role that the Israel lobby has played in engineering the Iraq War, and in now agitating for an Iran War, may well prove to be a turning point in its career in the United States.  It is not going to be able to deny its activities on these matters, after splattering them all over the pages of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN for the last four years.  Major historians are going to have a field day in sorting through and analyzing this material.  Mearsheimer and Walt are just the beginning of the process.
The smartest thing for the Israel lobby to do would be to back off and greatly lower its profile.  But it won't do this.  The more it is challenged, the greater its extremism.
Increasingly, and especially after reading John Hagee's latest book, I am beginning to realize that the Israel lobby bears all the hallmarks of a radical cult -- Jonestown writ large.
Think I am being alarmist?  On the relations between the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and Christian Armageddonist John Hagee, see:
One thing is for certain: the Israel lobby doesn't represent the views of the majority of Jews in America.

LeaNder <> wrote:
--- In, "Sean McBride"
<smcbride2@...> wrote:

I will, even managed to find it on the Havard site after a while
without your link. Not now though, I have my own reading list at the
moment, I am trying to get at possible roots in the discussion of the
multiculturalism vs the melting pot, that has been fascinating me for
quite some time now. Or more precisely the US scholor's position in
the debate that multiculturalism is a(n elite sponsored) strategy to
divide the masses in little enclaves that then fight each other.

What really puzzles me though is the statement by Cravatts:
"The characterization of pro-Israel lobbying byorganizations and
high-placed government officials as "manipulation"-coercive,
underhanded actions whose end result would not otherwise honestly,
fairly, or reasonably be achieved-this language is the very tone that
has drawn such immediate and thunderous denunciation of the piece."

Isn't this somehow business as usual in politics?


Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at


[political-research] Re: Currently on My Mind

--- In, "Sean McBride"
<smcbride2@...> wrote:

I will, even managed to find it on the Havard site after a while
without your link. Not now though, I have my own reading list at the
moment, I am trying to get at possible roots in the discussion of the
multiculturalism vs the melting pot, that has been fascinating me for
quite some time now. Or more precisely the US scholor's position in
the debate that multiculturalism is a(n elite sponsored) strategy to
divide the masses in little enclaves that then fight each other.

What really puzzles me though is the statement by Cravatts:
"The characterization of pro-Israel lobbying byorganizations and
high-placed government officials as "manipulation"-coercive,
underhanded actions whose end result would not otherwise honestly,
fairly, or reasonably be achieved-this language is the very tone that
has drawn such immediate and thunderous denunciation of the piece."

Isn't this somehow business as usual in politics?


> 24 -- a TV series starring Kiefer Sutherland.
> I watch almost no TV of any kind -- I find it more profitable to
keep pressing the "J" key in Google Reader -- but someone I respect
recommended 24 to me. I am nearly through the first season on DVD
from Netflix, and am impressed: tremendous visual energy, powerful
soundtrack, brilliant plotting, strong characters, subtlety and nuance
in its portrayal of intelligence methods and issues. If you haven't
seen it, I recommend renting the first disc for the first season and
see if it clicks in your head.
> I would go so far as to suggest that 24 breaks entirely new ground
in the long-form narrative genre in any medium -- TV, movies or
novels. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of the series, and
am hoping that it maintains the same level of quality throughout. 24
is more effective, just on the level of action, than many very
expensive Hollywood movies. This is better than one expects TV to be.
On IMDB's scale, I would rate it 10 stars.
> Kiefer Sutherland just signed a contract which will pay him $40
million for continuing the series for a few years -- he deserves every
> Two other TV series with some redeeming value I've enjoyed over the
last few years -- Deadwood and Monk. Sopranos was engaging for awhile
-- now it is like something that has gone very bad in your
refrigerator. Disgusting. I'm really surprised the Italian
Anti-Defamation League isn't up in arms about this travesty. This is
not an appealing culture on any level.
> One problem with 24 -- the non-stop torturing of one's nerves can
almost be too much. The creators of this series have refined this
kind of psychological stimulation to a fine art and a science.
> Richard Cravatts? He strikes me as an intellectual third-rater --
not worth a second of my attention.
> With regard to the Mearsheimer-Walt paper: I urge people to make up
their own minds. Read the full copy of the paper carefully here:
> Then track the actual behavior and words of the Israel lobby for a
few weeks or months at sites like:
> 1. Jewish World Review <>
> 2. Commentary <>
> 3. The Jewish Press <>
> 4. Forward <>
> 5. JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)
> The Israel lobby is very loud and very conspicuous, and its agenda,
as expressed in its own words, is impossible to miss. The Israel
lobby is driven by a level of fear and hostility towards most of the
world (I believe the operative term is "xenophobia") that is very
difficult for the average person to begin to comprehend. The Lobby
expects -- stridently DEMANDS -- the United States to slay all its
enemies, regardless of the political and economic costs to Americans.
There is a major catastrophe brewing over this mess which is probably
going to end badly for everyone.
> The endorsement by the mainstream Jewish lobby (the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) of Christian
Armageddonists like John Hagee raises the possibility that Zionism has
metamorphosed into the world's most dangerous apocalyptic suicide
cult. Hagee, like all messianic Christian Zionists, is an extreme
crackpot. I just finished reading his latest book in horror. He
believes that Jerusalem is destined to become the capital, not just of
the world, but of the UNIVERSE. If America gets in the way of
building Greater Israel, it will be nuked. Perhaps it's time to start
thinking about deporting dangerous characters like John Hagee, who are
eager to destroy the United States on behalf of a mystical cult
centered in Israel. By associating itself with Hagee, the CPMAJO has
certainly made itself an organization of interest in the world of
potential terrorist threats.
> LeaNder <l.l.hahn@...> wrote:
> 24? hours a day
> Another question mark:
> Why is now the main culprit CIA, who got all his intelligence on
Iraq's WMD's wrong?
> (this is not at all what it looked like). I keep reading it over
here too, everywhere.
> Only Bramford comes to mind, telling us how eager Tenet was to let
Bush have what he needed. ...?
> See e.g. Board discussion on the article below:
> "It is the samelogic that used to put the CIA at the center of all
evil until 9/11 andthe non-being (c. 2003) of Iraq WMDs exposed them
for the incompetentdoofuses that they were--and likely still are."
> History News Network:
> The Paranoid View of History Infects Harvard
> By Richard L. Cravatts
> Mr. Cravatts. Ph.D., a lecturer at Boston University, Tufts
University,and Emerson College, was the director of publications at
Harvard'sKennedy School from 1976-78.
> " The characterization of pro-Israel lobbying byorganizations and
high-placed government officials as"manipulation"-coercive,
underhanded actions whose end result would nototherwise honestly,
fairly, or reasonably be achieved-this language isthe very tone that
has drawn such immediate and thunderous denunciationof the piece."
> >
> > 24
> > 9/11 Part II
> > automated content analysis
> > automated knowledge discovery
> > automated stylistic analysis
> > Brian Jonestown Massacre
> > Christian Zionism
> > clickstream analysis
> > data mining
> > false flag terrorism
> > global superintelligence
> > global warming
> > Google Reader
> > Israel lobby
> > Judeo-Christian fascism
> > multiverse
> > music fingerprinting
> > neoconservatism
> > neoliberalism
> > Pandora
> > peak oil
> > Philip Pullman
> > recommender systems
> > screen scraping
> > self-fulfilling Armageddon
> > semantic markup languages
> > semantic wikis
> > southern California coast
> > tennis
> > text mining
> > Thomas Jefferson
> > V for Vendetta
> >
> Search the archives for political-research at
> Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at
> SPONSORED LINKS Business intelligence Competitive intelligence
Market intelligence
> Emotional intelligence Military intelligence Critical
> a.. Visit your group "political-research" on the web.
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

[UrukNet] - [Daily Information from Occupied Iraq] - [newsletter 13 Apr 2006 - Part Two]
:: information from occupied iraq
:: informazione dall'iraq occupato

Destroying Iraq's Heritage ... yet again
Truth about Iraqis
... The looting in Iraq was part of systematic, pre-planned campaign to destroy Iraq's history and heritage. I have maintained here that such a campaign ensures that you leave future societies without a bond to their common heritage and thereby can refashion them in whichever image you choose. So, it also comes as no surprise then that we hear the ancient site of Babylon has been nearly destroyed by ... no, not looters, but by the US military. "US forces built a helicopter pad on the ancient ruins and filled their sandbags with archaeological material in the months following the 2003 invasion," the BBC reports...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

Do Iraqi mortar shells hit their mark?
Truth About Iraqis
There seems to be a dispute about the veracity of the Iraqi resistance claims that they are able to shell US military outposts and barracks. Please see the videos below. The first is of an "insurgent" missile hitting a US military ammunitions depot (more than four minutes long). Why was this not reported in the media?...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

Sunni group demands action as body count surges in Iraq
Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times
Sunni Arab political leaders said Thursday that nearly 90 Sunnis had been reported abducted or killed in the past two days by groups with possible ties to the nation's Shiite Muslim-led Interior Ministry forces. In one incident, up to 25 men just released from detention were reportedly whisked away by gunmen in SUVs. The Sunnis also allege that 20 corpses turned up in Baghdad, all people reportedly abducted by security force s on the morning of April 4...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

$18 billion - Iraq's Annual Oil Losses
Imad Khadduri, Free Iraq
"I have recently chosen to discuss the question of the Iraqi oil with a senior Iraqi oil expert, who, given his clout over the local politics in Baghdad, is quite informed of the current developments there. In fact, just like any other Iraqi regretting the country's stolen and siphoned wealth, my old friend explained to me in figures how Iraq loses every year some $18 billion of oil funds as a result of smuggling, sabotage, and lost opportunities.
First, I have inquired about the Iraqi revenue as calculated in Iraq's budget - with an exported 1.6 million b/d and a shadow price evaluated with the IMF at $46.1 a barrel or some $27 billion a year. At this, he simply laughed, saying, "These figures are nonsense. This is the century's scandal, not to mention the continuous developments. For the country loses every year $18 billion of oil receipts"...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Thursday, 13 April 2006
Translated and/or compiled by Muhammad Abu Nasr, member, editorial board, the Free Arab Voice.
In a dispatch posted at 6:50pm Makkah (Mecca) time Thursday evening, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that Iraqi Resistance forces fired three Katyusha rockets at camps of US occupation forces in the 'Amiriyat al-Fallujah area, 7km southwest of the city of al-Fallujah, which is about 60km west of Baghdad. The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam reported eyewitnesse s as saying that the Resistance fired the Katyusha barrage at 3pm local time, striking houses in the area that the Americans have occupied and turned into billets and headquarters...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

Dead Cities
Chris Floyd
Of all the war crimes that have flowed from the originating crime of President George W. Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq, perhaps the most flagrant was the destruction of Fallujah in November 2004. Now, as ignominious defeat looms for Bush's Babylonian folly, some of the key players in fomenting the war are urging that the "Fallujah Option" be applied to an even bigger target: Baghdad. What these influential warmongers openly call for is the "pacification" of Baghdad: a brutal firestorm by U.S. forces, ravaging both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in a "horrific" operation that will inevitably lead to "skyrocketing body counts," as warhawk Reuel Marc Gerecht cheerfully wrote last week in the ever-bloodthirsty editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

Iraqis Change Names to Survive Sectarian Hell
With about 60,000 forced to flee their homes under the yoke of sectarian violence, many Iraqis line up at a state registry believing that name changing is the best protection. "I changed my name to Abdullah because it is a neutral name. It could be Sunni or Shiite," Omar Sami, an Arab Sunni university student, told Reuters on Thursday, April 13. Names, many of which can clearly identify which sect an Iraqi is from, have become a matter of life or death in the violence-marred country...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

Generals clamor for Rumsfeld's ouster over Iraq war
Steve Holland, Reuters
Two more retired U.S. generals called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign on Thursday, claiming the chief architect of the Iraq operation ignored years of Pentagon planning for a U.S. occupation and should be held accountable for the chaos there. As the high-ranking officers accused Rumsfeld of arrogance and ignoring his field commanders, the White House was forced to defend a man who has been a lightning rod for criticism over a war that has helped drive President George W. Bush's public approval ratings to new lows. Six retired generals have now called for Rumsfeld to step down, including two who spoke out on Thursday...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo:

Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie
The Lobby and the Bulldozer

Weeks after a British magazine published a long article by two American professors titled "The Israel Lobby," the outrage continued to howl through mainstream U.S. media. A Los Angeles Times op-ed article by Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot helped to set a common tone. He condemned a working paper by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was excerpted last month in the London Review of Books...

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo: a site gathering daily information concerning occupied Iraq: news, analysis, documents and texts of iraqi resistance available in Italian and English.



You receive this newsletter because you subscribed it. If you think it was an abuse, or simply if you don't want to receive it any more,
click here to unsubscribe from the newsletter.

[911TruthAction] Digest Number 1226

There are 11 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Fwd: RE: Scientific Panel on 911: "Terror attacks of 9/11 were faked;
From: Joe Stokes <>
2. articles 3: China Shakes World Economy, Rattling Boeing, VW, Thyssen Krupp
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
3. articles 4: Soros backs Iran war - "difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided" -=- Ron Paul Iran is Next
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
4. Re: [political-research] Bloglines - James Zogby: A Strange and Troubling War
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
6. RE: 9/11 - CNN Presents �Dead Wrong� (RE-BCST 04/13/06)
From: APFN <>
7. Fitzgerald probe: Sen. Clinton withdrew stolen funds from Grenada bank
From: APFN <>
8. 9/11 - Reinforcing The Official Lie
From: APFN <>
9. Re: Do Mexicans have Permits For Protests of 50K to 500,000 ...
10. RE: I rest my case. Re: Fw: Jew Baiting Leslie Schwartz, Dick Eastman
From: "Leslie Schwartz" <>
11. A Day in the Life: 4/14/6
From: "President, USA Exile Govt." <>


Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Stokes <>
Subject: Fwd: RE: Scientific Panel on 911: "Terror attacks of 9/11 were faked;

--- APFN <> wrote:

> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:40:11 -0700
> From: APFN <>
> To:
> CC:
> Subject: RE: Scientific Panel on 911: "Terror
> attacks of 9/11 were faked;

Scientific Panel on 911: "Terrorattacks of 9/11
were faked;;article=100473;title=APFN

Physicist: Explosives felled WTC

Physicist saysheat substance felled WTC
Extremely hot fires causedstructures to fail, BYU
expert says

DeseretMorning News Monday, 10 April 2006

EPHRAIM,Utah � A Brigham Young University physicist
said he now
believes an incendiary substance called thermite,
bolstered by sulfur,
was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the
World Trade Center
on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the
buildings tocollapse.

"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which
really is a veryclever idea,"
Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a
meeting of the Utah
Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College

The government requires standard explosives to contain
tag elements
enabling them to be traced back to their
manufacturers. But no tags are
required in aluminum and iron oxide, the materials
used to makethermite,
he said. Nor, he said, are tags required in sulfur.

Jones is co-chairman, with James H. Fetzer, a
distinguished professor
of philosophy at the University of Minnesota of
Scholars for 9/11Truth,
a group of college faculty members who believe
conspirators other than
pilots of the planes were directly involved in
bringing down New York's
Trade Towers.

The group, which Jones said has 200 members, maintains
a Web site at A 40-page paper by Jones,along
with other peer-
reviewed and non-reviewed academic papers, are posted
on the site.

Explosives, not plane, caused collapse

Last year, Jones presented various arguments for his
theory thatexplosives
or incendiary devices were planted in the Trade
Towers, and in WTC 7,
a smaller building in the Trade Center complex, and
that thosematerials,
not planes crashing into the buildings, caused the
buildings tocollapse.

At that time, he mentioned thermite as the possible
explosive orincendiary
agent. But Friday, he said he is increasingly
convinced that thermiteand
sulfur were the root causes of the 9/11 disaster.

He told college professors and graduate students from
throughout Utah
gathered for the academy meeting that while almost no
fire, even oneignited
by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the
combination ofthermite
and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife
through butter."

He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his
thermite fire theory:

First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten
substance splashing offthe side
of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an
airplane hit it anda few
minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators
ruled out thepossibility
of melting steel being the source of the material
because of theunlikelihood
of steel melting. The investigators said the molten
material must havebeen
aluminum from the plane.

But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never
turns yellow. The
substance observed in the videos "just isn't
aluminum," he said. But,he said,
thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.

Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash
rising from the southtower
near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite
burns, Jones said, itreleases
aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white
molten iron and
aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a
he said.

Declines to speculate on who placed explosives

Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that
sulfur traceswere found
in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers.
Jones quoted the
New YorkTimes as saying sulfidization in the recovered
steel was "perhaps
the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official)
investigation." But, hesaid,
sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined
with thermite tomake
the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily

Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray
substance on theoutside
that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten
metal or liquid.He said
that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten
form, and themetal hardens,
it is gray.

He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath
both tradetowers
and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never
discussed inofficial
investigation reports.

And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade
Towers � in fact,there
was another building between it and the towers �and
even though it wasnever
hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said,
that it came downbecause
a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.

Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes
of thecollapses, and he
doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered
the buildingsand placed
thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in
the know," plusother
people who didn't know what they were doing but did
what they weretold,
could have placed incendiary packages over several


9/11Commissioners Report: Homeland Security, Emergency
Preparedness andResponse ... Video Archive of
Congressional Hearings on 9/11Cmsn. Final Report ...
70k - Apr 12, 2006 - Cached- Similar pages -
C-SPAN.ORG 9/11Cmsn. Public
Hearing Archive &middot; 9/11 Report Hearings Archive
&middot;Base Closures (BRAC) &middot; Capital News
Resources &middot; C-SPAN 25th Anniversary
... - 34k - Apr12,
2006 - Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult

IndymediaMilwaukee | C-Span to Cover 9/11 Truth Talk
at UW ... David RayGriffin rules,
and so do both of his 9/11 related
books. ... ... 67k -
Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult

TOTAL911 INFO recommendationsof the
9-11 Commission". 5/26/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 45
25k - Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult

Centrefor Research on Globalisation (CRG)
C-SPAN deniespublic TV Access to 9-11 Victims'
Families: ... venueto suggest a public event - polling
email address) radio) ...
12k - Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult

9/11Public Discourse Project
RECOMMENDATIONS. Final Reporton 9/11 Commission ...
Please see www.c-span.orgfor each day's schedule. ... - 16k- Cached-
Similar pages - Removeresult

BOOKTV.ORG ...can call in with your
questions during the 3 hour program, or e-mailthem to ... 9-11. An OpenMedia Book, edited
by Greg Ruggerio. ...
20k - Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult

C-SPANACTION ALERT 9-11action alert
CITIZEN ALERT: C-SPAN denies public TV access to
9-11victims' families and ... Assignment Editor) Gaither, ...
10k - Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult The 9/11 Truth Movement
9/11Commission Co-chair Lee Hamilton Drenched
with Viewer Skepticism onC-SPAN ... Washington Journal
email journal@c-span.orgFax number: 202-737-6226 ...
32k - Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult

Scoop:UQ Wire: Breakthrough For 9/11 Truth On
See the Mondaypress conference by
9/11 Citizens Watch on San Francisco 9-11
Inquiry to hold press conference Fridayat 2 pm ... 32k
- Cached- Similar pages - Removeresult
var ie5 = false;var bl_g={undo:"Undo",more:"More
options",rmqp:"For this search, remove this
page",rmp:"For all searches, remove this
page",rms:"For all searches, remove all pages from
%h",app:"Remove",can:"Cancel",cqp:"Removed %u from
your search results for %q",cp:"Removed %u from all of
your search results",cs:"Removed %h from all of your
search results",urm:"Restore removed result",rrm:"Redo
remove result",hlp:"Help"};var
document.getElementById(bl_)};var bl_h=0;function
bl_}function _tog_mo(bl_,bl_a){var
false}function bl_z(bl_){return""+bl_+""}function
bl_v="/g,">"));var bl_t=""+bl_m;bl_t+="&nbsp;
- "+bl_s("_tog_mo("+bl_h+",
bl_j=""+bl_u;bl_j+=bl_v+"; line-height:1.3em'>";var
bl_p=["qp","p","s"];for(var bl_r in bl_p){bl_j+="
[input] "+bl_g["rm"+bl_p[bl_r]].replace(/%h/,bl_f)+"
"}bl_j+=bl_v+" 0px 0px 25px;'> [input] ";bl_j+="
[input] &nbsp;&nbsp;"+bl_s("_obh()",bl_g.hlp)+"

bl_A(bl_){var bl_a=bl_q("rm"+bl_);var
null}else{return bl_y(bl_b)}}function
_chblk(bl_,bl_a,bl_b,bl_c,bl_d){var bl_i=null;var;for(var bl_f=0;bl_fie5 = true;
Result Page:


[This message contained attachments]


Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:59:00 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
Subject: articles 3: China Shakes World Economy, Rattling Boeing, VW, Thyssen Krupp

From: "Peter Myers" <>
April 13, 2006

Dennis Ross (item 1) was a (Jewish) American envoy to the Middle East during the
Clinton administration

(1) Dennis Ross joins New York chorus against Mearsheimer/Walt paper on Jewish Lobby
(2) Olmert going to US looking for $10 billion - as usual
(3) Current Issues interview with Stephen Sneigoski
(4) China Shakes World Economy, Rattling Boeing, VW, Thyssen Krupp
(5) Is Norway's oil still traded in London?

(1) Dennis Ross joins New York chorus against Mearsheimer/Walt paper on Jewish

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:32:39 EDT From:


April 12, 2006

Essay Stirs Debate About Influence of a Jewish Lobby By ALAN FINDER

When John J. Mearsheimer, a 58-year-old political scientist at the University of
Chicago, decided to take on the United States' support for Israel, he considered
the subject too touchy to confront alone.

So he enlisted a colleague to help provoke a public discussion. Like Dr.
Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, a 50-year-old professor at the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard, is a specialist in theories of international
relations and a tenured professor with a prestigious chair.

"I think it's in the national interest to have a debate on this," Dr.
Mearsheimer said. "I don't think it benefits anyone to keep this in the closet."

The resulting paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," was published
last month in the London Review of Books, after an earlier draft was rejected by
The Atlantic. Editors at The Atlantic declined to discuss why.

A longer, 42-page version of the article, with an additional 40 pages of
footnotes, was also posted on the Kennedy School's Web site.

The paper asserts that the United States' support of Israel has been unwavering,
has jeopardized American security and has been driven by "the unmatched power of
the Israel Lobby," which the authors describe as a loose coalition of American
Jews and their allies.

They say that the United States was singled out by Al Qaeda in large part
because of American support for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
and that a significant motivation for the invasion of Iraq was to improve
Israel's security.

The essay has caused an uproar. First came headlines in The New York Sun and The
Forward, the 108-year-old Jewish weekly, followed by critiques in opinion
journals like The New Republic and The Weekly Standard, along with myriad
newspaper op-ed articles.

Many of the articles have castigated the paper as historically inaccurate and
sloppy in its scholarship, with some critics saying for example that Osama bin
Laden first focused on the United States because of its support for the Saudi
government. Many have also criticized the professors as defining the so-called
pro-Israel lobby so broadly as to render it all but meaningless, and as
implying, by referring to it always as "the Lobby" with a capital L, that it
operates in a monolithic, if not conspiratorial manner.

While condemnations have been fierce at home, the article has drawn some praise
in British publications for stimulating debate.

The Kennedy School removed its logo from the cover page of the essay on its Web
site to make clear that it contained the professors' opinions and analysis, not
the school's. But Harvard and the University of Chicago have stood behind Dr.
Mearsheimer and Dr. Walt, with officials citing the need to protect free

"This is a kind of classic call in academic freedom," said David T. Ellwood,
dean of the Kennedy School. "If universities stand for anything, they stand for
getting ideas out there and then for open debate. Some ideas are controversial,
some ideas are very controversial, some ideas are wrong. But the administration
shouldn't be in the position of making a judgment on something like this. Other
scholars should be making those judgments, and ideas should rise and fall in the
bright light of scholarly debate."

Some Harvard colleagues of Dr. Walt have entered the debate full-throated,
including David R. Gergen, also at the Kennedy School and a former adviser to
four presidents, and Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School,
described in the paper as an apologist for Israel.

The Kennedy School invited members of the Harvard faculty to post responses on
the Web site, as long as they were scholarly and were not personal attacks. Mr.
Dershowitz posted a 45-page response last week in which he attacked the authors'
logic and facts. He also asked why they recycled accusations that "would be
seized on by bigots to promote their anti-Semitic agendas."

The article asserts that the Israel lobby includes members of the Clinton and
the Bush administrations, Jewish organizations, Christian evangelicals, thinkers
referred to as "neo-conservative gentiles" and an array of policy organizations.

"There is this blanket denunciation of a very large number of American Jews and
an accusation of disloyalty," Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said in a telephone

In an opinion article in The Washington Post last week, Dr. Cohen described the
paper as anti-Semitic and "a wretched piece of scholarship."

Dennis Ross, a former Middle East negotiator for the United States, said he
found the paper "incredibly simple-minded." He was listed in it as an official
with "close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations."

"If this lobby is so powerful, how come every major Arab arms sale that they
opposed they lost on?" Mr. Ross asked.

Now counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research
organization, Mr. Ross also said that Dr. Mearsheimer and Dr. Walt had misstated
American positions in peace negotiations with the Israelis and Palestinians
during the Clinton administration.

Dr. Mearsheimer said that the response was not unexpected, but that he had been
surprised by some of the vitriol.

"We certainly wanted to provoke a debate, and this has happened," he said. "But
we hoped to provoke a rational debate, not a food fight in which people accuse
us of being anti-Semites."

Dr. Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer are prominent in the academic world, part of a
group of foreign policy analysts, known as realists, who believe that
international politics is fundamentally about the pursuit of power. Each has
written extensively on foreign affairs and theories of international relations,
although they are not experts on the Middle East.

Dr. Walt has written books on how other nations have responded to the global
power of the United States and on international alliances. Dr. Mearsheimer, who
graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, has written
books on deterrence and great-power politics.

In the first article they wrote together, in 2003, they opposed the Iraq war.

Dr. Mearsheimer said that he and Dr. Walt had stated in their latest essay that
they were not contending that American Jews and their allies were engaged in a
conspiracy to put Israel's strategic needs ahead of those of the United States.

"We never used the word 'cabal,' " Dr. Mearsheimer said. "It's not in our
vocabulary. And I think it would be completely irresponsible to suggest that it
is a cabal or a conspiracy."

"This is a classic case of interest-group politics," he said of the pro-Israel
lobbying in Washington. "It's as American as apple pie."

Dr. Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer said that most of their colleagues had treated them
well, including those who disagreed with them.

"The response of colleagues has been on one level uniformly supportive of the
basic principle of academic freedom," Dr. Walt said. "I have received a number
of messages from colleagues, at Harvard and elsewhere, that were strongly
supportive of our basic argument. I have also received some very thoughtful
responses from colleagues at other universities taking issue with arguments
we've made."

Both men said they had expected consequences from having published the paper.

"We both knew from the get-go that whoever wrote this piece would essentially be
committing career suicide in terms of getting a high-level administrative job in
academia or a policy-making position," Dr. Mearsheimer said.

(Dr. Walt's intention to step down this summer as the academic dean at the
Kennedy School was announced in early February, before the essay was published.)

Some critics of the paper dismissed the idea that Dr. Mearsheimer and Dr. Walt
might be punished for expressing their ideas.

"Honestly, one of the things I found distasteful is the pose of martyrdom," Dr.
Cohen of Johns Hopkins said. "Nothing is going to happen to them, nor should

(2) Olmert going to US looking for $10 billion - as usual

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:05:55 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort

Will those who tell us the power of the lobby is over-rated again go into
hibernation as they have during every other Israeli request for aid and loan
guarantees? Will it be considered a sign of the lobby's weakness if Israel only
gets $8 billion.? And what about those who lost their homes in New Orleans who
are still homeless. Will they go to the back of the line?,7340,L-3239420,00.html

Olmert: Convergence to cost USD 10 billion

PM Olmert tells Wall Street Journal he will seek broad international support for
his plan to withdraw some 70,000 settlers from West Bank; On planned May visit
to U.S. PM will ask financial backing for plan, which will be completed within
18 months Yitzhak Benhorin

In an interview published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert said his "convergence plan" will cost up to USD 10 billion.

Olmert said he plans to visit Washington in May to seek U.S. political and
financial backing for his plan.

The newly appointed prime minister said he intends on withdrawing 70,000 Jewish
settlers from the West Bank, less than a third of the 250,000 currently living
beyond the Green Line.

In return, Israel will keep hold of large West Bank settlement blocks, where
most of the evacuees will be relocated.

Olmert will ask for Washington to help him gather international support for
plans to draw up final borders with the Palestinians to ensure a Jewish majority
in Israel for decades to come.

Olmert said although Israel maintains it has no peace partner on the Palestinian
side, he intends on providing favorable conditions that will eventually lead to
a final peace agreement through negotiations and the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state.

"The State of Israel will change the face of the region," Olmert told the
newspaper of his plan. "I will not miss this opportunity."

In the interview, Olmert ruled out the possibility of deviding Jerusalem, but
kept open the possibility of handing over Arab neighborhoods in the city to the
Palestinian Authority. "Dividing Jerusalem will not bring peace, only more
fighting," he said.

Olmert estimated he will form a coalition within two weeks, after which he will
appoint a team of military, legal, economic and political experts to formulate
the convergence plan.

(04.12.06, 18:48)

(3) Current Issues interview with Stephen Sneigoski

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:59:53 EDT From:

In this Issue... Join us live at 1- Eugene Bird, President
of Council for the National Interest. 2- Rafi Dajani, Executive Director,
American Task Force on Palestine. 3- Last week's interviews with Stephen
Sneigoski and Alison Weir are uploaded on the website for your viewing
convenience just go to and click on Steve's and Alison's

(4) China Shakes World Economy, Rattling Boeing, VW, Thyssen Krupp

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:40:59 -0400 From: "David Chiang"

China Shakes World Economy, Rattling Boeing, VW, ThyssenKrupp

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- In 2002, I caught a Chinese ferryboat along the Yangtze
River, taking a three-day trip to see the Three Gorges Dam. The banks were
dotted with ghost villages and beheaded buildings, their upper floors demolished
so as not to interfere once container ships started sailing overhead.

An air of apocalypse clung to the soon-to-be-drowned towns we visited. As our
ship maneuvered into huge locks at the world's largest dam, welders clinging to
the steelwork showered the midnight sky with sparks as they raced to finish the

Schumpeterian creative destruction and relentless entrepreneurship are ably
captured by James Kynge in "China Shakes the World" (227 pages, Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, 18.99 pounds; Houghton Mifflin, $25). If you can't make the time to
visit China - - and you really, really should -- invest some hours in this book
instead to glean valuable insights into the coming revolution.

Kynge draws on a store of insights and anecdotes gathered during his 19 years as
a journalist in Asia, most recently as the China bureau chief for the Financial
Times. He switches seamlessly between critical and enamored, objective and
immersed, from discerning detail to sweeping statement, backed by the facts,
figures and examples of a first-class reporter.

Second-Hand Factory

His opening yarn is a beauty. A Chinese company called Shagang Group Co. buys a
Dusseldorf steel mill from ThyssenKrupp AG, Germany's biggest steelmaker. "By
the end of 2002, in less than one year, the Chinese had finished the dismantling
job -- a year ahead of the schedule that they had agreed with ThyssenKrupp, and
a full two years faster than the German company had initially estimated the job
would take."

Oxygen converters, pipelines, blast furnaces, 250,000 metric tons of equipment
and 40 tons of accompanying documents journey 5,600 miles (9,000 kilometers) to
the town of Jinfeng, near the mouth of the Yangtze River. There, Shagang's
owner, Shen Wenrong, plans to sell automobile-grade steel from his second-hand
factory to Volkswagen AG -- which used to buy from the very same factory in

In February 2004, Kynge had an epiphany. "Manhole covers started to disappear
from roads and pavements all over the world," he writes. "As Chinese demand
drove up the price of scrap metal to record levels, thieves almost everywhere
had the same idea." He realized he'd been looking in the wrong direction: "I had
spent a lot more time researching and reporting on how the world was affecting
China than on how China was affecting the world."

Catching Up Fast

The author's examples of China's growing global influence range from textile
makers in Como, Italy, to machine-tool makers in Rockford, Illinois. Chinese
companies started by providing cheap labor, progressed to mastering modern
production techniques, and are now compelling Western partners to transfer
technology and design know-how.

At aircraft maker Boeing Co., for example, "the more Boeing outsourced, the
quicker the machine-tool companies that supplied it went bust, providing
opportunities for Chinese competitors to buy the technology they needed, better
to supply companies like Boeing." The author suggests there's no happy end in
sight for companies jockeying with Chinese competitors.

The highlights of the book come when Kynge analyzes the internal forces that
awakened the slumbering dragon. In a process he dubs "creative disobedience,"
local officials willfully misinterpreted central government reforms. "People
began to form companies that were socialist and state-owned on paper but
capitalist and privately owned in reality."

Growing Pains

Kynge ends with an analysis of China's internal challenges. "The legitimacy of
the Communist Party sprang from both growth and control," he writes. "Yet in
order to get more of one, it had to sacrifice part of the other." In the dash
for growth, the government artificially depresses the cost of power and water
for industry, "barely implements its own environmental laws," and distorts the
banking industry's ability to lend.

"The rest of the world should pray that China succeeds in balancing these
contradictions," Kynge suggests. "China is like an elephant riding a bicycle. If
it slows down, it could fall off and the earth might quake."

To contact the reporter of this story: Mark Gilbert in London at

(5) Is Norway's oil still traded in London?

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:36:55 +0100 From: "Arno Mong Daastoel"
<> From: chris cook

Hi Peter

I used to be a Director of the International Petroleum Exchange, hence Arno's

may be of interest.

But in answer to your question Norwegian oil never has been traded in London in
fact except insofar as traders of it are based here.The global market in
"physical" cargoes is a "networked" market between traders who could be anywhere
(New York, Connecticut, Monaco, Singapore, Dubai etc etc) and have historically
traded on the telephone either directly or by using brokers for anonymity.

The IPE introduced a standardised Brent (ie North Sea) crude oil contract in the
late 80's and this is not actually physically deliverable, but settled in cash
once a month against the reported prices of transactions in the physical
"forward" market (the so-called "15 day" contract introduced by Shell in the mid
1980's as a means of selling the production of their Brent oil field).

The purpose of IPE's contract is to allow producers and consumers to "hedge" the
risk of price falls and rises respectively by selling or buying contracts which
they may then buy or sell at a profit which off-sets (or "hedges") the losses on
their physical sales or purchases.

I hope this makes sense.

Best Regards

Chris Cook

Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296 Mirror: I
use the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or
transmit them to you. If my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring
me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line; allow 1 day.

[This message contained attachments]


Message: 3
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:03:31 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
Subject: articles 4: Soros backs Iran war - "difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided" -=- Ron Paul Iran is Next

Ron Paul is doing his job.

From: "Peter Myers" <>
April 13, 2006

(1) Soros backs Iran war - " I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided"
(2) Iran: The Next Neocon Target - HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS to U.S. House of Reps

(1) Soros backs Iran war - " I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can
be avoided"

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:41:56 -0400 From: "David Chiang"

Ready for $262 a barrel oil? Two of the world's most successful investors say
oil will be in short supply in the coming months. By Nelson Schwartz, FORTUNE
senior writer April 11, 2006: 2:31 PM EDT

The other, billionaire investor George Soros, wouldn't make any specific
predictions about prices. But as a legendary commodities player, it's worth
paying heed to the words of the man who once took on the Bank of England -- and
won. "I'm very worried about the supply-demand balance, which is very tight,"
Soros says.

"U.S. power and influence has declined precipitously because of Iraq and the war
on terror and that creates an incentive for anyone who wants to make trouble to
go ahead and make it." As an example, Soros pointed to the regime in Iran, which
is heading towards a confrontation with the West over its nuclear power program
and doesn't show any signs of compromising. "Iran is on a collision course and I
have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided," he says.

{What about Israel, India and Pakistan? Soros is revealng himself as a Zionist -
Peter M.}

Another emboldened troublemaker is Russian president Vladimir Putin, Soros said,
citing Putin's recent decision to briefly shut the supply of natural gas to
Ukraine. The only bit of optimism Soros could offer was that the next 12 months
would be most dangerous in terms of any price shocks, because beginning in 2007
he predicts new oil supplies will come online.

Hermitage's Bill Browder doesn't yet have the stature of George Soros. But his
$4 billion Moscow-based Hermitage fund rose 81.5 percent last year and is up a
whopping 1780 percent since its inception a decade ago. A veteran of Salomon
Bros. and Boston Consulting Group, the 41-year old Browder has been especially
successful because of his contrarian take; for example, he continued to invest
in Russia when others fled following the Kremlin's assault on Yukos.

Doomsdays 1 through 6

To come up with some likely scenarios in the event of an international crisis,
his team performed what's known as a regression analysis, extrapolating the
numbers from past oil shocks and then using them to calculate what might happen
when the supply from an oil-producing country was cut off in six different
situations. The fall of the House of Saud seems the most far-fetched of the six
possibilities, and it's the one that generates that $262 a barrel.

More realistic -- and therefore more chilling -- would be the scenario where
Iran declares an oil embargo a la OPEC in 1973, which Browder thinks could cause
oil to double to $131 a barrel. Other outcomes include an embargo by Venezuelan
strongman Hugo Chavez ($111 a barrel), civil war in Nigeria ($98 a barrel),
unrest and violence in Algeria ($79 a barrel) and major attacks on
infrastructure by the insurgency in Iraq ($88 a barrel).

Regressions analysis may be mathematical but it's an art, not a science. And
some of these scenarios are quite dubious, like Venezuela shutting the spigot.
(For more on Chavez and Venezuela, click here.)

Energy chiefs at the World Economic Forum in Davos downplayed the likelihood of
a serious oil shortage. In a statement Friday, Shell's CEO Jeroen Van der Veer
declared, "There is no reason for pessimism." OPEC Acting Secretary General
Mohammed Barkindo said "OPEC will step in at any time there is a shortage in the
market." But then no one in the industry, including Van der Veer, foresaw an
extended run of $65 oil -- or even $55 oil -- like we've been having.

It's clear that there is very, very little wiggle room, and that most consumers,
including those in the United States, have acceded so far to the new reality of
$60 or even $70 oil. And as Soros points out, the White House has its hands full
in Iraq and elsewhere.

Although there are long-term answers like ethanol, what's needed is a crash
conservation effort in the United States. This doesn't have to be
command-and-control style. Moral suasion counts for a lot, and if the president
suggested staying home with family every other Sunday or otherwise cutting back
on unnecessary drives, he could please the family values crowd while also
changing the psychology of the oil market by showing that the U.S. government is
serious about easing any potential bottlenecks.

Similarly, he could finally get the government to tighten fuel-efficiency
standards and encourage both Detroit and drivers to end decades of steadily
increasing gas consumption. These kinds of steps would create a little headroom
until new supplies do become available or threats like Iran's current leadership
or the Iraqi insurgency fade.

It's been done it before. For all the cracks about Jimmy Carter in a cardigan
and his malaise speech, America did reduce its use of oil following the price
shocks of the 1970s, and laid the groundwork for low energy prices in the 1980s
and 1990s. But it would require spending political capital, and offending
traditional White House allies, and that's something this president doesn't seem
to want to do.

(2) Iran: The Next Neocon Target - HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS to U.S. House of Reps

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:03:20 EDT From:

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives April 5, 2006 COMMENT - let the world listen to one member of the Congress of the
United States who has the wisdom and courage to understand and speak the truth
about Iran.

April 5, 2006

Iran: The Next Neocon Target

It's been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and
his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were
no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of
our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein
was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no
connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The
current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic
state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing
oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay
there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price
to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They're
also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.

The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from
three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it
appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of
administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have
created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad
dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security
reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief
that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare
of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars.
Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most
importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is
that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would
never support the invasion knowing what we know today.

Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with
plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising
clamor for "democratizing" Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud
Almadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy,
its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never
complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people
against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass
destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to
have had. It's amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the
charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same
arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily Congress, the media,
and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to
justify an invasion of Iraq.

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim
nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We're poorer but certainly not safer for it. We
invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This
effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from
power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by
warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban
from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban's
arch enemy, more than our own.

The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for
Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission,
justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and
his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the
current chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein
is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis, who dream of
stability, long for his authoritarian rule. But once again, Saddam Hussein's
removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy.

Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at
our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia
to claim leadership title if Iraq's election actually leads to an organized
government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.

Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war,
death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran's
worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran's best friends. Even this
apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a
similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our

Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of
imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran-- whether planned or
accidental-- will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3.
All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.

Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned
propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of
our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be
labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran's

Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who
maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in
the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have
any. It's hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would
consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people
are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other
people's children. This, I'm sure, would be denied-- which means their own
children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised
and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much. If so, they
should think more of their own children. If this is not so, and their children
are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most
Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks.

For the past 3 years it's been inferred that if one is not in support of the
current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of
support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his
evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued
for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or
Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument
that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far
superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less
dangerous-- especially when there's no evidence that our national security is
being threatened.

Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for
the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and
media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so
many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the
fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now
serving in Iraq say it's time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the
propaganda that we're there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the
administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to
exploit their need to believe in a cause that's worth the risk to life and limb.

I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I'm wrong. I sense
that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and
cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on
terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support
patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only
smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later
on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish
the war we're in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding
into Iran will drown out the cries of, "enough already!"

The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to
attack us have already begun. It's too bad we can't learn from our mistakes.

This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned
by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the
international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to
continue. We have been forewarned that "all options" remain on the table. And
there's little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there's
less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to
going into Iraq. It's astonishing that after three years of bad results and
tremendous expense there's little indication we will reconsider our traditional
non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation
building, policing the world, and protecting "our oil" still constitute an
acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.

It's already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious
about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than
Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot
stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat
that cannot be ignored.

Iran's history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq's history. This
ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and
Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country
that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative
than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of
evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran
started a long time before this president took office.

In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the
democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech. We placed the Shah in power. He
ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected
him-- that is until 1979. We even provided him with Iran's first nuclear
reactor. Evidently we didn't buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a
need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule
served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who
overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow
in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of
the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most
Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the
internal affairs of Iran in 1953.

During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their
invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a
message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that
bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to
invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately
proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we
encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this time our reaction was quite
different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch
enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered
from it never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their
affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them
and contributed to the animosity directed toward us.

For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and
determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its
leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine
our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no
more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are
unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made
against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a
little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward
Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting
these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few
in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking
for UN sanctions against her.

There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and
initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there's no evidence that she is working
on one--only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India,
and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon
than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against
anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same
goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state
terrorist group.

Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular
to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons.
But we reward them just as we reward India.

We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear
weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had
to say about this: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and
I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them,
they're crazy."

There's been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear program. This
distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass
resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.

IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of
"undeclared" sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of
nuclear material.

We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is
asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in
compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.

We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by
the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer
had them.

Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we're
hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self

Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made
in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their
suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation.
Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT.
It's the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise
our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.

The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The
"Iran Freedom Support Act," HR 282, passed in the International Relations
Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately
condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation
obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is
minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in
charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a
pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq
is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which
will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of
this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in
the three-year occupation of Iraq.

Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic
individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is
fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens
would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to
bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone
like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the
Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi
and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA
safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove
they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative
is impossible.

Let there be no doubt, though the words "regime change" are not found in the
bill-- that's precisely what they are talking about. Neo-conservative Michael
Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the
International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: "I
know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of
regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the
language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can
clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can't have
freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs."

Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups
dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once
again we're unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a
people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don't
expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the
past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go
to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.

Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in
Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and
radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called
"aggressive" policies of the Iranian government. We're seven thousand miles from
home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will
have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the
aggressors. We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may
have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation
is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.

Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians,
military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The
successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia
will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads.
Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted
by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would
be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that
some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down,
nor can they be destroyed easily.

One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure "our" oil supply.
This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have
more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a
similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump.
The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to
understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned
these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in
some IED explosion.

Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more
than once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now
occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our
pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: "Fool me once
shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." It looks to me like the Congress and
the country is open to being fooled once again.

Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of
the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation.
But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for
our need to undermine the Iranian government.

The President's 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as
frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he
claims: "We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." He
claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities-- though the
IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years
ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is
if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the
diplomatic effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by
demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West-- led by the
U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear
technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.

The President states: Iran's "desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable."
A "desire" is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved.
Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove
it doesn't have a "desire" to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain,
France, Pakistan, India, and Israel- whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic
like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a
congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.

Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the
mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military
confrontation with Iran.

Cause for Concern

Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a
war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting
out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while
serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much
easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers
to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no
significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in
patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger. Not
supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil
that's about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed
and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting
adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.

If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of
non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with
these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites
all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts
from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular
reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time it's for less than
honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the
world safe for democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs
cancel out the good intentions.

One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism
becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the
Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare
war. Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used
indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by
Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was
the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the
Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier

Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate,
because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional.
Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its "success," and against
the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again
understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation
building. We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace
non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy.

The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on
both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already,
and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable
accounts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially
when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war.
Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current
war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at
home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen's rights.
Extreme nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now apparent.

Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter
how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World
War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars
is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But
the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought,
and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have
raised someone's standard of living.

Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are
never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not
enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create
enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates
from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not
enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever
amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation.
Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since
the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of
the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the
excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone
decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices
that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay
for the war.

The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle
class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the
bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international
corporations reap the benefits of war profits.

A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation.
Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an
outcry for protectionist legislation. It's always easier to blame foreign
producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss
of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse.
Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of
living for most of our citizens.

Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that
results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War
raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an
ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil
discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and
avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s.

In a way it's amazing there's not a lot more outrage expressed by the American
people. There's plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not
part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American
casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal
surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the
issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even
strengthened while real oversight is ignored.

Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this
war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain
fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of
reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly
participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC
nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money
back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our
housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing
of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war
and welfare spending. It's fine until the music stops and the real costs are
realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation.
That's when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can't afford
the "humanitarianism" of the Neo-conservatives.

The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is
nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing
the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none
good. Today's economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won't
be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by
imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems
of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures.

Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble
and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide
cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class.

The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine
the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our
invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to
open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current
monetary system with the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

The theory and significance of "peak oil" is believed to be an additional
motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm
control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been
protecting "our" oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years.
With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a
military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia
moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don't understand
how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources.
Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the
world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is
factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled.
Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be
costly and oil prices will rise.

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of
intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11
was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah
Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a
consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are
rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our
government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to
our security.

There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead
believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are
thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures
must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to
intimidate and confront Iran.

First, Iran doesn't have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according
to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous
annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out
of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won
the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles.
If you're looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would
be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and
was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by
the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we
provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown
and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with
talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It
makes no sense and it's a very costly and dangerous policy.

The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It's in our best interest
to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the
Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on
others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our
own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict
non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate
interests to influence our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that
intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral
arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments

Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American
citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world
actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the
superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as
arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive

Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals
have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy.
There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the
case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy
dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use
diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past
60 years.

It's time for a change.

Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296 Mirror: I
use the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or
transmit them to you. If my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring
me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line; allow 1 day.

[This message contained attachments]


Message: 4
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:28:14 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
Subject: Re: [political-research] Bloglines - James Zogby: A Strange and Troubling War

THe article by Zogby has it all wrong.

The war was started so that we could obtain what we have now -- occupation with a fairly high continuing Iraqi death rate and continuing degradation of that nation's economy and culture. The stuff about a "cake walk" was never believed by those saying it, rather it was merely the necessary lie to get the American public to pay the entrance fee to a Zionist-designed fun house with no exits.

Israel and all Zionists have always felt that the U.S. needed to do a lot more "hands-on" policing of the Middle East -- and this they accomplished (with the 9-11 mass-murder frame-up_ -- and if you don't understand that you don't understand nothin'.
----- Original Message -----
To: ;
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:01 PM
Subject: [political-research] Bloglines - James Zogby: A Strange and Troubling War

Bloglines user SeanMcBride ( has sent this item to you.

The Huffington Post | Raw Feed
The Huffington Post Raw Feed

James Zogby: A Strange and Troubling War
By James Zogby on Iraq

Almost three years after President Bush declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq, this strange and troubling war just got even stranger and more troubling. Strange, because it was fought from the beginning without an understanding of the country we were invading, without a strategic plan, and because, to this date, there has been no accountability or acknowledgment of failure. Troubling, because the deadly consequences of this debacle are growing and becoming more dangerous with each passing day.

Works by two journalists and a rare public spat between two Bush Administration officials brought all of this into sharp relief in recent weeks.

First, the spat.

In an effort to deflect anti-war protests that greeted her visit to the UK, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that the Administration had made "tactical errors, thousands of them" in Iraq. Further, suggesting that only those who were "brain dead" didn't recognize errors and work to correct them, Rice went on to say that history would be the final judge as to whether or not the war was, in fact, strategically right.

A week later, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, questioned about Rice's remarks said, "I don't know what she was talking about" and went on to suggest that those who said mistakes were made "lack understanding...of what warfare of about."

As George Packer (author of The Assassin's Gate: American in Iraq) suggests in his recent article in The New Yorker, both Rice and Rumsfeld are wrong -- though Rumsfeld more so. The tactical mistakes of this war are many, but all of these sprung from the war's "original sin" -- that it was based on a deeply flawed ideological vision, with no grounding in reality.

I have long referred to the "infantile fantasy" that guided the war's architects -- "shock and awe," "a cake walk," "flowers in the streets," "Iraq as a beacon for Middle East democracy," etc.

Directed by this vision the Pentagon's civilian leadership discounted and ridiculed calls for caution and greater troop strength, proceeded with a flawed "debathification" program, failed to provide services and security for Iraq's civilian population, discounted the emergence of an indigenous insurgency, etc.

Packer contrasts the recent successful, though short-lived, performance of US forces in Tel Afar with the broader conduct of the war and concludes that it was too little, too late.

Though the Administration remains in denial (fearful of parallels with Vietnam and rejecting warnings of imminent civil war), Iraq is spinning out of control. Caught between domestic pressures to "draw down" and equally compelling pressures to "save face," they are floundering.

The path the Administration appears to be pursuing is to "dumb down" the definition of victory and find a way to limit US exposure -- all the while maintaining a reduced military presence and a long-term political commitment to Iraq -- sounding more like a "Vietnam-like" debacle in the making.

While Packer makes no bones about the failures of the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and suggests that even the uniformed military's top brass bear some responsibility for not being more challenging of this misguided effort, veteran journalist Helen Thomas points an accusing finger in another direction.

In a recent article in The Nation, "Lap Dogs of the Press," Thomas says that her colleagues in the media share blame for the war in Iraq. They did not challenge the Administration's reasons for the war and instead joined in beating the war drums acting as a "gullible," "complicit," and "unquestioning" echo chamber for the Administration's pronouncements. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and all the cable networks participated in this dangerous enterprise.

Thomas concludes her piece saying, "if reporters had put the spotlight on the flaws in the Bush Administration's war policies, they could have saved the country the heartache and the losses of American and Iraqi lives.

"It is past time for reporters to forget the party line, ask the tough questions and let the chips fall where they may."

And so here we are, nearly three years after "mission accomplished," many dead and injured later, Iraq imploding, the US floundering, the public turning against the war they once supported, and fingers pointing all around.

All the while, Democrats, the opposition party, remain torn between their anti-war base and some opportunistic leaders who either believe the better course is to remain silent while the Administration stews in its own broth or fearful to provide a direct challenge, not wanting to be accused of being weak on defense issues.

As a result, the debate over this war is not as sharply focused as it should be, given its costs and consequences. But as Packer and Thomas suggest, an accounting for the strange and troubling war is coming.

For comments and questions, contact James Zogby.


Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at


a.. Visit your group "political-research" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[This message contained attachments]


Message: 5
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:30:42 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <>

From: John Perna
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:26 PM
Subject: [Conspiracy-Theory] RE: CENSORING EMAILS



The CAPCHA censorship window is installed on the main Yahoo mail server.
It means nothing that you can post from somewhere else, EXCEPT that the CAPCHA censorship is not there YET.
The Department of Home land INSecurity's "filter" is in Yahoo, Google, AOL, and many ISP's.
It comes from the protocols that were developed from guidelines from
The Department of Home land INSecurity.
The Internet Service Provider is now being told that they are now regulated by the Federal Communications Commission; which in turn, receives guidelines from the
Department of Homeland Security. OF COURSE there is no legitimate
justification for Federal Communications Commission regulation of the
internet; since it does not use shared air ways.
The summation of all of this is clandestine censorship of the internet.

The most important thing that I have learned from dealing with it is that
every message which has ever triggered this CAPCHA censorship window once ; almost always triggers this "glitch" every time that it is sent. Even a REPLY to such a message will trigger the CAPCHA censorship window UNLESS the censored message is trimmed out. ALMOST ALL of these messages were critical of something that the Department of Homeland Security had done, or failed to do.

Marci <> wrote:
Yahoo Customer care,
It is getting very frustrating trying to send email from our yahoo email account.
I am requesting, when we try to send group emails, that you stop censoring our email.
These messages that we get (posted below) are not acceptable. We should not have to go through this crap over and over trying to get messages posted to our groups.
If this censoring continues, I will drop all my yahoo groups and move to MSN groups. And will encourage all other yahoo group owners to do like wise.
Your immediate attention to this matter is requested.

Marci <> I found this message in my "bulk mail folder", treated as spam,
but this is actually political censorship.
The message has been trimmed out to avoid the key word censorship.


SEE NOTES ON Censorship tactics on THE INTERNET
When you are a member of an egroup,
you can watch the censorship happen before your very own eyes.
You send a message to the group, and you get your own message back,
because you are one of the members of the group.
I sent a message to the group, and did NOT get that message back.
I checked to see if it was a moderated group,
and the message HAD not yet been approved.
Sometimes I sent a test message, and the test message was delivered.
Then I found that the censored message had been marked as "spam",
and put into the "spam" folder.
Interestingly enough, there are only three messages that I have ever sent;
which almost always triggered this "glitch".
ALL of these messages were critical of something that the Department of Homeland Security had done.
Now what about the strange problems in just getting the message OUT?
FIRST I sent a message ANNOUNCING that the censored message was
about to be sent, within five minutes.
THEN I sent the censored message.
I got LOTS of emails back from people;
who got the announcement,
but did NOT get the censored message.

Below you will see a few of the problems,
that I encountered trying to sent the censored message
NONE of the things, that you see below, EVER happened,
while sending the ANNOUNCEMENT.
Just a few of the censorship tactics that I saw
We're Sorry... The database is unavailable at the moment.
Please try again in a few minutes. If you continue to experience trouble, please contact our Customer Care team. We apologize for this inconvenience.


Here are a few examples:

Send - Verify To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.
Character String Verification Error You need to pass the verification test to send any more email.
Your message has not been sent and will not be saved.
Back to Mail Home


Message Viewing Error Sorry, but we can't display the message you are trying to view. This error usually occurs when you are trying to access a message that has been moved or deleted.
Please return to the appropriate folder view (Inbox, a personal folder, etc.) and try to select the message from there.

Send - Verify
To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.

From: <>
To: <>
Subject: Symantec Mail Security detected prohibited content in a message sent from your address (SYM:11260357340999701084)
Send - Verify
To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.


Send - Verify To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.

There was a problem: There was a temporary problem in sending your message. Please try again.
Your message has not been sent.
The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.
Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
If your Network Administrator has enabled it, Microsoft Windows can examine your network and automatically discover network connection settings.
If you would like Windows to try and discover them,
click Detect Network Settings
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer
Connection Refused The attempt to connect to the remote server has been refused by the remote server. This may occur if the remote server is too busy at this time or if you are not authorized to access the remote server.

Send - Verify
To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.


Send - Verify To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.


YOUR ISP might not have YET installed the Department of Home land INSecurity's "filter".
Also, the filter is installed on
the main Yahoo Mail Server. For the time being, it does not block messages posted for other locations, including posts from the groups web page, although these messages often still go into the spam folder.
It is too late to argue that it does not exist. Hundreds of people have tested this by tryng to post CERTAIN specific messages from the main Yahoo Mail Server.
These are a few of the URLS for a few of these CERTAIN specific messages:





Freedom of speech - Use it or lose it

When they took away the 4th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we didn't deal drugs.

When they took away the 6th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we were innocent.

When they took away the 2nd Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we don't own guns.

Now they have taking away the 1st Amendment,
and very soon,
if we continue to be quiet,
we will have no choice,
but to be continue to be quiet.

"mad as hell and not going to take it anymore"

New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.


a.. Visit your group "Conspiracy-Theory" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[This message contained attachments]


Message: 6
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:03:29 -0700
From: APFN <>
Subject: RE: 9/11 - CNN Presents �Dead Wrong� (RE-BCST 04/13/06)

[This message is not in displayable format]


Message: 7
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:52:50 -0700
From: APFN <>
Subject: Fitzgerald probe: Sen. Clinton withdrew stolen funds from Grenada bank

[This message is not in displayable format]


Message: 8
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:04:03 -0700
From: APFN <>
Subject: 9/11 - Reinforcing The Official Lie

[This message is not in displayable format]


Message: 9
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 02:19:36 EDT
Subject: Re: Do Mexicans have Permits For Protests of 50K to 500,000 ...

Reality and Destiny are here. Antiwar, 9-11, Pro-Choice, Peace, Enviro
nmentalist's, etc need to jump in on this one in a big way. No time to waste!

MAY 1st is GOING to happen in such a big way that it will energize each and
every progressive cause like never before. Who would have thought it would
come from the unlikely poor immigrant situation! Just goes to show you,
threatening families and friends will bring Big Trouble in America!

Port Truckers Set to Strike May 1st
By John Riley, Si Se Puede Collective
April 11, 2006

For the past 20 years port truckers in Los Angeles have been organizing for
employee recognition, respect, dignity, and decent wages. Their struggle has
past through various ups and downs, but this May 1st might just be the
beginning of a new wave or radicalism for Los Angeles’ port truckers. If all goes
as planned LA Harbor, the biggest port on the west coast, will come to a
screeching halt on May 1st.

Unlike the common vision of a trucker, an old white man wearing a cowboy hat
drinking a big gulp full of coffee, most truckers in LA are Latino, some are
women, and most speak Spanish. They call themselves troqueros. They work an
average of 60- 80 hours a week, and are often forced to drive under dangerous
and illegal conditions. Many of them have histories as organizers or radicals
in their home countries. And now they are making history organizing in the

Troqueros, or owner operators as the trucking companies call them, are
denied benefits given to most employees because the companies contend that they
are independent contractors and thus not entitled to collective bargaining
rights. Trucking companies have also used this loophole to set up dubious
insurance scams. Instead of offering insurance plans from private HMOs like most
employers do, the trucking industry has been charging truckers high premiums for
a company health plan, and then buying a cheaper plan from an HMO, and
pocketing the profit. And the money trucking companies are making from this scam is
substantial. One company, Pacer, made over three million dollars in a period
of ten years with this insurance scam. On top of this, wages for truckers
has stayed stagnant for years, and with the cost of diesel rising to almost 3$
a gallon, it is the truckers who are feeling the pinch.

But the tide may be turning for the troqueros. Recently the International
Longshoreman’s Union along with the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters
have committed to supply serious time and resources into organizing the
50,000+ truckers in the LA area. The Teamsters have tried before, without much
success, but some hope that now with the support of the ILWU, the truckers might
have another shot at organizing.

In the end however, the fate of the troqeros lies in their own hands. The
Troqueros are organizing themselves, mostly over via two-way and CB radio. If
you happened to tune into one of their conversations these days, the radio is
filled with talk, in Spanish and English, of the “Huegla General” the General
Strike on May 1st. The planned strike is part of a larger general strike
called for in support of immigrant rights, but the truckers are also calling
for their own demands including a 25% wage increase.

In Long Beach a small band of truckers and supporters stands across one of
the major freight lines with a sign that reads: “Huegla General, 1 de Mayo”.
Trucks pass by with drivers leaning out their windows to see the sign, most
raise their thumbs or their fists in support, some honk and smile. The rumor is
that truckers in ports across the United States may join the LA truckers in
striking on mayday. The extent to which the strike takes hold is yet to be
seen, what is certain is that if these truckers and successful, they will do
some serious economic damage to the international commerce, and if the truckers
are able to successfully organize, either through official union recognition
or otherwise, it will be a serious victory for workers in Los Angeles and
across the country.

New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. _Call regular phones from your PC_
tp:// and save big.

Lalaborcollective mailing list
free hosting by

[This message contained attachments]


Message: 10
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:47:11 -0500
From: "Leslie Schwartz" <>
Subject: RE: I rest my case. Re: Fw: Jew Baiting Leslie Schwartz, Dick Eastman

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at

I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.

This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


Unable to switch to /nonexistent: file does not exist. (#4.3.0)

I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <>

Received: (qmail 54994 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2006 03:19:52 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO muse) (lhs? with login)

by with SMTP; 13 Apr 2006 03:19:52 -0000

Reply-To: <>

From: "Leslie Schwartz" <>

To: <>,


Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Eastman answers McBride Re: Why we believe Zionists are masterminds of September 11

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:19:49 -0500

Message-ID: <>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;


X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)

X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670

In-Reply-To: <008701c65e9f$f8f2a3a0$>

Importance: Normal

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Content-Type: text/plain;


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Rumsfeld is Protestant.

There are more non-Jewish neo-cons than there are Jewish neocons.

Even if every American neocon were Jewish that still is not proof of Israeli involvement in 9/11, that is exactly the kind of

ill-logic you recognize is invalid below.

Please refer me to actual proof that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Zionists.

Just because Israel is an indirect beneficiary of some of the outcomes of the American invasion, that does not mean that therefore

that they engineered, masterminded or caused the invasion to happen in the first place.

Is the CIA a Zionist organization and who says so that can actually prove the statement? Are the progeny of Reinhart Galen Jewish

Zionists? What known black ops agencies of the US are verifiable Zionists? The CIA were clearly involved at least in the cover up

and obfuscation of evidence that would have alerted anyone as to the coming event.

Zionist is an overloaded word, it raises too many emotions for many people to deal with and not everyone is going to agree on all of

the definitions of who is a Zionist and who is not.

Don't tell me someone is Jewish that therefore they are Zionists. Also, just because someone is a Zionist that does not make them

some incarnation of evil and guilty of every wrong you are angry about.

All this does is substitute one hate word - Jew for another hate word - Zionist.

Just because the media is not fair or balanced in its coverage of the Israel - Palestinian conflict does not mean that the media are

Zionists, what it means that people who favor Zionism have more influence over the content of the media than do people who favor

Palestinians have over the media. I have heard this accusation that the US media is run by Zionists, this is something I always hear

from hate groups and never from anyone else. I want to see the proof for that as well, not just more sloppy logic and more name


This is exactly the kind of illogic and hate speech I was referring to before.

Comments of this caliber just below are a complete waste of time.

-----Original Message-----

-----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf Of Leslie Schwartz
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] I rest my case. Re: Fw: Jew Baiting Leslie Schwartz, Dick Eastman

No Dick, I will reply in more detail later. This event is not all that substantially different in character than Gulf of Tonkin,
and many other similar, etc. Its done by the arms and arms finance industry, with key government official taking the lead role in
the disinformation campaign. You�re mixing too many factors together and as with so many similar events in our history it originates
from within our power structure. Israel is an incidental beneficiary, even if mossad or some other free lance foreign black op
covert agencies were used. It is also like Hitler�s Reichstag fire; purpose to use domestic terror gain control of the government
and the internal political agenda. Don�t blind yourself with the anger towards Israel or Zionists.

Further your contention;

�Mossad would be the agency that would then oversee the positioning of accomplices/moles/operatives in all of the
critical/strategic/necessary/sufficient positions in the U.S. and British institutions (MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI, WHite House,
Pentagon, FAA)�

Sorry, but that Is (respectfully) ridiculous on its face.

If that really is your conclusion start presenting the facts and prove it and stop just offering opinions and theories and
conjecture as conclusions, just because you see some overlapping categories among these groups and some possible motives, all that
is not proof.

Later �



From: [] On Behalf Of Dick Eastman
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: [911TruthAction] I rest my case. Re: Fw: Jew Baiting Leslie Schwartz, Dick Eastman

----- Original Message -----

From: Leslie Schwartz


Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:17 PM

Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting

>I have seen a number of messages on this message board NOT making that distinction, and in fact lumping together, Jews, Zionists,
Neocons, mossad, Judaism, Israelis, Ashkenazi Jews, the Rothschild�s, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, the Warburg�s, PNAC, the
CFR, the etc. and etc., and mentioning specific high profile people who may fall within one or more of those categories.

Leslie, all these terms are in use by people doing their own detective work on 9-11 and the origin of the Arab-American wars.
When Wolfowitz has Perle, Kissinger, Feith etc. in a group at the Pentagon in the months leading up to 9-11 and when there is proof
that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside-job -- then we must ask ourselves what these men -- Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger,
Feith, Dov Zakheim, Rumsfeld have in common that may be clues to their organization/motives/network/method etc. When dealing the
Perle, Wolfowitz and Kissinger a great many leads are obvious -- Jews, Zionists, Neocons, Mossad, Likud, the Rothschild�s, the
Rockefellers, PNAC, the CFR.

Think about this: An operation like 9-11 -- if it was an inside-job false-flag operation at all -- could not have originated in
the overt organization charts of U.S. agencies -- it must have had its origins in secret groups of people who could trust each other
with such (dastardly, illegal, secrecy-demanding) plans. Mossad is one of only a few possibilities of where the idea could have
been hatched (the other possibility is that the idea was hatched among a group of the world's billionaires -- Perle and Kissinger
being their agents -- but even in this case, the next step would have had to have been to bring in Mossad as the primary
"caterer" -- because only Mossad (unlike CIA, NSA, MI6) had the ethnic, religious and ideological unity/solidarity (let's call it
'radical likudnikism' if not "Zionism") to work in confidence of the unlikliness of betrayal.

Mossad would be the agency that would then oversee the positioning of accomplices/moles/operatives in all of the
critical/strategic/necessary/sufficient positions in the U.S. and British institutions (MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI, WHite House,
Pentagon, FAA) as well as the key control positions of the private sector (sufficient mass media, ADL, think tanks, opinion makers).
This could not be accomplished by any organization -- say the NSA -- within the U.S. -- the American leadership by "yes-men" is not
that dependable. And so Mossad made sure that all strategic points within the Pentagon were made secure for 9-11. etc.

You yourself are being unfair, Leslie, when you say we "lump together" these terms. When I say "Zionist" I do not mean "Jews"
(as in all Jews) -- when I say CFR or PNAC or ADL I mean exactly those organizations and nothing else. No one is "lumping" (i.e.,
equating) all these things anywhere. Remember, I have said again and again that only individuals commit crimes, not groups -- but
individuals work in groups and for groups and it is in groups that we find them and understand them.

>I also recall some hater using the term �crypto-Jews� on this message board as if any self respecting individual is going to hide
the fact they are Jewish becomes THAT writer hates Jews. This is delusional and it is offensive.

I also heard someone refer to the Charlie Sheen as a "crypto-Jew" -- a term I don't understand -- maybe Charlie has Jewish
people in his family tree, and maybe he does not advertize it (why should he bother -- unless to help his career in Hollywood, but
apparently he has not bothered) -- but look at Ed Asner -- also speaking about the 9-11 standdown (I know that Asner is talking
"false-flag", I haven't heard him yet) -- but I ask you Leslie -- is "crypto-Jew" any less of an unfair term than calling me a
"hater" just because I look in the backgrounds of Perle, Wolfowitz, Kissinger etc. and find common elements of Zionists, Neocons,
CFR, Rockefellers, Rothschilds (in Perle's case)? Certainly it is reasonable to look at their backgrounds -- certainly these ties
are relevant -- or af least very very very suspicious.

When necessary and accurate distinctions are not made and a message goes out which obviously has some emotion, even anger over the
events associated with 9/11/01 (emotion which is otherwise understandable) it is an ugly thing to read, its racist, its UN-AMERICAN
and I personally do not think it helps anyone to understand these events or how we can constructively respond to the overall

You are right -- and the worst part is that it alienates intelligent and fair-minded people like yourself, especially since you
are Jewish and Jews are needed in raising the cry against the perpetrators -- if only to overcome the strong negatives of the "Jew
haters" like me -- or like I have been written off as being.

If you want to be taken seriously and treated with respect for your research and comments, you should know that is not going to be
the response when you basically write everything bad that happens in this world is one kind of flavor of the month �Jewish
conspiracy� by one name or another.

But 9-11 was a conspiracy of one kind and it did involve men who are confirmed Zionists, it did involve Mossad (see my reasons for
saying this), and it did involve the neo-cons -- as represented by the leadership at the Pentagon -- but of course including
Cheney and (cipher) Bush (the former of which is a Zionist -- the latter merely a sociopathic useful idiot).

If you make the sufficient and accurate distinctions and make a sincere effort to report only what you have verified to be factual
you will not hear any complaints about it. If you don�t have proof and only have a theory then say that, and when your making broad
accusations about the actions, motives and future plans of groups or categories of people chances are your going to have to account
for that uncertainty in your statement, otherwise its an accusation without sufficient proof and it will again cause people to
distrust your motives and good-will.

My proof is the Pentagon attack evidence which implicates the Pentagon leadership -- Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger (in the
Wolfowitz group at the Pentagon) and the ties of those men, the interests that put them there.

We are solving a case where the government (which ordinarily would investigate the crime) is itself the guilty party -- and we
must work back to find all the people/motives/methods behind the crime.

That being said, I admit to guilt in not making the distinction that when I say that the Pentagon leadership is almost all Jewish
and that the Pentagon leadership are implicated in the false-flag attack ont he Pentagon -- that I am not saying that ALL JEWS WERE
IN ON THE PLOT. (I would think that intelligent people would understand that without my saying it.) But it is important that they
are Jewish, because that leads us to investigate their network and affiliations -- the powers that brought them their, their goals,
the way they carried off this complex and far-reaching operation.


Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington

Every man is responsible to every other man.



From: [] On Behalf Of Kevin Hammond
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting

Scott, PLEASE! Note that the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is pointed out. One is NOT the other.


Scott Peden <> wrote:

Sorry, in the deluge of all the reasons I hear to go to war, I only saw a couple of e-mails from a few certain people
claiming that the Jewish Lobby and Israel wanted the US to go to war, they never responded or were able to share where their source
of information was from, so all I had was their personal hearsay, that they got it from someone they trusted, as hearsay and that
they themselves were as trustworthy as the person who gave them the hearsay, so there was no need for me to question anything they
passed along. That is, they couldn�t show me any independent data to show that Israel and the Jewish Lobby screamed for the US to go
to war, much less any comments for this, in print. So I have just taken that as Jew Bashing, happens all the time and a great many
ludicrous things get dumped on those of Jewish faith that maybe the Israel government may have wanted or tried to do. Even though I
haven�t been the slightest fan of the Israeli government since the attack on the USS Liberty, that hasn�t colored my feelings for
individuals of Jewish faith.

When there are hard facts, I gladly accept them, links where I can do my own research, not stuff like the gOlem sends out where
all references go back to other stuff he wrote.

So, if you have any hard facts, references I can read myself, that show that the Jewish Lobby and the Israeli government
actually pushed for the US to go to war with countries that had no connection with the phantom 911 terrorists (like the 7 Saudi�s�
that are still alive, last seen in Saudi Arabia itself) please share them. I make up my own mind. If this was a court of law and I
was a juror, I definitely couldn�t give the death penalty on what information I have seen.


A van full of C-4 placed in THREE WYTC towers, to bring them down as
controlled demolition.

I don't understand that.

You are basing trace amounts of explosives, lets say C-4 since it is compact and easy to transport. A van load of it wouldn�t
have been enough to take down all three of the WTC towers. Maybe one. No way the building could have been rigged over night.
Traditional demolition experts figured weeks in a rush job, more likely months.

So, How it was used, was what was found in their van of a composition that could have made steel turn molten and remain in a
liquid form for days later?

To turn this �suspect� evidence into some scientific fact, you�d have to know if what they had, could have caused the results we
saw and fit in with the data we have gathered.

As far as Faux News, I have no idea if they were one of the three stations I watched most that morning, from about 8 minutes
after the first plane hit, I watched live newscasts, but Faux News, they are professional revisionist story tellers, their news is
to get their advertisers money, not to tell the truth, in my personal opinion, they are trying to take the national Enquirer�s
business away. Their credibility ain�t worth the airwaves they broadcast over.

They are my local station, I know first hand what they report and what they rewrite. They turn peace marches into riots, when no
such thing ever happened.

What they showed on the 6 PM news (Pacific time) didn�t even compare with what I saw that morning between 8 AM and noon my time.
Might have just reported on something in a book of Fiction and called it truth. All they got right was that a great many people died
and that a great many people were in shock.

I have heard from someone that survived the destruction of their work
place (One of the Towers) about construction work that had gone on there for the three
previous months, but please, share your data, and give your theories,
hopefully, separating the proven hard facts from speculation.

I don't understand that either

I have been told, by someone that worked in the WTC towers for years, that there was construction going on for several months
before 9/11 and no one knew what it was, much of it was after hours.

I use to be a building demolition junkie, I�ve seen hundreds of film clips on this, I seen more than a few in person.

Fire didn�t take down the WTC towers, explosives as in a demolition did.

I have friends that are pilots, they referred me to several buildings that jet liners had hit and then I researched those
thoroughly. I researched to see how many steel structure buildings had fallen from airplane hits and the resulting fires. ZERO. I
looked to see how many steel structured buildings I could find that had fallen due to fires, maybe there was more �interesting
footage� like the three WTC towers. ZERO, no other steel structure building has ever fallen from a fire even one induced by crashing
a jet liner into it.

Yet I have seen a great many buildings demolished and what I saw that morning, I was sure was a demolition job. After my
research, I couldn�t only imagine how far off I was thinking of how blood thirsty those who pulled this off were.

I and my X wife read everything we could on the WTC towers after our daughter started work there, about 1998, we both were
independently aware that in the original articles of impeachment for Clinton one of the articles was that a private plane had made
it into NYC airspace, 12.5 minutes or something like that, and that was the only instance of the 10 minute response time having been
violated in 12 years, before that it was a 12 minute response time, until 9/11/01 when it was closer to 1 hour and 43 minutes.

Unfortunately, for my curiosity, to maintain her security clearance, my daughter can�t talk about anything other than her
emotions that day. If you have ever worked a federal government job, if you�ve ever been a civilian whose company did contracts for
the Government, you�ll understand her position and why I never pushed her for any other details.

We know Cheney ordered the Colonel at Norad to stand down. We know that with an inter office memo that Bush transferred the
power that congress had given to the president and the President only, to his Vice President, Dick Cheney. We now know that Cheney
was in charge of Norad that morning. Of course no one needed to get GW to safety, it was an inside job. That is data, those are
things that can be found again and again in internet searches, facts that can be verified, many articles written about them plus
Cheney direction Norad is in the 911 Commission report. They fucking aren�t afraid of those that do research, they control all the
information superhighway except the internet and who knows if we have days or years left there.

I happened to be one of the few people who saw the live interview of the Colonel, I heard it was under national security just
like the half dozen videos of what ever hit the pentagon. Yup, so my word is now hearsay. But the 911 commission report telling
about Cheney ordering the Norad controllers to stand down, not once, but three times, that data is there for those who dig.

I haven�t researched the nitty gritty details that so many others have, I have researched what I saw and heard in 4 hours that
morning watching 2 different TV�s and all I can find is that it is a darker more sinister picture than I thought that morning.

Se that light at the end of the tunnel over there?

That is the door to the slaughter house.

Follow the sheepeople, follow stuff that you can�t verify as truth yourself and that is where you are headed.


-----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf Of scol202
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting

Can you share your data to prove that the main beneficiary of 9/11 is

Iraq and Iran are/were the two biggest threats to the state of
Israel's existence. The Jewish lobby and the Israeli government
screamed loudest for the war

I'm looking at Halliburton, root and Brown, I'm looking at The
Carlyle group, I am looking at the US Military Industrial Complex, I
am looking at the World Trade organization, I am looking at the World
health Organization.

Yes, American criminals benefited too. Americans also helped with
9/11 they deserved some payback, don't you think ?

Now, some citizens of Israel might be in one of these groups, but
when you say Mossad, you are telling me that Israel attacked the USA,
and 5 men with a vans that had trace amounts of explosives is
suspect but�.

It's white hot suspect, absolutely correct, couldn't be much hotter.
Israeli spies selling paintings were found to have addresses close to
the hijackers, this was reported on Fox news.

A van full of C-4 placed in THREE WYTC towers, to bring them down as
controlled demolition.

I don't understand that.

I have heard from someone that survived the destruction of their work
place about construction work that had gone on there for the three
previous months, but please, share your data, and give your theories,
hopefully, separating the proven hard facts from speculation.

I don't understand that either

Oh yes, I saw the Colonel in charge of Norad for that are,
interviewed just after the first tower was hit, I heard him say that
his superior ordered him to ground, not fuel or arm any of his planes
unless given further orders.

Really, I didn't hear that.

Also, several years later the data came out that Cheney's secure
undisclosed place was the control room of Norad, as his control
amounted to continually telling the operators there to let the
aircraft through, to issue to warnings to the apparent targets and
especially to not let any of our armed aircraft into the air that
might interfere.

Yes I understood that.

I am dying to see your data showing that Cheney is Mossad, I want to
be present at the execution.

Cheney isn't even an israeli citizen, he's actually American. he is a
neocon and a member of the PNAC, both predominantly Jewish in



--- In, "Scott Peden" <scotpeden@...>
> Can you share your data to prove that the main beneficiary of 9/11
> Israel?
> I'm looking at Halliburton, root and Brown, I'm looking at The
> group, I am looking at the US Military Industrial Complex, I am
looking at
> the World Trade organization, I am looking at the World health
> Now, some citizens of Israel might be in one of these groups, but
when you
> say Mossad, you are telling me that Israel attacked the USA, and 5
men with
> a vans that had trace amounts of explosives is suspect but�. A van
full of
> C-4 placed in THREE WYTC towers, to bring them down as controlled
> demolition.
> I have heard from someone that survived the destruction of their
work place
> about construction work that had gone on there for the three
> months, but please, share your data, and give your theories,
> separating the proven hard facts from speculation.
> Oh yes, I saw the Colonel in charge of Norad for that are,
interviewed just
> after the first tower was hit, I heard him say that his superior
ordered him
> to ground, not fuel or arm any of his planes unless given further
> Also, several years later the data came out that Cheney's secure
> place was the control room of Norad, as his control amounted to
> telling the operators there to let the aircraft through, to issue to
> warnings to the apparent targets and especially to not let any of
our armed
> aircraft into the air that might interfere.
> I am dying to see your data showing that Cheney is Mossad, I want
to be
> present at the execution.
> Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of scol202
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting
> It does matter if five Mossad agents were caught red handed
> celebrating the collapse of the towers with traces of explosives in
> their van. They failed several lie detector tests and the boss of
> company fled to Israel. The fact that an Israeli company was warned
> before the attacks matters too.
> The main beneficiary of the Iraq war was Israel and the only
> beneficiary of the racist war on terror is Israel. It matters.
> --- In, "Leslie Schwartz"
> <lhs_emf@> wrote:
> >
> > For anyone who actually cares about the truth to this continuing
> misinformation being promoted here again by Eastman, (Eastman:
> > essentially "my sampling - few Jews killed at the WTC 9/11/01")
> check out the following.
> >
> > Here is a list of the names of those who died in the WTC. As a
> I know what names are likely Jewish and which are not. I am not
> > going to go thru all of them one by one and tell you which are
> which. If you have been around a bit you will know on your own.
> >
> > Highlight the names to see the full name, very roughly at least
> (conservatively) are Jewish.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is another discussion of this issue, with more links and an
> analysis of the misinformation Eastman continues to spew. The
> > estimate here is between 400 - 500 people of Jewish decent died in
> the WTC towers on 9/11/01. There are a series of articles
> > debunking these lies via this link.
> >
> >
> >
> > Moreover this issue, the tragedy which 9/11 is and represents does
> not have a dam thing to do with who is Jewish and who is not or
> > how the events occurred or why they occurred again has nothing to
> do with Jews or Jewishness or Israel, or American Jews, or French
> > Jews, or German Jews, etc. As I told you before its about money
> power. AGAIN, if you really want to have the background history
> > to understand this event read John Loftus, read Webster Tarpley.
> Educate yourself, don't be lazy, don't indulge in your prejudices.
> > Learn that lesson and it will take you a long way in life. That is
> the most important lesson anyone can take from this discussion.
> >
> > Dick, if you really cared about the truth you would investigate
> truth about it and stop the lies. Are you admitting now below to
> > laziness' rather than hatred? If that is your excuse, then ask
> yourself if that is the standard you really want to live by and use
> > as a guide for your efforts in this or any or important study when
> you communicate with others about the important issues they
> > should be aware of. You could not prove your assertion on this
> issue but yet you repeated it again. What conclusion are we to draw
> > from that I wonder?
> >
> > Your statements have been shameful, stupid and most of all wrong.
> You ought to know that Jewish people like myself love this country
> > as much as you do and we fight and die for it and have done so
> throughout its history, and we devote ourselves to this country as
> > much as you obviously think you do.
> >
> > But there is one big difference between all of us (who are
> and concerned) and you, as one of a group of haters who have
> > been writing in this caliber of trash to this message board. We
> don't call people names based on race or religion, we don't make up
> > stupid theories about history based on simpleton ideas and
> misinformation. We have learned the hard way not to keep hate in
> > hearts and we have learned just how thoughtless and dangerous it
> to go about life that way. We have seen the results and we don't
> > want to see them again, no matter who the victim might be next
> time. We take the time to learn and to understand and to be as
> > accurate and honest with ourselves and others as we can be and if
> we do not know the truth we research it honestly and keep our
> > mouths shut until we do know the truth, rather than go about
> repeatedly making baseless statements which prove our ignorance to
> > others.
> >
> > Dick, take the time when you write and think about these topic to
> make distinctions that are truly meaningful and accurate and
> > constructive. When you do that we will all be grateful for your
> efforts.
> >
> > Leslie
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> []On Behalf Of Dick Eastman
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:48 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: [911TruthAction] Fw: Jew Baiting
> >
> >
> > From: Leslie Schwartz
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:55 PM
> > Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Jew Baiting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Its not about Israel not even a little bit about Israel for
> with the power to make things happen, Mossad just knew it was
> > going to happen and was on hand to see it go down. They have
> the US to get involved in policing the middle east for a long
> > time, but that is not why the event happened.
> >
> >
> >
> > Leslie Schwartz, yes I am Jewish and if don't like it you know
> what you can do about it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lets see Eastman prove just one if his hate based contentions,
> you said below, prove to us Eastman that no one of Jewish
> > ethnicity or decent was killed in the 9/11/01 attack. If you can
> prove that point Eastman then shut up and talk about what you can
> > prove.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Leslie,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not in a position to prove that no one of Jewish ethnicity
> or decent was killed in 9/11/01 attack. The sampling of names I
> > have seen (e.g. the long series on WTC deaths biographies that
> New York Times ran) showed very few Jewish names in my
> > ampling -- not the high ratio of Jewish names I would expect for
> New York City and the hub of finance and world trade. I do take
> > the word of several sources on the internet that only two Israelis
> died. But no proof that there were no Jews killed at WTC -- only
> > indications that there were too few than one would expect.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some of the greatest people in the world have been Jewish -- I
> have known great acts of mercy and generosity by Jews -- paying
> > for an operation for my brother, simply because he wanted to. My
> favorite college professor -- my model of a good man -- is Jewish
> > (Dr. Richard Glassman at LFC)
> >
> >
> >
> > I often say "Jews" when the just discrimination would narrow
> to Mossad, or Zionists, or Neo-cons, or Likudniks -- or even
> > more justly I should have narrowed it to this or that
individual --
> >
> >
> >
> > so I am in the wrong -- but I am also mindful that I force Jews
> to ask themselves -- "is he right about me?" "am I allowing
> > myself to be a part of or to go along with what Eastman is
> out (Neo-con Zionist guilt for 9-11)
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is a letter that will interest you:
> >
> >
> >
> > =================
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello, Al.
> >
> > Do you think 9-11 was an inside job?
> >
> > If so, do you think Zionist's in the White House, Pentagon,
> > had anything to do with it?
> >
> > Do you think their Zionism was a large part of their motivation?
> >
> > I answer "yes" to all three questions and I have what I think
> > is ample proof of each point.
> >
> > I never claimed to be sane or to know what sanity is -- but I
> > understand evidence and can reach the logical implications
> > that follow from sufficiently complete evidence.
> >
> > Any time you want to discuss the message and what it is
> > based on, rather than the messenger -- I will be happy to
> > walk you through what I have found.
> >
> > Here is a sample:
> >
> >
> >
> > I trust you are still the great investigator you were when we
> corresponded so long ago.
> >
> > Maybe in better -- saner -- times we will compare notes again.
> could only gain.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Dick Eastman
> > Yakima, Washinton
> >
> > P.S. as for the impotence of internet posting -- I am taken in
> by chaos theory
> > and that one-quintillion-to-one shot that I just may be the
> little butterfly who
> > could. flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap ... --DE
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <aelewis@>
> > To: <foo@>; <>
> > Cc: <>
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:48 PM
> > Subject: [A-C] Re: Joni Ferris nails self-important Jew hater
> Dick Eastman
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Yes, Joni, it does seem that Dick has become a rabid Jew-hater
> > over the past several years. It was not always so. I have
> > his posts over many months on anti-capitalism, as well as long
> > (5 years ago) on other lists. It seems that the stress of his
> > (which has been considerable), combined with a latent inner
> > scapegoat-ism and perhaps xenophobia (characteristic of
> > right-wingers), has precipitated a psychic degeneration into
> > Paranoid Personality Disorder (see below) with a special
> > Jew-hating spin.
> >
> > (Note that I say "Jew-hating" rather than "anti-semitic". The
> > bigtime anti-semitism in the world today is amongst the
> > the "Christian" Zionists, and other muslim-haters. Jew-hating
is a
> > special, narrow type of anti-semitism which ought to be
> > distinguished from its parent.)
> >
> > It seems that Dick, like G L Rockwell (founder of the American
> > Nazi Party), has yielded to "the ageless impulse of men and
> > eaten by the disease of hatred to find a political expression or
> > rationalization for their malady":
> >
> > . ---
> > . "[Rockwell] drank too much, battled depression, was left by
> > . several wives, became estranged from his family and spun
> further
> > . and further out of control; you'll wince at the passages in
> which
> > . his goodhearted brother and William F. Buckley, whom Rockwell
> > . hounded, try to get him help. In the succinct summation from
> > . 1967 volume that that Simonelli cites, Rockwell gave in
to 'the
> > . ageless impulse of men and women eaten by the disease of
> hatred to
> > . find a political expression or rationalization for their
> malady.'"
> >
> > I've watched this degeneration in several other people. Some of
> > them were quite acute thinkers and great writers, until their
> > deterioration set in. In some cases it is hard to account for
> > Though in Dick's case it is not so hard; he has been quite open
> > about the extreme stresses of his personal life. That, combined
> > I say with a latent tendency, has added up to his current
> > relentless stream of semi-demented anti-Jewish ravings and
> > screechings. The anti-capitalism yahoo list has become a
> > unfortunately -- and largely on his account. What we have here
> > the anti-capitalism of Goebbels and Himmler, sputtering barely
> > coherently about Jewish bankers' conspiracies. (And yes, Jewish
> > bankers ARE an important aspect of this mess; just that their
> > badness does not inhere in their Jewishness.)
> >
> > There was something in me, years ago (circa 2001), that flashed
> > warning sign, and I removed Dick from my email list and
> > cut off communication. Somehow I sensed what was to come. And it
> > came! Oh, brother, did it come.
> >
> > The paranoia was evident in years past. For example, if a
> > of his was held up for a few hours, or just did not get through,
> > he would immediately conclude that it was because "they" were
> > to get him, and were denying him access to the chat boards or
> > whatever. Of course, it IS possible that "they" (the
> > establishment) might shut down people who are saying things that
> > they do not like. Indeed it has actually happened, and I expect
> > that it will happen increasingly. But for someone with insight,
> > is very unlikely that "they" would so selectively target a
> > individual -- an individual with NO power, purchase or
> > in the circles where it counts. In other words, you'd have to
be a
> > tad nuts, or at least seriously lacking in insight, to think
> > "they" would go out of their way to shut you down when you are
> > (pardon me) a pipsqueak ranter from Lower Bumfuck, Nebraska,
> > posting on a list with 323 pipsqueak members like you and me.
> > "they" exist -- and they don't give a good God Damn about
> > Yahoo-group yahoos like us. Sorry.
> >
> > In charity, I will grant that the capitalist system generally
> > tend to make people crazy. The stress, combined with the toxic
> > diet and outright environmental toxins, combined with the sense
> > powerlessness (based on the REALITY of powerlessness), combined
> > with some personal bad breaks, can drive people nuts. Not hard
> > understand.
> >
> > And, perhaps Dick's personal degeneration was in some measure
> > fueled by the actual (inexcusable) behavior of radical Zionists,
> > Likudniks and the like, who persistently refuse to take
> > responsibility, and who deny their (very real and not just
> > incidental) role in the current mess. Witness the brouhaha just
> > the last week or two over the Mearsheimer/Walt piece. The Israel
> > lobby not only does not want to take any responsibility, it
> > to deny its own existence! THAT can drive people nuts, too.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > PS: Note that Paranoid Personality Disorder (below) is NOT
> > paranoid psychosis, with loss of contact with reality.
> > disorders are characterized by a somewhat tenuous grasp of
> > (shall we say: "creative" personal representations of it!) --
> > with a loss of contact with it. It is more of a personal
> > mind-style than a "disease"; see Hofstader's fine article:
> > The Paranoid Style in American Politics
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Paranoid Personality Disorder
> >
> > A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that
> > motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early
> > adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by
> > four (or more) of the following:
> >
> > 1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are
> > harming, or deceiving him or her
> >
> > 2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or
> > trustworthiness of friends or associates
> >
> > 3. is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear
> > that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
> >
> > 4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign
> > remarks or events
> >
> > 5. persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults,
> > injuries, or slights
> >
> > 6. perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that
> > are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to
> > counterattack
> >
> > 7. has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding
> > fidelity of spouse or sexual partner
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> > Criteria summarized from: American Psychiatric Association.
> > (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders,
> > fourth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
> >
> > -------------------------
> >
> > "From the standpoint of any sane person, the present problem of
> > capitalist concentration is not only a question of law, but of
> > criminal law, not to mention criminal lunacy." -- G K Chesterton
> >
> > "You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily
> > denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and
> > well when you are visited by the police." -- J B R Yant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of Service.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> _____
> * Visit your group " 911TruthAction
> <> " on the web.
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> <
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> Service <> .
> _____


Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2�/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


a.. Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[This message contained attachments]


Message: 11
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:54:52 -0500
From: "President, USA Exile Govt." <>
Subject: A Day in the Life: 4/14/6

Free Americans
Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free
Via <>

April 14, 2006


U.S. Aircraft Carriers Head to
Venezuelan President Chavez Accuses US of Planning
an Invasion

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 � Last updated 4:23 p.m. PT

U.S. Aircraft Carriers Head to Caribbean


ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON -- An aircraft carrier strike group
moved into the Caribbean this week to begin two months of naval
exercises in what the U.S. military hopes will be a show of its
commitment to the region.

The deployment by the USS George Washington group will also focus on
threats such as drug and human trafficking, according to the
Miami-based U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military activities
in Latin America.

Brig. Gen. Kenneth J. Glueck Jr., the Southern Command's chief of
staff, called the tour an "opportunity for us to touch base with our
partner countries."

He added: "There's no other symbol of American power like the carrier."

Members of the strike group, led by the nearly 1,100-foot long
Nimitz-class carrier, made their first port stops Monday and Tuesday.
The USS Stout, a destroyer, stopped in Curacao, while the USS
Underwood, a frigate, docked in Cartagena, Colombia.

The military has dismissed allegations by Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez that it is planning an invasion of his country. But analysts say
the show of force sends a signal to Chavez and other Latin American
leaders about U.S. strength.

Although the group has no plans to dock in Venezuela, the U.S.
ambassador in Caracas met Sunday with the head of the Southern Command,
Gen. Bantz Craddock, aboard the George Washington.

Southern Command leaders were conducting a routine quarterly meeting,
but the high interest from Venezuela in the deployment prompted the
diplomatic participation, according to Southern Command Spokesman Jose

The carrier will arrive at its first stop in St. Maarten on Friday.
Other countries on the tour include Honduras, Nicaragua, Jamaica,
Trinidad Tobago, Curacao, Aruba and St. Kitts.

Daniel Erikson, a Caribbean analyst for the Inter-American Dialogue
policy institute, said many Latin American nations are concerned
because the U.S. has threatened since 2002 to withdraw military aid
from governments that do not sign an agreement pledging not to turn
American citizens over to the International Criminal Court.

A number of Caribbean countries have not signed the waiver.

"Washington has been trying to figure out ways, without backing down,
to show the U.S. is still willing to engage with allies in the region,"
he said.

The deployment also sends a signal to China, which has invested heavily
in Latin America, Erikson said, explaining that many Caribbean leaders
"have been puzzled by what they see as Washington's passivity" on
China's role in the area, Erikson said.

The Norfolk, Va.-based strike group also includes the USS Monterey, a
cruiser, and a 60-plane air wing.


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to
the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print
or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries:


The url address of this article is:


From: "dahbud_mensch" <>
Date: Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:19 am
Subject: Quarter of Species Gone by 2050

of Species Gone by 2050
By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 April 2006
05:09 pm ET

Using several models that project habitat changes, migration
capabilities of various species, and related extinctions in 25
"hotspots," scientists predict that a quarter of the world's plant and
vertebrate animal species would face extinction by 2050.

A report detailing the projections was released today.

Biodiversity hotspots are some of the richest and most threatened
biological pools on Earth. They contain 44 percent of plant and 35
percent of the Earth's vertebrate species on only 1.4 percent of the
Earth's land. Each hotspot contains its own set of unique species.

"Climate change is rapidly becoming the most serious threats to the
planet's biodiversity," said Jay Malcolm, an assistant forestry
professor at the University of Toronto. "This study provides even
stronger scientific evidence that global warming will result in
catastrophic species loss across the planet."

In the most dramatic of the scenarios, for which carbon dioxide levels
grow to double that of today's levels, the models forecasted a
potential loss of 56,000 plant species and 3,700 vertebrate species in
the hotspots.

Such a climate scenario could become a reality in only 50 years, the
study estimates.

"These species lose their last options if we allow climate change to
continue unchecked," said Lara Hansen, chief climate scientist at the
global conservation group World Wildlife Fund. "Keeping the natural
wealth of this planet means we must avoid dangerous climate change�and
that means we have got to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."

The study found that certain hotspots were especially sensitive to
climate change with extinctions sometimes exceeding 2,000 plant
species per hotspot. These include the Caribbean, the Tropical Andes,
Cape Floristic region of South Africa, Southwest Australia, the
Atlantic forests of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina.

The results are detailed in the journal Conservation Biology.

* New List: Top 20 Extinction Hotspots
* Global Warming Likely Cause of Worst Mass Extinction Ever
* More Frogs Dying as Planet Warms


From: "Edward Pickersgill" <>
Date: April 10, 2006 10:30:58 PM EST
To: <>
Subject: [911TruthAction] [Antinoro] Using the Power of the Boycott

Norla Antinoro
Grapes, Buses and Buying Blue
Using the Power of the Boycott
10 April 2006

"The consumer boycott is the only open door in the dark corridor of
nothingness down which farm workers have had to walk for many years. It
is a gate of hope through which they expect to find the sunlight of a
better life for themselves and their families." (Cesar Chavez)

There is a tool for social change that we use far too seldom. It has
the power to bring corporations and governments to heel. The tool is

The very mention of the word in a corporate setting is enough to bring
passions to the fore. In the halls of Corporate America, low key is the
watch word. Nothing exciting. No loud voices, loud colors, or music to
stir the soul. All must be calm and organized. But it doesn't take long
to break that calm white-collar atmosphere into chaos when boycott is

My Homepage:


From: "CLG News" <>
Date: April 12, 2006 11:45:08 PM EST
To: "CLG News" <>
Subject: US on par with Nazi Germany: RAF officer in Iraq trial 13 Apr

Breaking News and Commentary�from�Citizens for Legitimate Government
13�April 2006

All�links to articles as summarized below are available here:�

US on par with Nazi Germany, says RAF officer in Iraq trial 13 Apr 2006
An RAF doctor told a court martial yesterday he refused to serve in
Iraq because he believed the actions of US armed forces there were "on
a par with Nazi Germany". Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith told
the military court he was not prepared to take part in an "act of
aggression" contrary to international law... Yesterday, he told the
court martial at Aldershot: "I have evidence that the Americans were on
a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian gulf... This is
on the basis that ongoing acts of aggression in Iraq and systematically
applied war crimes provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi
Germany." Flt Lt Kendall-Smith said he considered the war in Iraq to be
the equivalent of an "imperial invasion and occupation". He said he was
extremely disturbed by America's "imperial campaign of military
conquest", which was in direct conflict with his duties.

Iraq protest officer says US behaved 'like Nazis' 13 Apr 2006 An RAF
doctor facing a court-martial for refusing a posting to Iraq said
yesterday he believed the United States to be the moral equivalent of
Nazi Germany. Flight Lieutenant Dr Malcolm Kendall-Smith could face an
unlimited jail sentence for disobeying an order to go to Iraq last
year, and four orders to prepare for his deployment.

Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals --Ex-Iraq Commander Calls for
Resignation 13 Apr 2006 The retired commander of key forces in Iraq
called yesterday for [war criminal] Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down,
joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly
criticized the defense secretary's authoritarian style for making the
military's job more difficult.

Iraq's Interior Ministry admits death squads 12 Apr 2006 Iraq's
[U.S.-installed] Interior Minister acknowledged the existence of death
squads and other unauthorized [Blackwater USA mercenaries] armed groups
that carry out sectarian killings in Iraq.

Bomb kills 26 at Iraq mosque 12 Apr 2006 A car bomb killed at least 26
people outside a Shi'ite mosque north of Baghdad on Wednesday as Iraqi
leaders failed to make progress toward forming a national unity
government they hope can avert sectarian civil war.

Three Soldiers Die in Iraq 12 Apr 2006 Military officials reported
that roadside bombs killed three U.S. servicemembers in Iraq today.

Prodi confirms intention to withdraw troops from Iraq 13 Apr 2006
Italian center-left leader Romano Prodi confirmed on Wednesday that his
coalition intended to withdraw Italian troops from Iraq by the end of
2006, local media reported. ['Centre-left' always precedes Prodi's
name. Why doesn't 'right-right' precede Bush's name? Why are only
'Leftists' identified?]

Councilman refuses oath over Iraq war 11 Apr 2006 (Palm Beach County,
FL) Basil E. Dalack so strongly believes the war in Iraq is illegal,
he's willing to give up his office over it. Dalack, an appellate lawyer
who recently won a seat on the Tequesta Village Council, is refusing to
take the oath of office because it requires him to "support, protect
and defend" the federal and state governments. To him, that's the
equivalent of "blind support" of the war and of Bush administration

White House Decries Report on Iraqi Trailers 13 Apr 2006 The Bush
regime yesterday denounced a Washington Post report that questioned the
handling of postwar intelligence on alleged Iraqi biological weapons
labs. A White House spokesman acknowledged that President [sic] Bush's
assertions about the suspected labs were in error but said this was
caused by flawed intelligence work rather than an effort to mislead.

Now Powell Tells Us By Robert Scheer 11 Apr 2006 "Pointing out that
the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State
Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat,
I asked [former Secretary of State, Colin Powell] why did the president
ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion? 'The CIA was
pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that
instead of what our guys wrote,' Powell said. And the Niger reference
in Bush�s State of the Union speech? 'That was a big mistake,' he said.
'It should never have been in the speech. I didn�t need Wilson to tell
me that there wasn�t a Niger connection. He didn�t tell us anything we
didn�t already know. I never believed it.' When I pressed further as to
why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it
wasn�t the president: 'That was all Cheney.'"

Pathological lies in the name of national security By Robyn Blumner 11
Apr 2006 "Slowly this country has come to the realization that nothing
the president [sic] and his minions say is believable, yet they still
want us to just trust them. There hasn't been a more dangerous
combination of incompetence, mendacity and arrogance since Lansford
Hastings encouraged the Donner Party to diverge from the Oregon trail
and take his 'shortcut.'"

Rice Calls for 'Strong Steps' Against Iran 12 Apr 2006 Denouncing
Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the
international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to
induce Tehran to change course.

Robo-Jet Plan to Strike Iran --Bush prepares unmanned attack over
nukes 10 Apr 2006 The Pentagon has secret plans for a "remote control"
blitz on Iran if it does not comply with demands to curb its nuclear
programme. Dozens of targets, including nuclear complexes deep
underground, would be destroyed by bunker-busting cruise missiles. And
assassinations of key personnel working on the installations are
planned using Hellfire rockets fired from unmanned Predator planes. The
Mirror learned details of the plans yesterday as Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw dismissed reports that Iran will be attacked with nuclear weapons
by the US... The three day blitz was planned in the past six months by
a small unit in the Defence Department.

More Sensitive Data Turns Up at Afghan Bazaar 12 Apr 2006 A computer
drive sold openly Wednesday in a bazaar outside the U.S. air base here
holds what appears to be a trove of potentially sensitive American
intelligence data, including the names, photographs and telephone
numbers of Afghan spies informing on the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Italian Minister Won't Seek Extradition of C.I.A. Agents 12 Apr 2006
Italy's justice minister said he would not seek the extradition of 22
American C.I.A. agents accused of kidnapping a Muslim cleric, Abu Omar,
from the streets of Milan and flying him to Egypt for interrogation.
However, the Milan prosecutor heading up the investigation pledged to
resubmit the extradition request once Italy's new government is in

PM's Guantanamo stand shames Britain, says lord 13 Apr 2006 Prime
Minister Tony Blair's refusal to condemn Guantanamo Bay detention
centre is "shaming for our country", a former British law lord says.

Britain's Court of Appeal backs Hicks in fight for citizenship 13 Apr
2006 The Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee, David Hicks, yesterday won
a crucial victory in his bid to become a British citizen and gain his
release from prison when the British Court of Appeal denied the
Government's attempt to deprive him of citizenship.

U.K. Terrorism Law Breaches Human Rights, Court Says 12 Apr 2006 U.K.
anti-terror legislation authorizing the use of control orders against
suspected terrorists breaches European human rights laws, the High
Court in London ruled.

Government's control orders ruled unlawful 12 Apr 2006 The first
British citizen to have a control order imposed on him has won a High
Court declaration that the Government's anti-terror laws are
"incompatible" with human rights legislation. The court ruled that the
terror suspect, referred to as MB, had been denied his right to a fair

Military recruiters, confronted by crowd, leave campus job fair
--Anti-war protesters at university block doors to building 12 Apr 2006
(CA) Four military recruiters hastily fled a job fair Tuesday morning
at UC Santa Cruz after a raucous crowd of student protesters blocked an
entrance to the building where the Army and National Guard had set up
'information' [propaganda] tables. Members of Students Against War, who
organized the counter-recruiting protest, loudly chanted "Don't come
back. Don't come back," as the recruiters left the hilltop campus,
escorted by several university police officers.

'No-fly' list delays Marine's Iraq homecoming --Minnesota reservist
detained after being identified as possible terrorist 12 Apr 2006 A
Minnesota reservist [Marine Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown] who spent the past
eight months in Iraq was told he couldn't board a plane to Minneapolis
because his name appeared on a "no-fly" list as a possible terrorist.

CDC Eyes Air Travel in Mumps Epidemic 12 Apr 2006 Two infected airline
passengers may have helped spread Iowa's mumps epidemic to six other
Midwestern states, health officials said Wednesday, the latest example
of how quickly disease can spread through air travel.

Feds: Rell Has Control of Base, But Not Planes 12 Apr 2006 The federal
government argued Wednesday that while Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell
(R) may control the fate of the state's Air National Guard base, the
Pentagon controls the planes. The state is asking a U.S. District Court
judge to overturn a decision by the federal Base Closure and
Realignment Commission to realign the Bradley base and its 103rd
Fighter Wing, by removing its 15 A-10 Thunderbolts. State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal (D) argues the realignment is illegal
because Rell, the commander in chief of the Connecticut National Guard,
didn't give her consent. State officials also said that Connecticut
would become the only state without an Air Force flying mission,
leaving it at risk during a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Spain indicts 29 for Madrid bombings, sees no al-Qaida connection 12
Apr 2006 A Spanish judge issued the first indictments in the 2004
Madrid train bombings, charging 29 people Tuesday with murder,
terrorism or other crimes after a probe that uncovered a hornet's nest
of Islamic militancy but no apparent link to 'al-Qaida.'

U.S. jury hears tape from crashed Sept. 11 plane [Yes, it only took 4.5
years for the CIA to complete the edits.] 12 Apr 2006 The jury deciding
whether Zacarias Moussaoui should die heard the dramatic cockpit
recording on Wednesday of passengers struggling to thwart hijackers in
the plane that crashed [shot down] in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The 2000 presidential election has adversely affected the opinion of
the average American on our electoral process." Official cites eroding
faith in process 09 Apr 2006 A federal elections official, speaking at
a colloquium at Princeton University on Friday, offered four modest but
pointed solutions to what he called the "alarming erosion" of American
voter confidence following the last two presidential elections. [That
is because they were not 'elections' - they were coup d'etats.] The
official, Ray Martinez, a U.S. Election Assistance Commission vice
chairman, was the keynote speaker at 'Making Every Vote Count: A
Colloquium on Election Reform Legislation.' ..."One of the most
alarming trends in our country is the continual erosion of voter
confidence in the accuracy of our tabulated results," Martinez said.
"The 2000 presidential election has adversely affected the opinion of
the average American on our electoral process."

US Election Commissioner (EAC) Martinez Resigns --Commissioner Met
With Election Activists On Saturday By Warren Stewart 10 Apr 2006 "The
current vice chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Ray
Martinez submitted his resignation to President [sic] George W. Bush
this morning. Mr. Martinez' resignation will become effective June 30,

E-Mails Show Abramoff's Donation Leverage 11 Apr 2006 A Republican
Party official and Jack Abramoff's lobbying team bluntly discussed
using large political donations as a way to pressure lawmakers into
securing federal money for a tribal client, according to e-mails
gathered by prosecutors.

Pa. nuclear plant on 48-hour waiver 12 Apr 2006 A nuclear plant
[Beaver Valley Unit Two reactor] near Pittsburgh has 48 hours to
replace an air filtration system or shut down after a sprinkler system
malfunction rendered it useless.

Where your money goes... (Political cartoon) by Cristian Fleming 15
Apr 2006

[12 Apr lead stories:] Archives OK'd Removing Public Records, Kept
Quiet 11 Apr 2006 The National Archives agreed to seal previously
public CIA and Pentagon records and to keep silent about U.S.
intelligence's role in the reclassification, according to an agreement
released under the Freedom of Information Act.

NSA concerned over computer phone service 11 Apr 2006 U.S. National
Security Agency officials are concerned about computer phone call
service, Skype, an online service that lets people converse through
their computers. Because of the Internet's diffused architecture and
its facility for privacy, Skypesters' identities, their locations, and
the substance of their conversations can be undetectable. Skype and
other widely used Internet communications devices, including e-mail,
threaten the NSA's ability to gather intelligence [*LOL*] and to do so
legally, National Journal reported Monday.

Planning the US 'Long War' on terror --It sounds eerily like the Cold
War - and that is no mistake. 10 Apr 2006 The "Long War" is the name
Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time
against terrorism. Now the US military is revealing details of how it
is planning to fight this very different type of war. It is also
preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will
dominate the next 20 years.

CLGers: Please contribute for April's expenses, thank you! And, thank
you to all who have donated previously!!

Address�to receive newsletter:
Please write to:�for inquiries. lrp/mdr

CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, General Manager. Copyright � 2006,
Citizens For Legitimate Government � All rights reserved. CLG Founder
and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.


From: "paul illich" <>
Date: April 13, 2006 6:15:26 AM EST
Subject: [bluegreenearth] fwd: The Middle Kingdom convulses with
change [le monde]

Le Monde Diplomatique
April 2006

The Middle Kingdom convulses with change

China: the sky darkens

The Chinese government made it clear at the UN climate change
conference in
Montreal last December that it was aware of the extreme dangers that
faces from both immediate and long-term climate change.

By Agn�s Sinai

Every spring, fierce winds, sweeping across the arid landscape of Inner
Mongolia, blow walls of sand hundreds of kilometres eastwards,
enveloping Beijing and turning day to night. The authorities have
thousands of hedges in the path of these dry whirlwinds, but the long
line is powerless against the force of the wind and the advance of the
dunes. Sandstorms could well disrupt the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

The rise in temperatures is more pronounced in the great loess plains
of the
north than in the south of the country. According to predictions for the
21st century drawn up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
rainfall will continue to increase in the south and decline in the
where drought, which is already reducing yields, will directly threaten
agriculture and undermine economic development. China�s glaciers
by 21% during the 20th century. A doubling in the amount of carbon
in the atmosphere would affect the distribution of major crops. China�s
food-producing potential will be reduced by 10% as a result of climate
change and extreme climatic events (1).

A national assessment of climate change indicates that �there is an
increasing trend of sea level rise along China�s coast since the 1950s
this trend has become significantly more obvious in the past few years.
sea level currently has a rate of rise of 1.4-2.6mm per year� (2).
scientists predict a rise of 31-65cm in sea levels along China�s coasts
between now and 2100, increasing erosion and the contamination of ground
water by salt, and threatening the megalopolis of Shanghai.

As temperatures rise in the western mountains, the sources of China�s
rivers, the Huang He (Yellow River) and the Yangtze, are drying up at an
alarming rate. The inhabitants of the Qumolai district, near the
sources of
the Yangtze, anticipate to have to buy water to survive. Since 2000,
128 out
of 136 wells there have run dry, leaving 80% of the population
dependent on
water tankers. In this region, 18 rivers that once fed the Yangtze are
identifiable only by their dried-up beds. The drying up of the Huang He
more extreme. A recent study reports that of 4,077 lakes in the Maduo
district, through which the river initially flows, 3,000 have
as a result 600 homes, 3,000 people and 119,000 cattle are without
access to water (3).

The region where the Huang He and the Yangtze rise, the Qinghai
province of
Tibet, in western China, is called Sanjiangyuan, the source of three
The third river is the Mekong, which irrigates southeast Asia. Almost a
quarter of the water in the Yangtze and half that in the Huang He comes
this region, also known as China�s water-tower.

Scientists attribute the recent unprecedented rise of temperatures in
Sanjiangyuan region to global climate change. According to Greenpeace
the average temperature in this area has increased by 0.88C over the
last 50
years, causing the glaciers to retreat, melting the permafrost (5),
affecting rain regimes and increasing evaporation rates. Human activity
accelerated the degradation of this increasingly fragile environment.
population of the region more than quadrupled from 130,000 in 1949 to
610,000 in 2003. Overgrazing, the inevitable consequence of the need to
so many, is damaging grasslands and reducing the ecosystem�s capacity to
retain water. Mining and the intensive cultivation of the herbs used in
Chinese medicine are aggravating the situation.

In 2000, in an attempt to prevent the water-tower from drying up, the
government established the Sanjiangyuan nature reserve, with an area of
363,000sq km, one of the largest on the planet. It stands on the roof
of the
world, in the centre of Qinghai-Tibet, at an average altitude of 4,000
metres. Between 2004 and 2010 national and local authorities committed
to the reserve�s construction. They have reforested 84,709 hectares,
2.73m hectares of pasture back to grass and attempted to reduce erosion
excluding herds from an area of 1.39m hectares.

Wanted: a global policy

But all this is just a drop in that rising ocean unless the rise in
temperatures across the region can be countered by a global policy to
climate change. According to Anja K�hne, project manager at the World
Wildlife Fund�s European policy office, �the Chinese government realises
that climate change is a serious problem threatening food supplies and
national stability. China has 200 million poor whose living conditions
be made even worse by rising temperatures. This is a potential cause of
political destabilisation.�

This awareness has concentrated the minds of the authorities and led to
emergence of ecological movements. �There are more and more
NGOs,� said Yu Jie, Greenpeace�s representative in Beijing, �a hundred
The government tolerates them, indeed it sees them as a sort of social
safety valve since China is a society in transition. Five years ago
Greenpeace didn�t even exist here.� But tolerance has its limits. Last
December, in the village of Dongzhou in Guangdong province, riot police
killed 20 small farmers protesting against the confiscation of their
land to
build a wind farm.

Necessity is forcing attitudes to change. In February 2005 China passed
law requiring 10% of electricity generation to be from renewable
sources by
2020 (6). There is a plan to install 100,000 solar panels across the
country. The government has developed energy efficiency standards for
vehicles, although, according to K�hne, �it�s all back-to-front:
manufacturers are lobbying for China to lower its environmental

In 2004 the Chinese government announced the introduction of a new
of economic production: unlike traditional gross domestic product,
GDP� will incorporate the environmental impact of economic development
including the costs resulting from pollution and the destruction of
resources. According to a study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, if
indicator had been employed earlier it would have shown a slowing of GDP
growth from an average of 8.7% for 1985 to 6.5% for 2000. The study
that China is now consuming three times the global average of minerals
energy resources per unit of production (7).

Thanks to high energy consumption, Chinese greenhouse gas emissions are
increasing at the highest rate of any country, rising by 16% during the
2002-03 to reach 512m tonnes of CO2, compared with a US total of 64m
(8). Although China has become the world�s second largest greenhouse gas
producer behind the US, it does not accept that it must make reductions.
Emissions per head of population are relatively low at only one-seventh
the US figure. Like other developing countries at climate talks as the
of 77, China is using this statistic to call for the application of
but differentiated responsibilities� as the keystone to the fair
of the climate problem. Although acknowledging the �differentiated
responsibilities� of states and allowing developing countries to
continue to
increase greenhouse gas emissions in pursuit of their own development,
Kyoto Protocol accords the industrialised countries the status of
�grandfathers� (9) when it comes to responsibility for global warming.

China is trying to guarantee secure energy supplies without worsening
climate warming whose effects it is already experiencing. Hence the
government�s interest in the Kyoto Protocol and its clean development
mechanism (CDM) which encourages industrialised countries to invest in
�depollution� in developing countries in exchange for greenhouse gas
emission quotas that can be traded on the future international carbon
market. China is currently the main target of CDM projects. It was one
the first countries to establish a designated national authority, a
selection committee charged with attracting foreign investment in
relating to the energy sector. Of eight CDM projects approved by the
government, three concern the recovery of methane from coal mines,
three are
wind farms and two hydroelectric dams (10). A further 100 projects await

According to the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, a
of researchers from seven Asian countries (11), investors need
about the long-term value of carbon credits that they will obtain by
investing in clean development projects. Although the market is still
it should benefit from the extension of the Kyoto mechanisms agreed at
December�s Montreal climate change conference. But the market can only
eliminate China�s carbon emissions in conjunction with agreed rules and
effective international sectoral programmes supported by international
financial institutions. According to consultant Pierre Radanne: �A
commitment by developing countries is particularly urgent because they
yet to build the major part of their heavy infrastructure. The decisions
they make regarding electricity production and construction will commit
for the next 50 years.�

China is at the forefront of calls for more extensive transfers of
technology. But for the common good of humanity this necessitates the
waiving of intellectual property rights over climate-friendly
Yu Jie said: �Clean technologies such as wind energy belong to
in the developed world, so we have to pay a high price for them in
We have been promised technology transfers for years, but nothing ever
of it.� The message seems to have got through. In September 2005 the EU
China launched a partnership on climate change with an initial budget of
$6.1m, to assess the viability of technologies to sequester carbon in
proximity to coal-fired power stations (12).

According to Lester Brown of the US research organisation the Earth
Institute, over the next 25 years the planet will suffer an ecological
catastrophe if China�s population adopts current US lifestyles. If, by
each Chinese were to use as much oil as an American does today, the
would get through 99m barrels of crude oil a day. Worldwide daily
is currently some 79m barrels. If, over the same period, per capita coal
consumption were to reach US levels, China would burn 2.8m tonnes of
per year, more than the current annual global production of 2.5m tonnes.
�Climate change,� Brown warned, �could spiral out of control� (13).

Translated by Donald Hounam

Agn�s Sina� is a journalist, co-author of �Sauver la Terre� (Fayard,
2003) and co-writer of a television documentary series �Terriens amers,
paradis perdus� to be broadcast by Arte later this year

(1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001.
(2) The People�s Republic of China Initial National Communication on
Change, Beijing, October 2004.
(3) Greenpeace, Yellow River at Risk, Environmental Impact Assessment
on the
Yellow River Source Region by Climate Change, October 2005.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Rock and soil whose temperature remains at or below freezing point
long periods.
(6) Including hydroelectricity, which leaves unresolved the controversy
surrounding mega-dams such as the Three Gorges project on the Yangtze.
(7) Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 2005: Redefining Global
Security, Washington, 2005.
(8) 67% of China�s energy comes from coal.
(9) Under the Kyoto Protocol, �grandfathering� allocates pollution
to firms on the basis of their past emissions.
(10) According to the National Climate Change Coordination Committee, 25
October 2005.
(11) Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Asian Perspectives
Climate Regime Beyond 2012, Japan, 2005.
(12) The idea is to extract the carbon from smoke emissions then pipe it
underground to strata from which oil and gas are extracted, or to deep
aquifers. So far this costly technology has not been perfected and has
guaranteed environmental benefit. On the Sino-European project see envir...
(13) Lester R Brown, �Learning from China: Why the Western Economic
Will Not Work for the World�, Eco-Economy Update, 9 March 2005.


From: Henri the Celt <>
Date: April 12, 2006 10:12:52 PM EST
To: AAAHenri <>
Subject: The U.S. Military is in DU Denial

Comment: Coming to a theatre (of war) near you...
The U.S. Military Is in DU
Wednesday 12 April @ 12:35:51

by Susu Jeffrey

�My name is John Marshall. I was exposed to DU (depleted uranium). I am
100 percent disabled and I am pissed-off. In fact, I was advised by a
couple of my counselors not to do this [interview] because I�m so angry
with the government�at the VA system, at the way I�m treated and other
veterans are treated. It�s very impersonal. They don�t give you any
time. They ask us to go fight their wars, do the dirty work and then
they can�t take care of you.�

Most people don�t believe the U.S. has been poisoning its own troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan, or they�ve heard about uranium �tipped�
bombs�like fingernail polish painted on the outside of a shell casing.
On the contrary, these are solid uranium core projectiles.

�I got a thank you (letter) from some lieutenant colonel. �Thank you
for serving our country. We express our deepest gratitude but we
believe you were one of these men who were exposed to depleted uranium
either through shrapnel or inhalation of dust.�

�I�m 35, I take 17 medications, I�ve had cancer�lymphatic cancer,
Hodgkin�s disease�Lennert�s lymphoma was the initial diagnosis�immune

At age 35 John Marshall should be beginning to peak in his career. As a
handsome man, married with three children, Marshall exudes energy. He
looks strong, earthy, limps a bit on the left, has a thick build with a
lean neck and chin. The military was his career. Being exposed to DU
has been called a death sentence.

�Of course they [the VA] downplay everything. There�s latency periods.
The bottom line is, they don�t know the long-term effects. Everybody�s
going to react different. Some are going to get sick. Some might be
able to last a little bit longer. I�ve been sick since I�ve been back.�

Friendly Fire
On Jan. 6, 1991, Corporal John Marshall flew to the Persian Gulf and
waited for the equipment for his mechanized infantry group to arrive.
�A Bradley is a tin casket� with a 25 mm cannon and �every piece of
armament you can think of� but no outside shielding armor. Marshall
didn�t feel safe inside a Bradley. He preferred being a ground soldier,
trusting his legs more than an aluminum transport on tracks.

�I was a team leader on the ground. I had my own fire team. I didn�t
want to be a [Bradley] gunner because I didn�t want to be responsible
for the men�s lives because if a gunner screws up, you got nine men
dead. And I didn�t want to take that burden. And that�s where a lot of
my guilt, my survivor guilt, comes from.

�I was with the 2nd Armored Division, forward, it was brigade sized,
and we were attached to the 7th Corps, 1st Infantry Division. The
initial reports were that in the first 24 hours of the ground war 3,000
out of 4,000 just in my brigade were supposed to die. That was scary
going into Iraq. That�s what they projected. Thank God things didn�t
work out that way.

�When the ground campaign kicked off [February 24, 1991] we cleared
numerous bunkers. We did lots of things that I don�t really want to
talk about too much. We went north into Iraq, then we did a fish-hook
to cut off the supply lines and communication of the Republican Guard.
They were retreating. It was a Kill and Destroy Mission, kill and
destroy everything that was enemy. That�s what we did.

�We had some resistance. Most of them were not Republican Guard. Most
of them were civilian Iraqis. But on the night of the 26th we hit a
dug-in position and everybody in the vehicle was pretty much banged up
except for two of us.�

Marshall was asked to go up in the Bradley gun turret. �I could have
done it. I should have done it. I had the capability. Partially it was
a small percent of fear but I�d rather fight on the ground. We
dismounted; we were throwing hand grenades down the hatch�a lot of
times Iraqi tanks would play possum with us.

�When we hit that [resistance] the rest of the task force continued on.
We got separated from them for the entire night. We were maneuvering
for the entire night alone. We were getting out [of the Bradleys], we
were engaging. So anyway we managed to get through the night and on the
morning of the 27th we came across a large enemy bunker complex. We
figured it�s a company size, there�s 120-or-so Iraqis. There�s 18 men
in two Bradleys and these guys are surrendering to us.

�So we�re taking them prisoner. The LT [lieutenant] finally gets radio
contact with the commander and says we have prisoners.� They were
ordered to take the prisoners to a support unit to the south and then
rendezvous with the rest of the task force.

�I just checked on one of my soldiers who had a gash on his head and
then the commander comes over the radio and says get the fuck out of
there�there�s supposed to be a counter attack by a large element.

�I started walking and all of a sudden we started taking heavy fire.
Two sabot rounds hit our Bradley within 6 feet of me. It�s a dart of
depleted uranium. I�m breathing radioactive dust and the toxins from
the Bradley. I got sparks flying all over me.

�That�s what I�m talking about. If I�d gotten in that turret that night
maybe I could have changed the situation. Maybe we wouldn�t have
been�and maybe people wouldn�t have been�but, then I got behind this
bunker. There�s about 15 Iraqis inside there. And I tried to shoot them
but my weapon jammed. So I cleared my weapon. M-16. It was a terrible
weapon. It jammed all the time.

�And those Iraqis, they were crying, they were defecating themselves,
urinating themselves. They were so shell shocked, absolutely so
traumatized by the situation. So I felt a bit of empathy. Anyways, that
didn�t work out. One of my soldiers is shooting at a truck, I�m pumping
203-rounds, it�s a grenade launcher, I managed to get my rifle
operational. I didn�t worry about these [Iraqi] guys. They were out of
the fight. They just wanted to surrender.

�Things happened. There was an Iraqi running towards me and�I capped
him. I used to see�if I kept my eyes open I could see him all the

Three days into the war John Marshall had shrapnel in his shoulder that
might have been DU-contaminated, and dust in his lungs. Embedded
reporters on American TV showed soldiers firing into the
distance�rounds and rounds of blasts chasing the horizon. In February
1991 the dust storms were so fierce soldiers two feet away looked like

In February 2006 a spike in DU over Britain was made public in the
Oct. 12, 1999, Aldermaston Report. And CNN reported the U.S. lung
cancer rate jumped six-fold for the first two months of the year. DU
dust doesn�t stay put just as radiation hits from Chernobyl bounced
around the world on air currents. It is estimated that lung cancer
incubates 2 to 5 years after DU inhalation. Four and a-half years ago
the Afghan bombing campaign began. Three years ago Iraq War 2 exploded.
And if it�s in the air, it�s in the water.

As of March 2006, there is not a single veteran with confirmed DU
health problems, according to VA testimony in the Minnesota Senate
Agriculture, Veterans and Gaming Committee. Sen. Steve Murphy�s (D-Red
Wing) Veterans Health Screening Bill died when Rep. Kathy Tingelstad
(R-Andover) refused to hear the bill in the House Governmental
Operations and Veterans Affairs Committee. Veterans are given the Ames
test which is actually not specific enough to ascertain DU
contamination. All of us have uranium in our urine because uranium is
ubiquitous in the environment. The real DU test costs $1,000. The wars
cost more than $1 billion a week.

Power & Weapons
Depleted uranium comes from enriching uranium for nuclear weapons or
for nuclear reactor-grade fuel. Uranium for nuclear power or weapons is
so refined that more than 99 percent of it is a �by-product��depleted
uranium. To some, exporting DU waste as weapons in the Third World
represents a Machiavellian policy solution to the toxic waste
management problem. If more nuclear power facilities are built, more,
much more uranium will be refined with mountains of DU waste. Already
there are tons and tons of depleted uranium, shipped around the United
States and processed into solid bars.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a heavy metal, more dense than lead. Processed
DU bars come in various sizes and are cut to length. These solid bars
become the bones, the core, the �penetrator,� the innards, of 15 kinds
of munitions, sized 20 to 120 millimeters, manufactured by Alliant

Alliant TechSystems, ATK on the stock exchange, is headquartered in
Edina, just off Highway 169. ATK made more than $3 billion last year.
�We are the largest provider of small-caliber ammunition to the
Department of Defense, supplying more than 95 percent of all the rounds
used for combat and training,� ATK�s website boasts.

The corporate headquarters is a posh suburban executive building with
smoked windows. The pond between the freeway and Lincoln Drive is a
settlement trap for contaminants from stormwater runoff, and a
dewatering drain for development on low lands. Normally wetland
vegetation can filter stormwater enough to attract waterbirds.

Unfortunately the property managers at the ATK building mow, fertilize
and water their lawn into turf perfection. They have ringed the pond
with rocks to discourage geese�a lifeless yard but crows frequently
perch on their roof. ATK management treats their lawn the same way they
treat people�it�s their world view. (In ancient northern Europe crow
was the corpse eater, crow carried away dead warriors. But in southern
Europe the Romans heard crow as a symbol of the future, crying
�Tomorrow, tomorrow,� �Cras, cras.�)

War always starts out with hope and delivers death. If war worked it
would have worked by now. To turn the crow warning into a future hope
consider the crow�s foot as a peace sign without the circle. The peace
sign was created by Lord Bertrand Russell during Easter of 1958 for a
nuclear disarmament march in England. The design relates to the
international semaphore alphabet: N for nuclear, D for disarmament, in
a circle indicating complete, worldwide total. Nuclear disarmament
requires alternatives to nuclear power; nuclear power was sold to the
American people as the �peaceful atom.� We�ve always know �the peaceful
atom is a bomb.�

If DU particles are inhaled, alpha radiation causes cell damage, lymph
cancers and lung cancer. Beta radiation attacks the eyes and skin.
Chemically, DU acting as a heavy metal affects bone and kidneys. DU has
a half life of 4 � billion years. America has a national debt of $8.4
trillion. No matter how you count it, cancer and debt is on the rise in
our country.

When a DU munition is fired it burns through a target (or a missed
target) and self-sharpens as it moves, leaving a trail of contaminated
dust, like smoke, in its wake. It is a superbly efficient weapon. As a
health risk it is guaranteed: disaster, heartbreak, physical agony,
financial ruin, and emotional yo-yo on a time scale without end, except
in retrospect.

About 340 tons of DU munitions were fired during Iraq War 1. In the
Balkans, notably Kosovo, approximately 11 tons of DU were delivered.
The Christian Science Monitor reports estimates of 75 tons (official
U.S. military figure) to 1,000 tons of DU munitions used in Iraq War 2
so far. Most of the bullets and shells lodge in the soil.

The Department of Defense recommends the removal of
heavily-contaminated soil and long-term monitoring because the soil
leaches DU poisons into the water. Crops grown in the soil and water
from local supplies spread DU toxins into the food chain. And humans,
at the top of the food chain, ingest the poisons and pass along
strengths and weaknesses to the next generation if they reproduce.

There is an �observed higher prevalence of birth defects among infants
conceived postwar to Gulf War veterans of both sexes,� reported
Araneta, Schlangen, Edmonds, et al, in their study �Prevalence of birth
defects among infants of Gulf War veterans in Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Georgia, Hawaii, and Iowa,� 1989-1993. More study was
needed, they concluded.

�The total number of all types of birth defects was not greater than
expected, but whether the number of specific birth defects was greater
than expected could not be determined,� Penman, Tarver and Currier
reported in �No evidence of increase in birth defects and health
problems among children born to Persian Gulf War Veterans in
Mississippi.� The Center for Disease Control (CDC) states that �because
of the small number of cases found by the study, the statistical power
of the study was low.� According to the CDC, the �normal� birth defect
statistic is one out of every 33 births in the U.S.

While the experts duel with statistics, DU munitions continue to be
fired. The old Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP), where DU
bullets were made, contaminated the New Brighton water supply. They say
it�s cleaned up now and won�t be our Love Canal. For years, peace
activists have called for a study tracking the health of
Honeywell/Alliant workers who made the DU munitions.

Of the 580,000 Iraq War 1 veterans, 56 percent have applied for
disability treatment and benefits. Depleted uranium is the sin of the
father visited upon the next generation, whether it�s parental illness,
death, or birth defects and genetic damage inherited by untold
generations. Brothers, if you�re going over, bank your sperm. Sisters,
if you�re going over�have your babies first.

Iraq is a nuclear war. DU munitions are weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs). Yes, there are WMDs in Iraq.

How do you ask for forgiveness?
Marshall went through EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and
Reprocessing) for the tape loop of the Iraqi running toward him. �I
could just look at you and see him. Now I have to think about it to see

�Anyway, I continued firing and I got hit. I got hit in the back. I
didn�t feel it. All I felt was the hot blood running down my back.
There was an Iraqi priest right next to me. He�s crying, he�s got the
book of Koran and he offers me some water and I wasn�t going to drink
the water because I didn�t know if it was contaminated. And I smoked at
the time, and he offered me a cigarette, and I sure as hell smoked
that. I�m surprised they didn�t try to kill me �cause I tried to kill

�So anyhow, things started to settle down and our own friendlies got to
the other friendlies and told them you�re shooting up friendlies.�

They eventually got evacuated. Marshall was sent to five different
field hospitals and began his traverse through the VA system. Cpl. John
Marshall got cancer, a 15-year cough, and a Purple Heart. �I lost my
career and I lost my health.

�I was very successful in my career,� Marshall states. �I�m really
having a tough time.�

�I�m just tired. I just feel tired of fighting these bastards in the
hospital. They don�t believe in prevention. My tumor wasn�t sent to
pathology. The government waits. They wait for the veterans to die.

�I try to stay active.� He likes to garden. �Each day is just a matter
of survival.� His goal is to live another two years so his family can
collect benefits. �The way I feel, two years seems like forever to me.�
His hope is that the two little ones, the boys aged 12 and 8, don�t get
cancer. ||


From: Tim Barton <>
Date: April 13, 2006 3:13:52 AM EST
To: _BlueGreenEarth Forum <>,
Subject: [bluegreenearth] Stand In Against Genocide in Darfur - Join
Our H.O.P.E. for Darfur Campaign -

Join Our H.O.P.E. for Darfur Campaign

Stand In for Victims of the Slaughter in Darfur

We're looking for at least 200,000 caring people to stand in for the
victims of mass atrocities in
Darfur. We need you to speak for those who have been killed, raped and
displaced�the innocent
people who can no longer speak for themselves.
The international community has not agreed on a number of those killed
in the slaughter�estimates
range from 180,000 to 400,000. The New York Times reported the number
200,000 in March 2006.

Watch our short movie about the situation in Darfur

At least two million people have been forced to flee their
homes�and are displaced in Sudan or in camps in
neighboring Chad.

Help us stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves. We are
asking you to sign our petition
to call for a U.N. appointed diplomat of the highest international
stature to lead a peace process in Darfur. Click here to read more
about the case for an envoy

Will you be one of the 200,000 world citizens who says �enough is
enough�? Will you help us gather
names? When you sign up, you�ll represent a victim who has been killed,
harmed or displaced so you
can act as a voice for someone who cannot speak out.

This list of names as it appears here will be handed to President
George Bush and to United
Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Please join us and the 18,894 others who have already signed.

Please click below to stand in for the victims of genocide in Darfur and
help organize an envoy for peace:

New York Office:
Human Rights First
333 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10001-5004

Washington Office:
Human Rights First
100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002-5625


From: "paul illich" <>
Date: April 13, 2006 6:18:50 AM EST
Subject: [bluegreenearth] fwd: Planet in Peril: Atlas of Current
Threats to People and the Environment

Planet in Peril: Atlas of Current Threats to People and the Environment
Year of publication: 2006
paperback 44 pages
ISBN: 82-7701-038-9
Stock number: 3548
Price: USD 10.00

"Planet in Peril: An Atlas of Current Threats to People and the
Environment" offers a holistic and well-researched analysis of today�s
global issues and their impact on human population and the environment.

Written by an international team of specialists, this Atlas illustrates
through text and beautifully rendered maps, graphics and diagrams the
interplay between population and the world�s ecosystems and natural
resources both in the short and long terms. It brings together a
wealth of
information from the most up-to-date sources on such key issues as
change, access to water, exploitation of ocean resources, nuclear
energy and
waste, renewable energy, weapons of mass destruction, causes of
accidents, waste, export, hunger, genetically modified organisms, urban
development, access to health care and ecological change in China.

Planet in Peril, which features the English translation of the
pages of the recently published L�Atlas 2006 by Le Monde diplomatique,
the result of a long-standing cooperation between Le Monde diplomatique

With its expansive scope, richly detailed information, and inviting
this Atlas is an indispensable resource for understanding the planet we
live in.


Polar ice caps melting faster
Point of no return for global warming
Water becoming a rarity
Ocean resources under threat
Nuclear power for civilian and military use
Renewable energy, fact and fiction
Weapons for rich and poor
Who causes industrial accidents?
Waste, recyclers and recycled
The south depends on its exports
Losing the battle against hunger
GM organisms, too much, too soon
Urban development trends
Widening health care gap
China a key factor in tomorrow�s climate


From: "paul illich" <>
Date: April 13, 2006 8:10:57 AM EST
Subject: [bluegreenearth] fwd: Water as Commodity and Weapon - The
Corporate Hijack of India's Water

Water as Commodity and Weapon
The Corporate Hijack of India's Water


2001: The old man shuffled his feet, acutely embarrassed. No matter
which part of India you're in, the first thing you do is offer your
guests a glass of water. And this was one part of Nallamada in Andhra
Pradesh blessed with that element. Things had changed, though. "Please
don't drink it," he said, finally. "See how it is?" he asked, showing
us a tumbler. Tiny blobs of thingummy floated atop a liquid more brown
than transparent. But then he brightened up. "Will you have Coca-Cola
instead? That, this village has." And so it did. As in the Aamir Khan
ad. The smaller bottle for Rs. 5.

It's also there in countless other villages where a glass of clean
water is now hard to find. And Coca Cola's impact on both drinking and
irrigation water sparks revolts across the country. From Plachimada in
Kerala to Kaladera in Rajasthan. From Gangaikondan in Tamil Nadu to
Mehdiganj in Uttar Pradesh. From Thane in Maharashtra to Khammam in
Andhra Pradesh.

2002: M.P. Veerendrakumar, chairman of the Mathrubhumi group of
publications, is startled to discover that the Malapuzha river and dam
in his native Kerala are "for lease or sale to private parties. "I did
not know you could sell and buy dams and rivers." He learns this from
a tender he sees in an American daily while on a trip overseas. "This
had not appeared in any of our local newspapers."

It had already begun in Andhra Pradesh There, two years earlier,
farmers chased away the World Bank's James Wolfensohn. He had come to
unveil the confederation of "Water Users Associations" in the state.
"Water Users." Oh, what a lovely word! It denotes that special group
of folks who use water. The rest of us are non-users, a type of
dryland bacteria.

But non-users, being a touchy, irritable lot, showed up in large
numbers at the Koelsagar dam in Mahbubnagar. Pitched battles were
fought and hundreds arrested. The government shifted the plaque of the
dam to a safe haven miles away so the Bank Boss could cut his ribbon
in peace.

2003: Private theme and water parks in and around Mumbai are found to
be using 50 billion litres of water daily. This, while countless women
in the slums and chawls of the city wait hours in queues for 20
litres. Meanwhile, anti-Coke battles are hotting up again. Kerala's
pollution control board confirms the toxic nature of the sludge spewed
out by Coke's plant in Plachimada. The panchayat revokes the plant's

2004: The polls to parliament -- and in some states -- see the rout of
the biggest 'water reformers.' Of course, there are many reasons for
their defeat. But water is on that list. Sadly for the World Bank, its
puff job is already done. So its report "India's Water Economy:
Bracing for a Turbulent Future" appears as it is -- a year later. It
sings the praises of Digvijay Singh in Madhya Pradesh and N.
Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra. And it claims they gained politically
from the reforms. It says the water users associations were
particularly good for Naidu. Because "farmers perceived this to be a
reform which moved in the right direction." That is in 2005, a year
after farmers in both states hand out some of the worst electoral
defeats ever seen to the Bank's heroes.

2005: Bazargaon is a scarcity-hit Vidharbha village that has one
sarkari well and gets tanker water once in ten days. It is also host
to the giant 'Fun & Food Village.' An elite park which offers 18 kinds
of water slides and uses millions of litres as a matter of course. All
Bazargaon's water flows towards this 'village.' It's a story repeated
in different ways in many places, across many states. Water as a
commodity, flows from poor to rich areas.

In Yavatmal, a Maharashtra minister asks farmers at a meeting to
"diversify into dairying." The crowd jeers. (Vidharbha has seen over
425 farm suicides in ten months.) The problems of water and irrigation
loom large here. "You want us to take up milk production?" scoffs a
farmer, rising to his feet. 'When you pay us a price of Rs. 6 for a
litre of milk, but pay Rs. 12 for a litre of your bottled water?" The
meeting ends early.

People pay more for water than corporates do. The bottled water
brigade got treated and cleaned water in Hyderabad for 25 paise a
litre for years. This goes into that bottle costing Rs. 12. In many
parts of the country soft-drink giants get it almost free. Whole
communities lose out as heavyweights like Coke step in. That company
used 283 billion litres of water worldwide in 2004. Enough, points out
the India Resource Centre, to "meet the drinking needs of the entire
world's population for ten days." And the billions of litres it
guzzles in India could meet the needs of whole districts. in Orissa or
Rajasthan for a year.

Yet Coca Cola was the leading sponsor of the "World Water Forum" in
Mexico this year. But Coke is not alone in the devastation it inflicts
in India. Meet the Real Thing. Central and state governments in this
country are privatising water. Coke is just one of the beneficiaries.
Oddly, those selling out India's water almost never use the word
'privatisation.' They know how discredited that is. So the buzzword is
'efficiency.' Or 'public-private partnerships.' The real questions are
never raised. Should anyone own water? How must it be shared? Who gets
to decide? Is water a commodity to profiteer in or is it a human
right? Is it more than a 'human' right? Countless other species also
need it to survive.

The bazaar is large. And top water corporations figure in the Fortune
500 Global list. As Maude Barlow, one of the world's leading water
activists, points out, the business "is already considered to be worth
U.S. $400 billion annually". And there is lots more to be made. In her
stunning book, Blue Gold, Barlow cites the Bank's own estimate of the
market size. "In 1998, the World Bank predicted that the global trade
in water would soon be a U.S. $800 billion industry, and by 2001, this
projection had been jacked up to one trillion dollars." And these
revenues are "based on the fact that only five per cent of the world's
population are now receiving their water supply from corporations". So
as the corporate grip on water tightens, "water could become a
multi-trillion-dollar industry in the future. What if city after city
privatises its water services?"

Now you know why our planners, Ministers and bureaucrats are eager to
privatise. There's big bucks in it. Major `studies' and contracts are
being awarded to private groups. As this deepens, people and
governments will suffer huge losses. But government officials and
private corporations will make giant gains.

The corporate hijack of water is on worldwide and one of the most
important processes of our time. The World Bank and the IMF help ram
it through. Water privatisation has often been shoved into their loan
conditionalities in the past decade.

In few nations will the damage be as terrible and complex as in India.
Here water use is already very unequal. Most irrigation and drinking
water in India, for instance, has a clear caste geography. Even the
layout of our villages reflects that. The dalit basti is always on the
outskirts, where there is least access to water. Barring dalits from
the main water sources of the village are not just about the 'social'
horror of untouchability. It is also about curbing their access to
this vital resource.

It is also closely tied to the framework of class. About 118 million
households -- 62 per cent of the total -- do not have drinking water
at home. As census household survey data analysed by Dr. S. L. Rao
show, 300 million Indians draw water from community taps or handpumps.
(Many World Bank and Asian Development Bank projects, by the way, will
end up doing away with those community taps.)

About five million Indian families (roughly the population of Canada)
still draw water from ponds, tanks, rivers and springs. This is a
stratified society. The big dams that have displaced millions of
Indians in the past decades have also narrowed control and access to
water. Atop this structured inequity, we now install hyper-inequality.

A huge share of India's public health problems are linked to
water-borne or water-related diseases. Diarrhoea alone claims lakhs of
lives each year. Further reducing the access of poor people to clean
water will sharply worsen matters. In State after State, the laws are
being rewritten. A prelude to handing over control of both drinking
and irrigation water to corporations. The Maharashtra Water Resources
Regulatory Authority Act simply prices farmers out of agriculture. If
the rates implied in the act are actually imposed, irrigation costs
could be in thousands of rupees per acre. It would in fact be more
than what most farmers earn per acre.

At the same time as more and more fields run dry, golf courses
dripping pesticides and guzzling over a million litres of water a day
come up in regions of high stress. Even in Rajasthan. (In the
Philippines, there have been shootouts between farmers affected by
golf courses and the hired goons of the course owners.)

India is a nation of subsistence farmers. When you privatise the
rivers and the streams, the canals and the dams, you privatise
rainfall. And you ask for a social tsunami. This is also the swiftest
route to corporatisation of agriculture. In that sector, we are
already forcing out millions of small private owners called farmers.
The task is to hand it all over to large corporations. This
policy-engineered agrarian crisis wracking rural India is also about
the greatest planned displacement ever in our history. Water will be a
major weapon used against farmers in this process.

Noble terms serve to whitewash the theft of water from the poor. In
Angul in Orissa, the World Bank sought to hand over water to the rich.
And called the process 'pani panchayats.' There, the 'rotation' of
canal water use saw to it that poor farmers could have a rabi crop
only once in two years. With people rebelling, this 'model' collapsed.
But not before causing much misery. In Andhra Pradesh, too, the Water
Users Associations were mostly headed by the biggest landlords and
contractors of the region.

Just think of the trouble we're begging for. Almost every giant
political headache in this country is linked to water. The single most
explosive issue in South India is the Cauvery waters dispute between
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Then there is the Almatti problem vexing
Andhra Pradesh-Karnataka relations. There is the fight over the Kabini
waters between Karnataka and Kerala. Even the 'Khalistan problem' had
a distinct link to the struggle over the Ravi-Beas waters. Water
conflicts in India also affect regions of the same state. The
Krishna-Godavari water disputes drive conflict within Andhra Pradesh.
The list is endless. Further, across the country, water conflicts of
many kinds seep right down to intra-village battles and bloodshed .

Some of our worst troubles with neighbours have also been about water.
The Kosi barrage with Nepal. The Farakka Barrage with Bangladesh.
Indus waters with Pakistan. Over decades, we've made things a lot
worse. The unregulated spread of borewells was an early form of
privatisation. The richer you are, the more wells you can sink, the
deeper you can go. It has proved quite disastrous. Many poorer farmers
have seen their dug wells sucked dry as neighbours collar all the
groundwater. In the end, it can destroy the entire village.
Mushampally village in Nalgonda in AP has more borewells than human
beings. The damage done to the aquifer has been terrible. Even the
richest farmers also went bankrupt as water stress peaked.

In his bid to privatise water when chief minister, Chandrababu. Naidu
wound up the irrigation development corporation of Andhra Pradesh.
Which meant it was now each farm for itself. That led to lakhs of new
borewells being sunk across the state. With disastrous results. Water
shortages in many states have also led to the emergence of 'water
lords' who make a fortune by selling the liquid. In Anantapur, some of
these are former farmers who find this more lucrative than agriculture
ever was.

In the cities, millions dwell in slums where they might pay the same
rates others do for water. But they get far less and spend far more
time in getting it. Against this deadly backdrop comes water
privatisation. If even the upper middle classes of Delhi loathe it,
imagine the plight of poor people in Chandrapur.

And get this. India could be the first nation in the world to
nationalise its rivers and privatise their waters. That is if we go
ahead with the great river interlining project. Nationalise? And
privatise? The linking scheme would demand the former. The latter we
are already deep into. Of course you can, like in Chhattisgarh, sell
or lease the river itself`Sheonath's sorrow'.

Those bringing it to you include some of the top corporations in the
world. Some of the companies now making a beeline for India have been
turfed out of Latin America. Suez, one of the Big Three of water, told
the Guardian that "it was almost impossible for it to work in Latin
America or Africa. And so, instead, it would "be concentrating on
China, India and Eastern Europe." The company did not mention that it
had been tossed out of Grenoble in its native France as well. As Maude
Barlow points out, that city also jailed its own mayor and a senior
Suez executive for bribery.

As she also shows, it's not just any racket. It's scale is stunning.
"Bottled water costs up to 10,000 times more than tap water in local
communities. For the same price as one bottle, 1,000 gallons of water
could be delivered to a person's home."

In Bolivia, when the MNC Bechtel took control of the water supply in
the city of Cochabamba, it raised prices by 200 per cent. In cities in
Peru, Chile and other nations too, water was priced out of the reach
of the poor. All of them saw widespread unrest and political turmoil.
Tiny Uruguay has set an example for the rest of the world. It amended
its constitution in 2004 to bar private control of water and to
declare water "a fundamental human right." This followed a referendum
where close to two-thirds of the voters rejected privatisation.

The U.S. Ambassador calls for 'Public-private partnerships' (read
privatisation) in India. Yet, as a report cited by Public Citizen
points out: "About 85 per cent of all the water that comes out of a
tap in the U.S. is delivered by a publicly owned and publicly operated
system." That was and is the norm. Though the drive for profit will
change things there, too.

Meanwhile, in India, the battles have begun. Protests across the
country show that people will not take it lying down. Still, with so
much money to be made, the privatisers will not just go away. The
waters have just begun to get choppy. And we're in at the deep end.

P. Sainath is the rural affairs editor of The Hindu and the author of
Everybody Loves a Good Drought. This piece initially ran in the Indian
weekly Frontline. He can be reached at:


[This message contained attachments]


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: