Discussion about 09/11/2001: 05/09/06

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

[911TruthAction] Digest Number 1278

There are 22 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Articles4: Bush to American Jewish Committee: US has obligation to e
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
2. 911 truth dvd's for $1
From: "linelites@mindspring.com" linelites@mindspring.com
3. Fw: Articles 3: again (do we have censorship or what?)
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
4. Articles 3: Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's p
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
5. Guess what? "Articles3" won't post #'s1,2 and 4 are all you get
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
6. frosty151
From: "Bugs" brawny@twlakes.net
7. Moussaoui: I Lied on Stand about Being Involved in 9/11
From: "S Miles Lewis" yahoolists@elfis.net
8. Remember: Zacarias Moussaoui: says he lied on the stand -- now insis
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
9. [Fwd: Military General Appointed Head CIA]
From: "APFN" apfn@apfn.org
10. 23 New Presidential Helicopters 6.1 Billion $ Made In Italy ! ??+ +
From: "ranger116@webtv.net" ranger116@webtv.net
11. 23 New Presidential Helicopters 6.1 Billion $ Made In Italy ! ??+ +
From: "ranger116@webtv.net" ranger116@webtv.net
12. I will be on the radio again tomorrow nite
From: "janet phelan" jcphelan10@yahoo.com
13. Everbody is invited to the new 9-11 discussion forum
From: "jewish_from_brooklyn" jewish_from_brooklyn@yahoo.com
14. The Risk of Wining: What Happens Once the 9/11 Sewer Opens Wide?
From: "Cathy Garger" savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com
15. Goss is suppressing lengthy 9-11 study by CIA's inspector general, a
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
16. AFL-CIO Now: How Safe Are Your Voting Rights?
From: "Bugs" brawny@twlakes.net
17. : Thank God!
From: "Bugs" brawny@twlakes.net
18. Forum on Amazon page of (C)ommission Report
From: "John Leonard" jpleonard@verizon.net
19. SPECIAL: Ruppert and Pique Oil
From: "President, USA Exile Govt." prez@usa-exile.org
20. Truth
From: "Bugs" brawny@twlakes.net
21. FW: Re: [TheEnlightenedSouls] Will you send this on??
From: "Eva Walker" cowgirl269704@msn.com
22. 9/11 Update - 5/9
From: "reggie501" reggie501@optonline.net

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 1
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:08am(PDT)
Subject: Articles4: Bush to American Jewish Committee: US has obligation to e

From: Peter Myers

May 8, 2006

(1) Kofi Annan genuflects to American Jewish Committee
(2) Bush to AJC: US has obligation to ensure Israel's security vis-a-vis Iran
(3) to (5) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective
(6) Days of thunder, by Gideon Levy

(1) Kofi Annan genuflects to American Jewish Committee

Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 21:56:25 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>

The Zionists own him, too. Notice that there is not a word about Olmert's very public promise to annex illegally occupied Palestinian land. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10443.doc.htm

5 May 2006

Secretary-General SG/SM/10443

Department of Public Information . News and Media Division . New York

SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS UNITED NATIONS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE BOUND TO GATHER

IN GLOBAL MISSION OF PREVENTING GENOCIDE, PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

Following are UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's remarks to the American Jewish Committee Centennial Dinner in Washington, D.C., 4 May:

It is a great honour for me to join you tonight.

By the time my Organization was founded, yours had already spent nearly four decades as an advocate for Jewish civil rights, and for human dignity in the broadest sense. The American Jewish Committee was thus one of a small band of non-governmental organizations that were present at the UN's creation. Your renowned representative, Jacob Blaustein, was one of the most influential figures in that conference. And the institute that bears his name continues to play a vital part in the UN's human rights work through the engagement of its director, Felice Gaer.

In recent years especially, the United Nations and the Jewish community have moved closer together.

The United Nations is fully engaged in the struggle against anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination.

Last year, in a long overdue observance, the General Assembly held a special session to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

And this year, on 27 January, we marked the first of what will now be an annual international day of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust.

The United Nations is, I hope and believe, what it always should be - a place where Jews can feel at home.

It is also an Organization within which, more and more, the State of Israel enjoys the same rights and responsibilities as every other member. My good friend Danny Gillerman is now serving as one of the General Assembly's vice-presidents. And for some years Israel has been participating in one of the Assembly's regional groups - the West European and Others Group - in New York. I hope the same group will soon find ways to include Israel in its deliberations in Geneva and Vienna, too.

We should all be pleased about these developments, because our world faces immense challenges. We need the Jewish people - and especially the American Jewish Committee - to make its full contribution, on every item on the global agenda.

Next Tuesday, the General Assembly will elect the first members of the UN's new Human Rights Council. As you know, this Council will replace the old Commission on Human Rights, which in recent times discredited itself by focusing selectively on violations in a few States, while ignoring those in others.

By contrast, the new Council is meant to eliminate double standards, in part by regularly reviewing the human rights record of all countries, starting with its own members. Moreover, those members must uphold the highest principles of human rights, and be elected directly and individually by an absolute majority of the General Assembly. And any members that commit gross and systematic human rights violations can have their membership suspended.

As you know, the United States decided not to present its own candidature this first time. But it has pledged to support and cooperate with the Council with a view to running for a seat in the near future. I trust that the Administration, and also civil society groups like yours, will use their influence to help ensure that other States with a strong and genuine commitment to human rights are elected, and that they give the Council a fresh start, without the baggage that accompanied the Commission.

What we are really celebrating today is the fact that no one asks you to choose between your Jewish identity and your American identity. On the contrary, everyone understands that America is enriched by the distinctive contribution that you can make as Jews. That was not always true in the past. That it is true today is due in part to the tireless work of the AJC, and it is a wonderful example to all other countries where communities of different faith or tradition live side by side. I hope all countries can learn from, and be inspired by, your experience.

Indeed, I hope that within my lifetime, just as in this country, where Jews are accepted without question as full citizens, by all their fellow citizens, so Israel will be accepted without question as a member by the whole family of nations.

We all know what that means: a peaceful Middle East, at the heart of which will be two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, within secure borders, in peace and with mutual respect.

I welcome the passion with which Prime Minister Olmert spoke, on the night of Israel's recent general election, about the need to create the conditions in which both peoples will be able to fulfil their dreams of prosperity and peace.

We are all painfully aware that he and President Abbas must overcome enormous obstacles in order to achieve true security for Israelis and statehood for Palestinians. Some of those obstacles seem to have become even more insurmountable in recent weeks and months.

But I refuse to despair. There is still abundant evidence that peace is what the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians want, even if each is reluctant to believe that the other wants it, too. And it is still the case that, while interim measures might bring interim relief, a true and lasting peace can be achieved only through a genuine agreement.

I know that it is easy to speak of this dream, and much harder to turn it into reality. But I pledge that the United Nations, with its partners in the Quartet, will be there to help, working with any who truly seek peace until that goal is achieved.

As we mark this milestone in your history, I hope we will also recognize the deep, productive ties between our organizations. Our common objectives of preventing genocide and protecting human rights bind us together in a global mission. Suffering, wherever it exists, justice, wherever it is needed - these are the main claims on our energies. With this thread that connects our organizations, I hope we can weave a strong and lasting fabric of peace.

Congratulations again on a century of action and achievement.

Thank you very much.

* *** *

For information media . not an official record

(2) Bush to AJC: US has obligation to ensure Israel's security vis-a-vis Iran

Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 11:25:22 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961282236&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

OAS_sitepage='www.jpost.com/NewsWorld'; OAS_listpos='LeaderBrd'; JPPageName=OAS_sitepage.substring(OAS_sitepage.indexOf('/') + 1);

Bush: US must ensure Israel's security

Haviv Rettig, JPost.com Staff and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST

May. 5, 2006

US President George W. Bush said Thursday at the American Jewish Committee conference in Washington that the United States had a strong and inalienable obligation to ensure the security of Israel, referring to the threats Iran had made against the Jewish state.

Bush repeated his pledge that the United States would not deal with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority so long as Hamas refuses to disavow terrorism and to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

The US president also said that he would keep pushing for a strong resolution at the United Nations to curb Iran's nuclear programs. "America will continue to rally the world to face these threats," Bush said.

The audience applauded repeatedly his rhetoric against Hamas, a group the United States considers a terrorist organization.

"As you know, I'm a strong believer of democracy and free elections, but that does not mean that we have to support elected officials who are not committed to peace," Bush said.

"Hamas has made it clear that they do not acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, and I've made it clear that so long as that's their policy, we'll have no contact with the leaders of Hamas," Bush said.

"Democratically elected leaders cannot have one foot in the camp of democracy and one foot in the camp of terror," Bush said, repeating a theme of his administration since Hamas' victory in the Palestinian Authority elections in January. "Hamas must accept the demands of the international community, to recognize Israel, disarm and reject terrorism and stop blocking the path to peace," he added.

Bush was followed at the podium by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the first chancellor to address the American Jewish Committee's annual meeting.

Merkel backed Bush's stances against Hamas and Iran. "Iran must not be permitted possession of creation of a Palestinian state, Merkel said Hamas would have to answer to the Palestinian people for the consequences of its policies.

Bush spoke fondly about Ariel Sharon. "Ariel Sharon is a friend who remains in our thoughts and prayers. He is a man of courage and a man of peace," Bush said. "And so tonight we pray for his recovery and we rededicate ourselves to the cause to which he devoted his life - the peace and the security of Israel."

Earlier in the day, the White House congratulated Israel on the inauguration of its new government, and a Bush spokesman said that the US President expected to work with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his ministers.

The spokesman said that the raod map was the proper way to advance the peace process and stressed that Hamas was not a partner in this endeavor.

The Israeli media voiced concern Thursday night that no Israeli politician would be in attendance at the AJC.

When asked for the AJC's reaction to this fact, Col. (res.) Eran Lerman, head of the American Jewish Committee's Israel/Middle East office told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday night that everyone in attendance "understood completely" the critical importance of the new Israeli government's swearing-in in Jerusalem late that night.

"Shimon Peres was on our schedule, but he couldn't possible miss the ceremony in which he, as speaker of the Knesset, was handing over the reigns to the next speaker," he added.

He said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent a recorded video message to play at the conference. Many other world leaders did the same, including Jordan's King Abdullah II and Australian Prime Minister John Howard

(3) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective

Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 23:55:57 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>

Dochoch29@aol.com wrote:

It seems that Jonathan Cutler is saying that the US aggression against Iraq is at the behest of and solely for the benefit of Israel. Queries: 1. Was Iraq a threat to Israel? John Cooley, in his excellent book, An Alliance Against Babylon: The US, Israel and Iraq (Pluto, 2005), explores the history of the Israel-Iraq antagonism and makes a good argument that Israel has long seen it that way. Add to that the statements by Israeli officials urging the US to attack and get rid of Saddam which they thought it would do in 1991.

2. Did Israel think Iraq was a threat to Israel? See above. Most definitelty. Maybe not immediately, but in the near future.

3. Do you think Israeli intelligence was unaware of the real "strength" of Iraq (after 12 years of excruciating sanctions) and its own strength? There was an investigation of why Israel's intelligence which the US relied on was all wrong about Iraq, But that may have been intentional to get the US to do its bidding.

4. Do you think Israel was quivering in its boots over a repeat of the 1991 Scud missiles which, if I recall, resulted in the death of one elderly Israeli from a heart attack? They were worried but Israelis don't quiver in their boots. Remember, they're tough. Bush Sr. wouldn't let them join in in 1991, but they said that if they were attacked this time they were ready respond.

5. Was Israel in any more "danger" in 2003 than it was in 1967? Do you think Israeli govt. and military circles felt it was a "miracle" that they defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 6 days? Israel wasn't in danger in 1967. It was a scam as Matti Peled got Meir Pail to admit in a debate shortly afterward. Peled was in charge of the logistics in 67.

6. Now Egypt and Jordan are tamed, but even if they were not, do you think any combination of Arab countries, with or without Iran, could be a serious menace to Israel, probably even if, for some incomprehensible reason, the US stopped enriching and arming Israel to the teeth? Not at this time but some over there have the long view. 7. Am I missing something, or is there another nuclear power in the "region" of the Middle East than Russia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, India and Israel? The US.

8. Does any of this lead you to think there may be other reasons behind the invasion of Iraq and the possibly impending attack against Iran? It certainly isn't for the oil because an attack on Iran will destabilize the scene beyond immediate repair. Neither Israel nor the US wants Iran to have nukes although it is not unlikely that should the US attack Iran there will be a regime change in Pakistan and not one that either the US or Israel would like. An attack on Iran would be absolutely insane (no exaggeration, believe me) and the only reason that stands out is that both Israel and the lobby want it as the next step in eliminating Israel's enemies with the US acting, as it always has, as the real client state.

Jeff

Larry Hochman

(4) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective

Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 02:35:18 EDT From: Dochoch29@aol.com

It seems that Jonathan Cutler is saying that the US aggression against Iraq is at the behest of and solely for the benefit of Israel.

Queries:

1. Was Iraq a threat to Israel? 2. Did Israel think Iraq was a threat to Israel? 3. Do you think Israeli intelligence was unaware of the real "strength" of Iraq (after 12 years of excruciating sanctions) and its own strength? 4. Do you think Israel was quivvering in its boots over a repeat of the 1991 Scud missiles which, if I recall, resulted in the death of one elderly Israeli from a heart attack? 5. Was Israel in any more "danger" in 2003 than it was in 1967? Do you think Israeli govt. and military circles felt it was a "miracle" that they defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 6 days? 6. Now Egypt and Jordan are tamed, but even if they were not, do you think any combination of Arab countries, with or without Iran, could be a serious menace to Israel, probably even if, for some incomprehensible reason, the US stopped enriching and arming Israel to the teeth? 7. Am I missing something, or is there another nuclear power in the "region" of the Middle East than Russia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, India and Israel? 8. Does any of this lead you to think there may be other reasons behind the invasion of Iraq and the possibly impending attack against Iran?

Larry Hochman

(5) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective

Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 18:45:43 EDT From: Seth17279@aol.com

This is a new slant... Astute Cultler analysis.

Re Peter Myers. But one would expect that Israel does indeed care if only Iraq falls in to civil war. That would only strengthen Iran which is the last thing Israel wants. Thus Israeli push to bomb Iran--based on hopes of destabilization? In the original neo-con plan Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk preceding attack on Syria and Iran. SF

(6) Days of thunder, by Gideon Levy

Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 18:20:44 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net>

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m Last update - 22:53 04/05/2006 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/712609.html

Days of thunder

By Gideon Levy

Boom after boom, shell after shell, thunder after thunder. The windows of the houses shake, the walls that were cracked during the previous shelling are already threatening to collapse from the blast, the children scream in fear or walk around shocked and silent in the shelled house. One shell after another, every few minutes another one. Sometimes there is a vague and distant noise, and sometimes there is a thundering and very nearby BOOM!!!! The skies tremble, the end of the world. Boom after boom, a shell every five minutes. It is impossible to know where the last one landed, much less where the next one will land. Yesterday afternoon a shell landed on the heads of these children and adults, whose home we are now visiting. Boom after boom, even now, terrible fear.

The fear begins at the Erez crossing, the sounds of war. Afterward, when you cross the deserted checkpoint and travel a little to the south, the noise gradually becomes closer. The never-ending noise. At a certain point one begins to get used to it, just as one gets used to a thunderstorm. But these thousands of shells, which are aimed at "open areas," not only sow great and terrible fear in the hearts of tens of thousands of residents, including many children, but they also occasionally hit homes, and then they kill and injure. We don't hear about it much. On Sunday, Israel was totally preoccupied with the festivities of the Final Four basketball championships, but while our American basketball players were aiming at the basket, our artillery was aiming at Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya in the Gaza Strip. On the basketball court in Prague there were victors and losers, but not here, in the sandy alleyways. Here there are only losers.

Does anyone among our excellent artillery forces think about the great fear they are causing to the children upon whose homes they are launching their shells? Have they been shown pictures of the destruction they sowed, whether deliberately or not? No Qassam rocket justifies this terrible, disproportionate bombing, thousands of shells in a densely populated area, on its fields and occasionally on its homes; the echoes of this shelling did not reach Israel and did not interest anyone here. Last week we went to bombarded Beit Lahiya, in the row of houses that was shelled there, two dead and several wounded, this week in bombarded Beit Hanoun, three children wounded and dozens suffering from shock.

Little Meisa walks around barefoot among the ruins of her home, stepping on a carpet of glass splinters. In silence she walks among the ruins, here and there, not knowing what to do with herself. Her gray face expresses shock. Meisa does not say a word, it is impossible to get even a trace of a smile from her. This child is now a victim of shock. Five years old, on Shabbat afternoon, when the shell shook the walls of her house, hit the roof and destroyed it, Meisa was on the top floor of the family's impoverished home. Now she is walking around the house restlessly, hugging to herself a bundle of rags that were her clothes. Meisa does not leave the rags, holds them tightly, so they won't get lost. Abed, her cousin, was on the roof and was wounded. This house is home to 35 people, almost all of whom were at home when the shell landed on the roof. Most of them are small children.

The home of the Abu Ouda family is located at the edge of the town of Beit Hanoun, bordering on the orchards, which the Israel Defense Forces once uprooted as part of its policy of "exposure," and which have now been replanted. House No. 16 on a street with no name, with a lovely view of a rural landscape from the roof: the saplings of the orchards and a row of Washingtonia palm trees at the end. The gray patches in the orchard are the craters of yesterday's shells, the town whose houses can be seen on the horizon in the east is Sderot.

Now the shells are landing in nearby Beit Lahiya, one day for Beit Hanoun and one day for Beit Lahiya. The pool of water was destroyed here about a year ago by the IDF, and it is still in ruins. The roof on which we are standing and looking out over the shelling fields threatens to collapse. Two iron poles that they stuck into it for support, several hours after the shell landed, will not hold up these torn pieces of cement for much longer. The walls of the house are cracked, and some of its ceilings are also threatening to fall. The staircase that leads to the roof, which was hit by the shell, is dangling in thin air. The ascent to the roof involves danger to life and limb, everything is liable to disintegrate at any moment. But here they want us to see all the signs of destruction, they aren't letting us skip a single piece of shrapnel. They want us to see the smashed sun-heated water tanks, the shattered television satellite dishes, and the drops of blood on the roof, the blood of the boy Abed, who is now lying on the first floor of the adjacent house with shrapnel in his leg. He was lucky: The neighbor's son, Ahmed Naim, is now lying in Shifa Hospital with shrapnel in his brain. Abed is 13 and Ahmed is 17. They say that the child Mohammed Abu Ouda was also slightly wounded by shrapnel in his throat. He is five years old.

From the roof you can also see the living conditions of these wretched residents: a sea of improvised asbestos roofs, reinforced by gray bricks, the look of a poverty-stricken neighborhood in Brazil or in Sri Lanka. The apartment of Hatem Abu Ouda is half demolished. A little boy sits in shock on the dusty sofa and stares at what is going on. This is 8-year-old Zakaria, who has also not yet recovered from yesterday's shelling. But even now the bombardment continues, one shell after another. The kitchen was badly damaged, as was the bedroom. "Look a door, look a wall, look a cupboard," say Ismail Abu Ouda, 28, from the second floor. "See a bed, see a sofa," as though we were property tax assessors. The room of Ayman Abu Ouda is scarred as well. He is married with four children, and his wall is about to collapse.

Yihye Abu Ouda, 18, was on the roof when the shell landed. He is a 12th grader, he was preparing for the bagrut matriculation exam in Arabic. At about 11 A.M., the IDF began to shell the orchard opposite them, six shells. Afterward, at about 3:30 P.M., when his cousin, Abed Abu Ouda, went up to roof to fill the black plastic containers with water, and Yihye was immersed in his studies on the roof, the next shell landed. This time it was a direct hit. Yihye lunged toward his cousin, who was bleeding from shrapnel that had penetrated his thigh, and took him downstairs. On the lower floor, there was already great panic. All the members of the family rushed to evacuate themselves to the neighbors' house, maybe there it's safer, they thought. Of course there are no shelters in this neighborhood, no protection and not a single security room; as in all of Gaza, here the shelled residents are left to their fate.

The neighbor Zaki Abu Wahdan says that his grandson has not stopped trembling since yesterday. Their neighbors' car, a Fiat 131, is parked on the street, one of the few cars in the neighborhood, and the windows are shattered from the shrapnel. In the house adjacent to the shelled house, which also belongs to the Abu Ouda family, a one-story hut with a large number of children, the wounded Abed now lies, his mother sits alongside him on the floor. His thigh is bandaged, his voice is weak, he is also still in shock. His mother displays the jeans soaked with his blood. "A 13-year-old boy. What has he done? He went up to fill the container with water." The mother, Intisar, has 15 children. "Why did we receive this punishment?" she asks.

The shell was their dessert: It landed just when Intisar was serving lunch. Abed finished eating first, and went upstairs to get the water: "I was looking toward the orchard, Yihye was reading a book and I filled the container with water, and then the shell fell, two or three meters from me." The shrapnel is still in his leg, he will undergo surgery in two weeks. Since yesterday he has not eaten a thing. Will he go up to the roof again? His mother speaks for him: "Of course he'll go up. Who will fill up the water for us? He is the quickest child in the family. I'm ill and can't go up."

Shell after shell, the bombardment continues, boom after boom, even now. They say that they stop the Qassam launchers with their bodies, and deny that there has been firing from their neighborhood. "We fight with them and curse them," says elderly neighbor Abu Wahdan, "You want to destroy us, we tell them. I'm 60 years old, all my life I worked so I could build the house, and in one minute they'll destroy it because of the Qassams?"

The IDF spokesman: "The citizens of the State of Israel have been suffering day after day from indiscriminate terror attacks of rockets launched from the Gaza Strip at Israeli communities. The same was true last Shabbat, April 29, 2006, when a number of Qassam rockets were fired at Israel. The IDF operates to defend the citizens of the State of Israel, and in response carries out firing toward the sources and points of launching, while trying as much as possible to avoid hitting populated areas. Unfortunately, the terror organizations are exploiting the IDF's sensitivity in regard to harming civilians, and deliberately operate near and from populated areas, using the Palestinian population as a 'human shield.'

"The IDF regrets any harm caused to civilians or their property, but it is an unavoidable result of the continuing rocket terrorism. The responsibility for this situation falls on the terror organizations and on the Palestinian Authority, which are doing nothing to stop the launching of the rockets. The possibility that a number of Palestinians were harmed by the firing is under investigation, and has not yet been verified." /hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=712609

--
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html 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.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 2
From: "linelites@mindspring.com" linelites@mindspring.com
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:15am(PDT)
Subject: 911 truth dvd's for $1

Every now and then I post this solicitation....at this price, it is not
for profit.....thanks to those who have ordered......
I have made up a new dvd with Loose Change and with a 17 minute short
introduction to 911 truth and the involvment of the Federal Reserve. It
also has a clip of Steven Jones' lecture....It is a great dvd to give to
people, it is very nonconfrontational and nonchallenging. I highly
recommend it as a pass around.
...If anyone wants a copy of this Loose Change or another passaroundable
dvds, I supply them for $1 each - labeled and with envelope. Though they
may not be 'IN' the envelope and you may have to insert them.....Price
is 85 cents each if you get 100 or more.......shipping is extra. can do
paypal....just enter in my email address....add for postage.....$1 for
1-2, $2 for 3-5, $3 for 6-10, $4 for 11-20, $5 for 21-30, $6 for 30-50,
$7 for 51-100
Informing others is our best tactic at this time... If anyone has other
suggested dvds, pls let me know.....
Jeremy Lynes linelites@mindspring.com 404 892 7114
1. LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION with Federal Reserve addendum 2. PROFESSOR
STEVEN JONES OF BYU LECTURE ON EXPLOSIVES 3. 911 MARTIAL LAW by Alex
Jones 4. 911 ROAD TO TYRANNY by Alex Jones 5. PAINFUL DECEPTIONS AND
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN 911 LECTURE ON CSPAN2 6. AEROSOL CRIMES.....dvd on
chemtrails 7. BOHEMIAN GROVE by Alex Jones
mail checks to: JEREMY LYNES 815 ANGIER SPRINGS ROAD ATLANTA, GEORGIA
30306

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 3
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:21am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: Articles 3: again (do we have censorship or what?)

----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Eastman
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Articles 3: Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective -=- US passports to get RFID chips

From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>

May 7, 2006 2:39 AM

Item 1 presents Chomsky's view of how imperial America sees the Middle East, oriented to the need to safeguard oil supplies. But it ignores Israel's perspective. Does Israel care if Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia fall into civil war? Not at all - that just renders these countries powerless. Whether the oil supply is stable is far less important to Israel than destroying enemy regimes.

(1) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective
(2) US passports to get RFID chips

(1) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective

Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:29:02 +0100 From: Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>

Beyond Incompetence: Washington's War in Iraq

Jonathan Cutler, ZMag, April 30, 2006
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=10185

{Rowan's comment: Zmag Article by Cutler - long but IMPORTANT - all links
extracted below text}

If there is a central principle animating Noam Chomsky's commentaries on US
foreign policy, it is his affinity for Realpolitik analysis. As Chomsky argues
in a recent interview (1), "Our leaders have rational imperial interests. We
have to assume that they're good-hearted and bumbling. But they're not. They're
perfectly sensible." This methodological axiom presents some serious challenges
for those trying to understand the US war in Iraq. With so much evidence of
bumbling within the Bush White House, it is tempting to join the chorus of
critics, led by the Democrats, who say that incompetence is the defining feature
of US foreign policy. Is it possible to tell the story of the US invasion of
Iraq as "perfectly sensible"?

Chomsky is adamant and he is right to warn against the idea that foreign policy
elites are more fool than knave. "Consider the actual situation, not some dream
situation... If we can enter the real world we can begin to talk about it... We
have to talk about it in the real world and know what the White House is
thinking. They're not willing to live in a dream world."

What, then, is the "actual situation" that led the Bush administration to make
the "perfectly sensible" -- if entirely imperialist -- decision to invade Iraq
and topple the regime of Saddam Hussein? Here, according to Chomsky, is the real
world:

"If [Iraq is] more or less democratic, it'll have a Shiite majority. They will
naturally want to improve their linkages with Iran, Shiite Iran. Most of the
clerics come from Iran... So you get an Iraqi/Iran loose alliance. Furthermore,
right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a Shiite population which has
been bitterly oppressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. And any moves
toward independence in Iraq are surely going to stimulate them, it's already
happening. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabian oil is. Okay, so you
can just imagine the ultimate nightmare in Washington..."

Chomsky isn't making this stuff up. One can get quick confirmation of Chomsky's
characterization of this "ultimate nightmare" scenario from the key "realists"
of Republican foreign policy establishment -- folks like Bush Sr., former
National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Secretary of State James
Baker, and Colin Powell. When presented with a Shiite uprising against Saddam
Hussein in 1991, the "realists" opted to leave Saddam in power, rather than let
the nightmare become reality. In a co-authored 1998 memoir, A World Transformed,
Bush Sr. and Scowcroft insist that they acted to preserve "the long-term balance
of power at the head of the Gulf" (p.489). In his 1995 memoir The Politics of
Diplomacy, James Baker recalls that he didn't want to "play into the hands of
the mullahs in Iran, who could export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism with
the help of Iraq's Shiites and quickly transform themselves into the dominant
regional power" (p.437). Colin Powell, in his 1995 memoir My American Journey,
is equally blunt. "Why didn't we finish him off?... In March, the Iraqi Shiites
in the south rose up in arms... But our practical intention was to leave Baghdad
enough power to survive as a threat to an Iran that remained bitterly hostile
toward the United States" (pp.512, 516).

The problem is that fear of this "ultimate nightmare" provided the rationale in
1991 for not invading Iraq, or more precisely, not promoting the political
ascendance of the Iraqi Shiite majority. Chomksy argues that fear of the
nightmare scenario will deter realists from supporting US withdrawal from Iraq.
But did the "realists" get us into Iraq? "Realists" may keep us in Iraq, but did
the "realists" unleash Iraqi Shiite power by terminating Sunni Baathist
political and military rule? "Realists" may, in fact, be sensible -- at least in
a self-serving way -- but Scowcroft (2), Baker (3), and Bush Sr. (4) all
publicly warned George W. Bush about the risks of unleashing the ultimate
nightmare. Kissinger -- who first floated the idea of seizing the Eastern
Province from the Saudis in the mid-1970s, prior to the Iranian revolution --
was explicit in a Washington Post Op-Ed (5). The key to any move to topple
Saddam, he insisted, was the contour of "the political outcome," especially
insofar as Saudi Arabia would be unlikely to cooperate in the formation of a
"Shiite republic" that "would threaten the Dhahran region in Saudi Arabia, and
might give Iran a new base to seek to dominate the gulf region." Chomsky is at a
loss to explain -- in Realpolitik terms -- the 2003 decision by George W. Bush
to invade Iraq and empower the Iraqi Shiite majority.

Gilbert Achcar, like Chomsky, is inclined to stipulate the decisive role of
Realpolitik in US foreign policy. Looking at the case of Iraq, however, Achcar
makes an exception. "In the case of Iraq, and in this case exclusively," writes
Achcar in a 2004 CounterPunch article (6), "the Bush administration has acted on
ideological views so contrary to the 'reality principle' that they could only
lead into this major nightmare of U.S. imperial policy... History will probably
record this venture as one of the most important blunders ever committed by an
administration abroad from the standpoint of U.S. imperial interests."

Chomsky and Achcar both agree that the general aim of the invasion was based on
"realism." As Chomsky says, the US would not have invaded Iraq "if its main
product was lettuce and pickles... If you have three gray cells functioning, you
know... the US invaded Iraq because it has enormous oil resources." Likewise,
Achcar is "fully aware of the very oily factors" involved in US military
intervention. However, Achcar insists that "many of its concrete decisions" --
chiefly the "clumsiness of de-Baathification... [and the] dissolution of the
Iraqi military" -- represented "blunders" and "wild dreams" of "crackpot
idealists" who allow "high-flying moral rhetoric" to help guide foreign policy
"in a way that stands in blatant contradiction to pragmatic needs."

For Achcar, the crucial decisions were not the ones that simply toppled Saddam
Hussein but the ones -- made in May 2003, at the start of the formal US
occupation -- to actively undermine authoritarian Sunni minority rule in Iraq.
"Whatever the reason," says Achcar, "the fact is that Bush Jr. and his
collaborators have acted for a while in conformity with their democratic
proclamations." These decisions unleashed a major "nightmare" because they
"opened the way for the Iraqi people to seize control of their own destinies...
to the benefit of Islamic fundamentalist forces, somewhat on the Iranian
pattern." The "clumsiness" is particularly difficult to explain in the terms of
Realpolitik since regime change -- without Shiite empowerment -- could have been
accomplished "more effectively...had the Bush administration acted from a
craftily Machiavellian perspective and managed to get hold of Iraq through an
arrangement with the Iraqi army and other apparatuses of the Baathist state."

If there is room for rapprochement between Achcar and Chomsky, it is because
Achcar actually agrees that the familiar "realist" crowd never would -- and
never did -- jettison craftily Machiavellian perspectives on foreign policy.
Achcar insists, however, that on the key questions regarding the political
outcome in Iraq -- de-Baathification, military dissolution, and Shiite power --
the "administration was divided." Realists fought against all of these policies
for post-invasion Iraq, favoring something more like a US-backed military coup
that would result in a political outcome akin to Saddamism-without-Saddam and an
"arrangement" with the Baathist state. There was, however, a rival faction
within the Bush administration: the so-called neo-conservatives, vaguely defined
as those who favored a "crusade for bringing democracy" to Iraq.
Neo-conservatives championed comprehensive de-Baathification and dissolution of
the Sunni-led military establishment -- even if it meant empowering Iraqi
Shiites.

Chomsky, however, seems not to have taken note of neo-conservatives or any
factional battles within the Bush administration. In his many interviews on the
war in Iraq, he rarely if ever says anything about neo-conservatives - a
peculiar asymmetry in light of neo-conservative vilification of Chomsky (7). His
analysis posits not only Realpolitik, but a unified actor. One of the great
merits of Achcar's analysis, by contrast, is his attention to the crucial split
between neo-conservatives and realists in Washington.

Machiavelli for Zionists

Do neo-conservatives represent the antithesis of Realpolitik? Are
neo-conservatives bumbling crackpot idealists who unwittingly opened Pandora's
box in Iraq by substituting idealistic dreams of democracy ahead of realist
Machiavellian statecraft? Indeed, Achcar suggests that the neo-conservative
agenda for Iraq represents "a typical case of self-deception." Perhaps.
Financial Times columnist Samuel Brittan, in a typical attack on the
neo-conservatives, published an October 2003 Realpolitik manifesto -- This Is
Not a Time for Boy Scouts (8) -- in which he condemned neo-conservative zeal as
"almost indistinguishable from that of the liberal imperialists" who think
foreign policy should be guided by morality. Another defender of Realpolitik,
John J. Mearsheimer, dismisses neo-conservative theory (9) as "essentially
Wilsonianism with teeth."

Some neo-conservatives welcome that depiction, if not the accompanying
criticism. William Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan, two prominent
neo-conservatives, insist that their book, The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny
and America's Mission, "wears its heart on its sleeve" (p.ix). They present a
relentless critique of "a narrow realpolitik that defined America's vital
interests in terms of oil wells, strategic chokepoints and regional stability"
(p.viii). Even as they celebrate "creating democracy in a land that for decades
has known only dictatorship" (p.ix), they make no mention of -- and seem utterly
oblivious to -- the prospect of Iraqi democracy emboldening Shiites in Iraq,
Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

Kristol and Kaplan may be "Boy Scouts," as suggested by Brittan; or maybe they
simply find it convenient to appear good-hearted and bumbling, as Chomsky
warned. Either way, not all neo-conservatives wear their merit badges or their
heart on their sleeve. The neo-conservative movement is hardly monolithic; there
have been many fissures and splits along the way. The crucial point, however, is
that some key neo-conservatives are as committed to cold-hearted Machiavellian
Realpolitik as any so-called "realist." The battle dividing the Bush
administration in Iraq is between two factions of Realpolitik strategists.

Indeed, as Achcar has recently noted (10), "in some neo-con circles" there is
actually support for the same scenario feared most by Chomsky's realists: "some
kind of Shia state controlling the bulk of Iraq's oil" that would align itself
with Iranian Shiites and "unleash" Shiite power in the whole area, "including
the Saudi Kingdom where the main oil producing area is inhabited by a Shia
majority." To assume that evidence of neo-conservative support for
de-Baathification in Iraq represents a simple blunder by naïve and incompetent
Wilsonian idealists is, at best, a misunderstanding -- at worst, a serious
underestimation -- of neo-conservative visions for US foreign policy.

Consider, for example, David Wurmser's book, Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure
to Defeat Saddam Hussein (hereafter, TA). Wurmser published Tyranny's Ally while
serving as a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a
think tank long identified with neo-conservative foreign policy analysis. After
his time at AEI, Wurmser moved on to service within the Bush administration,
most recently serving as Middle East expert in the office of Vice President
Richard Cheney. Published in 1999, the book is a Machiavellian tour de force --
and a blueprint for US policy in the Middle East. There are striking parallels
between the policies endorsed in Wurmser's book and those enacted by the Bush
administration at the start of the US war in Iraq.

Wurmser directly confronts so-called "realist" fears regarding Shiite power in
Iraq.

"The ensuing chaos of any policy that generates upheaval in Iraq would offer the
oppressed, majority Shi'ites of that country an opportunity to enhance their
power and prestige. Fear that this would in turn enable Iran to extend its
influence through its coreligionists has led Britain and the United States,
along with our Middle Eastern allies, to regard a continued Sunni control of
Iraq as the cornerstone for stability in the Levant. Saudi Arabia in particular
fears that any Shi'ite autonomy or control in Iraq will undermine its own
precarious stability, because an emboldened Shi'ite populace in Iraq could
spread its fervor into Saudi Arabia's predominantly Shi'ite northeastern
provinces. The Saudi government also fears that this upheaval could spread to
predominantly Shi'ite Bahrain, or to other gulf states with large Shi'ite
minorities." (TA, p.73)

Wurmser's book is animated by a persistent focus on "balance of power" realist
politics. "Iran and Iraq... are serious threats to the United States. How can we
vanquish one without helping the other? Similarly, how can we deal either with a
radical, secular, pan-Arabic nationalism or with fundamentalist pan-Islamism
without allowing one to benefit from the other's defeat? (TA, p.72). For Bush
and Scowcroft -- and for the Clinton foreign policy team -- the only plausible
response was a balance of power based on the "dual containment" of Iraq and
Iran. Wurmser, however, proposes a Realpolitik basis for moving US policy from
dual containment toward a "Dual Rollback of Iran and Iraq" (TA, p.72).

Wurmser offers a direct challenge to the underlying factual premise of
balance-of-power policies in the Gulf, even as he embraces the Machiavellian
principles of balance-of-power politics. "U.S. policy makers have long presumed
that the majority Shi'ite population of Iraq would serve as Iran's fifth column
there; but would it?" (TA, p.72). Wurmser thinks not. Instead, he argues that
"Iraqi Shi'ites, if liberated from [Saddam's] tyranny, can be expected to
present a challenge to Iran's influence and revolution" (TA, p.74). More
specifically, Wurmser claims that "Shi'ite Islam is plagued by fissures, none of
which has been carefully examined, let alone exploited, by the opponents of
Iran's Islamic republic" (TA, p.74, emphasis added). The idea of exploiting
fissures is entirely consistent with realist theories of power balancing. ...

The earliest evidence of a split between neo-conservatives and "realists" -- the
decision by Ronald Reagan to sell Saudi Arabia an Airborne Warning and Control
System (AWACS) -- is also the most illuminating for making sense of the
division. The most useful expression of neo-conservative hope for Reagan
administration foreign policy and of subsequent "anguish" comes from a May 1982
New York Times Magazine essay penned by self-proclaimed neo-conservative, Norman
Podhoretz, long-serving editor of Commentary, the official publication of the
American Jewish Committee. After the fall of the Shah in Iran, Podhoretz
explains, neo-conservatives looked forward with great enthusiasm to Reagan's
plan for "shoring up the American position" in the Persian Gulf in order "to
secure the oilfields against either a direct or an indirect Soviet move." This
would be accomplished by stationing "American ground forces somewhere in the
region," perhaps on the Israeli-occupied Sinai peninsula.

Neo-conservative hopes were dashed, however, when "this new idea was dropped"
after "Saudis...voiced their opposition." For fear that the oil-rich "Saudis
might have done something to damage" the US economy, explains Podhoretz, Reagan
fell into the "habit of appeasing Saudi Arabia." Having lost the Shah, the US
would now "supply the Saudis with advanced weaponry, including the Awacs
planes... depending upon them to police the region" on behalf of the US.

Podhoretz argues that the decision to substitute the fallen Iranian regime with
a Saudi surrogate was "bad... on its own terms," that is, for the immediate
strategic interests of the United States. If Iran under the Shah proved to be an
unreliable "pillar of sand" for the US, "what could we expect of Saudi Arabia?"
But the tilt toward Saudi Arabia was "all the more disturbing in its
implications for the American connection with Israel" because "the Saudis
refused to join" a "de facto alliance" that would "unite the moderate Arab
states and Israel."

Podhoretz rejects as false the "general impression" that all neo-conservatives
are Jewish, and in no way claims that all supporters of Israel are
neo-conservatives. Indeed, the vast majority of Jewish voters and not a few
Zionists remain loyal to the Democratic Party. Podhoretz acknowledges, however,
"it is certainly true that all neo-conservatives are strong supporters of
Israel" who "would all agree that at a minimum the United States has a vital
interest in the survival" of Israel as an "outpost" of "the free world." That
is, if forced by Arab-Israeli conflict to choose between a strategic alliance
with the Saudis and one with the Israelis, neo-conservatives support the latter,
rather than the former.

Neo-conservatives lost the battle to prevent the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia,
but that fight serves as an extremely useful proxy for distinguishing between
"neo" conservatives -- who believe that US interests are best served by reliance
on Israel, if only that relationship were not regularly jeopardized by the
American habit of appeasing the Saudis -- and "realist" conservatives -- who
believe that US interests are best served by reliance on Saudi Arabia, if only
that were not jeopardized by the American habit of appeasing the Israelis. ...

Similarly, critics of the US-Israeli alliance portray Israel as a strategic
burden, rather than an asset. Most recently, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
published an article in the London Review of Books (15) entitled, "The Israel
Lobby."

"Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of
its allies in order to advance the interests of [Israel]... One might assume
that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic
interests... [but] the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely
from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'"

Each side questions the strategic wisdom of appeasing the other side and
searches for extra-strategic explanations for a strategic disagreement. The
central strategic question, however, is unavoidable for any empire: which proxy
state can most reliably "police" imperial interests?

Right Zionists and Right Arabists tend to agree that recurring battles in the US
over policy toward Iraq and Iran are often "proxies" for larger strategic
questions about the wisdom of the US alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Right Arabists like Caspar Weinberger, in his 1990 memoir, Fighting for Peace
(hereafter, FP) argue that Israel survives, in part, through classic
balance-of-power strategies. In explaining the basis for long-standing ties
between Israel and the Shah of Iran, for example, Weinberger describes "a
natural affinity of all religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East to
unite (when at all they unite) against the vast majority -- the Arab population.
Hence some Jews, Christians, Turks, and Persians have long linkages... Israel
had close ties to Iran under the Shah" (FP, p.365).

Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion allegedly referred to this strategy as
the "Doctrine of the Periphery." Gary Sick, a former Carter administration NSC
staffer and a critic of Right Zionist activities with the US, describes the
"Doctrine" -- which he calls "a touchstone for Israeli foreign policy -- in his
1991 book October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of
Ronald Reagan.

"This doctrine was predicated on the belief that while Israel was destined to be
surrounded permanently by a ring of hostile Arab states, just outside this
hostile ring there were non-Arab states such as Turkey, Ethiopia and Iran that
were themselves frequently at odds with the Arabs and therefore potential allies
of Israel. It was a classic case of the old maxim, 'The enemy of my enemy is my
friend,' raised to the level of international policy" (p.60). ...

The most famous Right Arabist attack on the Iraq war -- celebrated by much of
the Left--remains Richard Clarke's 2004 book, Against All Enemies -- an
"insider" account that ostensibly confirmed the senselessness of the US invasion
of Iraq and highlighted -- in the person of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz (p.30) -- Right Zionist attempts to use 9/11 as a springboard for
promoting their agenda for Iraq. "Instead of addressing [the al Qaeda] with all
the necessary attention it required, we went off on a tangent, off after Iraq,"
Clarke complains (p.286-287). The war in Iraq is a "mistaken and costly" attack
on "an oil-rich Arab country that posed no threat to us" (p.264-266). Beyond the
headline-grabbing charge that the invasion of Iraq was a "tangent" that
sidetracked the war on terror, however, Clarke also offers an entirely different
-- if less publicized -- "insider" analysis of the Realpolitik rationale for
war.

Clarke asserts that al Qaeda inaugurated "a war intended to replace the House of
Saud" (p.282). According to Clarke, it was "concern with the long-term stability
of the House of Saud" (p.265) in light of the challenge from al Qaeda that led
"some in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney" (p.283) to favor war
with Iraq. "With Saddam gone, they believed, the U.S. could reduce its
dependence on Saudi Arabia, could pull forces out of the Kingdom, and could open
up an alternative source of oil" (p.283). The war on Iraq was, in effect, an
indirect attack on the House of Saud.

Clarke is not persuaded. "The risk that the United States runs is of creating a
self-fulfilling prophecy" that will undermine the House of Saud "without a plan
or any influence about what would happen next... The future and stability of
Saudi Arabia is of paramount importance to the United States; our policy cannot
just be one of reducing our dependence upon it" (p.283). Just for good measure,
Clarke criticizes "firing of the army and de-Baathification" in Iraq (p.272).
The Right Arabist critique, in a nutshell. ...

The Left would do well to remember that there are at least two imperialist camps
in Washington -- one Right Arabist and one Right Zionist. Both are "sensible,"
within the framework of imperialist statecraft. Neither deserves our embrace.
Will Sistani -- like the Shah before him -- collaborate with Israel and police
US interests in the Middle East? Or will the Baathists and Saudis patrol the
region for the US? These are urgent questions for US imperialism. Not so for the
anti-imperialist Left. Our demand is simple: Bring the troops home. Now.

Notes

(1) http://www.alternet.org/story/30487/ (2)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133 (3)
http://middleeastinfo.org/article1342.html (4)
http://www.tufts.edu/communications/stories/030303BushQandA.htm (5)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34680-2002Jan12
(6) http://www.counterpunch.org/achcar05052004.html (7)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1020 (8)
http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text168_p.html (9)
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp (10)
http://www.stateofnature.org/gilbertAchcar.html (11)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm (12)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/509udwne.asp
(13)
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/03/19&ID=Ar00602
(14)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/509udwne.asp
(15) http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html (16)
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2004/12/07/jan_30_hopeless_day_55.php (17)
http://robertdreyfuss.com/blog/2006/03/usbaath_talks_bring_back_the_b.html (18)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0805076522/ref=sib_dp_bod_bc/002-2703913-5128812?%5F

[Jonathan Cutler teaches sociology at Wesleyan University. For more Iraq
analysis and commentary, go to his blog, www.profcutler.com ]

(2) US passports to get RFID chips

Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 09:37:51 +0500 From: "Eric Walberg" <eric@albatros.uz>

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3129

Radio ID Technology Spreads; Privacy Activists Dig In

by Catherine Komp

*A correction was appended to this news article after initial publication.

May 5 ? As radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology continues to spread
through the marketplace, privacy and consumer advocates are continuing their
campaign for regulation of this controversial tracking technology. Now they are
joined by lawmakers pushing legislation to curb RFID use by government agencies.

Critics are primarily concerned that the tiny transmitters inserted into
products could infringe on privacy by monitoring consumer habits, or that the
tracking devices will become common in state ID cards, driver's licenses and
passports.

The most recent battle over RFID use played out this week in New Hampshire,
where Senators yesterday considered a bill to prohibit state participation in
the Real ID Act, a federal bill to standardize government-issued identification
across states. Though the bill received the green light in the house, senators
did not approve it, instead voting 14-9 to establish a commission to report on
the pros and cons of Real ID.

Privacy concerns stood among the main reasons prompting public interest groups
to reject Real ID, especially surrounding the potential for future RFID
requirements for state IDs.

RFID technology consists of a tiny chip and an antenna that can transmit unique
information, like a string of numbers. The information can be picked up by a
scanner several inches to hundreds of feet away, depending on the transmitter.
So far, RFID chips are most commonly used to track inventory. But the federal
government also uses the technology to remotely scan some immigrants' visas, and
RFID-fitted badges have been issued to students in a few districts, enabling
them to be scanned as they enter and leave school property.

Joel Winters, with the New Hampshire chapter of Consumers Against Supermarket
Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN), said even though RFID is not yet
mandated for state IDs by the Real ID Act, federal government support of the
technology leads him to believe that could someday change.

"Just because they decide to go with one format now doesn't mean that they won't
change their minds down the road," Winters told The NewStandard.

Currently, the US State Department is moving forward with plans to outfit all US
passports with RFID tags by fall 2006, even though 98.5 percent of the 2,335
public comments on the proposal opposed the plan when it was announced in 2005.

"We don't believe the State Department made any kind of a rational case for
putting RFID tags into passports," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney with the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public-interest organization focused on
privacy and related rights in the technology sphere. "They were remarkably vague
from Day One about why this was important, and it seems at best to be a concern
about convenience, which we think is a really crappy idea to sacrifice privacy
and security for that kind of convenience."

Privacy advocates, including Tien, are concerned that RFID tags will permit
anyone with the appropriate technology to scan a crowd and surreptitiously
gather information without a person's knowledge or consent. For instance if RFID
transmitters were buried in clothing, a scanner could determine a person's
buying habits. If the transmitters are attached to drivers' licenses,
authorities, or possibly others, could determine who is in the crowd.

The RFID industry has aggressively pushed its technology on the federal
government, winning hefty contracts from the Department of Defense and US
Government Printing Office. The Pentagon recently doubled its
multi-million-dollar contract with Savi Technology, a California-based company
that has provided RFID products to the military for a decade.

------ A L S O Who Will Regulate RFID?: "We see the RFID industry just like
every industry: all over the government hoping to sell their goods and services
too them," Tien said. -----

RFID watchdogs are also concerned about new commercial-sector uses of the
technology. Companies are beginning to transfer use of the tiny microchip
devices onto individual products on store shelves.

In one of the first known initiatives that attaches the tracking device onto
clothing, Levi Strauss & Company is working with one of its yet-to-be-named US
retailers to test RFID "hang tags" on men's jeans. Levi's spokesperson Jeffrey
Beckman told TNS the tags will help retailers keep better stock of inventory on
store shelves and eliminate the need for hand-counting clothing items. The
external two-by-four-inch paper tag, explained Beckman, clearly identifies in
bold letters that it contains an RFID chip.

According to Beckman, the device reads: "This tag includes an RFID chip that
functions like an intelligent bar code. We are testing RFID in an effort to
serve you better by improving the availability of the products you want. Please
discard this tag if it is not removed at point of purchase."

But Liz McIntyre, co-author of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government
Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID, does not believe companies will stop at
such benign uses. "Now, this sounds very innocuous; you think, 'Well, gosh, this
[tag] can come right off,' but this is the opening volley," McIntyre said.

In a patent filed in 2002, discovered by McIntyre and co-author Katherine
Albrecht, titled "Identification and tracking of persons using RFID-tagged
items," inventors working for IBM lay out plans for identifying shoppers'
previous purchase records as they walk through the door and monitoring "the
movement of the person through the store or other areas." The application
describes hats, watches, belts, shoes, scarves, purses, wallets, clothing,
briefcases and jewelry as items that could carry RFID chips.

Another company to announce "item-level" RFID tagging is Hewlett-Packard (HP),
which has been heavily involved in developing the technology and is one of
retail giant Wal-Mart's top RFID suppliers. In 2005, HP announced an "RFID
acceleration initiative" to increase the number of RFID-tagged "consumer
technology products" from "three to more than 40." While the company previously
limited RFID tagging to product packaging, now it is beginning to place the
devices directly into printers produced at plants in Memphis, Tennessee;
Chester, Virginia; and Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Calling the tags the "DNA" of the printer, Didier Chenneveau, vice president of
operations for Hewlett-Packard, announced at an industry conference last
February that they want to expand item-level chipping to all printers sold in
the US. The company is also moving away from the "RFID" label, since the term
has taken on an increasingly pejorative connotation. HP is instead calling them
"electronic product code," or EPC.

While McIntyre says companies have a legitimate reason to use RFID to make
inventory control more effective in their warehouses, she does not believe
corporate rhetoric suggesting it will provide additional benefits to consumers.

"In fact," she said, "we think it's going to add an additional burden if
[customers] have to end up monitoring whether stores are using the technology
and actually disable the technology to make sure. that they aren't tracked."

Aside from New Hampshire, some states are considering laws that provide more
oversight of RFID use. Last week, lawmakers in Wisconsin approved a bill that
prohibits anyone from being implanted with an RFID chip. The governor is
expected to sign the measure. Rep. Marlin Schneider, sponsor of the bill, told
the Associated Press that "companies can or will be ordering their employees to
have chips implanted. We want to stop that before it begins."

Chips have been voluntarily inserted into employees at CityWatcher.com, a
Cincinnati-based company that sells surveillance equipment. Other people have
voluntarily had the tiny rice-sized chips implanted under their skin for storage
of medical information.

Bills in other states, however, have met resistance, and watchdogs say industry
pressure is to blame. In California, a bill that would place a three-year
moratorium on RFID chips in state IDs that passed the senate has been stuck in
an assembly committee since last year.

Similarly, the New Hampshire house passed a comprehensive bill regulating use of
RFID last January. However a senate amendment stripped away regulatory powers,
paring the bill down until it merely created a study committee.

Bills restricting use of RFID or requiring labeling and notification of RFID use
have also failed in South Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada and Missouri.
McIntyre believes that the RFID industry is not only succeeding in killing
legislation regulating their products but also in overloading consumers to "make
them think it's a done deal."

"It's not a done deal; readers are not yet ubiquitous in the environment as
planned," McIntyre said. "They're talking about putting [RFID readers] in
doorways and under floor tiles. and unless we speak up, that could happen in a
few years. [But] it's not a lost cause," she added. "It's just a matter of
consumers voting with their pocketbooks and speaking up and saying, 'No, I'm
just not going to be tracked.'"

--------- CORRECTION Major Change:

In the original version of the sentence that now reads, "Last week, lawmakers in
Wisconsin approved a bill that prohibits requiring a person be implanted with an
RFID chip," said that the law prohibits anyone from being implanted with an RFID
chip. This error was introduced by the editors.

--
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html 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.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 4
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:24am(PDT)
Subject: Articles 3: Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's p

From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>

May 7, 2006 2:39 AM

(1) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective
(2) US passports to get RFID chips

(1) Chomsky's "realist" analysis - but it ignores Israel's perspective

Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:29:02 +0100 From: Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>

Beyond Incompetence: Washington's War in Iraq

Jonathan Cutler, ZMag, April 30, 2006
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=10185

{Rowan's comment: Zmag Article by Cutler - long but IMPORTANT - all links
extracted below text}

Machiavelli for Zionists

Wurmser directly confronts so-called "realist" fears regarding Shiite power in
Iraq.

Notes

[Jonathan Cutler teaches sociology at Wesleyan University. For more Iraq
analysis and commentary, go to his blog, www.profcutler.com ]

(2) US passports to get RFID chips

Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 09:37:51 +0500 From: "Eric Walberg" <eric@albatros.uz>

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3129

Radio ID Technology Spreads; Privacy Activists Dig In

by Catherine Komp

*A correction was appended to this news article after initial publication.

Privacy concerns stood among the main reasons prompting public interest groups
to reject Real ID, especially surrounding the potential for future RFID
requirements for state IDs.

"Just because they decide to go with one format now doesn't mean that they won't
change their minds down the road," Winters told The NewStandard.

------ A L S O Who Will Regulate RFID?: "We see the RFID industry just like
every industry: all over the government hoping to sell their goods and services
too them," Tien said. -----

RFID watchdogs are also concerned about new commercial-sector uses of the
technology. Companies are beginning to transfer use of the tiny microchip
devices onto individual products on store shelves.

--------- CORRECTION Major Change:

--
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html 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.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 5
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 10:30am(PDT)
Subject: Guess what? "Articles3" won't post #'s1,2 and 4 are all you get

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 6
From: "Bugs" brawny@twlakes.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 0:13pm(PDT)
Subject: frosty151

Frosty Wooldridge -- What is it Going to Take?

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

Additional Titles

More
Wooldridge
Articles

WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE?

By Frosty Wooldridge
May 8, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

On 9/11, 19 illegal aliens bombed the World Trade Center into rubble and America into an ongoing nightmare. That single act by illegal aliens caused the deaths of 3,000 civilians. Further, it caused the deaths of 2,500 US soldiers and 15,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan-from the US response. It caused the deaths in excess of 50,000 Iraqi citizens.

Two years ago, Theo Van Gogh, the great grandson of the famed Dutch painter, Vincent Van Gogh, suffered knife wounds to his throat by a Muslim immigrant who didn't like Van Gogh's right to free speech. A Dutch teacher I traveled with last summer in Europe predicted that Holland would suffer civil violence within five years. She said, "We'll have civil war and it'll be our immigrants against us!"

In Sweden, Muslim immigrants rape Swedish women because those women "ask for it" by not totally covering their bodies. Sweden suffers the greatest cultural dilemma its nation has experienced in hundreds of years.

Last December, in Paris, France, legal Muslim immigrants firebombed 10,000 cars in a violent melee that terrified French citizens during four solid weeks before authorities regained control. Today, French citizens fear traveling into immigrant enclaves in France. It stands as a country at odds with itself.

The same thing happened in Sydney, Australia where 5,000 people rioted against immigrants who would not and did not respect Australian laws. Immigrants demanded that Sharia Law become a part of Australia to satisfy Muslim immigrants. Thankfully, they mandated, "If you don't like parliamentary law, you may choose to move to another country with Sharia Law."

In England, Muslim immigrants demanded that swimming pools be changed from co-ed to distinct times for women and men-to satisfy Muslims' need to separate the sexes. The ethnic and religious tension in the United Kingdom makes it about as 'united' as a scorpion and a caterpillar in a box.

In the past month, Mexican ILLEGAL aliens marched in the streets of major cities demanding their right to occupy the United States via an unarmed invasion. They commandeered America's streets in a show of ongoing lawlessness that would make Billy the Kid proud!

What do all these events share in common? Immigration by incompatible Third World cultures into First World countries! What causes it? Third World countries' birth rates explode past their carrying capacity, which drives desperate people toward viable nations. Additionally, those countries suffer dictators and tyrants, i.e., men like Mexico's Vicente Fox. Those countries suffer the power of the Catholic Church and religion of Islam stuck in the 1st century where they espouse unlimited and unending birth rates. Results: poverty, illiteracy, diseases, crime, corruption and unending human misery.

Thirty years ago, Jean Raspail, a French novelist, wrote a book, "Camp of the Saints" showing an armada leaving India with tens of thousands of wretched immigrants whose own land was so horrible, they couldn't better it, so they sought another country for their salvation. At one point, one of the reporters asked the captain what he thought.

He replied, "You don't know my people-the squalor, superstitions, the fatalistic sloth that they've wallowed in for generations. You don't know what you're in for if that fleet of brutes ever lands in your lap. Everything will change in this country of yours. They will swallow you up."

France has been swallowed. In an effort to save itself, in July of last year, it closed its borders to further immigration. Last year, Holland started tracking down illegal immigrants and sent them back. Further, Holland mandated that no immigrant could come to Holland unless he or she spoke fluent Dutch. Additionally, they curtailed the flood to a trickle. Norway's latest candidate for national office promotes closing the borders of that country. Sweden is not far behind.

What do those countries share in common? Their quest for peaceful diversity and multiculturalism died a violent death via the guillotine of reality. The facts speak for themselves: you can't mix Dark Ages religions and cultures with First World societies. It doesn't work. It becomes violent. It creates poverty. Citizens of host countries suffer the ethnic tension, racial stress and cultural angst. You can't take in too many immigrants, whether legal or illegal because they can't be assimilated. It doesn't work. It deteriorates from the 'myth of ideals' to the lowest common denominator of hostility.

So, what's happening to the United States? Exactly the same thing that happened to Norway, Sweden, Holland, United Kingdom, France and Australia!

Because we are bigger, the violence spreads wider so it's less perceptible. However, 630,000 convicted illegal alien felons in U.S. prisons tell the real story. Over 1.5 million illegal alien students in U.S. schools creating horrific language and overcrowding nightmares spell out the growing crisis. An added 16,000 cases of tuberculosis and 7,000 cases of leprosy--along with tens of thousands of cases of hepatitis "A" imported into America in four years slams us with reality. Hospitals crammed with sick and poor illegals and their babies-cause bankruptcies and loss of care for American citizens. The list grows by the day as our country stumbles toward violent confrontation.

What one factor characterizes the European violence? Legal immigrants provoked riots. America suffers 20 million illegal alien migrants. Their violence collectively grows more powerful by the day as 10,000 invade our borders daily according to Time Magazine.

What is it going to take for President Bush and Congress to wake up? They know the violence is coming as surely as they knew Katrina approached New Orleans. They know our streets stand ripe for horrific violence from ILLEGAL aliens that have overstepped the rule of law in America. They know the American people will react at some point.

Remember Watts? One incident sent Los Angeles into a conflagration never experienced before. Why did it happen? Because the leaders ignored it, pretended it wasn't a problem, hoped it would go away and remained aloof. Mark Twain called it, "The shabbiest of all lies.silent assertion.occurs when the press and leaders ignore or suppress events of a growing crisis within our society." What happened to slavery and states' rights? The emotional result became our Civil War.

Mr. Bush, Cheney, McCain, Condi Rice, Specter, Hagle, Frist, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kyle, Hatch, Canon and the rest of you yahoos can't be that stupid! Or, are you? You 'let' 9/11 happen because you wouldn't enforce our immigration laws. You and Clinton made it so easy to thwart our immigration laws that 19 men danced into the United States and took lessons on how to fly jet liners but didn't need to learn how to land them. You 'let' Katrina happen because you ignored the warning signs.

It is mildly pathetic that a sitting president with an approval rating of 33 percent "stays his course" while 67 percent of Americans say he is failing at his job. You would think anyone with common sense would change course. You would think that a sitting president with a functioning brain and at least a three digit I.Q., in our Republican form of government, would begin serving the American people instead of serving illegal aliens, ".who do the jobs that Americans won't do."

I'm going to tell you, Mr. Bush, right here and now. You are guilty of neglect of the U.S. Constitution. You stand in violation of your sacred oath of office. That alone deserves impeachment. The rest of you in Congress stand guilty of ignoring an "Immigration Katrina" that won't hit 'just' New Orleans, but slams into every sector of the United States. You stand guilty as sin for the destruction of millions of lives and collateral damage that wreaks havoc on our society.

I promise each of you incompetent and outright traitors this: the American people rise against you. We organize to defend our communities, states and nation against this invasion. We won't back down and we won't give up. Here's a sample of what we're doing in every hamlet, town, city and state:

"Hello Frosty, My name is Michael Armstrong and I am an Oregon Minuteman, and also a member of a local group "Citizen Caucus" fighting the illegal immigration crisis. I have a request regarding the 21st Century Paul Revere Ride. The largest group opposing illegal immigration is located in Salem, Oregon "Oregonians for Immigration Reform." We see the ride will come through Salem, Oregon Wednesday, June 9th. Jim Ludwick asked me to see if we can coordinate with you to hold a joint rally on the capitol steps of Salem when you come through Salem. If this is possible you could help us keep the pressure on our local politicians, during this election year. Please let me know if this is something you think is possible, if it is I will coordinate the event with OFIR. Michael and Elaine."

Fellow Americans, Paul Revere along with men and women patriots gave birth to this country. Please, each of you and all immigration groups call ride coordinator Howard Wooldridge and organize your rally on the steps of your city as the Paul Revere Riders ride through. As we ride into your state, we'll pass out information on "HOW" to stop this invasion. We'll give you the tools to become the "counter critical mass" of Americans who won't back down. We expect not hundreds of motorcycle Paul Revere Riders, but thousands to ride with us in every state. Our soldiers didn't die for open borders. They didn't die for the bogus new world order or one world government. They didn't die for corrupt politicians. They died for the U.S. Constitution and a government that served, "We the people.."

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

The T-shirts for the Paul Revere Ride exceeded our expectations. The front reads, "STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: ASK ME HOW" "STOP" is in RED. The back of the shirt reads, "STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION" with the ride logo, shown below is big and attractive with www.numbersusa.com below the logo. The shirt will stop people in their tracks and create more discussion than you can imagine and lead them to action. Price is rock bottom at $15.00 including shipping and handling. Become a part of the "21st Century Paul Revere" motorcycle ride across America coast to coast next summer with Frosty as he and his band of riders carry this message from the Golden Gate Bridge to the steps of the nation's capitol in Washington, DC. Inquire at his email address for full details on how you can participate: frostyw@juno.com We need four motorcycle riders. You will be provided meals and transport to origin and from destination. Retired RVs drivers will be provided meals and 50 cents per mile. Start date is May 29, 2006.

Send donations and checks for the T-shirt to: 21st Century Paul Revere Ride at POB 207, Louisville, CO 80027. State your size. www.21stCenturyPaulRevereRide.us

Route of the 21st Century Paul Revere Ride

Schedule with arrival dates.

Motorcycle Route:
All dates are close estimates:

Denver, Colorado - Monday, May 29 (holiday)
Cheyenne, Wyoming - Monday, May 29 (holiday)
Billings, Montana - Tuesday, May 30
Helena, Montana - Wednesday, June 1
Pocatello, Idaho - Thursday, June 2 PM
Salt Lake City, Utah - Saturday, June 3 Noon
Twin Falls, Idaho - Sunday, June 4 Noon
Boise, Idaho - Monday, June 5 AM
Seattle, Washington - Tuesday, June 8 AM
Olympia, Washington - Tuesday, June 8 PM
Salem, Oregon - Wednesday, June 9
Sacramento, California - Monday, June 12 PM
Carson City, Nevada - Tuesday, June 13 AM to LA via PCH (101)
Los Angeles, California - Saturday, June 17 AM
San Diego, California - Sunday, June 18 AM
Phoenix, Arizona - Tuesday, June 20 AM
Santa Fe, New Mexico - Thursday, June 22 AM
Austin, Texas - Sunday, Sunday, June 25 AM
Crawford, Texas - Sunday, June 25 Noon
Dallas, Texas - Sunday, June 25 PM
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Tuesday, June 27 PM
Jefferson City, Missouri - Thursday, June 29 AM
Topeka, Kansas - Friday, June 30 AM
Lincoln, Nebraska - Friday, June 30 PM
Des Moines, Iowa - Saturday, July 1 PM
Pierre, South Dakota - Monday, July 3 PM (most have this day off)
Bismarck, North Dakota - Tuesday, July 4 AM (holiday)
St. Paul, Minnesota - Wednesday, July 5 PM
Madison, Wisconsin - Friday, July 7 PM
Chicago, Illinois - Saturday, July 8 Noon
Springfield, Illinois - Sunday, July 9 PM
Lansing, Michigan - Thursday, July 13 AM
Indianapolis, Indiana - Friday, July 14 AM
Frankfort, Kentucky - Friday, July 14 PM
Nashville, Tennessee - Sunday, July 16 AM
Little Rock, Arkansas - Tuesday, July 18 PM
Baton Rouge, Louisiana - Wednesday, July 19 PM
Jackson, Mississippi - Thursday, July 20 PM
Montgomery, Alabama - Friday, July 21 PM
Tallahassee, Florida - Saturday, July 22 PM
Atlanta, Georgia - Tuesday, July 25 AM
Columbia, South Carolina - Wednesday, July 26 AM
Charlotte, North Carolina - Thursday, July 27 AM
Raleigh, North Carolina - Friday, July 28 AM
Charleston, West Virginia - Saturday, July 29 PM
Columbus, Ohio - Monday, July 31 AM
Albany, New York - Thursday, August 3 AM
Montpelier, Vermont - Friday, August 4 AM
Augusta, Maine - Saturday, August 5 AM
Concord, New Hampshire - Monday, August 7 AM
Boston, Massachusetts - August 7 PM
Providence, Rhode Island - August 8 AM
Hartford, CT - NOON
Trenton, New Jersey - August 9 AM
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - August 9 PM
Dover, Delaware - August 10 AM
Annapolis, Maryland - August 10 PM
Richmond, Virginia - August 11 AM
Washington, DC - Saturday, August 12 NOON

Frosty's new book "Immigration's Unarmed Invasion"

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

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

Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents in the past 26 years.

He has written hundreds of articles (regularly) for 17 national and 2 international magazines. He has had hundreds of editorials published in top national newspapers including the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, Albany Herald and Christian Science Monitor.

His first book, "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS" by Falcon Press is available nationwide. His second book "STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE" by the Brookfield Reader published in January 2002. His bicycle books include "BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD."

His latest book. 'IMMIGRATION'S UNARMED INVASION-DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.'

Frosty Wooldridge has guest lectured at Cornell University, teaching creative writing workshops, magazine writing at Michigan State University, and has presented environmental science lectures at the University of Colorado, University of Denver and Regis University. He also lectures on "Religion and Ethics" at Front Range College in Colorado.

Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

E:Mail: frostyw@juno.com

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

Home

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 5/5/2006

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 7
From: "S Miles Lewis" yahoolists@elfis.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 1:10pm(PDT)
Subject: Moussaoui: I Lied on Stand about Being Involved in 9/11

Moussaoui Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea
May 08 3:54 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - Zacarias Moussaoui has said he lied on the stand about
being involved in Sept. 11, and he has asked to withdraw his guilty
plea.

The statement appears in a motion filed in federal court in Alexandria
by his attorneys.

Moussaoui last week was sentenced to life in prison, after a jury
rejected the government's appeal to sentence him to death.

<http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/08/D8HFQ4903.html>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 8
From: "Dick Eastman" olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 1:49pm(PDT)
Subject: Remember: Zacarias Moussaoui: says he lied on the stand -- now insis

Moussaoui Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea
May 08 3:54 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - Zacarias Moussaoui has said he lied on the stand about
being involved in Sept. 11, and he has asked to withdraw his guilty
plea.

The statement appears in a motion filed in federal court in Alexandria
by his attorneys.

Moussaoui last week was sentenced to life in prison, after a jury
rejected the government's appeal to sentence him to death.

<http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/08/D8HFQ4903.html>

==========

What convinced me that 9-11 was a false-flag non-Arab inside-job.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 9
From: "APFN" apfn@apfn.org
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 2:16pm(PDT)
Subject: [Fwd: Military General Appointed Head CIA]

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 5/2/2006

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 10
From: "ranger116@webtv.net" ranger116@webtv.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 3:29pm(PDT)
Subject: 23 New Presidential Helicopters 6.1 Billion $ Made In Italy ! ??+ +

23 New Presidential Helicopters 6.1 Billion $ Made In Italy ! ??+ + +

````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Bush down to 31% approval ! (;^))
Latest media poll

USATODAY.com
Address:http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/bushs_approval__1.html

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
How 911 Really Happened
Address:http://www.rense.com/general71/d333m.htm

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The President's New 6.1 "B"illion Dollar Helicopter !!

(But what is money when You can Print it and You are the King ?)
(Brings new meaning to the name Helicopter Bernicky of the Fed Reserve)

A new fleet of "23" helicopters with three 3,000 horse power engines
each and of Course Not Built in The U.S. but in Italy (Augusta aircraft
is in Italy)

Address:http://www.livescience.com/technology/060507_marine_one.html

Agusta
Address:http://www.agusta.com/
(well at least some Italians will have jobs)

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hawaii Legislature Takes Steps to End War
_http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00088.htm_
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00088.htm) Sunday, 9 April 2006,
10:49 pm

Article: David Swanson
Hawaii Legislature Takes Steps to End War
By _David Swanson_

(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00088.htm#a)

The Hawaii State Senate has passed a resolution "CALLING UPON THE
GOVERNOR OF

HAWAII TO TAKE STEPS TO WITHDRAW THE HAWAII ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL
GUARD TROOPS FROM IRAQ.
" The resolution is a thing of beauty, has been mailed to the Governor
and the President, and can be read at

_http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/SR128_.pdf_
(http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/SR128_.pdf) Both
houses of Hawaii's legislature are set to vote on a resolution
"REQUESTING THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE HAWAII NATIONAL GUARD TO
PROVIDE MEMBERS AND VETERANS OF THE ARMED FORCES HEALTH SCREENING FOR
DEPLETED URANIUM EXPOSURE AND TO REPORT ON THE SCOPE AND ADEQUACY OF
DEPLETED URANIUM STORAGE AND DISPOSAL IN HAWAII."

This resolution, too, seems like a good model for other states.
Here's the text:

_http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/SCR40_.pdf_
(http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/SCR40_.pdf)
Citizens of Hawaii who have promoted these steps include Karin Gill
and Marsha Joyner of CODE PINK, Ann Wright who retired from the
diplomatic service in protest the day the war began, Irradiated
Veterans, and Life of the Land.
__________________________________

The words and video of Pink's song about Bush
Address:http://www.am940southflorida.com/pages/pinkpresident.html

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 11
From: "ranger116@webtv.net" ranger116@webtv.net
Date: Mon May 8, 2006 3:33pm(PDT)
Subject: 23 New Presidential Helicopters 6.1 Billion $ Made In Italy ! ??+ +