flash Intro Movie
Down with murder inc Index
News by country
GOOGLE US DEFENSE
DOWN WITH MURDER INC.
Pentagon fingers in corporate pies...oh...& visa versa!
profile
Dov Zakheim resigned as Pentagon Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer at the beginning of March when it was revealed that the he is unable to account for the disappearance of a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000). It is unlikely that this will receive much coverage in the mainstream media.
A General Accounting Office report found Defence inventory systems so lax that the US army lost track of 56 aeroplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. - Al Jazeera
Now here's a new wrinkle for conspiracy theorists who believe that the hijacked planes were actually remotely controlled from the ground and that the hijackers were actually themselves turned into suicide mission patsies. Put this name into your system: Dov Zakheim
BACKGROUND1985 to 1987 he was deputy under secretary of defense for planning and resources, and held various other senior Pentagon posts in the Reagan administration. He was previously with the Congressional Budget Office. Zakheim is currently corporate vice president of the Systems Planning Corporation (SPC), a high-technology research, analysis, and manufacturing firm, and chief executive officer and president of SPC International, Inc. In 1998, Zakheim, an expert in ballistic missiles, worked in 1998 with Rumsfeld Commission. More significantly, he is a long-time Bush associate, having served as a policy advisor to the governor during the 2000 campaign. In May, 2001, Zakheim was sworn in to the Bush Administration as Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) of the DOD.
Here's the wrinkle: Zakheim's company produces advanced Command Transmitter Systems, designed to provide "remote control and flight termination functions through a fully redundant, self-contained solid state system." The unit is just 5 feet high and can be mounted easily on a mobile platform. Although designed to control unmanned flights such as Global hawk from remote positions on the ground, one British aviation engineer said after 9/11 that the planes used in the attacks were could have been equipped with, or suitable for, such remote control units.
Unknown news & Oil Empire
In an article from "Government Executive" magazine, Zakheim admitted, "...we are in the business of fighting wars." - Uri Dowbenko
This Zakheim linked company stands to make a hell of a lot of CASH from The war on terror- GO FIGURE!
click on pic above to see flight termination equipment details
Within the Predator ground control station, the pilot works a conventional control stick, throttle and rudder pedals. "That 1 G cockpit is parked on the ground with full connectivity to any information you might need," says Lt. Col. Eric Mathewson, UAV special mission chief at ACC Headquarters in Langley Air Force Base, Va. "Your situational awareness is oftentimes better than it would be in a manned aircraft."
Predator pilot and sensor operator stations have identical displays. Two stacked television screens show the view from the boresighted day television camera in the nose and the infrared/day television sensor in the gimbaled payload turret. Above the camera displays, a digital map with an aircraft symbol pinpoints the position of the UAV. Besides the pilot's-eye view on the video displays, two command and status screens present graphic flight data including airspeed, altitude, and angle of attack, and an artificial horizon. The Air Force is evaluating a head-up display.
[snip]
The Predator crew must plan missions before launch, and share information and resources while the vehicle is in flight. Enroute, the fixed and slewable cameras of the Predator enable the pilot to watch for weather and maintain situational awareness. In target areas, the operators rely on the L3 Wescam electro-optical payload and Northrop Grumman tactical endurance synthetic aperture radar. Below 500 feet in the landing pattern, the payload gimbal is locked in place to give the pilot a backup sensor, should the nose camera fail. - National defense magazine
MITRE is experimenting with the integration of advanced Internet technologies into the ISR sensor ground station.
The ISR Information Service (ISRIS) Mission Oriented Investigation and Experimentation (MOIE) will develop a prototype information portal that provides ISR sensor data and ground station service accessibility to the battlespace internets: the Intelinks, the Air Force Joint Battlespace Infosphere (JBI), the Navy Network Centric Warfare, and the Army First Digital Division.
In FY01, the project will demonstrate the ISRIS concept using the Global Hawk UAV platform. Global Hawk is an excellent platform for this pathfinding research since it has no established TPED support systems today, and it's multiple sensor data types Electro-Optic (EO), Infra-Red (IR), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) make it an especially rich information source. - site
Much More
WESCAM, a world leader in the design and manufacture of stabilized, multi-spectral airborne imaging systems, has joined the family of L-3 Communications to become L-3 WESCAM.
L-3 Communications continues to deliver the world's 'best technology' solutions to advance America's defense needs for the future.
Wescam's superior gyrostabilization, advanced EO/IR technology, and precision optics provide high-performance visual image intelligence from manned and unmanned aircraft, ships and other moving platforms. - profile
Remote sensing : receiving, processing, and archiving Earth observation data.A science that can be used to Spy and control.Using the same Global Satellite/Radar system that Global Hawk relies on
MITRE host Remote sensing meeting
Space systems - mostly on satellites - have made enormous contributions to regional and global geophysical surveys. This is because it is very difficult and costly to conduct ground and aerial surveys over large areas and then to coordinate the individual surveys by joining them together. To obtain coherent gravity and magnetic data sets on a world scale, operating from the global perspective afforded by orbiting satellites is the only reasonable alternate way to provide total coverage. - Remote sensing
What is Remote sensing?
Part of the The Global surveillance grid
P-Tech - Knowledge IS power
A software company called Ptech, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America?s Terrorist List in October 2001, had access to the FAAs entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack.
"P-tech worked on a project that revealed all information processes and issues that the FAA had with the National Airspace Systems Agency, NAS," Indira Singh said. - mad cow
The worst-case scenario is that this is a situation where this was planned for a very long time to establish a company in this country and in the computer software business that would target federal agencies and gain access to key government data to essentially help terrorists launch another attack. - global security
Operation Green Quest The 'Bungled' FBI case
corporatism: Corporate intell is state intell, there is no difference - because the nation State is a myth being run by private interests
Enterprise Information Portals
Business Intelligence. As many of the vendors who come to the market from a data warehousing background know, an EIP without business intelligence (BI) is of little use to an enterprise trying to turn their business information into competitive advantage. Traditional business intelligence involves those tools and technologies that perform data warehousing, data mining, online analytical processing (OLAP), etc. EIPs can bring these tools to appropriate individuals scattered throughout the enterprise in an integrated manner. - internet journal
Ptech's strategic alignment and traceability technology software and services give management unparalleled abilities to dynamically visualize, strategize and respond to changing opportunities or threats faster and better than any combination of competing products and services on the market today. Our mission-critical enterprise software enables organizations to continuously align their strategy to operations and empowers management to move rapidly and confidently to exploit market opportunities.
Ptech has been named as one of the 100 Companies that Matter by KM World in 2000 and 2001, and to the New England Fast 50 by Deloitte & Touche and Hale and Dorr, LLP in 2001. Ptech's customer base spans the globe across the communications, distribution, energy, financial services, and government market segments - Ptech
corporate portals/knowledge portals
Ptechs clients? : MITRE / FAA / DOE / ENRON / WHITEHOUSE / MILITARY / NATO
Indira Singh was working for JP Morgan Chase in Risk assesment and had found flags had been raised by the FBI with the PTech account
She was then called to the office of the General auditor.
“I took everything I had at that point back to my boss at JP Morgan Chase,” she states. “He didn’t want to deal with it. So I called his boss, because at this point I realized I was sitting on dynamite.”
“The various heads of the security functions at the bank set up an interview with me, and it quickly escalated to the bank’s General Auditor, who introduced himself to me as JP Morgan Chase’s ‘chief thug.’”
We didn’t know banks like JP Morgan had thugs, we said.
“He introduced himself as the General Auditor,” said Singh, “but he said, for the real purposes of what he does at JP Morgan Chase, I am the ‘chief thug.’”
“He basically told me to keep my mouth shut and look the other way, and enjoy a wonderful life here at JP Morgan, and if I didn’t I was out.” Daniel Hopsicker [read everything he has written]
Chase Manhattan Bank and J.P. Morgan & Co. readily joined the Nazis in plundering millions of dollars in Jewish assets during World War II, according to a federal lawsuit.
The class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York against the two companies and seven French banks accuses them of seizing accounts and safe deposit boxes from Jewish customers, then keeping the assets after the war. Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan became the first U.S. institutions to be named in the dozen lawsuits still pending on behalf of Holocaust victims who were exploited or who lost assets during the Nazi era.
Chase Manhattan ''collaborated with the German authorities and displayed an excessive zeal in its enforcement of anti-Jewish laws,'' the suit alleged. A similar attitude by J.P. Morgan earned it the reputation of an ''international Aryan organization,'' it adds. The suit does not seek specific damages. But it accuses all the banks of being involved in ''the systematic plunder'' of ''countless millions of dollars.'' A plaintiffs' attorney, Kenneth McCallion, said he hoped the banks would open their books, verify the losses and settle the claims out of court. Last week, Barclays Bank agreed to settle its part of the same class-action suit by paying $3.6 million to Jews whose assets were frozen. In a statement, Chase called the suit unnecessary. It said the bank is already working with Jewish leaders to investigate records and reimburse, with interest, any customers -- or their heirs -- who lost money. Fewer than 100 accounts are at issue, it added. - JP Morgans nazi links
Ptech’s KnowledgeGateway™ (PKG) offers a new level of simplicity in accessing information in Ptech’s celebrated FrameWork™ solution that is meaningful and in the right context to each user’s needs. Backed by the immediacy and added power of secure Web access, Ptech’s KnowledgeGateway helps organizations share information faster and make decisions based on the latest information - responding better to today’s dynamic business environment.
Competing today means harnessing the full assets of the organization at a moment’s notice. Ptech’s KnowledgeGateway acts as a front-end portal to all information contained within not only Ptech’s flagship FrameWork business process modeling and analysis software, but also other operational systems enabling expanded knowledge sharing across the enterprise. Ptech’s KnowledgeGateway empowers all decision-makers in the organization with the latest information at their fingertips. With sophisticated administration capabilities, including privileges for confidentiality and internal security, Ptech’s KnowledgeGateway lets everyone in the organization make productive use of information assets - from tacit knowledge to paper-based documents to electronic - without losing priceless intellectual capital. - KM Connection
Ptech cleared of any wrongdoing [suprise suprise]
Justice: Ptech no security risk
After the Dec. 6 search of software vendor Ptech Inc.'s headquarters, Justice Department officials said the government does not have any reason to believe any federal systems using the software have been compromised.
"The search was conducted in connection with an ongoing financial crime investigation," U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Michael Sullivan said in a statement. "Media characterizations of this as a terrorist investigation are premature."
Ptech denied that the search of its Quincy, Mass., offices constituted a raid, and said it was cooperating with the investigation. "The company categorically denies having any connection with a terrorist organization," a company release said.
Ptech pulled in about $3.3 million in revenue through the General Services Administration schedules, according to the GSA. Customers include Air Force, Energy Department, NATO, Naval Air Systems Command, FBI, Federal Aviation Administration and the House of Representatives.
Sullivan said because Ptech had provided software to federal agencies, "there have been questions raised concerning their products. All the products provided to the government were of a nonclassified nature. However, out of an abundance of caution, the affected government agencies, including the FBI, conducted a review of their computer systems." source
Who is Micheal J Sullivan
Michael J. Sullivan was appointed in September of 2001 by President George W. Bush as the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts directing offices in Boston, Worcester and Springfield comprising approximately 200 attorneys and support staff. During his first year as the U.S. Attorney and under an Executive Order from President Bush, Sullivan has formed the Anti-Terrorism Task Force to combat and prevent future terrorist attacks. In addition to combating terrorism, Sullivan has created a unit devoted to computer hacking/high technology crimes which include identity theft, internet auction and credit card fraud, economic espionage, copyright and trademark violations.
He also practiced law in the private sector as a law partner with McGovern & Sullivan - source
Track record of Michael Sullivan
Death Penalty
The Shoe Bomber
Guantanamo translators
The White House has given Ptech Inc.'s software a clean bill of health, and most of its customers and strategic business partners remain committed to its technology. But the company, investigated for having an al-Qaeda connection, has still become a casualty of the war on terrorism.
In an exclusive series of interviews with Computerworld, Ptech CEO Oussama Ziade and several former employees said the government's investigation of a former investor who is alleged to have ties to terrorism has dealt a nearly fatal blow to the Quincy, Mass., software company (see story). And they fear that the same thing could happen to other companies.
Ptech's crisis stems from a Dec. 5 consensual search by federal agents, which was broadly characterized by the media as an early-morning "raid" (see story). The search was part of an investigation of the company's relationship with Yassin al-Qadi, a wealthy Saudi businessman and one of two "angel" investors who helped get Ptech on its feet in 1994. Al-Qadi, who was never a shareholder of record in Ptech and who later twice turned down Ptech requests for additional funding, is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to have financial ties to international terrorism.
[snip]
IBM Global Services, which counts Ptech among its strategic business partners. Although Ziade said IBM initially tried to distance itself from what looked like a major scandal in the making, Jeff Gluck, a spokesman for IBM, said the relationship between the two companies is "unchanged." computerworld
Business intelligence useful for Put options? Bribery? Laundering?
Warren Buffet
Partners in crime?
Walter Scott, JrOwns company known as L3
Carl Hammond, 37, was a passenger on board the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He also was a physicist for Mitre Corporation, a company that peddles Global Hawk (remote piloting) technology. The strongest case has been made that Global Hawk was employed in electronically hijacking the planes in question regarding September 11. Warren Buffet heads Mitre Corp. as well as Berkshire-Hathaway, another CIA front for the sale of remotely controlled pseudo-terrorism.
As well, Mitre Corp. has been working with Lincoln Laboratories (at the Massachusettes Institute of Technology - MIT) on many pursuits deemed necessary to the accomplishment of the human-machine interface. Recently, NASA's Ames Research Center web site reported, scientists were able to land a Boeing 757 by nerve impulses alone - by thinking about it.
Mitre Corp. also makes Biz Jets, which CEO's all over the world are buying up as the latest fad. Of course, this means that Warren Buffet, consumate money launderer and second in wealth in the US only to Mr. William Gates, the very man that may have been at the heart of the play calling on September 11 (he was at least playing along), makes the machines the powerful fly in. Fear of death always works, doesn't it?
During his career, Carl Hammond worked at MIT, the institute mentioned above that is seeking total cyborg awareness. Carl Hammond ALSO worked on Global Hawk technologies, it is safe to presume, when he worked at Georgia Tech, home to DARPA's UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) program.
The NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) demonstrated its new satellite capabilities (NRO payload launched into space on September 8, 2001) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA - "the eyes of America") gained a new director one month prior to that fateful day. Considering all of this, one gets a pretty clear picture of where all those 'Star Wars' dollars went. James R. Clapper is the man named to head NIMA and he comes from Booz, Allen, & Hamilton which is a client for Blessed Relief, the charity said to be a front for Osama Bin Laden. Booz, Allen, & Hamilton also works closely with DARPA. DARPA is, of course, closely aligned with John Poindexter, head of Total Information Awareness and the guy that called the shots in Iran-Contra. memes.org
Much More
click button above - [info]
Known as "the Oracle of Omaha," Buffett is Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and arguably the greatest investor of all time.
His wealth fluctuates with the performance of the market, but for the last few years he has been reported to be worth over $30 billion, making him the second richest man in the world. profile
WELCOME TO THE CLUB...OMAHA BASED PEDOPHILE RING USED AS BRIBERY?
President Bush has greeted Father Val Peter at the White House to promote his 'faith-based initiative', the idea embodied by the sex pervert, Father Ritter. Val Peter, as head of Boystown and head of its Board of Directors facilitated Larry King's access to its finances and his children. He did this with the help of Wall street billionaire, Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway is based in Omaha.
see abuse
Buffett was also good friends with Larry King- hosting a party to celebrate his 10th wedding anniversary. Another good friend of Buffett recently appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine.
You should read this July 2002 issue and try to grasp how the political forces promoting a pedophile agenda are the very same who launched the high tech company of L-3 Communications which built the computer communications system for GLOBAL HAWK, the remote control technology that more and more people believe was responsible for directing the 911 attack.
The man on the Fortune cover, Walter Scott, Jr., was, until recently, a longtime member of the Creighton University Board of Directors. Did he know Dr. Cassem or his family?
OFFUTT AFB
Creighton University also has a working relationship with the nearby Offutt Air Force Base only 15 miles from Omaha. Paul Bonacci has testified that he was abused at Offutt AFB where the satanist Lt Col Michael Aquino has been accused by others of carrying out brutal torture and mind control experiments.
Why wasn't Mr. Bonacci invited to the White House to talk about missing and exploited children? It may be the greatest of ironies that President Bush was flown to Offutt AFB for safe keeping on 911. That is our SAC command center. I do not imagine that Paul woul feel safe there or at the White House. - exposing the pedophile rings...alchemike
[alchamike, again]
Top investors whisked off to Offutt Air Force Base on 9/11
Info
Offutt's host unit is the 55th Wing, the largest wing within the Air Force's Air Combat Command. Additionally, the base is home to many significant associate units, including US Strategic Command Headquarters, the Air Force Weather Agency, the Omaha operating location of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and many others.
A number (it hasn't been reported exactly how many but it was called 'a small group of business leaders') of CEO's from New York, including at least one from the WTC, were attending a breakfast meeting at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska on the morning of September 11, guests of Warren Buffett (isn't he the same guy who has guaranteed that the United States will suffer a nuclear attack by terrorists?).
Offutt Air Force Base is the base that Bush flew to on September 11, supposedly because it is the headquarters of the E-4B, the aircraft which is the "command, control and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities".
He wanted to be on the scene in person, particularly as there was fear that the terrorists were in possession of the secret codes by which they could electronically impersonate Bush in giving military commands (interesting how we have heard nothing more of that story).
So how much of a coincidence is it that this meeting with Warren Buffett was at the same air force base that Bush flew to (apparently Bush intended to fly directly to Offutt, but had to stop for refuelling in Louisiana)? Is it possible that Buffett's invitation to a bunch of 'important' New York City executives for a breakfast meeting at an air force base in Nebraska (just think about how weird that is!) was an attempt to save the lives of the invitees? - memes.org
- Larry King - Bush Sr - Clinton - Iran Contra - Business as usual...
Craig J Spence and Larry E King
Spence was an important Republican lobbyist, who feared that, because he knew something very dark, implicating the very most powerful man in America, George H. W. Bush, that he would be killed by the CIA at his murder would be made to look like a suicide. He was later found dead in a hotel room - the CIA connected coroner declared the bizarre death -suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual sex ring. Democrats were also involved in this as well, so don't expect them to expose the sex ring. - The Franklin cover up
Larry King is now serving a 15-year federal prison sentence for defrauding the Omaha-based credit union. But the magazines Avvenimenti of Italy and Pronto of Spain, among others, have charged that King's crimes were more serious: that he ran a national child prostitution ring that serviced the political and business elite of both Republican and Democratic parties. Child victims of King's operations charged him with participation in at least one satanic ritual murder of a child several years ago. The Washington Post, New York Times, Village Voice and National Law Journal covered the full range of accusations after the story broke in November of 1988. King's money machinations were also linked to the Iran-Contra affair, [see the venice flying circus below] and some say that King provided the CIA with information garnered from his alleged activities as a ``pimp'' for the high and mighty. - George Bush - the unauthorized biography
more
Clinton's involvement in the drug and arms running goes even further than a mere cover-up of the deplorable activities that went on, and are still going on, at the airport in Mena. A federal mail fraud case against an Arkansas pilot-trainer who participated in illegal arms exports to Central Americarelied on a key Clinton staffer as a chief witness.
The case was dismissedfor lack of evidence when the CIA refused to allow the discussion of top secret information about the arms transfers.
Terry Reed, a former employee of the CIA's Air America operation in Laos during the Indochina war, claims to have been recruited as a pilot trainer into the Iran operation by Oliver North. In an article written by David Gallis and published last year by Covert Action Information Bulletin, Reed said that in 1983 he had agreed to supply North's operatives with "certain items." - Clinton linked
Starr investigation targets law-enforcement complicity
Name-base result for the Franklin cover-up
I think he knows he's in deep doo doo!
Bush didn't want an enquiry...WHY?
"President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.
Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional intelligence committees." - CBS
Bush, Cheney eventually 'meet ' with 9/11 panel what they say is SECRET...WHY?
Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.
The two members of the White House counsel's staff were expected to take notes during the session, and the commission members were also allowed to take handwritten notes.
Bush brushed off a question from a reporter Thursday on whether 9/11 families were entitled to a transcript of the session.
"You asked me that question yesterday," Bush replied. "I got the same answer." - CNN Rumsfelds 911 Public Testimony
Rumsfeld admits shootdown orders never reached pilots...
GORELICK: May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? We can't go into the content of the PDDs and the SEIBs here. And I can't even characterize them in order to ask you the next question that I would ask. So let me ask you this: Was it your understanding that the NORAD pilots who were circling over Washington D.C. that morning had indeed received a shoot-down order?
RUMSFELD: When I arrived in the command center, one of the first things I heard, and I was with you, was that the order had been given and that the pilots -- correction, not the pilots necessarily, but the command had been given the instructions that their pilots could, in fact, use their weapons to shoot down a commercial airliners filled with our people in the event that the aircraft appeared to be behaving in a threatening way and an unresponsive way.
GORELICK: Now, you make a distinction there between the command and the pilots. Was it your understanding that the pilots had received that order?
RUMSFELD: I'm trying to get in time because...
MYERS: Well, I think -- my understanding, I've talked to General Eberhart, commander now of NORAD, and I think he's briefed the staff. And I think what he told the staff, what he told me, as I recall, was that the pilots did -- at the appropriate point when the authority to engage civilian airliners was given, that the pilots knew that fairly quickly. I mean, it went down through the chain of command.
RUMSFELD: It was on a threat conference call that it was given, and everybody heard it simultaneously. The question then would be -- the reason I am hesitant is because we went through two or three iterations of the rules of engagement. And in the end, we ended up delegating that authority to, at the lowest level, I believe, to two stars.
[General] MYERS: Right... -AFPN
A Former FBI Translater knows why the Bush Junta won't tell the truth...
"A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened. She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
FBI translator says she was bribed not to spill beans on 9-11 cover-up
INN World Report
Memo warned of attack inside U.S.
searchSibel Edmonds
Edmonds is the translator hired by the FBI after 9-11 to help its woefully inadequate staff translate documents and wiretaps pertaining to the attacks in languages such as Farsi and Turkish. As she has told the Voice in past and recent interviews, she was given a top secret security clearance. She soon discovered that there were what she describes as two enemy moles with possible connections to 9-11 working both in the FBI and with the Air Force in weapons procurement for Central Asia, at one point. These were the Dickersons: Douglas with the Air Force and his Turkish-born wife, Melek Can Dickerson, with the FBI as a translator monitor. After they were subpoenaed for a court hearing, they left for Belgium in September 2002 and have not been heard from since.
Among other things Edmonds told her FBI superiors, she had discovered that Melek Can Dickerson affixed Edmonds's name to a printout of inaccurate translations. Properly translated, she says, these wiretaps revealed a Turkish intelligence operative in communication with his spies in both the Pentagon and the State Department. village voice
2 interviews
BRADLEY: (Voiceover) ...she'd had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation. According to Sibel Edmonds, Jan Dickerson tried to recruit her into that organization, and insisted that Dickerson be the only one to translate the FBI's wiretaps of that Turkish official.
What was her reaction when you didn't go along with--with her plan?
Ms. EDMONDS: She got very angry, and later she threatened me and my family's life.
BRADLEY: Threatened you?
Ms. EDMONDS: Correct.
BRADLEY: Did--did you take her threat seriously?
Ms. EDMONDS: Oh, yes. She said, Why would you want to place your life and your family's life in danger translating these tapes?'
LOST IN TRANSLATION - interview for 60 minutes from October 27. 2002
"This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify.
"I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like,
in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities?
And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country?
He couldn't say no," she insists.""We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001" interview -Salon- March 26, 2004
SIBEL EDMONDS V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Case thrown out before evidence is heard!
Edmonds said the judge dismissed her lawsuit without hearing evidence from her lawyers, although the government's lawyers met with Walton at least twice privately. She noted that Walton, the judge, was appointed by President Bush.
"This shows how the separation of power has basically disappeared," Edmonds said in a telephone interview. "The judge ruled on this case without actually this ever being a case."
In his decision, Walton acknowledged that dismissing a lawsuit before the facts of the case can be heard is "Draconian" and said he was throwing out the lawsuit "with great consternation."
"Mindful of the need for virtual unfettered access to the judicial process in a governmental system integrally linked to the rule of law, the court nonetheless concludes that the government has properly invoked the state secrets privilege," Walton ruled.FAUX news
Why Was Sibel Edmonds Gagged?
Rudi Dekkers-Huffman Aviation School-Wallace Hilliard-Mohammad Atta-Mossaoui-Richard Perle-Adnan Kashoggi-Iran Contra-Alvin Malnick-The Mafia-Jeb Bush-GW Bushfraud
"There are certain points... where you have your drug related activities combined with money laundering and information laundering, converging with your terrorist activities."
"The 9/11 terror plot intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a "crystal clear" picture of what was going on."
"The real activities taking place behind the scenes are criminal… Everything from drugs to money laundering to arms sales. And yes, there are certain convergences (between) these activities and international terrorism.
"After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ' protecting certain foreign business relations." -
Sibel Edmonds Former FBI translator
The flight school drug connection
...the Venice Flying School in Florida at which the 9-11 hijackers were trained appears to have been used as a US 'terrorist' training school). Evidence is now emerging that it was also used as a drug smuggling centre to which DEA and FBI turned a blind eye.
A Learjet belonging to Huffman Aviation owner Wallace J. Hilliard, confiscated with 45 pounds of heroin onboard on 25 July 2000 at Orlando Executive Airport, was procured by Hilliard from the same source which, two decades earlier, provided the Learjet used by infamous drug smuggler and CIA agent Barry Seal.
Hilliard got his Learjet from World Jet Inc owned by the notorious drug smuggling Whittington brothers of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who in their heyday in the early 1980s commanded fleets of fishing trawlers, sailboats, power boats, and jets. After being indicted for smuggling and tax evasion, their prized Learjet had gone to a man soon to become the biggest drug smuggler in American history, Barry Seal.
The plane had made approximately 30 trips in 9 months to South America. Each run was paid for in hard cash.
source
"Top Ten Things You Never Knew About Mohamed Atta."
Daniel Hopsicker [read everything here...]
Wallace Hilliard secret Owner of Huffman Aviation, Ties with Jerry Falwell/National Religious Broadcasters
newsmine
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." Horrifying words from Falwell
Missing Hardware? - Hey! it happens all the time...!
Though the US Defence Department has long been notorious for waste, recent government reports suggest the Pentagon's money management woes have reached astronomical proportions.
A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent.
A General Accounting Office report found Defence inventory systems so lax that the US army lost track of 56 aeroplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. -Al Jazeera
When we first reported that 23 helicopters had been stolen in Charlotte County it had seemed an aviation crime. Even though we've since become, it still isn't normal. And its definitely not normal to steal 23 helicopters from just one owner: The Sheriff's Department.
Wags at the Airport insisted that the 23 missing helicopters hadn't been stolen, exactly... They'd just been released on their own recognizance. - Daniel Hopsicker
Partial List of Corrupt Activities Implicating Key Government Personnel
Widespread culture of misconduct, starting with the Federal Aviation Administration, that made possible the September 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings, prior fatal hijackings, and prior airline crashes. Repeated coverups by every government check and balance and many non-government check and balance insured the continuation of misconduct, the continuation of the tragedies, and the continuation of misconduct subverting the security of the United States. Corruption within the political offices of the NTSB closely linked to corruption within the FAA.
Years of drug smuggling by the Central Intelligence Agency, later joined by the National Security Council, the U.S. military, and portions of other government agencies. These criminal and even subversive matters were accompanied by coverups from every government check and balance, including the FBI and other Justice Department divisions, members of Congress, and even federal judges (and Supreme Court justices). These are major crimes under federal criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4.
Bankruptcy court corruption that destroys people's assets and inflicts grave personal problem upon innocent people. This corruption involves federal judges, judge-appointed trustees, attorneys and law firms, and the Justice Department's trustee. Chapter 11 cases that have large equities and are not "bankrupt" are targeted, statutory and constitutional protections openly violated, and people corruptly stripped of their assets.
CIA involvement in crimes against America, including drug smuggling, looting the savings and loans and HUD, October Surprise, Iran Contra, and much more.
FBI agents involved in murders. FBI agents provided names of citizens, who were providing information on criminal activities, to organized crime figures, knowing that the government informants would be killed, and were killed, over a period of many years. These activities occurred with the knowledge of FBI Direct J. Edgar Hoover and other Washington officials. The most prominent of these deadly FBI activities were in the Boston and New York FBI offices.
CIA funding of secret bank accounts for several well-known U.S. leaders.
CIA involvement in looting the savings and loans and other financial frauds, as detailed by CIA insiders.
U.S. politicians funding Iraq's military buildup prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. - Defrauding America
Captain WardrobesDown with Murder inc.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Guest Blog: Health Careless
Comment: taken from http://bluegrassroots.blogspot.com
Sunday, October 24
Guest Blog: Health Careless
This from a law school friend of mine:Until this year, I was a registered Republican. Finally, in August, I changed my registration. I am now a Democrat. Looking back on the past four years, convincing me to change my voter registration is the best thing George Bush has done for me and my family since he was elected. I became pregnant with my 7 month old daughter in June of 2003. Both my husband and I were in school at the time; I was entering my second year of law school and he was entering his last year of college. I, like 45 million other Americans, was uninsured. I was uninsured because, despite the fact that I came into law school with a scholarship that was to pay about 2/3 of my tuition annually when I received it, law school tuition has gone up from around $6800 in my first year to $10252 in my final year, in large part due to education cuts from the state and national level. I was uninsured because my husband’s Pell Grants had been cut in each of the four years he was enrolled in school, even as our cost of living was growing. I was uninsured because we could not afford to pay the premiums for student health insurance, and because insurance providers are only concerned with their bottom line, as private companies, no one would insure me with a “pre-existing condition.” (Note: this is not a criticism of private corporations generally but a mere aside; their concern with their bottom line is understandable since they are in business to make money. But isn’t it alarming to people that we put our very health care into the hands of private corporations? Isn’t it disturbing that companies whose goal is to make money are making decisions about what medical procedures you and your family will or won’t be allowed to have? Private for-profit health insurance companies spend between 20 and 30 % of premiums on profits and administration; the federal Medicare system spends only 3% on administration.)As soon as I found out I was pregnant, I stupidly tried to get student health insurance anyway. I knew I could not afford the cost of prenatal care, let alone the expense of having a baby. But I still wanted to be responsible—I wanted to be able to do what I thought was right, and contribute something to my health care, even if it was just in the form of insurance premiums. I was of course denied. I needed help—my first of many prenatal visits cost nearly $700. Although I was resistant to the idea, I knew my only option was to apply for Medicaid. As a pregnant student, I easily qualified and all my prenatal and delivery costs were covered. I appreciated the irony every month when my medical card came in the mail, emblazoned on the outside with the words “Education Pays in Kentucky.” I couldn’t help but think that education did not, in fact, pay in my life at that time; had I not been a student, in a graduate program whose tuition has increased by over $2000 per year in the past two years, I would have been able to afford private health insurance. I would have been able to hand the receptionist an insurance card instead of a Medicaid card at my doctor’s appointments, and not have felt as though I were being judged every time I had an appointment, by someone who knew nothing about me or my situation. Many people have such a negative impression of Medicaid recipients, believing anyone who benefits from public programs like WIC, Medicaid, or food stamps is lazy and unemployed. For 1 year, I was a Medicaid recipient and was none of those things; I worked when I could, and stayed in school throughout my pregnancy. Medicaid recipients are no longer on the fringes: they are our friends, neighbors, and family members. They are graduate students and the working poor. I was one of 45 million Americans—17% of the total population—who were unable to get health insurance because of the broken health care system that exists in our country today. This number is up from just 15 million uninsured Americans in 1999. You may be thinking, “of course the health care system is broken. Tort reforms are needed in order to decrease the costs of health care for all Americans.” This is simply not true. The traditionally proposed tort reforms which cap a plaintiff’s punitive damages have been proven ineffective in many states where they have been enacted. Because most physicians have an upper limit on their malpractice liability insurance coverage for punitive damages, such reforms would be largely ineffective in many states for physicians. Further, try telling a mother who has just lost her baby due to medical negligence that her recovery is limited to $250,000 or some other arbitrarily created amount. It is the availability of punitive damages claims that protect the indigent from unaccountable practices and provide the only recourse for many individuals from negligent medical action. If tort reforms are to be enacted, they must be of the type supported by John Kerry—cutting off frivolous lawsuits before they get to the courtroom. Limiting a truly damaged plaintiff’s right to recover does not solve the problem of high malpractice premiums—it merely takes away one of a patient’s few remedies against malpractice. It is possible to emerge from this broken health care system with a plan that protects all Americans—old or young, poor or wealthy, whatever their race or personal situation—a system of universal health care (UHC). Now of course, many oppose such a plan because they “know someone who lives in Canada, where health care is terrible.” I have experienced a UHC system—namely, the health care provided to military members and their spouses. I have not experienced any major problems in scheduling appointments or in the quality of care provided. The 2002 Kaiser Report on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that the federal government spent about $146 billion on Medicaid that year, and states kicked in an additional $100 billion. The Government Accounting Office estimates that switching to a single-payer UHC system would save about $67 million almost immediately in administrative insurance overhead costs; a Harvard University study estimated that UHC could save $286 billion per year on a reduction in paperwork alone in a UHC system—enough to provide health care and full prescription drug coverage to all Americans. The cost of providing health insurance to all Americans—the previously insured and the newly insured—is estimated by the GAO to be $64 billion annually. Furthermore, the U.S. spends 40% more per capita on health care than any of the 28 industrialized nations which have a UHC system in place. Thus, the federal government in conjunction with the states could provide UHC to ALL AMERICANS for less than the cost of providing Medicare and Medicaid to current recipients. If the inability of the poor to obtain health insurance is not incentive enough to provide UHC for all Americans, consider this: my baby daughter was born with a congenital heart defect. A heart defect that was classified by insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and whose care could not be covered by a private insurance company for a year or more after my baby’s birth. That a baby can be born with a pre-existing condition is utterly ridiculous. Were we not covered under the military’s UHC system, Tricare, we would have had to pay for my daughter’s health care for this defect for at least a year under most private insurance schemes. This includes expensive procedures like chest x-rays, EKGs, and Echocardiograms. It includes visits to a pediatric cardiologist and more detailed exams at her routine checkups. Thankfully, the defect is easily treatable with surgery which will take place several years from now, but what about other children who are born with more serious pre-existing conditions? What could be more devastating to a working poor family with a sick child, trying to get by and get off Medicaid, than to be told that when you do finally succeed your child’s medical bills won’t be paid for? What is the incentive to try under our current scheme? The cost to the average American would not increase under a single-payer UHC plan, either. Anyone who is responsible for paying his own health insurance premiums and co-pays knows that these costs have spiraled out of control in the past few years—particularly in our home state. Kentucky state employees pay an average premium of $541 per month for health care—that’s about $6500 per year. These premiums are the highest in the nation and do not include co-payments and deductibles. For many state employees—including hard-working teachers who went to college for four or more years, whose wages do not reflect the effort they put into their jobs--$6500 per year is devastating. This is surely not the best our government can do by its families. This is surely not what the Commonwealth means when it claims on Medicaid cards that, in Kentucky, “Education Pays.”
Sunday, October 24
Guest Blog: Health Careless
This from a law school friend of mine:Until this year, I was a registered Republican. Finally, in August, I changed my registration. I am now a Democrat. Looking back on the past four years, convincing me to change my voter registration is the best thing George Bush has done for me and my family since he was elected. I became pregnant with my 7 month old daughter in June of 2003. Both my husband and I were in school at the time; I was entering my second year of law school and he was entering his last year of college. I, like 45 million other Americans, was uninsured. I was uninsured because, despite the fact that I came into law school with a scholarship that was to pay about 2/3 of my tuition annually when I received it, law school tuition has gone up from around $6800 in my first year to $10252 in my final year, in large part due to education cuts from the state and national level. I was uninsured because my husband’s Pell Grants had been cut in each of the four years he was enrolled in school, even as our cost of living was growing. I was uninsured because we could not afford to pay the premiums for student health insurance, and because insurance providers are only concerned with their bottom line, as private companies, no one would insure me with a “pre-existing condition.” (Note: this is not a criticism of private corporations generally but a mere aside; their concern with their bottom line is understandable since they are in business to make money. But isn’t it alarming to people that we put our very health care into the hands of private corporations? Isn’t it disturbing that companies whose goal is to make money are making decisions about what medical procedures you and your family will or won’t be allowed to have? Private for-profit health insurance companies spend between 20 and 30 % of premiums on profits and administration; the federal Medicare system spends only 3% on administration.)As soon as I found out I was pregnant, I stupidly tried to get student health insurance anyway. I knew I could not afford the cost of prenatal care, let alone the expense of having a baby. But I still wanted to be responsible—I wanted to be able to do what I thought was right, and contribute something to my health care, even if it was just in the form of insurance premiums. I was of course denied. I needed help—my first of many prenatal visits cost nearly $700. Although I was resistant to the idea, I knew my only option was to apply for Medicaid. As a pregnant student, I easily qualified and all my prenatal and delivery costs were covered. I appreciated the irony every month when my medical card came in the mail, emblazoned on the outside with the words “Education Pays in Kentucky.” I couldn’t help but think that education did not, in fact, pay in my life at that time; had I not been a student, in a graduate program whose tuition has increased by over $2000 per year in the past two years, I would have been able to afford private health insurance. I would have been able to hand the receptionist an insurance card instead of a Medicaid card at my doctor’s appointments, and not have felt as though I were being judged every time I had an appointment, by someone who knew nothing about me or my situation. Many people have such a negative impression of Medicaid recipients, believing anyone who benefits from public programs like WIC, Medicaid, or food stamps is lazy and unemployed. For 1 year, I was a Medicaid recipient and was none of those things; I worked when I could, and stayed in school throughout my pregnancy. Medicaid recipients are no longer on the fringes: they are our friends, neighbors, and family members. They are graduate students and the working poor. I was one of 45 million Americans—17% of the total population—who were unable to get health insurance because of the broken health care system that exists in our country today. This number is up from just 15 million uninsured Americans in 1999. You may be thinking, “of course the health care system is broken. Tort reforms are needed in order to decrease the costs of health care for all Americans.” This is simply not true. The traditionally proposed tort reforms which cap a plaintiff’s punitive damages have been proven ineffective in many states where they have been enacted. Because most physicians have an upper limit on their malpractice liability insurance coverage for punitive damages, such reforms would be largely ineffective in many states for physicians. Further, try telling a mother who has just lost her baby due to medical negligence that her recovery is limited to $250,000 or some other arbitrarily created amount. It is the availability of punitive damages claims that protect the indigent from unaccountable practices and provide the only recourse for many individuals from negligent medical action. If tort reforms are to be enacted, they must be of the type supported by John Kerry—cutting off frivolous lawsuits before they get to the courtroom. Limiting a truly damaged plaintiff’s right to recover does not solve the problem of high malpractice premiums—it merely takes away one of a patient’s few remedies against malpractice. It is possible to emerge from this broken health care system with a plan that protects all Americans—old or young, poor or wealthy, whatever their race or personal situation—a system of universal health care (UHC). Now of course, many oppose such a plan because they “know someone who lives in Canada, where health care is terrible.” I have experienced a UHC system—namely, the health care provided to military members and their spouses. I have not experienced any major problems in scheduling appointments or in the quality of care provided. The 2002 Kaiser Report on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that the federal government spent about $146 billion on Medicaid that year, and states kicked in an additional $100 billion. The Government Accounting Office estimates that switching to a single-payer UHC system would save about $67 million almost immediately in administrative insurance overhead costs; a Harvard University study estimated that UHC could save $286 billion per year on a reduction in paperwork alone in a UHC system—enough to provide health care and full prescription drug coverage to all Americans. The cost of providing health insurance to all Americans—the previously insured and the newly insured—is estimated by the GAO to be $64 billion annually. Furthermore, the U.S. spends 40% more per capita on health care than any of the 28 industrialized nations which have a UHC system in place. Thus, the federal government in conjunction with the states could provide UHC to ALL AMERICANS for less than the cost of providing Medicare and Medicaid to current recipients. If the inability of the poor to obtain health insurance is not incentive enough to provide UHC for all Americans, consider this: my baby daughter was born with a congenital heart defect. A heart defect that was classified by insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and whose care could not be covered by a private insurance company for a year or more after my baby’s birth. That a baby can be born with a pre-existing condition is utterly ridiculous. Were we not covered under the military’s UHC system, Tricare, we would have had to pay for my daughter’s health care for this defect for at least a year under most private insurance schemes. This includes expensive procedures like chest x-rays, EKGs, and Echocardiograms. It includes visits to a pediatric cardiologist and more detailed exams at her routine checkups. Thankfully, the defect is easily treatable with surgery which will take place several years from now, but what about other children who are born with more serious pre-existing conditions? What could be more devastating to a working poor family with a sick child, trying to get by and get off Medicaid, than to be told that when you do finally succeed your child’s medical bills won’t be paid for? What is the incentive to try under our current scheme? The cost to the average American would not increase under a single-payer UHC plan, either. Anyone who is responsible for paying his own health insurance premiums and co-pays knows that these costs have spiraled out of control in the past few years—particularly in our home state. Kentucky state employees pay an average premium of $541 per month for health care—that’s about $6500 per year. These premiums are the highest in the nation and do not include co-payments and deductibles. For many state employees—including hard-working teachers who went to college for four or more years, whose wages do not reflect the effort they put into their jobs--$6500 per year is devastating. This is surely not the best our government can do by its families. This is surely not what the Commonwealth means when it claims on Medicaid cards that, in Kentucky, “Education Pays.”
What happened to the money
What happened to the f***ing money
Bob Geldof meant well when he launched Band Aid 20 years ago, says Daniel Wolf; whether he did well for the starving is another matterDaniel Wolf A pale, intense young man with a soft Irish accent and a mane of dark hair is banging the glass table: ‘Don’t go to the pub tonight,’ he says, ‘there are people dying now. So please, stay in and give me the f***ing money.’
‘Do you want cash, cheque or casino poker chips?’It is one of the indelible television moments. On that day — 13 July 1985 — Bob Geldof laced together rock music, live television and the extremes of human misery into a single, potent brew, inventing a new way, not just of giving, but of feeling. Live Aid initiated a global culture of direct emotional response to suffering, and a global demand for direct action to make the suffering stop. It was a great achievement. Unfortunately, the Geldof approach to humanitarian emergencies can also be a liability: it favours action in place of careful thought, gestures instead of an engagement with complex realities. We are riding into the valley of anniversaries: next month, it will be 20 years since Geldof and Midge Ure set the ball rolling by founding Band Aid. Once again we will celebrate our remarkable generosity, once again we will hear that we ‘saved’ Ethiopia and ‘fed the world’. Earlier this month, on BBC Radio 5, Geldof laid down a preliminary barrage, saying that, in Ethiopia in 1984, ‘30 million people were about to die ...’. It is an absurd statement: the suggestion that everyone in a huge region would have died, had it not been for the emergency aid, ignores virtually everything we know about both famines and aid. Yet, in the face of a Geldof campaign, it seems feeble to mention the facts. Why think about how to help when the only question on offer is whether? Geldof narrows the debate to one of compassion machismo: do you have the cojones to give? He promotes impatience as the greatest virtue, as typified by his recent comment, while touring Africa with Tony Blair, that a European commissioner was ‘talking through his arse’. This is the sort of simplistic shtick that plays well in our media-saturated world, yet in a number of African crises, ill-conceived emergency aid has proved of questionable value. And the event that made Geldof’s reputation is a classic illustration of this awkward, unsettling truth. When Michael Buerk’s first report on the Ethiopian famine was transmitted on BBC News on 23 October 1984, the idea immediately took hold that this was a natural disaster — ‘a biblical famine’, in Buerk’s words — which would be alleviated by massive food aid. There was a severe drought in the region, but the creation of famine was a military tactic of the Dergue government of Colonel Haile Mariam Mengistu. For journalists like Buerk and activists like Geldof, the wars in Ethiopia were an inconvenience which were complicating relief efforts. Yet the wars were the principal cause of the tragedy. When I spoke to Michael Buerk in the late 1990s, he still held the view that the wars had ‘complicated matters’, but he did agree that self-censorship had played a role in his own and others’ reportage at the time: ‘You’ve got ... to make the decision, is this side story of any real significance? And also, at the back of your mind, is: if I overemphasise a negative angle to this, I am going to be responsible for ...inhibiting people from coughing up their money.’ In the time of Band Aid, ‘negative angles’ were out. It would have been negative, although true, to have emphasised that Mengistu was one of the most vicious African dictators of the previous quarter century, that he was fighting three wars at the time (two in the north, in Tigray and Eritrea, and one in the Oromo lands of the south), and that his troops were committing atrocities in the region where the famine was unfolding. It would have been distinctly negative to have reported that the dictator was using food as a weapon of war — bombing crops and markets while setting up roadblocks to prevent the movement of food. The methods used by Mengistu’s armies were bound to create famine, and they did. Journalists and aid workers were not the only ones wary of confusing viewers at home with ‘negative angles’. While it was Band Aid and, later, Live Aid that caught the imagination of the world, they funded only a small proportion of the aid effort: 90 per cent or more of the aid came from Western donor governments. As the governments would only deal with a recipient government, not with rebel movements, most of the aid — again, roughly 90 per cent — was channelled through Mengistu’s hands. In a grotesque irony, we found ourselves supporting the very government that was causing the famine we were supposed to be alleviating. This was certainly a ‘negative angle’, and therefore, unsurprisingly, it received hardly any attention at all. Geldof was the front man, and he has played his part to perfection, then and ever since. This is not to impugn his motives: Geldof is undeniably charming and sincere, but that does not mean that what he says is holy writ. He told the international media that agencies had to trust the representatives of the Mengistu government, thus seeming to deny, by implication, that the aid operation was being used by that same government. Yet the places where the aid was distributed, and the conditions under which it was distributed, were determined by Mengistu. There is something remarkably patronising in the assumption that an African dictator — as ruthless and cunning as they come, a survivor among survivors — might fail to see an opportunity when it was staring him in the face. As it turned out, Mengistu knew a hawk from a handsaw. In 1984–85, up to a billion dollars’ worth of aid flowed into Ethiopia. Thousands of Western aid workers and journalists flew in with it. The regime ensured that the visitors converted their Western dollars to the local currency at a rate favourable to the government: in 1985 the Dergue tripled its foreign currency reserves. It used this influx of cash to help build up its war-machine, it commandeered aid vehicles for its own purposes and, by diverting aid supplies, helped feed its armies. The UN in Addis Ababa, which was co-ordinating the aid operation, denied that the level of diversion was significant. Later on, it became clear that a significant proportion of the relief food in Tigray — the epicentre of the famine — was consigned to the militia. The militias were known locally as ‘wheat militias’. Above all, the government used the aid operation to support its military strategy: it saw food aid as both a tool for consolidating control over disputed territory and as bait for luring people from rebel-held areas into government territory. Michael Buerk’s viewers did not realise — how could they? — that he was speaking to them from a government enclave. They did not realise — again, how could they? — that the Ethiopian government did not control much of the territory where the famine was occurring, and that a huge proportion of the famine victims, possibly more than half, were outside the reach of the international aid effort. Mengistu maintained that he could reach virtually every famine victim, and that therefore all the aid should be distributed on his side of the lines. It was nonsense, and you did not have to be unduly sceptical to trace the thread of self-interest in the claim. Yet the UN went along with it, and the great majority of aid agencies fell into line. What happened in Ethiopia in the mid-1980s was not the glorious episode of Geldof’s promotion. Despite the efforts of many noble individuals and the expenditure of huge amounts of money, it was a badly flawed exercise. To sustain the mythology of Band Aid’s success, its supporters tell us that some neat, round number of lives were saved. Last Sunday in the Observer Michael Buerk was quoted as saying, ‘The money raised would have saved about one to two million lives.’ Numbers are easy to bandy around (even ones with a 100 per cent margin of error) but it is surprisingly hard to determine how many lives the aid saved. While the agencies certainly fed large numbers of starving people, equally large numbers of the starving were out of their reach, and had to save themselves. There was little counting of those they did feed. And no one knows what happened to people after they left the camps, other than that they returned to the conditions from which they had emerged. These conditions included not just the war but Mengistu’s programme of ethnic cleansing through ‘resettlement’, itself funded, directly and indirectly, by the aid operation. ‘Resettlement’ led to some half a million people being forcibly moved from the north of the country to the south, costing, it has been estimated, some 100,000 lives. One point is certain: the war which we helped fuel continued for another six years, claiming many thousands more lives. That is, in itself, no reason to have passed by on the other side, but the balance sheet remains far less conclusive than Geldof believes. According to him, critics of emergency aid are by definition guilty of indifference. Yet how can we learn if we are not prepared to think? No one has all the answers, but a more informed public debate about the limits of aid would be a step in the right direction. Those who benefit most from the simplifications and evasions which characterised aid to Ethiopia in the mid-1980s are local governments, aid agencies and the media. The victims are, so often, those whose suffering attracted the attention of the world in the first place. Daniel Wolf was series producer of the Channel 4 programmes on emergency aid in Africa, The Hunger Business.
Bob Geldof meant well when he launched Band Aid 20 years ago, says Daniel Wolf; whether he did well for the starving is another matterDaniel Wolf A pale, intense young man with a soft Irish accent and a mane of dark hair is banging the glass table: ‘Don’t go to the pub tonight,’ he says, ‘there are people dying now. So please, stay in and give me the f***ing money.’
‘Do you want cash, cheque or casino poker chips?’It is one of the indelible television moments. On that day — 13 July 1985 — Bob Geldof laced together rock music, live television and the extremes of human misery into a single, potent brew, inventing a new way, not just of giving, but of feeling. Live Aid initiated a global culture of direct emotional response to suffering, and a global demand for direct action to make the suffering stop. It was a great achievement. Unfortunately, the Geldof approach to humanitarian emergencies can also be a liability: it favours action in place of careful thought, gestures instead of an engagement with complex realities. We are riding into the valley of anniversaries: next month, it will be 20 years since Geldof and Midge Ure set the ball rolling by founding Band Aid. Once again we will celebrate our remarkable generosity, once again we will hear that we ‘saved’ Ethiopia and ‘fed the world’. Earlier this month, on BBC Radio 5, Geldof laid down a preliminary barrage, saying that, in Ethiopia in 1984, ‘30 million people were about to die ...’. It is an absurd statement: the suggestion that everyone in a huge region would have died, had it not been for the emergency aid, ignores virtually everything we know about both famines and aid. Yet, in the face of a Geldof campaign, it seems feeble to mention the facts. Why think about how to help when the only question on offer is whether? Geldof narrows the debate to one of compassion machismo: do you have the cojones to give? He promotes impatience as the greatest virtue, as typified by his recent comment, while touring Africa with Tony Blair, that a European commissioner was ‘talking through his arse’. This is the sort of simplistic shtick that plays well in our media-saturated world, yet in a number of African crises, ill-conceived emergency aid has proved of questionable value. And the event that made Geldof’s reputation is a classic illustration of this awkward, unsettling truth. When Michael Buerk’s first report on the Ethiopian famine was transmitted on BBC News on 23 October 1984, the idea immediately took hold that this was a natural disaster — ‘a biblical famine’, in Buerk’s words — which would be alleviated by massive food aid. There was a severe drought in the region, but the creation of famine was a military tactic of the Dergue government of Colonel Haile Mariam Mengistu. For journalists like Buerk and activists like Geldof, the wars in Ethiopia were an inconvenience which were complicating relief efforts. Yet the wars were the principal cause of the tragedy. When I spoke to Michael Buerk in the late 1990s, he still held the view that the wars had ‘complicated matters’, but he did agree that self-censorship had played a role in his own and others’ reportage at the time: ‘You’ve got ... to make the decision, is this side story of any real significance? And also, at the back of your mind, is: if I overemphasise a negative angle to this, I am going to be responsible for ...inhibiting people from coughing up their money.’ In the time of Band Aid, ‘negative angles’ were out. It would have been negative, although true, to have emphasised that Mengistu was one of the most vicious African dictators of the previous quarter century, that he was fighting three wars at the time (two in the north, in Tigray and Eritrea, and one in the Oromo lands of the south), and that his troops were committing atrocities in the region where the famine was unfolding. It would have been distinctly negative to have reported that the dictator was using food as a weapon of war — bombing crops and markets while setting up roadblocks to prevent the movement of food. The methods used by Mengistu’s armies were bound to create famine, and they did. Journalists and aid workers were not the only ones wary of confusing viewers at home with ‘negative angles’. While it was Band Aid and, later, Live Aid that caught the imagination of the world, they funded only a small proportion of the aid effort: 90 per cent or more of the aid came from Western donor governments. As the governments would only deal with a recipient government, not with rebel movements, most of the aid — again, roughly 90 per cent — was channelled through Mengistu’s hands. In a grotesque irony, we found ourselves supporting the very government that was causing the famine we were supposed to be alleviating. This was certainly a ‘negative angle’, and therefore, unsurprisingly, it received hardly any attention at all. Geldof was the front man, and he has played his part to perfection, then and ever since. This is not to impugn his motives: Geldof is undeniably charming and sincere, but that does not mean that what he says is holy writ. He told the international media that agencies had to trust the representatives of the Mengistu government, thus seeming to deny, by implication, that the aid operation was being used by that same government. Yet the places where the aid was distributed, and the conditions under which it was distributed, were determined by Mengistu. There is something remarkably patronising in the assumption that an African dictator — as ruthless and cunning as they come, a survivor among survivors — might fail to see an opportunity when it was staring him in the face. As it turned out, Mengistu knew a hawk from a handsaw. In 1984–85, up to a billion dollars’ worth of aid flowed into Ethiopia. Thousands of Western aid workers and journalists flew in with it. The regime ensured that the visitors converted their Western dollars to the local currency at a rate favourable to the government: in 1985 the Dergue tripled its foreign currency reserves. It used this influx of cash to help build up its war-machine, it commandeered aid vehicles for its own purposes and, by diverting aid supplies, helped feed its armies. The UN in Addis Ababa, which was co-ordinating the aid operation, denied that the level of diversion was significant. Later on, it became clear that a significant proportion of the relief food in Tigray — the epicentre of the famine — was consigned to the militia. The militias were known locally as ‘wheat militias’. Above all, the government used the aid operation to support its military strategy: it saw food aid as both a tool for consolidating control over disputed territory and as bait for luring people from rebel-held areas into government territory. Michael Buerk’s viewers did not realise — how could they? — that he was speaking to them from a government enclave. They did not realise — again, how could they? — that the Ethiopian government did not control much of the territory where the famine was occurring, and that a huge proportion of the famine victims, possibly more than half, were outside the reach of the international aid effort. Mengistu maintained that he could reach virtually every famine victim, and that therefore all the aid should be distributed on his side of the lines. It was nonsense, and you did not have to be unduly sceptical to trace the thread of self-interest in the claim. Yet the UN went along with it, and the great majority of aid agencies fell into line. What happened in Ethiopia in the mid-1980s was not the glorious episode of Geldof’s promotion. Despite the efforts of many noble individuals and the expenditure of huge amounts of money, it was a badly flawed exercise. To sustain the mythology of Band Aid’s success, its supporters tell us that some neat, round number of lives were saved. Last Sunday in the Observer Michael Buerk was quoted as saying, ‘The money raised would have saved about one to two million lives.’ Numbers are easy to bandy around (even ones with a 100 per cent margin of error) but it is surprisingly hard to determine how many lives the aid saved. While the agencies certainly fed large numbers of starving people, equally large numbers of the starving were out of their reach, and had to save themselves. There was little counting of those they did feed. And no one knows what happened to people after they left the camps, other than that they returned to the conditions from which they had emerged. These conditions included not just the war but Mengistu’s programme of ethnic cleansing through ‘resettlement’, itself funded, directly and indirectly, by the aid operation. ‘Resettlement’ led to some half a million people being forcibly moved from the north of the country to the south, costing, it has been estimated, some 100,000 lives. One point is certain: the war which we helped fuel continued for another six years, claiming many thousands more lives. That is, in itself, no reason to have passed by on the other side, but the balance sheet remains far less conclusive than Geldof believes. According to him, critics of emergency aid are by definition guilty of indifference. Yet how can we learn if we are not prepared to think? No one has all the answers, but a more informed public debate about the limits of aid would be a step in the right direction. Those who benefit most from the simplifications and evasions which characterised aid to Ethiopia in the mid-1980s are local governments, aid agencies and the media. The victims are, so often, those whose suffering attracted the attention of the world in the first place. Daniel Wolf was series producer of the Channel 4 programmes on emergency aid in Africa, The Hunger Business.
Report: CIA Took Detainees Out of Iraq
Report: CIA Took Detainees Out of IraqSat Oct 23, 2004 11:28 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence officials have transferred detainees out of Iraq for interrogation, a move that experts say violates international law, The Washington Post reported in its Sunday edition.
The CIA has invoked a confidential memo written by the Justice Department to justify secretly transferring as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months, the Post said.
The CIA has hidden the detainees from the International Red Cross and other authorities, the Post said, citing an unnamed intelligence official.
In a March 19, 2004, memo the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said the CIA can take Iraqis out of the country for a "brief but not indefinite period" and can permanently remove those determined to be illegal aliens, the Post said.
Some specialists in international law say the opinion amounts to a reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits forcible transfers of civilians during wartime, the Post said.
The CIA and Justice Department declined to comment for the article, but a White House official disputed the notion that the Justice Department's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions was unusual.
The memo noted that violation of that portion of the treaty could constitute a war crime and that officials should proceed carefully, the Post said.
The U.S. government transferred al Qaeda fighters out of Afghanistan during the war there after it ruled that they were not protected by the treaty. Former members of the Iraqi military and Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, by contrast, are considered to be protected by the treaty, the Post said.
© Copyright Reuters
2004. All rights reserved. Any copying, re-publication or re-distribution of Reuters content or of any content used on this site, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of Reuters.
Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
© Reuters
2004. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
The CIA has invoked a confidential memo written by the Justice Department to justify secretly transferring as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months, the Post said.
The CIA has hidden the detainees from the International Red Cross and other authorities, the Post said, citing an unnamed intelligence official.
In a March 19, 2004, memo the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said the CIA can take Iraqis out of the country for a "brief but not indefinite period" and can permanently remove those determined to be illegal aliens, the Post said.
Some specialists in international law say the opinion amounts to a reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits forcible transfers of civilians during wartime, the Post said.
The CIA and Justice Department declined to comment for the article, but a White House official disputed the notion that the Justice Department's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions was unusual.
The memo noted that violation of that portion of the treaty could constitute a war crime and that officials should proceed carefully, the Post said.
The U.S. government transferred al Qaeda fighters out of Afghanistan during the war there after it ruled that they were not protected by the treaty. Former members of the Iraqi military and Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, by contrast, are considered to be protected by the treaty, the Post said.
© Copyright Reuters
2004. All rights reserved. Any copying, re-publication or re-distribution of Reuters content or of any content used on this site, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of Reuters.
Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
© Reuters
2004. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Deciphering
The 9/11 Distractions
The government’s lies are obvious,but some skeptics are far more subtle
by John Kaminskiskylax@comcast.net
10-21-4
People ask me about 9/11, understandably enough, since I’ve written many articles about it, and I do a lot of radio interviews — all for free — to try to warn people that the government’s explanation is not true.
I invariably tell them that the most damning pieces of evidence are the government’s own provable lies, which include the failure to conduct a legitimate investigation into the events of that tragic day, the instantaneous blaming of terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, and the preposterously phony commission that took its place in history along with the Warren Commission as a glaring political swindle.
The best piece of evidence that shows the U.S. government was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 disasters is simply the responses uttered by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and military chief of staff Myers immediately after the attacks. (See http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm) They all feigned surprise, and said they hadn’t realized this kind of disaster could happen.
Yet, their lies were exposed mere hours later when the FBI released the 19 names of the alleged hijackers, indicating the government had been tracking these individuals for months. If they didn’t know it could happen, how did they know the names of the hijackers?
These lies were further amplified more recently with the revelation outlined by “October Surprise” author Barbara Honegger (see the bottom of http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence) that the government was running various drills on Sept. 11, 2001 using airplanes as weapons, so when top government officials denied they knew of the threat of fuel-laden planes slamming into buildings could actually happen, they were actually running multiple drills to prevent this very thing from happening — ON THAT VERY DAY. How’s that for chutzpah?
So despite the total mainstream media news blackout on these facts, and the apparent unwillingness of a majority of Americans (especially elected officials and law enforcement officers) to confront their government over these obvious lies, virtually everyone else in the world knows the real story, that the U.S. government has lied continually about what happened on 9/11, and this is what gave birth to the worldwide 9/11 skeptics movement.
Three other obvious items also have contributed to this widespread disbelief in anything the American government says about terrorism in general or 9/11 in particular:
1. In addition to the failure to objectively investigate what happened on 9/11, President Bush and his sycophants did everything possible to stonewall investigators they themselves appointed from gathering relevant information, AND, ordered the destruction and/or suppression of evidence (primarily audio and video evidence) extremely germane to an accurate judgment of what actually happened.
2. To this day, the American government has never produced a shred of evidence (other than fabricated and unconvincing so-called intelligence on the order of some of the infamous Iraq fictions) linking either Osama bin Laden or so-called Islamic terrorists to the attacks.
3. The military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that followed 9/11 and were advertised as a response to 9/11 “terror” were actually planned PRIOR to 9/11.
So, despite all the coverups and the cynical blackout of these skeptical contentions by mainstream media, the whole world knows what the American people do not — that the American government is undoubtedly responsible for the mass murders of 9/11, the lives of nearly 3,000 American citizens sacrificed for the secretive financial planning of those who wished to foment a permanent war against the Muslims and profit mightily from this evil enterprise.
That this conclusion has not swept through the collective American mind and resulted in mass arrests of rich bureaucrats in Washington is primarily due to two factors:
• The corporate censorship of the Zionist-controlled mainstream media, which are as complicit as treasonous government officials in suppressing facts that would reveal the real story ...
• And the American people themselves, who have been dumbed down into a frightened coma by the combination of a mind-dulling educational system in which critical thinking is discouraged; a food supply infected with debilitating additives that diminish alertness; a medical system eager to administer vaccines that create hidden afflictions that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical giants eager to peddle mind-numbing antidepressants; and mind-controlling, hateful religions which preach fear and advocate the mass murder of strangers as a way to demonstrate one’s righteousness.
And that brings us to today.
At this very moment, a larger number of Americans than ever before is ready to embrace the idea that something is very wrong with their government’s explanation about the curious disasters in New York, Washington, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and how these disasters have been exploited into a convenient excuse to attack oil-producing nations around the world as well as curtail traditional civil liberties at home.
But what happens when these finally brave individuals go looking for alternative information about the unspeakable tragedy and cynical deception that followed?
Total confusion is what.
Those who finally screw up their courage and say, “What I have heard is not right,” are met with a bewildering array of competing theories, endless arguments over technical minutia, and even some claims that rely on high-tech film analysis that other skeptics, equally qualified and ardent in their belief about government lies, dismiss as suspicious fiction.
What is a person who seeks real answers to do?
Since I am person in that category, I have lately advised sticking to the core issues that can be proven (rather than striving for a mind-blowing smoking gun that no one could deny). Too many skeptics are claiming they have “the” smoking gun, only to be ridiculed by others who say they don’t.
I myself have been subject to this ridicule, simply for advocating sticking to the provable lies of the situation. My attitude led one well-known so-called film analyst, Phil Jayhan of the infamous missile theory featured in a very popular video now making the rounds, to declaim that I didn’t care about the people who died on 9/11.
It’s good to know where people stand. Now there’s no chance I’ll ever believe anything he says again, and it also makes it easier for me to decide about the veracity of the film footage he has collected.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Sorry to take so long to unfold this. I’ve spent many months thinking about these things. Most of all, I don’t want to disparage someone who doesn’t deserve it. I am not a principal 9/11 researcher. I am only a writer and an average citizen trying to figure things out. It is with these mundane qualifications that I, above all, try to keep my eye on the ball.
Number one is: try to catch the real perps. Every other revelation must be subordinate to that goal. Many so-called 9/11 skeptics have admitted by their actions that this is not their goal. They would rather promote their particular theories than work toward catching the culprits.
OK, on with the analysis.
Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” provided the first real crack in the mainstream media mindlock about the coverup, and brought President Bush’s odd behavior to the attention of millions who wouldn’t otherwise have been forced to peruse it. This alone was of inestimable value. But as time went on, critics noticed that Moore really didn’t touch on any of the core 9/11 issues, and worse, that he deflected attention toward the Saudis and away from the Israelis. I think today the prevailing opinion of the film is that it is merely Democratic campaign propaganda which nevertheless at least brought attention to the rapid erosion of American civil liberties, but didn’t really get to the meat of the 9/11 lies.
A subsequent video, “9/11 In Plane Site,” has take over the lead in popularity from the Moore film among those who wish to know about the real facts of 9/11, and I shall return to this subject in a moment.
At present (late October 2004), the highest hopes for revealing the true 9/11 story are vested in the new book, “Crossing the Rubicon,” by Mike Ruppert, who since day one after the tragedy has established himself as the No. 1 9/11 researcher through his From The Wilderness website. Perhaps because of competitive jealousy, perhaps through legitimate concern, Ruppert has become the target of criticism from many other 9/11 researchers because of his decision to link his research focus to Peak Oil, a concept that insists the real problem is that the world is running out of oil, and that will create unprecedented chaos and disaster in the very near future. It is an issue which many people do not regard as legitimately connected to 9/11. Hence, some people feel Ruppert is creating a distraction where none need exist.
This was certainly the case at a major 9/11 conference held recently in San Francisco, which Ruppert’s dominating presence managed to turn into a conference on Peak Oil. Few deny that Peak Oil is an important subject to talk about. But many, including me, don’t see its relevance to catching the 9/11 crooks, and hence regard it as a distraction from the investigation.
Nevertheless, many people hold out hope that Ruppert’s fingering of Vice President Dick Cheney as the mastermind of the confusion that allowed the terrorists to accomplish their evil objectives on 9/11 will lead to his prosecution for dereliction of duty and abetting the terrorist enterprise.
However, others believe this line of inquiry is, in itself, a limited hangout, because, in addition to maintaining the fiction that actual hijackers flew the planes, it focuses on allowing the events to happen rather than Cheney, Bush et all being responsible for the whole attack scenario themselves.
So who can tell? Is Ruppert’s effort a legitimate attempt to uncover the real truth or a sophisticated labyrinth meant to limit damage and deflect culpability?
And you can’t say “only time will tell” because we’re still debating what happened in the assassinations of both Lincoln and Kennedy. The fact is: sometimes we never do find out what happened.
A second hopeful sign in the public arena lately is the lawsuit filed by San Francisco lawyer Stanley Hilton alleging that President Bush and numerous other public officials conspired to let the 9/11 attacks happen. This action is seeking billions of dollars in damages on behalf of relatives of the 14 victims, and asserts Bush and his pals stood to profit billions from the changed political atmosphere of the United States that enabled them to wage profitable wars wherever and whenever they wanted.
The Hilton lawsuit contains many legitimate criticisms of the 9/11 non-investigation and coverup that all make very interesting reading for the unenlightened (see for a basic roundup http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm), but like Ruppert’s angle of attack, it begs the question of who planned it, and hence has similarly been critiqued as a limited hangout meant to conceal the real planners of the event even as it aims to sacrifice some truly big names to the wheels of justice.
So both of these well-known endeavors fail to address the heart of the matter: who really did it? Who were the fat cats who run Bush and Cheney (and Kerry and Edwards, for that matter) from the deep, dark shadows of incredible wealth that put together this demonic plan to change the character of American civilization from nominally insular innocence to outwardly aggressive depravity?
Though the efforts by Ruppert and Hilton are generating a lot of hope amongst those who believe in their hearts that America has become an evil corporate cyborg eliminating as many actually honest humans as possible, the deeper possibility exists that they are exotic, extremely well-thought-out parts of the greater coverup designed to sacrifice a few high-level patsies in order to protect the demonic billionaires who thought the whole thing up in the first place.
Which leads us back to the popular video, “9/11 In Plane Site,” which has probably recruited more people to the 9/11 skeptics cause than any other single maneuver. But the big question — and the giant shadow that it casts over the whole 9/11 skeptics movement — is: Is it real? And more importantly? What happens if it isn’t?
Effective disinformation always contains large amounts of factual truth contaminated with small but devastating germs of falsehood, which when discovered, undermine the credibility of all the facts in the package.
According to some observers, notably Brian Salter of the respected website questionquestions.net, “9/11 In Plane Site” contains a factual inaccuracy in a segment known as “the plume footage.” Narrator Dave Von Kleist states in the film that this plume of smoke began rising from the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE either of the towers began to fall. Salter, using the previous work of researcher Jim Hoffman, noted that the film had been fudged, and that in fact, the South Tower had already begun to fall.
Von Kleist, when confronted with this news at a recent 9/11 skeptics conference in New York City, told several different stories about the issue to different people. A few days later, he cobbled together a defense of his footage on his website, but has since refused to respond to anyone with questions about the incident.
In addition, Salter’s questionsquestions.net produced a story that regards Jayhan’s spectacular video analysis of missiles apparently being fired from the planes that hit the towers as subject to interpretation.
When the subject was brought up in a recent e-mail debate triggered by a question asked by serendipity.li’s webmaster Peter Meyer, it resulted in an incredibly abusive barrage of insults from all those 9/11 skeptics who are committed to the “no-plane theory” (which theorizes that based on their intense video analysis that no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11). Principally, these irate no-planers include The Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren, and Scott Loughrey, all of whom have distinguished themselves with various discoveries of the 9/11 puzzle. Jayhan is not a no-planer, because he believes the planes fired missiles.
The incredible scattershot barrage of accusations against all those who merely asked questions was culminated by Jayhan’s remark that I didn’t care about the 9/11 victims because I disagreed with what he was saying, and was typical of the level of abuse being spewed by all of them. So on the basis of their personal behavior, I would tend to distrust anything any of them said.
However, we all say things in the heat of proving our arguments that we wish we hadn’t, so I don’t base my opinion of the evidence they have produced (and in Holmgren’s case, it is undeniably compelling and apparently authentic, particularly in regard to proving at least two of the 9/11 flights never really existed) on how stupidly or rudely they behave when challenged.
What remains at issue is the plume footage in “9/11 In Plane Site” and the apparently false claim made by Von Kleist. My concern about the film has always been that if part of it is proven false, will all those who are converted to 9/11 skepticism as a result of the film abandon their judgments when they realize they were not told the truth?
That has always been my concern about the film. As some of you may remember from my previous review, I enthusiastically endorsed the Pentagon segment of the film and left it up to the viewer to decide about the rest of it.
Now, after VonKleist’s initial dissembling and subsequent silence, I would advise the film be viewed paying particular attention to his claim about the plume and the especially subjective interpretation of the planes firing missiles.
That I don’t believe any of those parts should not be accepted by viewers. I would like you to decide for yourselves.
So ... the principal reason I have reaped so much scorn from those who prefer their own exotic interpretations of what happened on 9/11 is that I have suddenly gone conservative in what I choose to believe about that fateful day.
No, not conservative as in “neocon” or “fundamental Zionist.” Conservative as in wanting to point only those 9/11 questions which I know can be proven, or as Peter Meyer asked in that original e-mail, the “incontestable” 9/11 issues.
First and foremost, as I outlined above, are the government lies, the heaps of them which prove to any reasonable skeptic that uncountable officials have simply not told the truth about that sad day, and that numerous crimes have been committed, including obstruction of justice, treason, and mass murder.
Second, I believe the government has failed to produce any evidence that the so-called hijackers were responsible for the tragedy, that there is no evidence they were even on the planes and no demonstrable proof they could fly such planes if they were, and that since they undoubtedly used false IDs, there is no way to affix blame on any country (except the one that specializes in stealing people’s identities), so that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were monstrous mistakes, as is blaming the Saudis.
Third, I like the phrase “the time the towers took to fall.” When you realize that debris ejected off to the side of the falling Twin Towers fell at the same rate as the towers themselves, you realize there was no resistance to the towers falling, which means they were demolished. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have come down so smoothly; each floor, as well as the very strong 47 core columns, would not have collapsed evenly had they not been blown up. Combined with the mysterious, on-demand collapse of WTC7 later in the day, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Twin Towers were demolished and the plane crashes were merely staged to cover up the demolition and then conveniently used an excuse for the corporate power elite to make war on the whole world.
Fourth, the clearest path to me to determining who was responsible for this horrible celebration of greed is identifying the pre-9/11 investors who reaped billions with their savvy financial bets based on foreknowledge of the events to come. That the FBI has declared these investments not to be suspicious is simply more evidence that the FBI does not work for the American people, but for the billionaires who control the government, the media, and the jeopardized lives of everyone in the world.
And fifth is the great unspoken “elephant in the living room.” It is the aspect of 9/11 least mentioned, and recently prohibited by law from even being discussed.
Yes, Israeli involvement. Jewish influence on the political process, undeniable, yet mostly unspoken out of fear of financial ruin, or being murdered. Israel is the country running around the world, killing tourists and stealing their IDs. Israel is the country that gets billions in U.S. foreign aid every year and never pays back a penny. Israel is the country that controls the American media, so that you don’t get any news about its continuing butchery of Palestinian children, or Zionist fingerprints on the church bombings and bloody beheadings in Iraq. Israel is the country that completely owns George W. Bush and John Kerry.
So ... in deciphering the 9/11 distractions, I prefer to stick to the core issues, that I can tell people right off the top of my head and convince them that the government has not told the truth.
You can keep your missiles and holograms (and your shallow insults, too). The government lied and the world is in grave jeopardy as a result of it.
It’s easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job devised, executed, and then covered up by the highest levels of the American government. We don’t need exotic film footage that may or may not have been doctored to prove it. My great worry is, as with the VonKleist video, that when aspects of these theories are disproven, it will actually hurt the 9/11 skeptics movement much more it could possibly help it.
Enough ordinary evidence already exists to indict and convict thousands. America’s wholly corrupt judicial system is another question entirely.
The real problem now is an American populace that is hell-bent on denying what I’ve just said. This continuing denial on the part of those who refuse to listen and understand will take both them and us to exactly where their denial is headed — straight to the hell of widespread slavery, poverty, disease, more acts of suspicious terror, and ultimately to World War III and the end of human society as we know it.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Mostly he writes essays that appear in various websites on the Internet. These have been collected into two anthologies, "America's Autopsy Report" and "The Perfect Enemy." For information go to http://www.johnkaminski.com/
The government’s lies are obvious,but some skeptics are far more subtle
by John Kaminskiskylax@comcast.net
10-21-4
People ask me about 9/11, understandably enough, since I’ve written many articles about it, and I do a lot of radio interviews — all for free — to try to warn people that the government’s explanation is not true.
I invariably tell them that the most damning pieces of evidence are the government’s own provable lies, which include the failure to conduct a legitimate investigation into the events of that tragic day, the instantaneous blaming of terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, and the preposterously phony commission that took its place in history along with the Warren Commission as a glaring political swindle.
The best piece of evidence that shows the U.S. government was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 disasters is simply the responses uttered by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and military chief of staff Myers immediately after the attacks. (See http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm) They all feigned surprise, and said they hadn’t realized this kind of disaster could happen.
Yet, their lies were exposed mere hours later when the FBI released the 19 names of the alleged hijackers, indicating the government had been tracking these individuals for months. If they didn’t know it could happen, how did they know the names of the hijackers?
These lies were further amplified more recently with the revelation outlined by “October Surprise” author Barbara Honegger (see the bottom of http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence) that the government was running various drills on Sept. 11, 2001 using airplanes as weapons, so when top government officials denied they knew of the threat of fuel-laden planes slamming into buildings could actually happen, they were actually running multiple drills to prevent this very thing from happening — ON THAT VERY DAY. How’s that for chutzpah?
So despite the total mainstream media news blackout on these facts, and the apparent unwillingness of a majority of Americans (especially elected officials and law enforcement officers) to confront their government over these obvious lies, virtually everyone else in the world knows the real story, that the U.S. government has lied continually about what happened on 9/11, and this is what gave birth to the worldwide 9/11 skeptics movement.
Three other obvious items also have contributed to this widespread disbelief in anything the American government says about terrorism in general or 9/11 in particular:
1. In addition to the failure to objectively investigate what happened on 9/11, President Bush and his sycophants did everything possible to stonewall investigators they themselves appointed from gathering relevant information, AND, ordered the destruction and/or suppression of evidence (primarily audio and video evidence) extremely germane to an accurate judgment of what actually happened.
2. To this day, the American government has never produced a shred of evidence (other than fabricated and unconvincing so-called intelligence on the order of some of the infamous Iraq fictions) linking either Osama bin Laden or so-called Islamic terrorists to the attacks.
3. The military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that followed 9/11 and were advertised as a response to 9/11 “terror” were actually planned PRIOR to 9/11.
So, despite all the coverups and the cynical blackout of these skeptical contentions by mainstream media, the whole world knows what the American people do not — that the American government is undoubtedly responsible for the mass murders of 9/11, the lives of nearly 3,000 American citizens sacrificed for the secretive financial planning of those who wished to foment a permanent war against the Muslims and profit mightily from this evil enterprise.
That this conclusion has not swept through the collective American mind and resulted in mass arrests of rich bureaucrats in Washington is primarily due to two factors:
• The corporate censorship of the Zionist-controlled mainstream media, which are as complicit as treasonous government officials in suppressing facts that would reveal the real story ...
• And the American people themselves, who have been dumbed down into a frightened coma by the combination of a mind-dulling educational system in which critical thinking is discouraged; a food supply infected with debilitating additives that diminish alertness; a medical system eager to administer vaccines that create hidden afflictions that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical giants eager to peddle mind-numbing antidepressants; and mind-controlling, hateful religions which preach fear and advocate the mass murder of strangers as a way to demonstrate one’s righteousness.
And that brings us to today.
At this very moment, a larger number of Americans than ever before is ready to embrace the idea that something is very wrong with their government’s explanation about the curious disasters in New York, Washington, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and how these disasters have been exploited into a convenient excuse to attack oil-producing nations around the world as well as curtail traditional civil liberties at home.
But what happens when these finally brave individuals go looking for alternative information about the unspeakable tragedy and cynical deception that followed?
Total confusion is what.
Those who finally screw up their courage and say, “What I have heard is not right,” are met with a bewildering array of competing theories, endless arguments over technical minutia, and even some claims that rely on high-tech film analysis that other skeptics, equally qualified and ardent in their belief about government lies, dismiss as suspicious fiction.
What is a person who seeks real answers to do?
Since I am person in that category, I have lately advised sticking to the core issues that can be proven (rather than striving for a mind-blowing smoking gun that no one could deny). Too many skeptics are claiming they have “the” smoking gun, only to be ridiculed by others who say they don’t.
I myself have been subject to this ridicule, simply for advocating sticking to the provable lies of the situation. My attitude led one well-known so-called film analyst, Phil Jayhan of the infamous missile theory featured in a very popular video now making the rounds, to declaim that I didn’t care about the people who died on 9/11.
It’s good to know where people stand. Now there’s no chance I’ll ever believe anything he says again, and it also makes it easier for me to decide about the veracity of the film footage he has collected.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Sorry to take so long to unfold this. I’ve spent many months thinking about these things. Most of all, I don’t want to disparage someone who doesn’t deserve it. I am not a principal 9/11 researcher. I am only a writer and an average citizen trying to figure things out. It is with these mundane qualifications that I, above all, try to keep my eye on the ball.
Number one is: try to catch the real perps. Every other revelation must be subordinate to that goal. Many so-called 9/11 skeptics have admitted by their actions that this is not their goal. They would rather promote their particular theories than work toward catching the culprits.
OK, on with the analysis.
Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” provided the first real crack in the mainstream media mindlock about the coverup, and brought President Bush’s odd behavior to the attention of millions who wouldn’t otherwise have been forced to peruse it. This alone was of inestimable value. But as time went on, critics noticed that Moore really didn’t touch on any of the core 9/11 issues, and worse, that he deflected attention toward the Saudis and away from the Israelis. I think today the prevailing opinion of the film is that it is merely Democratic campaign propaganda which nevertheless at least brought attention to the rapid erosion of American civil liberties, but didn’t really get to the meat of the 9/11 lies.
A subsequent video, “9/11 In Plane Site,” has take over the lead in popularity from the Moore film among those who wish to know about the real facts of 9/11, and I shall return to this subject in a moment.
At present (late October 2004), the highest hopes for revealing the true 9/11 story are vested in the new book, “Crossing the Rubicon,” by Mike Ruppert, who since day one after the tragedy has established himself as the No. 1 9/11 researcher through his From The Wilderness website. Perhaps because of competitive jealousy, perhaps through legitimate concern, Ruppert has become the target of criticism from many other 9/11 researchers because of his decision to link his research focus to Peak Oil, a concept that insists the real problem is that the world is running out of oil, and that will create unprecedented chaos and disaster in the very near future. It is an issue which many people do not regard as legitimately connected to 9/11. Hence, some people feel Ruppert is creating a distraction where none need exist.
This was certainly the case at a major 9/11 conference held recently in San Francisco, which Ruppert’s dominating presence managed to turn into a conference on Peak Oil. Few deny that Peak Oil is an important subject to talk about. But many, including me, don’t see its relevance to catching the 9/11 crooks, and hence regard it as a distraction from the investigation.
Nevertheless, many people hold out hope that Ruppert’s fingering of Vice President Dick Cheney as the mastermind of the confusion that allowed the terrorists to accomplish their evil objectives on 9/11 will lead to his prosecution for dereliction of duty and abetting the terrorist enterprise.
However, others believe this line of inquiry is, in itself, a limited hangout, because, in addition to maintaining the fiction that actual hijackers flew the planes, it focuses on allowing the events to happen rather than Cheney, Bush et all being responsible for the whole attack scenario themselves.
So who can tell? Is Ruppert’s effort a legitimate attempt to uncover the real truth or a sophisticated labyrinth meant to limit damage and deflect culpability?
And you can’t say “only time will tell” because we’re still debating what happened in the assassinations of both Lincoln and Kennedy. The fact is: sometimes we never do find out what happened.
A second hopeful sign in the public arena lately is the lawsuit filed by San Francisco lawyer Stanley Hilton alleging that President Bush and numerous other public officials conspired to let the 9/11 attacks happen. This action is seeking billions of dollars in damages on behalf of relatives of the 14 victims, and asserts Bush and his pals stood to profit billions from the changed political atmosphere of the United States that enabled them to wage profitable wars wherever and whenever they wanted.
The Hilton lawsuit contains many legitimate criticisms of the 9/11 non-investigation and coverup that all make very interesting reading for the unenlightened (see for a basic roundup http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm), but like Ruppert’s angle of attack, it begs the question of who planned it, and hence has similarly been critiqued as a limited hangout meant to conceal the real planners of the event even as it aims to sacrifice some truly big names to the wheels of justice.
So both of these well-known endeavors fail to address the heart of the matter: who really did it? Who were the fat cats who run Bush and Cheney (and Kerry and Edwards, for that matter) from the deep, dark shadows of incredible wealth that put together this demonic plan to change the character of American civilization from nominally insular innocence to outwardly aggressive depravity?
Though the efforts by Ruppert and Hilton are generating a lot of hope amongst those who believe in their hearts that America has become an evil corporate cyborg eliminating as many actually honest humans as possible, the deeper possibility exists that they are exotic, extremely well-thought-out parts of the greater coverup designed to sacrifice a few high-level patsies in order to protect the demonic billionaires who thought the whole thing up in the first place.
Which leads us back to the popular video, “9/11 In Plane Site,” which has probably recruited more people to the 9/11 skeptics cause than any other single maneuver. But the big question — and the giant shadow that it casts over the whole 9/11 skeptics movement — is: Is it real? And more importantly? What happens if it isn’t?
Effective disinformation always contains large amounts of factual truth contaminated with small but devastating germs of falsehood, which when discovered, undermine the credibility of all the facts in the package.
According to some observers, notably Brian Salter of the respected website questionquestions.net, “9/11 In Plane Site” contains a factual inaccuracy in a segment known as “the plume footage.” Narrator Dave Von Kleist states in the film that this plume of smoke began rising from the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE either of the towers began to fall. Salter, using the previous work of researcher Jim Hoffman, noted that the film had been fudged, and that in fact, the South Tower had already begun to fall.
Von Kleist, when confronted with this news at a recent 9/11 skeptics conference in New York City, told several different stories about the issue to different people. A few days later, he cobbled together a defense of his footage on his website, but has since refused to respond to anyone with questions about the incident.
In addition, Salter’s questionsquestions.net produced a story that regards Jayhan’s spectacular video analysis of missiles apparently being fired from the planes that hit the towers as subject to interpretation.
When the subject was brought up in a recent e-mail debate triggered by a question asked by serendipity.li’s webmaster Peter Meyer, it resulted in an incredibly abusive barrage of insults from all those 9/11 skeptics who are committed to the “no-plane theory” (which theorizes that based on their intense video analysis that no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11). Principally, these irate no-planers include The Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren, and Scott Loughrey, all of whom have distinguished themselves with various discoveries of the 9/11 puzzle. Jayhan is not a no-planer, because he believes the planes fired missiles.
The incredible scattershot barrage of accusations against all those who merely asked questions was culminated by Jayhan’s remark that I didn’t care about the 9/11 victims because I disagreed with what he was saying, and was typical of the level of abuse being spewed by all of them. So on the basis of their personal behavior, I would tend to distrust anything any of them said.
However, we all say things in the heat of proving our arguments that we wish we hadn’t, so I don’t base my opinion of the evidence they have produced (and in Holmgren’s case, it is undeniably compelling and apparently authentic, particularly in regard to proving at least two of the 9/11 flights never really existed) on how stupidly or rudely they behave when challenged.
What remains at issue is the plume footage in “9/11 In Plane Site” and the apparently false claim made by Von Kleist. My concern about the film has always been that if part of it is proven false, will all those who are converted to 9/11 skepticism as a result of the film abandon their judgments when they realize they were not told the truth?
That has always been my concern about the film. As some of you may remember from my previous review, I enthusiastically endorsed the Pentagon segment of the film and left it up to the viewer to decide about the rest of it.
Now, after VonKleist’s initial dissembling and subsequent silence, I would advise the film be viewed paying particular attention to his claim about the plume and the especially subjective interpretation of the planes firing missiles.
That I don’t believe any of those parts should not be accepted by viewers. I would like you to decide for yourselves.
So ... the principal reason I have reaped so much scorn from those who prefer their own exotic interpretations of what happened on 9/11 is that I have suddenly gone conservative in what I choose to believe about that fateful day.
No, not conservative as in “neocon” or “fundamental Zionist.” Conservative as in wanting to point only those 9/11 questions which I know can be proven, or as Peter Meyer asked in that original e-mail, the “incontestable” 9/11 issues.
First and foremost, as I outlined above, are the government lies, the heaps of them which prove to any reasonable skeptic that uncountable officials have simply not told the truth about that sad day, and that numerous crimes have been committed, including obstruction of justice, treason, and mass murder.
Second, I believe the government has failed to produce any evidence that the so-called hijackers were responsible for the tragedy, that there is no evidence they were even on the planes and no demonstrable proof they could fly such planes if they were, and that since they undoubtedly used false IDs, there is no way to affix blame on any country (except the one that specializes in stealing people’s identities), so that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were monstrous mistakes, as is blaming the Saudis.
Third, I like the phrase “the time the towers took to fall.” When you realize that debris ejected off to the side of the falling Twin Towers fell at the same rate as the towers themselves, you realize there was no resistance to the towers falling, which means they were demolished. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have come down so smoothly; each floor, as well as the very strong 47 core columns, would not have collapsed evenly had they not been blown up. Combined with the mysterious, on-demand collapse of WTC7 later in the day, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Twin Towers were demolished and the plane crashes were merely staged to cover up the demolition and then conveniently used an excuse for the corporate power elite to make war on the whole world.
Fourth, the clearest path to me to determining who was responsible for this horrible celebration of greed is identifying the pre-9/11 investors who reaped billions with their savvy financial bets based on foreknowledge of the events to come. That the FBI has declared these investments not to be suspicious is simply more evidence that the FBI does not work for the American people, but for the billionaires who control the government, the media, and the jeopardized lives of everyone in the world.
And fifth is the great unspoken “elephant in the living room.” It is the aspect of 9/11 least mentioned, and recently prohibited by law from even being discussed.
Yes, Israeli involvement. Jewish influence on the political process, undeniable, yet mostly unspoken out of fear of financial ruin, or being murdered. Israel is the country running around the world, killing tourists and stealing their IDs. Israel is the country that gets billions in U.S. foreign aid every year and never pays back a penny. Israel is the country that controls the American media, so that you don’t get any news about its continuing butchery of Palestinian children, or Zionist fingerprints on the church bombings and bloody beheadings in Iraq. Israel is the country that completely owns George W. Bush and John Kerry.
So ... in deciphering the 9/11 distractions, I prefer to stick to the core issues, that I can tell people right off the top of my head and convince them that the government has not told the truth.
You can keep your missiles and holograms (and your shallow insults, too). The government lied and the world is in grave jeopardy as a result of it.
It’s easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job devised, executed, and then covered up by the highest levels of the American government. We don’t need exotic film footage that may or may not have been doctored to prove it. My great worry is, as with the VonKleist video, that when aspects of these theories are disproven, it will actually hurt the 9/11 skeptics movement much more it could possibly help it.
Enough ordinary evidence already exists to indict and convict thousands. America’s wholly corrupt judicial system is another question entirely.
The real problem now is an American populace that is hell-bent on denying what I’ve just said. This continuing denial on the part of those who refuse to listen and understand will take both them and us to exactly where their denial is headed — straight to the hell of widespread slavery, poverty, disease, more acts of suspicious terror, and ultimately to World War III and the end of human society as we know it.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Mostly he writes essays that appear in various websites on the Internet. These have been collected into two anthologies, "America's Autopsy Report" and "The Perfect Enemy." For information go to http://www.johnkaminski.com/
Further abuse at Abu Ghraib detailed
Further abuse at Abu Ghraib detailed
Boston Globe
WASHINGTON -- Government documents made public Thursday provide fresh details about allegations of abuse by guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and other detention facilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Richard A. Serrano and Greg Miller
October 23, 2004
-->
Further abuse at Abu Ghraib detailed
ACLU forces US to disclose records
By Richard A. Serrano and Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times October 23, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Government documents made public Thursday provide fresh details about allegations of abuse by guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and other detention facilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They include incidents in which a female prisoner was sexually humiliated by US military intelligence officers and a male inmate was shot at to force cooperation.
Meanwhile, a military judge has ordered two US Army reservists to stand trial in Baghdad for allegedly abusing Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib. Specialist Charles Graner Jr., 36, of Uniontown, Pa., will face a court-martial Jan. 7, while Sergeant Javal Davis, 26, of Maryland, is set to be tried Feb. 1.
The US documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under court order, include an internal FBI memo from last May that shows bureau employees based at Abu Ghraib witnessed a number of troubling incidents, but ''did not believe [that what they saw] rose to the level of misconduct or mistreatment."
The materials also describe the deaths of three Abu Ghraib prisoners, all reportedly of heart attacks, within days of each other in August 2003, weeks before the now-infamous episodes of photographed abuse began occurring at the prison.
Eight US soldiers have been charged with crimes in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Three have pleaded guilty, and one, Staff Sergeant Ivan L. ''Chip" Frederick II, was sentenced Thursday to eight years in prison.
The latest documents were released after a federal court directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with the ACLU's request under the Freedom of Information Act for more details about alleged prisoner torture and abuse.
''After more than a year of stonewalling, the government has finally released some documents, though many are heavily redacted," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff lawyer. ''Unfortunately, the government continues to withhold records that would show who was ultimately responsible for the systemic abuse of detainees."
A preliminary review of some of the newly released material showed one case in which three US soldiers were each ordered detained for a month, fined up to $750, and reduced in rank for an incident in October 2003 in which a female Iraqi prisoner was partially stripped, abused, and threatened with more physical harm.
The woman told army investigators that she was in her cell at Baghdad's Al-Salhyat Prison when three military interrogators escorted her to an abandoned cell. While one soldier ''acted as a lookout," the woman said, another held her hands behind her back while the third soldier ''forcefully kissed" her. She said she then was taken downstairs and shown a naked Iraqi man.
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Boston Globe
WASHINGTON -- Government documents made public Thursday provide fresh details about allegations of abuse by guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and other detention facilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Richard A. Serrano and Greg Miller
October 23, 2004
-->
Further abuse at Abu Ghraib detailed
ACLU forces US to disclose records
By Richard A. Serrano and Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times October 23, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Government documents made public Thursday provide fresh details about allegations of abuse by guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and other detention facilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They include incidents in which a female prisoner was sexually humiliated by US military intelligence officers and a male inmate was shot at to force cooperation.
Meanwhile, a military judge has ordered two US Army reservists to stand trial in Baghdad for allegedly abusing Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib. Specialist Charles Graner Jr., 36, of Uniontown, Pa., will face a court-martial Jan. 7, while Sergeant Javal Davis, 26, of Maryland, is set to be tried Feb. 1.
The US documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under court order, include an internal FBI memo from last May that shows bureau employees based at Abu Ghraib witnessed a number of troubling incidents, but ''did not believe [that what they saw] rose to the level of misconduct or mistreatment."
The materials also describe the deaths of three Abu Ghraib prisoners, all reportedly of heart attacks, within days of each other in August 2003, weeks before the now-infamous episodes of photographed abuse began occurring at the prison.
Eight US soldiers have been charged with crimes in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Three have pleaded guilty, and one, Staff Sergeant Ivan L. ''Chip" Frederick II, was sentenced Thursday to eight years in prison.
The latest documents were released after a federal court directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with the ACLU's request under the Freedom of Information Act for more details about alleged prisoner torture and abuse.
''After more than a year of stonewalling, the government has finally released some documents, though many are heavily redacted," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff lawyer. ''Unfortunately, the government continues to withhold records that would show who was ultimately responsible for the systemic abuse of detainees."
A preliminary review of some of the newly released material showed one case in which three US soldiers were each ordered detained for a month, fined up to $750, and reduced in rank for an incident in October 2003 in which a female Iraqi prisoner was partially stripped, abused, and threatened with more physical harm.
The woman told army investigators that she was in her cell at Baghdad's Al-Salhyat Prison when three military interrogators escorted her to an abandoned cell. While one soldier ''acted as a lookout," the woman said, another held her hands behind her back while the third soldier ''forcefully kissed" her. She said she then was taken downstairs and shown a naked Iraqi man.
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Don't believe the hype
Don't believe the hype by Chris in Paris - 10/23/2004 10:35:36 AM For whatever reason (and I can think of a few, one of which starts with the name "bin") Zarqawi has become the most evil man in the world according to the Bushies. Of course he's a murderer and of course they should eliminate the guy but haven't they already had the chance to do this a few times and they passed on it? Our Pentagon-led media has been hyping Zarqawi for weeks now and if we believe the media spin, this guy has been in hundreds of locations all over Iraq blowing up people every day. The recent news about who is actually behind the attacks tells us something else.Now, the Pentagon-media is hyping the capture of a "senior al-Zarqawi leader" again to make us believe that they're cutting off the head of the monster. A monster, sure, but al-Zarqawi and his lot are just a small piece in a big puzzle of trouble. The problem is considerably larger than just Zarqawi, so don't believe the hype.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
843 ex-soldiers fail to report for Army duty
843 ex-soldiers fail to report for Army duty
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 800 former soldiers have failed to comply with Army orders to get back in uniform and report for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Army said Friday. That is more than one-third of the total who were told to report to a mobilization station by October 17.
Three weeks ago the number stood at 622 amid talk that any who refused to report for duty could be declared Absent Without Leave. Refusing to report for duty normally would lead to AWOL charges, but the Army is going out of its way to resolve these cases as quietly as possible.
In all, 4,166 members of the Individual Ready Reserve have received mobilization orders since July 6, of which 2,288 were to have reported by October 17. The others are to report in coming weeks and months.
Of those due to have reported by now, 1,445 have done so, but 843 have neither reported nor asked for a delay or exemption. That no-show rate of 37 percent is roughly in line with the one-third rate the Army had forecast when it began the mobilization to fill positions in regular and Reserve units. By comparison, the no-show total of 622 three weeks ago equated to a 35 percent rate.
Of the 843, the Army has had follow-up contact with 383 and is seeking to resolve their cases, according to figures made public Friday. For the 460 others, "We are still working to establish positive contact," the Army said. Some may not have received the mailed orders.
Members of the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR, are rarely called to active duty. The last time was 1990, when nearly 20,000 were mobilized. IRR members are people who were honorably discharged after finishing their active-duty tours, usually four to six years, but remained in the IRR for the rest of the eight-year commitment they made when they joined the Army. They are separate from the reserve troops who are more routinely mobilized -- the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army anticipated, based on past experience, that about one-third of the IRR people it called up would be disqualified for medical or other reasons. The trend so far bears that out.
The Marine Corps, meanwhile, said Friday that a Marine killed in western Iraq earlier this week, Sgt. Douglas E. Bascom, 25, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. He was the first IRR Marine to die in Iraq, according to Gunnery Sgt. Kristine Scharber, a spokeswoman at Marine Corps headquarters in the Pentagon.
There are about 400 IRR Marines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Shane Darbonne, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Mobilization Command.
Army officials said they were uncertain whether any of their Individual Ready Reserve members have been killed in Iraq.
That the Army has had to reach so deeply into its store of reserve soldiers is a measure of the strain the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have put on the active-duty Army. When the American invading force toppled Baghdad in April 2003, the Army thought it would be sending most of its soldiers home within months. Instead, it has kept 100,000 or more there ever since.
While the number of IRR Army soldiers who have failed to comply with their mobilization order has increased this month, so has the number who have asked for a delay or to be excused from serving.
The number who have requested delays or exemptions has grown from 1,498 (out of a total of 3,899 mobilization orders) in late September to 1,671 (out of a total of 4,166 orders) as of October 17. A little over one-third of the requests have been acted on, with 584 approved and 21 denied.
The Army said some withdrew their requests even after they had been approved. It did not say how many.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/22/us.armycall.up.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 800 former soldiers have failed to comply with Army orders to get back in uniform and report for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Army said Friday. That is more than one-third of the total who were told to report to a mobilization station by October 17.
Three weeks ago the number stood at 622 amid talk that any who refused to report for duty could be declared Absent Without Leave. Refusing to report for duty normally would lead to AWOL charges, but the Army is going out of its way to resolve these cases as quietly as possible.
In all, 4,166 members of the Individual Ready Reserve have received mobilization orders since July 6, of which 2,288 were to have reported by October 17. The others are to report in coming weeks and months.
Of those due to have reported by now, 1,445 have done so, but 843 have neither reported nor asked for a delay or exemption. That no-show rate of 37 percent is roughly in line with the one-third rate the Army had forecast when it began the mobilization to fill positions in regular and Reserve units. By comparison, the no-show total of 622 three weeks ago equated to a 35 percent rate.
Of the 843, the Army has had follow-up contact with 383 and is seeking to resolve their cases, according to figures made public Friday. For the 460 others, "We are still working to establish positive contact," the Army said. Some may not have received the mailed orders.
Members of the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR, are rarely called to active duty. The last time was 1990, when nearly 20,000 were mobilized. IRR members are people who were honorably discharged after finishing their active-duty tours, usually four to six years, but remained in the IRR for the rest of the eight-year commitment they made when they joined the Army. They are separate from the reserve troops who are more routinely mobilized -- the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army anticipated, based on past experience, that about one-third of the IRR people it called up would be disqualified for medical or other reasons. The trend so far bears that out.
The Marine Corps, meanwhile, said Friday that a Marine killed in western Iraq earlier this week, Sgt. Douglas E. Bascom, 25, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. He was the first IRR Marine to die in Iraq, according to Gunnery Sgt. Kristine Scharber, a spokeswoman at Marine Corps headquarters in the Pentagon.
There are about 400 IRR Marines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Shane Darbonne, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Mobilization Command.
Army officials said they were uncertain whether any of their Individual Ready Reserve members have been killed in Iraq.
That the Army has had to reach so deeply into its store of reserve soldiers is a measure of the strain the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have put on the active-duty Army. When the American invading force toppled Baghdad in April 2003, the Army thought it would be sending most of its soldiers home within months. Instead, it has kept 100,000 or more there ever since.
While the number of IRR Army soldiers who have failed to comply with their mobilization order has increased this month, so has the number who have asked for a delay or to be excused from serving.
The number who have requested delays or exemptions has grown from 1,498 (out of a total of 3,899 mobilization orders) in late September to 1,671 (out of a total of 4,166 orders) as of October 17. A little over one-third of the requests have been acted on, with 584 approved and 21 denied.
The Army said some withdrew their requests even after they had been approved. It did not say how many.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/22/us.armycall.up.ap/index.html
Why Did George W. Bush Let Osama bin Laden
Why Did George W. Bush Let Osama bin Laden Escape from Tora Bora?
October 20 2004-Venice,FL. by Daniel Hopsicker
An effort to expurgate ‘inconvenient knowledge’ about the 9.11 attack and the American response which followed gathered steam this week with two developments seemingly designed to remove from public view several crucial aspects of recent history.
Legal threats were delivered last week to the German publisher of “Welcome to Terrorland” over the revelation that some of Mohamed Atta’s closest associates while in Florida were not Arabs or even Muslims but German nationals, several of whom attended meetings with the terrorist ringleader during which the hijacking conspiracy appears to have been discussed.
If the efforts succeeds, it will remove from public record evidence unearthed during one of the only independent investigations done so far of the U.S. Government’s official story of the terrorist hijackers’ activities and associates while they were in the U.S. preparing their attack… and future generation may never be the wiser.
A second effort with a similar objective was launched in an op-ed piece in Tuesday’s New York Times, by General Tommy Franks, commander of the Afghanistan operation. In it he attempts to re-write recent history and whitewash the growing scandal over the Bush Administrations feeble effort to apprehend Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan when he was cornered at Tora Bora.
The MadCowMorningNews reveals new details about the man authorities called “the terrorist ringleader,” in our second feature called “Top Ten Things You Never Knew About Mohamed Atta.”
(Read the first “Top Ten Things You Never Knew About Mohamed Atta” here.)
Until Democratic candidate Kerry recently summoned the courage to confront Bush (on an issue covered over a year ago by the MadCowMorningNews in “George Bush Let Bin Laden Escape from Tora Bora”)
the fact that after President Bush's initial bravado over catching bin Laden "dead or alive," he had been inexplicably allowed to escape during the Battle of Tora Bora had largely been forgotten.
Today’s response from Gen. Franks in the N.Y. Times denies it…
“On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.”
Franks stated the debate should “focus on facts, not distortions of history.”
“First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that ‘we had him surrounded.’ We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir,” Franks continued.
“But Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.”
"A lot of words meaning nothing whatever."
“We did not ‘outsource’ military action,” wrote Franks. “We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan...Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.”
“The Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters,” said Franks.
“Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden,” Franks wrote. “The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again.”
Franks seems to be stating that the war on terrorism’s global focus offered the rationale for why Bush cannot be said to have taken his eye off the “bin Laden ball.” The sentence doesn’t parse…
Not only does it not make sense… It isn’t even true. Proof to the contrary had already been reported by the very same N.Y. Times.
No zeal, No zest, no zoap
The actions of American military commanders in Afghanistan, reported the Times, in a Sept. 30, 2002 front page article (10-month Afghan Mystery: Is Bin Laden Dead or Alive?) did not reflect an emphasis on rigorous pursuit of the Al Qaeda chieftain.
People ‘on the ground’ in Afghanistan during the siege of Tora Bora believe that American commanders did not act with anything like the zeal you'd expect from people whose mission was hunting down America's Most Wanted Man, said the Times.
“American forces in Afghanistan have not been helped by the suspicion here at Tora Bora, where bin Laden was all but trapped, that indecisiveness on the part of American commanders, or perhaps reluctance to risk casualties, may have helped him (bin Laden) escape."
"If (bin Laden) fled to Pakistan," the Times reported, "he did so over snow-choked mountain trails that were not blocked by American or other allied troops until after the bombing—an oversight that some of the allies point to as having squandered the best opportunity of the war to snare America's most wanted man." (italics ours.)
When we read this we were dumbfounded. Don't they teach that in General's school? “Cut 'em off, then bomb them back to the Stone Age?”
"Within weeks high-ranking British officers were saying privately that American commanders had vetoed a proposal to guard the high-altitude trails, arguing that the risks of a firefight, in deep snow, gusting winds and low-slung clouds, were too high," said the article.
Low-slung clouds? The snow was too deep?
"Similar accounts abound among Afghan commanders who provided the troops stationed on the Tora Bora foothills—on the north side of the mountains, facing the Afghan city of Jalalabad," continued the Times. “Those troops played a blocking role that left the Qaeda fugitives only one escape route, to the south, over the mountains to Pakistan."
One Afghan commander told the Times of pleading with Special Forces officers to block the trails to Pakistan. "Their attitude was, 'we must kill the enemy, but we must remain absolutely safe," said warlord Hajji Zaher. "This is crazy."
It is inconceivable that U.S. Special Forces troops would insist on remaining absolutely safe in a fight to capture the leader of the forces that murdered 3000 people on Sept 11.
An order to 'stand down' must have come from above.
No explanation of this may ever be forthcoming. But we think warlord Hajjii Zaher got one thing right at least…
It is crazy. And the craziness seems a long way from being over.
October 20 2004-Venice,FL. by Daniel Hopsicker
An effort to expurgate ‘inconvenient knowledge’ about the 9.11 attack and the American response which followed gathered steam this week with two developments seemingly designed to remove from public view several crucial aspects of recent history.
Legal threats were delivered last week to the German publisher of “Welcome to Terrorland” over the revelation that some of Mohamed Atta’s closest associates while in Florida were not Arabs or even Muslims but German nationals, several of whom attended meetings with the terrorist ringleader during which the hijacking conspiracy appears to have been discussed.
If the efforts succeeds, it will remove from public record evidence unearthed during one of the only independent investigations done so far of the U.S. Government’s official story of the terrorist hijackers’ activities and associates while they were in the U.S. preparing their attack… and future generation may never be the wiser.
A second effort with a similar objective was launched in an op-ed piece in Tuesday’s New York Times, by General Tommy Franks, commander of the Afghanistan operation. In it he attempts to re-write recent history and whitewash the growing scandal over the Bush Administrations feeble effort to apprehend Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan when he was cornered at Tora Bora.
The MadCowMorningNews reveals new details about the man authorities called “the terrorist ringleader,” in our second feature called “Top Ten Things You Never Knew About Mohamed Atta.”
(Read the first “Top Ten Things You Never Knew About Mohamed Atta” here.)
Until Democratic candidate Kerry recently summoned the courage to confront Bush (on an issue covered over a year ago by the MadCowMorningNews in “George Bush Let Bin Laden Escape from Tora Bora”)
the fact that after President Bush's initial bravado over catching bin Laden "dead or alive," he had been inexplicably allowed to escape during the Battle of Tora Bora had largely been forgotten.
Today’s response from Gen. Franks in the N.Y. Times denies it…
“On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.”
Franks stated the debate should “focus on facts, not distortions of history.”
“First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that ‘we had him surrounded.’ We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir,” Franks continued.
“But Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.”
"A lot of words meaning nothing whatever."
“We did not ‘outsource’ military action,” wrote Franks. “We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan...Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.”
“The Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters,” said Franks.
“Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden,” Franks wrote. “The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again.”
Franks seems to be stating that the war on terrorism’s global focus offered the rationale for why Bush cannot be said to have taken his eye off the “bin Laden ball.” The sentence doesn’t parse…
Not only does it not make sense… It isn’t even true. Proof to the contrary had already been reported by the very same N.Y. Times.
No zeal, No zest, no zoap
The actions of American military commanders in Afghanistan, reported the Times, in a Sept. 30, 2002 front page article (10-month Afghan Mystery: Is Bin Laden Dead or Alive?) did not reflect an emphasis on rigorous pursuit of the Al Qaeda chieftain.
People ‘on the ground’ in Afghanistan during the siege of Tora Bora believe that American commanders did not act with anything like the zeal you'd expect from people whose mission was hunting down America's Most Wanted Man, said the Times.
“American forces in Afghanistan have not been helped by the suspicion here at Tora Bora, where bin Laden was all but trapped, that indecisiveness on the part of American commanders, or perhaps reluctance to risk casualties, may have helped him (bin Laden) escape."
"If (bin Laden) fled to Pakistan," the Times reported, "he did so over snow-choked mountain trails that were not blocked by American or other allied troops until after the bombing—an oversight that some of the allies point to as having squandered the best opportunity of the war to snare America's most wanted man." (italics ours.)
When we read this we were dumbfounded. Don't they teach that in General's school? “Cut 'em off, then bomb them back to the Stone Age?”
"Within weeks high-ranking British officers were saying privately that American commanders had vetoed a proposal to guard the high-altitude trails, arguing that the risks of a firefight, in deep snow, gusting winds and low-slung clouds, were too high," said the article.
Low-slung clouds? The snow was too deep?
"Similar accounts abound among Afghan commanders who provided the troops stationed on the Tora Bora foothills—on the north side of the mountains, facing the Afghan city of Jalalabad," continued the Times. “Those troops played a blocking role that left the Qaeda fugitives only one escape route, to the south, over the mountains to Pakistan."
One Afghan commander told the Times of pleading with Special Forces officers to block the trails to Pakistan. "Their attitude was, 'we must kill the enemy, but we must remain absolutely safe," said warlord Hajji Zaher. "This is crazy."
It is inconceivable that U.S. Special Forces troops would insist on remaining absolutely safe in a fight to capture the leader of the forces that murdered 3000 people on Sept 11.
An order to 'stand down' must have come from above.
No explanation of this may ever be forthcoming. But we think warlord Hajjii Zaher got one thing right at least…
It is crazy. And the craziness seems a long way from being over.
Responsible Use
DAILY EXPRESSResponsible Use by Lawrence F. Kaplan Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 10.22.04
According to this week's TNR endorsement of John Kerry, the aim of a democratic Iraq amounted to a noble enterprise--if only the Bush team had proved competent in any enterprise apart from cutting taxes and pursuing a recklessly partisan agenda. The occupation of Iraq, the editorial notes, has been "conducted with such shocking arrogance and carelessness that it calls into question whether the Bush administration's pledge to turn Iraq into a model democracy was ever really sincere." Fair enough. But does the bungled implementation of its proposals relieve the magazine of any need to acknowledge responsibility for what followed from its own arguments? In pinning exclusive blame on the Bush team for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq, the editorial certainly seems to suggest this. In this respect, it is neither unique nor correct.
There's nothing wrong with changing one's opinion. Facts change, after all, and minds change with them. But in a mass flight from accountability, disillusioned hawks have come awfully close to arguing that the war that fills Walter Reed's beds wasn't their idea. No one has espoused this view more vigorously than New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who--like the TNR editorial--credits "how we got so off track in Iraq" to the fact that it "has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad." Neatly summarizing the revised wisdom, Slate editor and former war-supporter Jacob Weisberg concludes that, while the rationale for war may have been sound in conception, "Bush was the wrong president to do it." In attempts to salvage the purity of an ideal from its bloody application on the ground, even those who still support the war--this writer included--have taken advantage of the Bush-bashing loophole.
None of this is to excuse the administration for its obvious and avoidable failures in Iraq. But it's no good to argue that we weren't given the war we were promised. To begin with, war always involves unintended consequences. And if many of this war's consequences should have been anticipated, well, as Weisberg acknowledges, common sense should have alerted all but the most obtuse idealists to the fact that George Marshall wouldn't be the one enshrining their preferences in official policy. After two years of watching the Bush team in action, no member of the "Who, me?" chorus can plausibly claim to have been oblivious to the limitations of the policymakers they were entrusting with an enterprise of this scope.
More important, it's not so easy to disentangle problems blamed on defects of implementation from the very ideas today's war critics were championing only yesterday. After all, it was precisely the aims that generated support from liberal and conservative idealists alike--liberation, de-Baathification, democratization, non-sectarianism--which helped underpin errors from rosy occupation scenarios to the conviction that Iraqis would quickly embrace the cause of liberty. Far from being the exclusive property of Paul Wolfowitz, these assumptions were a staple among many of those who now speak as though the administration had spun them out of whole cloth.
But that was before Iraq began to come apart at the seams. Hence, Harvard's Michael Ignatieff, whose name became synonymous with the case for humanitarian intervention in Iraq, now claims it was "fantasy" for the administration to go "into Iraq assuming that its challenge was humanitarian." Hence, too, the insistence that America's duty would not be discharged until it finished "stabilizing, rebuilding, reforming, preserving the unity of, and ultimately democratizing Iraq"--spelled out in a statement signed by a who's who of democratic idealists on the eve of war--has been disowned by its most outspoken signatories. One of them, Peter Galbraith, repudiates the ideal of a democratic or even a unitary Iraq in a New York Review of Books essay entitled, appropriately enough, "How to Get Out of Iraq." Another, the Brookings Institution's Ivo Daalder, writes that in "Iraq today, America no longer offers a solution. It has become part of the problem." Then there is Brookings' Kenneth Pollack, who literally wrote the book of why we should go to war and who has spent the past year distancing himself from its contents. The Bush team, you see, "had not taken most of the precautionary measures I had recommended."
But when it comes to Iraq--to paraphrase Robert Kennedy's remark about Vietnam--there's enough responsibility to go around. Maybe, as during that earlier war, distancing oneself from a troubled war reflects some kind of heightened moral awareness. But one can't simply discount the weight of one's earlier claims without assuming some measure of culpability for the result. Absent such an acknowledgement, the point is merely to comfort the sensibilities of those who profess shock at the images on their TV screens. It testifies to their virtue and good intentions. It offers assurance that their ideas did not, in fact, have consequences. They did.
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at TNR.
Click Here For FOUR FREE WEEKS of The New Republic.
RELATED LINKS
Quote Unquote
John Kerry for PresidentGeorge W. Bush's astonishing contempt for empirical evidence and honest debate is producing a fiscal crisis at home, a disaster in Iraq, and a more dangerous world. John Kerry can do better.
Slam DunkThe Duelfer report is the final blow to the White House's WMD rationale for the Iraq war--and maybe to the doctrine of preemption itself.
Past ImperfectConservatives say John Kerry doesn't have any great ideas for Iraq. What they don't say is that it's George W. Bush's fault.
Twin PiqueLast night Cheney made two strikingly dishonest statements about Iraq.
More of the SameNeither Bush nor Kerry offered realistic plans for Iraq last night.
Home Politics Books & the ArtsPrivacy Policy Contact TNR Subscriber ServicesCopyright 2004, The New Republic
'Frightened to death' of Bush
A FORMER REPUBLICAN SENATOR FOR KERRY 'Frightened to death' of Bush
By Marlow W. CookSpecial to The Courier-Journal
I shall cast my vote for John Kerry come Nov 2.
I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party send the wrong person to the White House, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions. I fall in the category of good conservative thinkers, like George F. Will, for instance, who wrote: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and having thought, to have second thoughts."
I say, well done George Will, or, even better, from the mouth of the numero uno of conservatives, William F. Buckley Jr.: "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
First, let's talk about George Bush's moral standards.
In 2000, to defeat Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — a man who was shot down in Vietnam and imprisoned for over five years — they used Carl Rove's "East Texas special." They started the rumor that he was gay, saying he had spent too much time in the Hanoi Hilton. They said he was crazy. They said his wife was on drugs. Then, to top it off, they spread pictures of his adopted daughter, who was born in Bangladesh and thus dark skinned, to the sons and daughters of the Confederacy in rural South Carolina.
To show he was not just picking on Republicans, he went after Sen. Max Cleland from Georgia, a Democrat seeking re-election. Bush henchmen said he wasn't patriotic because Cleland did not agree 100 percent on how to handle homeland security. They published his picture along with Cuba's Castro, questioning Cleland's patriotism and commitment to America's security. Never mind that his Republican challenger was a Vietnam deferment case and Cleland, who had served in Vietnam, came home in a wheel chair having lost three limbs fighting for his country. Anyone who wants to win an election and control of the legislative body that badly has no moral character at all.
We know his father got him in the Texas Air National Guard so he would not have to go to Vietnam. The religious right can have him with those moral standards. We also have Vice President Dick Cheney, who deferred his way out of Vietnam because, as he says, he "had more important things to do."
I have just turned 78. During my lifetime, we have sent 31,377,741 Americans to war, not including whatever will be the final figures for the Iraq fiasco. Of those, 502,722 died and 928,980 came home without legs, arms or what have you.
Those wars were to defend freedom throughout the free world from communism, dictators and tyrants. Now Americans are the aggressors — we start the wars, we blow up all the infrastructure in those countries, and then turn around and spend tax dollars denying our nation an excellent education system, medical and drug programs, and the list goes on. ...
I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in general. Not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all.
Lyndon Johnson said America could have guns and butter at the same time. This administration says you can have guns, butter and no taxes at the same time. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is wrong, and we live by it to our peril. We in this nation have a serious problem. Its almost worse than terrorism: We are broke. Our government is borrowing a billion dollars a day. They are now borrowing from the government pension program, for apparently they have gotten as much out of the Social Security Trust as it can take. Our House and Senate announce weekly grants for every kind of favorite local programs to save legislative seats, and it's all borrowed money.
If you listened to the President confirming the value of our war with Iraq, you heard him say, "If no weapons of mass destruction were found, at least we know we have stopped his future distribution of same to terrorists." If that is his justification, then, if he is re-elected our next war will be against Iran and at the same time North Korea, for indeed they have weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, which they have readily admitted. Those wars will require a draft of men and women. ...
I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with requested information. I am against a government that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders of our country sat down and determined our energy policy, and to prove how much they want to keep that secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Those of you who are fiscal conservatives and abhor our staggering debt, tell your conservative friends, "Vote for Kerry," because without Bush to control the Congress, the first thing lawmakers will demand Kerry do is balance the budget.
The wonderful thing about this country is its gift of citizenship, then it's freedom to register as one sees fit. For me, as a Republican, I feel that when my party gives me a dangerous leader who flouts the truth, takes the country into an undeclared war and then adds a war on terrorism to it without debate by the Congress, we have a duty to rid ourselves of those who are taking our country on a perilous ride in the wrong direction.
If we are indeed the party of Lincoln (I paraphrase his words), a president who deems to have the right to declare war at will without the consent of the Congress is a president who far exceeds his power under our Constitution.
I will take John Kerry for four years to put our country on the right path.
The writer, a Republican formerly of Louisville, was Jefferson County judge from 1962-1968 and U.S. senator from Kentucky from 1968-1975.
By Marlow W. CookSpecial to The Courier-Journal
I shall cast my vote for John Kerry come Nov 2.
I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party send the wrong person to the White House, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions. I fall in the category of good conservative thinkers, like George F. Will, for instance, who wrote: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and having thought, to have second thoughts."
I say, well done George Will, or, even better, from the mouth of the numero uno of conservatives, William F. Buckley Jr.: "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
First, let's talk about George Bush's moral standards.
In 2000, to defeat Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — a man who was shot down in Vietnam and imprisoned for over five years — they used Carl Rove's "East Texas special." They started the rumor that he was gay, saying he had spent too much time in the Hanoi Hilton. They said he was crazy. They said his wife was on drugs. Then, to top it off, they spread pictures of his adopted daughter, who was born in Bangladesh and thus dark skinned, to the sons and daughters of the Confederacy in rural South Carolina.
To show he was not just picking on Republicans, he went after Sen. Max Cleland from Georgia, a Democrat seeking re-election. Bush henchmen said he wasn't patriotic because Cleland did not agree 100 percent on how to handle homeland security. They published his picture along with Cuba's Castro, questioning Cleland's patriotism and commitment to America's security. Never mind that his Republican challenger was a Vietnam deferment case and Cleland, who had served in Vietnam, came home in a wheel chair having lost three limbs fighting for his country. Anyone who wants to win an election and control of the legislative body that badly has no moral character at all.
We know his father got him in the Texas Air National Guard so he would not have to go to Vietnam. The religious right can have him with those moral standards. We also have Vice President Dick Cheney, who deferred his way out of Vietnam because, as he says, he "had more important things to do."
I have just turned 78. During my lifetime, we have sent 31,377,741 Americans to war, not including whatever will be the final figures for the Iraq fiasco. Of those, 502,722 died and 928,980 came home without legs, arms or what have you.
Those wars were to defend freedom throughout the free world from communism, dictators and tyrants. Now Americans are the aggressors — we start the wars, we blow up all the infrastructure in those countries, and then turn around and spend tax dollars denying our nation an excellent education system, medical and drug programs, and the list goes on. ...
I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in general. Not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all.
Lyndon Johnson said America could have guns and butter at the same time. This administration says you can have guns, butter and no taxes at the same time. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is wrong, and we live by it to our peril. We in this nation have a serious problem. Its almost worse than terrorism: We are broke. Our government is borrowing a billion dollars a day. They are now borrowing from the government pension program, for apparently they have gotten as much out of the Social Security Trust as it can take. Our House and Senate announce weekly grants for every kind of favorite local programs to save legislative seats, and it's all borrowed money.
If you listened to the President confirming the value of our war with Iraq, you heard him say, "If no weapons of mass destruction were found, at least we know we have stopped his future distribution of same to terrorists." If that is his justification, then, if he is re-elected our next war will be against Iran and at the same time North Korea, for indeed they have weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, which they have readily admitted. Those wars will require a draft of men and women. ...
I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with requested information. I am against a government that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders of our country sat down and determined our energy policy, and to prove how much they want to keep that secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Those of you who are fiscal conservatives and abhor our staggering debt, tell your conservative friends, "Vote for Kerry," because without Bush to control the Congress, the first thing lawmakers will demand Kerry do is balance the budget.
The wonderful thing about this country is its gift of citizenship, then it's freedom to register as one sees fit. For me, as a Republican, I feel that when my party gives me a dangerous leader who flouts the truth, takes the country into an undeclared war and then adds a war on terrorism to it without debate by the Congress, we have a duty to rid ourselves of those who are taking our country on a perilous ride in the wrong direction.
If we are indeed the party of Lincoln (I paraphrase his words), a president who deems to have the right to declare war at will without the consent of the Congress is a president who far exceeds his power under our Constitution.
I will take John Kerry for four years to put our country on the right path.
The writer, a Republican formerly of Louisville, was Jefferson County judge from 1962-1968 and U.S. senator from Kentucky from 1968-1975.
Insurgents funded by Saudis, U.S. says
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-ainsurgency22oct22,0,6634533.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
Insurgents funded by Saudis, U.S. says
By John J. Lumpkin
The Associated PressOctober 22, 2004
WASHINGTON · Iraq's new security forces are heavily infiltrated by insurgents, and the guerrilla groups have access to almost unlimited money to pay for deadly attacks, according to a U.S. defense official who provided new details on the evolution of the rebels.A significant part of the insurgents' money is coming from sympathizers in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi government is neglecting the problem, said the official, who was authorized by the Pentagon to speak on the issue this week, but only on condition of anonymity.Money is flowing into Iraq through Syria, the official said.In both cases, it comes from a diffuse network of supporters, funneled through charities, tribal relations, and businesses -- not necessarily the same funding networks that transfer money to al-Qaida from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, but following a similar model, the official said.Saudi government officials have repeatedly said they are cracking down on money networks that support terrorism, but their focus has been primarily on stopping al-Qaida, not the Iraqi resistance. A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not return a call seeking comment Thursday.Some experts called the money trail new evidence that the Iraqi resistance has gained support in the Arab world."The overall resistance in Iraq is popular and is getting more popular in the Arab world," said Vince Cannistraro, a former counterterrorism chief for the Central Intelligence Agency.But Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst in Washington, said the U.S. government has presented little evidence to support its claims of notable foreign involvement in Iraqi insurgency, be it from Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia."You get a different story from virtually every official," Cordesman said. Any money flowing to terrorist groups from the Arabian peninsula more likely would pass through banks in Europe, making it difficult for Arab governments to track, he said.The defense official described a country where a fearful citizenry doesn't fully accept the concepts of Western law and order and remains unwilling to take their future into their own hands, where police are often corrupt and the security forces are "heavily infiltrated" by insurgents.In some cases, members of the Iraqi security services have developed sympathies and contacts with the guerrillas; in other cases, infiltrators were sent to join the groups, the official said.The official pointed to a mortar attack Tuesday on an Iraqi National Guard compound near Baghdad as a probable inside job. The attackers apparently knew precisely when and where the unit's members were gathering and dropped mortar rounds in the middle of their formation.
Copyright © 2004, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Insurgents funded by Saudis, U.S. says
By John J. Lumpkin
The Associated PressOctober 22, 2004
WASHINGTON · Iraq's new security forces are heavily infiltrated by insurgents, and the guerrilla groups have access to almost unlimited money to pay for deadly attacks, according to a U.S. defense official who provided new details on the evolution of the rebels.A significant part of the insurgents' money is coming from sympathizers in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi government is neglecting the problem, said the official, who was authorized by the Pentagon to speak on the issue this week, but only on condition of anonymity.Money is flowing into Iraq through Syria, the official said.In both cases, it comes from a diffuse network of supporters, funneled through charities, tribal relations, and businesses -- not necessarily the same funding networks that transfer money to al-Qaida from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, but following a similar model, the official said.Saudi government officials have repeatedly said they are cracking down on money networks that support terrorism, but their focus has been primarily on stopping al-Qaida, not the Iraqi resistance. A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not return a call seeking comment Thursday.Some experts called the money trail new evidence that the Iraqi resistance has gained support in the Arab world."The overall resistance in Iraq is popular and is getting more popular in the Arab world," said Vince Cannistraro, a former counterterrorism chief for the Central Intelligence Agency.But Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst in Washington, said the U.S. government has presented little evidence to support its claims of notable foreign involvement in Iraqi insurgency, be it from Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia."You get a different story from virtually every official," Cordesman said. Any money flowing to terrorist groups from the Arabian peninsula more likely would pass through banks in Europe, making it difficult for Arab governments to track, he said.The defense official described a country where a fearful citizenry doesn't fully accept the concepts of Western law and order and remains unwilling to take their future into their own hands, where police are often corrupt and the security forces are "heavily infiltrated" by insurgents.In some cases, members of the Iraqi security services have developed sympathies and contacts with the guerrillas; in other cases, infiltrators were sent to join the groups, the official said.The official pointed to a mortar attack Tuesday on an Iraqi National Guard compound near Baghdad as a probable inside job. The attackers apparently knew precisely when and where the unit's members were gathering and dropped mortar rounds in the middle of their formation.
Copyright © 2004, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll
washingtonpost.com
Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll U.S.-Supported Government Is Losing Ground
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff WriterFriday, October 22, 2004; Page A01
Leaders of Iraq's religious parties have emerged as the country's most popular politicians and would win the largest share of votes if an election were held today, while the U.S.-backed government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is losing serious ground, according to a U.S.-financed poll by the International Republican Institute.
More than 45 percent of Iraqis also believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and 41 percent say it is moving in the right direction.
Within the Bush administration, a victory by Iraq's religious parties is viewed as the worst-case scenario. Washington has hoped that Allawi and the current team, which was selected by U.S. and U.N. envoys, would win or do well in Iraq's first democratic election, in January. U.S. officials believe a secular government led by moderates is critical, in part because the new government will oversee writing a new Iraqi constitution.
"The picture it paints is that, after all the blood and treasure we've spent and despite the [U.S.-led] occupation's democracy efforts, we're in a position now that the moderates would not win if an election were held today," said a U.S. official who requested anonymity because the poll has not been released.
U.S. officials acknowledge that the political honeymoon after the handover of political power on June 28 ended much earlier than anticipated. The new poll, based on 2,000 face-to-face interviews conducted among all ethnic and religious groups nationwide between Sept. 24 and Oct. 4, shows that Iraqi support for the government has plummeted to about 43 percent who believe it is effective, down from 62 percent in a late-summer poll.
A senior State Department official played down the results. "When the interim government took over, the [poll] numbers were artificially high. It's very difficult to meet expectations when they're sky-high," he said on the condition of anonymity because the data are still being analyzed.
But in another blow, one out of three Iraqis blames the U.S.-led multinational force for Iraq's security problems, slightly more than the 32 percent who blame foreign terrorists, the poll shows. Only 8 percent blame members of the former government.
"We had convinced everyone -- Americans and Iraqis -- that things might change with the return of sovereignty, but, in fact, things went the other way," a congressional staff member said. "What's particularly damning is that the multinational force gets more blame than the terrorists for the problems in Iraq. It's all trending in the wrong way . . . and it's not likely we'll be able to change public sentiment much before the election. "
In positive news for the administration, the poll found that 85 percent of Iraqis want to vote in the January election.
Despite the current strife, about two-thirds of Iraqis do not believe civil war is imminent, the poll found. Asked if their households had been hurt by violence, injuries, death or monetary loss over the past year, only 22 percent of those questioned said yes -- a figure that surprised pollsters and U.S. officials.
With voter registration due to begin Nov. 1, the poll found that 64 percent of Iraqis are still unwilling to align with any party, which U.S. officials attribute to the legacy of the Baath Party. The most valuable indicators, officials say, may be the data on Iraq's politicians.
The poll found the most popular politician is Abdel Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The group was part of the U.S.-backed opposition to Saddam Hussein and is now receiving millions of dollars in aid from Iran, U.S. officials say.
Hakim had 80 percent name recognition among Iraqis, with more than 51 percent wanting to see him in the national assembly, which will pick a new government.
Allawi had the greatest name recognition of any politician, with 47 percent of Iraqis supporting him for a seat in the new parliament. But rebel Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr came in a very close third, with 46 percent backing him for an assembly seat.
Ahmed Chalabi, once favored in Washington as a possible successor to Hussein, had wide national recognition, but only 15 percent want him in parliament -- and more than half oppose him.
The one factor that skews the poll, analysts said, is that Ibrahim Jafari, the Dawa Party chief and current vice president, was not included. He had the highest popularity rating in previous polls.
That may still be the case, since almost 18 percent of Iraqis surveyed by IRI said they were most likely to vote for Dawa candidates -- the largest backing among the top 11 parties listed. Dawa is another former U.S.-backed group supported by aid from Iran, U.S. officials say.
U.S. officials and Iraqi analysts believe candidates aligned with the Supreme Council and with Dawa are likely to capture the highest percentage of votes, giving religious parties an edge in forming a new government.
Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar, a Sunni leader of the country's largest tribe, was also omitted from the poll.
In an interview with Abu Dhabi television, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that Iraqis want democracy and are unlikely to go "from one form of totalitarian state to another form of totalitarian state." Both U.S. officials and Iraq experts note that the rise of Islamic parties does not necessarily mean creation of an Islamic government or theocracy such as Iran's.
President Bush said Tuesday that he would be "disappointed" if free and fair elections in Iraq led to the seating of an Islamic government, but that the United States would accept the results. "Democracy is democracy," he said. "If that's what people choose, that's what the people choose."
The IRI, founded in 1983, is a private, nonprofit organization that has worked in more than 60 countries to advance democracy worldwide. With U.S. grants, it has been in charge of public opinion polls in advance of the election.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll U.S.-Supported Government Is Losing Ground
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff WriterFriday, October 22, 2004; Page A01
Leaders of Iraq's religious parties have emerged as the country's most popular politicians and would win the largest share of votes if an election were held today, while the U.S.-backed government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is losing serious ground, according to a U.S.-financed poll by the International Republican Institute.
More than 45 percent of Iraqis also believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and 41 percent say it is moving in the right direction.
Within the Bush administration, a victory by Iraq's religious parties is viewed as the worst-case scenario. Washington has hoped that Allawi and the current team, which was selected by U.S. and U.N. envoys, would win or do well in Iraq's first democratic election, in January. U.S. officials believe a secular government led by moderates is critical, in part because the new government will oversee writing a new Iraqi constitution.
"The picture it paints is that, after all the blood and treasure we've spent and despite the [U.S.-led] occupation's democracy efforts, we're in a position now that the moderates would not win if an election were held today," said a U.S. official who requested anonymity because the poll has not been released.
U.S. officials acknowledge that the political honeymoon after the handover of political power on June 28 ended much earlier than anticipated. The new poll, based on 2,000 face-to-face interviews conducted among all ethnic and religious groups nationwide between Sept. 24 and Oct. 4, shows that Iraqi support for the government has plummeted to about 43 percent who believe it is effective, down from 62 percent in a late-summer poll.
A senior State Department official played down the results. "When the interim government took over, the [poll] numbers were artificially high. It's very difficult to meet expectations when they're sky-high," he said on the condition of anonymity because the data are still being analyzed.
But in another blow, one out of three Iraqis blames the U.S.-led multinational force for Iraq's security problems, slightly more than the 32 percent who blame foreign terrorists, the poll shows. Only 8 percent blame members of the former government.
"We had convinced everyone -- Americans and Iraqis -- that things might change with the return of sovereignty, but, in fact, things went the other way," a congressional staff member said. "What's particularly damning is that the multinational force gets more blame than the terrorists for the problems in Iraq. It's all trending in the wrong way . . . and it's not likely we'll be able to change public sentiment much before the election. "
In positive news for the administration, the poll found that 85 percent of Iraqis want to vote in the January election.
Despite the current strife, about two-thirds of Iraqis do not believe civil war is imminent, the poll found. Asked if their households had been hurt by violence, injuries, death or monetary loss over the past year, only 22 percent of those questioned said yes -- a figure that surprised pollsters and U.S. officials.
With voter registration due to begin Nov. 1, the poll found that 64 percent of Iraqis are still unwilling to align with any party, which U.S. officials attribute to the legacy of the Baath Party. The most valuable indicators, officials say, may be the data on Iraq's politicians.
The poll found the most popular politician is Abdel Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The group was part of the U.S.-backed opposition to Saddam Hussein and is now receiving millions of dollars in aid from Iran, U.S. officials say.
Hakim had 80 percent name recognition among Iraqis, with more than 51 percent wanting to see him in the national assembly, which will pick a new government.
Allawi had the greatest name recognition of any politician, with 47 percent of Iraqis supporting him for a seat in the new parliament. But rebel Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr came in a very close third, with 46 percent backing him for an assembly seat.
Ahmed Chalabi, once favored in Washington as a possible successor to Hussein, had wide national recognition, but only 15 percent want him in parliament -- and more than half oppose him.
The one factor that skews the poll, analysts said, is that Ibrahim Jafari, the Dawa Party chief and current vice president, was not included. He had the highest popularity rating in previous polls.
That may still be the case, since almost 18 percent of Iraqis surveyed by IRI said they were most likely to vote for Dawa candidates -- the largest backing among the top 11 parties listed. Dawa is another former U.S.-backed group supported by aid from Iran, U.S. officials say.
U.S. officials and Iraqi analysts believe candidates aligned with the Supreme Council and with Dawa are likely to capture the highest percentage of votes, giving religious parties an edge in forming a new government.
Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar, a Sunni leader of the country's largest tribe, was also omitted from the poll.
In an interview with Abu Dhabi television, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that Iraqis want democracy and are unlikely to go "from one form of totalitarian state to another form of totalitarian state." Both U.S. officials and Iraq experts note that the rise of Islamic parties does not necessarily mean creation of an Islamic government or theocracy such as Iran's.
President Bush said Tuesday that he would be "disappointed" if free and fair elections in Iraq led to the seating of an Islamic government, but that the United States would accept the results. "Democracy is democracy," he said. "If that's what people choose, that's what the people choose."
The IRI, founded in 1983, is a private, nonprofit organization that has worked in more than 60 countries to advance democracy worldwide. With U.S. grants, it has been in charge of public opinion polls in advance of the election.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Friday, October 22, 2004
Those commie Liberals who talk about Police State tactics are Nuts!
1st Amendment Threats
Oregon Police Fire On Bystanders Watching Presidential Motorcade
Author: Admin Date: 10-19-04 11:47Guest Op-Ed: Silenced by the PresidentOregon Police Fire On Bystanders Watching Presidential Motorcade JACKSONVILLE, Ore. — Crawford, Texas is no stranger to protests and public gatherings, having provided a backdrop for such events for nearly four years now. Local and area law enforcement agencies have gained experience in protecting the Western White House and its famous inhabitants, and have devised a methodology for arranging for peaceful protests out of the sight and hearing of the president.But things got out of hand last week in Jacksonville, Ore., leaving some local residents there expressing fear of freely voicing their opinions.Some residents of Jacksonville feel that their First Amendment rights were taken away as they witnessed an encounter that resulted in pepper balls fired into crowds of men, women, and children as an abrupt “sweep” of a sidewalk erupted into chaos as the presidential motorcade drove by last Thursday.According to a news story in the Medford Mail Tribune, one man said he was shot in the back seven times with pepper balls (plastic paint balls filled with capsaicin). He said he saw a man get hit with a baton and fall to the ground. “With my back to the police — as I was picking him up — that’s when I was shot.” Trish Bowcock, a resident of Jacksonville and a retired attorney who is formerly of Austin, Texas, was an eyewitness to the disturbance and penned her impressions of the scene from a personal standpoint. She has agreed to allow The Iconoclast to reprint her thoughts.Mail Tribune staff members confirmed her contention that law enforcement concentrated on anti-Bush protestors, rather than pro-Bush demonstrators, and that the order to stop the protests came from the U.S. Secret Service. Mail Tribune coverage of the protest is available at http://www.mailtribune.com.
Silenced by the President
By Trish BowcockOct. 16, 2004
A few weeks before my father died, he woke me in the wee hours of the morning. He needed to talk. He was worried about Attorney General John Ashcroft and the destruction of American civil liberties. I comforted my father, believing he was delusional from medications. I was wrong.I write this from my home in Jacksonville Oregon (population 2,226). President George W. Bush came here this week. The purpose of his visit was political. Southern Oregon has been deemed a “battle ground” area in the presidential race. John Kerry has made incredible inroads in this traditionally Republican stronghold. President Bush’s campaign stop was an attempt to staunch the slide. Jacksonville is an old gold mining town. Our main street is only five blocks long, lined with restored storefronts. The sidewalks are narrow. We are a peaceful community. The prospect of an overnight presidential visit was exciting, even to me, a lifelong Democrat. My excitement turned to horror as I watched events unfold during President Bush’s visit.In the mid 1800s, when Indians invaded Jacksonville, citizens clambered upon the roof of the old library. It was the one building that would not catch fire when flaming arrows were shot. This week it was a different scene. Police armed with high powered rifles perched upon our rooftops as the presidential motorcade approached. Helicopters flew low, overhead. A cadre of motorcycle police zoomed into town. Black SUVs followed, sandwiching several black limousines carrying the president, his wife and their entourage as they sped to the local inn where they would eat and sleep.The main street was lined with people gathered to witness the event. Many supported the president. Many did not. Some came because they were simply curious. There were men, women, young and old. The mood was somewhat festive. Supporters of John Kerry sported signs, as did supporters of George Bush. Individuals, exercising their rights of free speech began chanting. On one side of the street, shouts of “four more years” echoed in the night air. On the other side of the street, chants of “three more weeks” responded. The chants were loud and apparently could be heard by President Bush. An order was issued that the anti-Bush rhetoric be quieted. The local SWAT team leapt to action.It happened fast. Clad in full riot gear, at least 50 officers moved in. Shouting indecipherable commands from a bullhorn, they formed a chain and bore down upon the people, only working to clear the side of the street appearing to be occupied by Kerry supporters. People tried to get out of their way. It was very crowded. There was nowhere to move. People were being crushed. They started flowing into the streets. Pleas to the officers, asking, “where to go” fell upon deaf ears. Instead, riot police fired pellets of cayenne pepper spray into the crowd. An old man fell and couldn’t get up. When a young man stopped to help, he was shot in the back with hard pepper spray balls. Children were hit with pepper spray. Deemed “Protesters” people were shoved and herded down the street by the menacing line of armed riot police, until out of the President’s ear-shot.There the “Protesters” were held at bay. Anyone vocalizing anti-Bush or pro-Kerry sentiments were prohibited from venturing forward. Loud anti-Bush chants were responded to by the commanding officer stating: “FORWARD,” to which the entire line of armed police would move, lock-step, toward the “Protesters,” forcing backward movement. Police officers circulated filming the crowd of “Protesters.” Some were people like me, quiet middle-aged women. Some sported anti-Bush signs, peace signs, or Kerry signs. A small group of youth, clad in black with kerchiefs wrapping their heads chanted slogans. A young woman in her underwear, sporting a peace sign sang a lyrical Kumbaya. Mixed among the “Protesters” were supporters of the President. One 19 year- old man shouted obscenities at anyone expressing dissatisfaction with the president, encouraging the police to “tazar” the “Stinking Protesters.” Neither the “Protestors,” nor the police harassed this vocal young man. Across the street, individuals shouting support for the president were allowed to continue. Officers monitored this group but allowed them to shout words of support or hurl derisions toward Kerry supporters, undisturbed. Honking cars filled with Bush supporters were left alone. A honking car full of Kerry supporters was stopped by police on its way out of town.The standoff with “Protesters” continued until the President finished his dinner and was secured in his hotel cottage for the night. Only then were the riot police ordered to “mount-up,” leaping upon the sideboard of a huge SUV, pulling out of town, and allowing “free speech” to resume.In small town American I witnessed true repression and intimidation by law enforcement. I saw small children suffering from the effects of being fired upon by pepper bullets. I felt legitimate fear of expressing my political opinions: a brand new feeling. Newspaper accounts state the chaos started when a violent “Protester” shoved a police officer. No one I talked to witnessed this account.It is reputed that President Bush and his staff will not allow any opposition activity to occur within his ear or eye sight. I can confirm, that in tiny Jacksonville, Oregon, this was true. Physically violent means were taken to protect the president from verbal insults. Freedom of speech was stolen.My father was not paranoid as he lay dying. He was expressing great insight into the dangers of our current presidential administration and its willingness to repress personal freedoms. If I could talk to my father today, I would say, “I am sorry Daddy for doubting you.” And, no matter what, I will continue to exercise my individual right to freely express my opinions. Americans cannot take four more years.http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Guest/guest42a.htm
Oregon Police Fire On Bystanders Watching Presidential Motorcade
Author: Admin Date: 10-19-04 11:47Guest Op-Ed: Silenced by the PresidentOregon Police Fire On Bystanders Watching Presidential Motorcade JACKSONVILLE, Ore. — Crawford, Texas is no stranger to protests and public gatherings, having provided a backdrop for such events for nearly four years now. Local and area law enforcement agencies have gained experience in protecting the Western White House and its famous inhabitants, and have devised a methodology for arranging for peaceful protests out of the sight and hearing of the president.But things got out of hand last week in Jacksonville, Ore., leaving some local residents there expressing fear of freely voicing their opinions.Some residents of Jacksonville feel that their First Amendment rights were taken away as they witnessed an encounter that resulted in pepper balls fired into crowds of men, women, and children as an abrupt “sweep” of a sidewalk erupted into chaos as the presidential motorcade drove by last Thursday.According to a news story in the Medford Mail Tribune, one man said he was shot in the back seven times with pepper balls (plastic paint balls filled with capsaicin). He said he saw a man get hit with a baton and fall to the ground. “With my back to the police — as I was picking him up — that’s when I was shot.” Trish Bowcock, a resident of Jacksonville and a retired attorney who is formerly of Austin, Texas, was an eyewitness to the disturbance and penned her impressions of the scene from a personal standpoint. She has agreed to allow The Iconoclast to reprint her thoughts.Mail Tribune staff members confirmed her contention that law enforcement concentrated on anti-Bush protestors, rather than pro-Bush demonstrators, and that the order to stop the protests came from the U.S. Secret Service. Mail Tribune coverage of the protest is available at http://www.mailtribune.com.
Silenced by the President
By Trish BowcockOct. 16, 2004
A few weeks before my father died, he woke me in the wee hours of the morning. He needed to talk. He was worried about Attorney General John Ashcroft and the destruction of American civil liberties. I comforted my father, believing he was delusional from medications. I was wrong.I write this from my home in Jacksonville Oregon (population 2,226). President George W. Bush came here this week. The purpose of his visit was political. Southern Oregon has been deemed a “battle ground” area in the presidential race. John Kerry has made incredible inroads in this traditionally Republican stronghold. President Bush’s campaign stop was an attempt to staunch the slide. Jacksonville is an old gold mining town. Our main street is only five blocks long, lined with restored storefronts. The sidewalks are narrow. We are a peaceful community. The prospect of an overnight presidential visit was exciting, even to me, a lifelong Democrat. My excitement turned to horror as I watched events unfold during President Bush’s visit.In the mid 1800s, when Indians invaded Jacksonville, citizens clambered upon the roof of the old library. It was the one building that would not catch fire when flaming arrows were shot. This week it was a different scene. Police armed with high powered rifles perched upon our rooftops as the presidential motorcade approached. Helicopters flew low, overhead. A cadre of motorcycle police zoomed into town. Black SUVs followed, sandwiching several black limousines carrying the president, his wife and their entourage as they sped to the local inn where they would eat and sleep.The main street was lined with people gathered to witness the event. Many supported the president. Many did not. Some came because they were simply curious. There were men, women, young and old. The mood was somewhat festive. Supporters of John Kerry sported signs, as did supporters of George Bush. Individuals, exercising their rights of free speech began chanting. On one side of the street, shouts of “four more years” echoed in the night air. On the other side of the street, chants of “three more weeks” responded. The chants were loud and apparently could be heard by President Bush. An order was issued that the anti-Bush rhetoric be quieted. The local SWAT team leapt to action.It happened fast. Clad in full riot gear, at least 50 officers moved in. Shouting indecipherable commands from a bullhorn, they formed a chain and bore down upon the people, only working to clear the side of the street appearing to be occupied by Kerry supporters. People tried to get out of their way. It was very crowded. There was nowhere to move. People were being crushed. They started flowing into the streets. Pleas to the officers, asking, “where to go” fell upon deaf ears. Instead, riot police fired pellets of cayenne pepper spray into the crowd. An old man fell and couldn’t get up. When a young man stopped to help, he was shot in the back with hard pepper spray balls. Children were hit with pepper spray. Deemed “Protesters” people were shoved and herded down the street by the menacing line of armed riot police, until out of the President’s ear-shot.There the “Protesters” were held at bay. Anyone vocalizing anti-Bush or pro-Kerry sentiments were prohibited from venturing forward. Loud anti-Bush chants were responded to by the commanding officer stating: “FORWARD,” to which the entire line of armed police would move, lock-step, toward the “Protesters,” forcing backward movement. Police officers circulated filming the crowd of “Protesters.” Some were people like me, quiet middle-aged women. Some sported anti-Bush signs, peace signs, or Kerry signs. A small group of youth, clad in black with kerchiefs wrapping their heads chanted slogans. A young woman in her underwear, sporting a peace sign sang a lyrical Kumbaya. Mixed among the “Protesters” were supporters of the President. One 19 year- old man shouted obscenities at anyone expressing dissatisfaction with the president, encouraging the police to “tazar” the “Stinking Protesters.” Neither the “Protestors,” nor the police harassed this vocal young man. Across the street, individuals shouting support for the president were allowed to continue. Officers monitored this group but allowed them to shout words of support or hurl derisions toward Kerry supporters, undisturbed. Honking cars filled with Bush supporters were left alone. A honking car full of Kerry supporters was stopped by police on its way out of town.The standoff with “Protesters” continued until the President finished his dinner and was secured in his hotel cottage for the night. Only then were the riot police ordered to “mount-up,” leaping upon the sideboard of a huge SUV, pulling out of town, and allowing “free speech” to resume.In small town American I witnessed true repression and intimidation by law enforcement. I saw small children suffering from the effects of being fired upon by pepper bullets. I felt legitimate fear of expressing my political opinions: a brand new feeling. Newspaper accounts state the chaos started when a violent “Protester” shoved a police officer. No one I talked to witnessed this account.It is reputed that President Bush and his staff will not allow any opposition activity to occur within his ear or eye sight. I can confirm, that in tiny Jacksonville, Oregon, this was true. Physically violent means were taken to protect the president from verbal insults. Freedom of speech was stolen.My father was not paranoid as he lay dying. He was expressing great insight into the dangers of our current presidential administration and its willingness to repress personal freedoms. If I could talk to my father today, I would say, “I am sorry Daddy for doubting you.” And, no matter what, I will continue to exercise my individual right to freely express my opinions. Americans cannot take four more years.http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Guest/guest42a.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)