March 26, 2002
Media compilation #58: Voices of Truth in the Wilderness
Dear journalist
This compilation's title says it all!
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
CONTENTS
1. Axis Of Evil - in Washington, D.C
2. We are Governed by Fear: An Interview with Congressman Dennis Kucinich
3. Letter to President Bush - Physicians for Social Responsibility
4. "The Great Deception" Part 6 - Conclusion (US media asks no questions but Canadian TV does!)
SEE ALSO:
National Missile Defense: Blowing The Whistle On Bad Science (March 14, 2002)
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/031402.html
Missing the Point on Campaign Finance
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=21191
William Rivers Pitt | Bush Cornered by Campaign Finance Reform http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/03.22C.WRP.Cornered.htm
1.
From: http://www.theconversation.org/updates/031902.html
Axis Of Evil - in Washington, D.C.
Edward Herman - March 15, 2002
Coup d'etat president George W. Bush has designated three poor and unconnected states as an "axis of evil," reflecting this great moralist's sensitivity to good and evil. He has been subjected to a certain amount of criticism for this strong language even in the mainstream press, but nobody there has suggested that, as so common in this post-Orwellian world, such language might better fit its author and his associates.
There IS a political axis of evil running strong in the United States that underpins the Bush regime, which includes the oil industry, military-industrial complex (MIC), other transnationals, and the Christian Right, all important contributors to the Bush electoral triumph, and each of which has high level representation in the administration including, besides Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, O'Neill and Ashcroft.
This REAL axis of evil is using 9/11 and the "war on terrorism" to carry out its foreign and domestic agenda on a truly impressive scale, and so far without much impediment at home or abroad.
What is notable about their agenda is that it flies in the face of all of the requirements for peace, global democracy, economic equity and justice, ecological and environmental protection, and global stability. It represents the choice of an overpowerful country's elite, determined to consolidate their economic and political advantage in the short run, at whatever cost to global society.
They are accelerating all the ugly trends of militarization and globalization that have led to increasing violence, income polarization, and the vigorous protests against the World Trade Organization, IMF and World Bank.
Consider the following:
1. New arms race:
Even before 9/11 the Bush government was pushing for a larger arms budget and that gigantic boondoggle and offensive military threat, the National Missile Defense.
With 9/11 and the collapse of the Democrats, they are allocating many billions to anything the MIC wants, and with their more violent behavior and threats abroad, other countries will have to follow. This takes enormous resources from the civil society, and will exacerbate conflict based on cutbacks and pain for ordinary citizens. The same will be true across the globe.
Thus, the polarization of income effects of corporate globalization will be increased by this diversion of resources to weapons. As Jim Lobe notes, "Whatever hopes existed in the late 1990s for a new era of global cooperation in combating poverty, disease, and threats to the environment seem to have evaporated" (Dawn [Pakistan], Jan. 23, 2002).
The complete irrationality and irresponsibility of this arms budget surge is reflected in the fact that almost none of it has to do with any threat from Bin Laden and his forces. Weapons designed to combat Soviet tanks are going forward, as well as advanced new aircraft and a missile defense system that are hardly answering Bin Laden, but represent instead MIC boondoggles and a rush for complete global "full spectrum" military hegemony.
2. The new violence:
The Washington Axis has found that war and wrapping themselves in the flag is just what was needed to divert the public from bread and butter issues, inducing the public to revel instead in the game of war, rooting for our side while we beat up yet another small adversary, with perhaps others to follow.
As the great political economist Thorstein Veblen wrote with irony almost a century ago, "sensational appeals to patriotic pride and animosity made by victories and defeats...[helps] direct the popular interest to other, nobler, institutionally less hazardous matters than the unequal distribution of wealth or of creature comforts. Warlike and patriotic preoccupations fortify the barbarian virtues of subordination and prescriptive authority...Such is the promise held out by a strenuous national policy" (Theory of Business Enterprise [1904]).
The Bush team is threatening to beat up anybody who "harbors terrorists" or aims to build "weapons of mass destruction" without our approval. Israel is of course exempt from this rule and has been given carte blanche to smash the Palestinian civil society.
Bush and his handlers will decide who are terrorists, who harbors them, and who can build weapons. It is easily predictable that anybody who resists the corporate globalization process and tries to pursue an independent development path, will be found to violate human rights, harbor terrorists, or otherwise threaten U.S. "national security," with dire consequences.
Because the ongoing globalization process is increasing inequality and poverty, protests and insurgencies will continue to arise. The U.S. answer is spelled out clearly in the "war on terrorism" and simultaneous push for "free trade" and cutbacks in spending for the civil society at home and abroad.
The Washington Axis is also pursuing a "war on the poor" that will merge easily into the "war on terrorism," as the poor will be driven to resist and resistance will be interpreted as terrorism.
This is in a great U.S. tradition, brought to a high level in the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 and installation of the Shah, the assassination of Guatemalan democracy by Eisenhower and Dulles in 1954, the war against Vietnam, and the U.S.-sponsored displacement of democratic governments by National Security States throughout South America in the 1960s and 1970s. They were wars allegedly against the "Soviet Threat," but really against the poor and the populist threat to "free trade.."
The Bush team obviously threatens even more violence than we witnessed in that earlier era. The military force they control is relatively stronger and without the Soviet constraint. With the help of the more centralized and commercialized media they have worked the populace into a state of war-game fervor.
They have brought back into the government some of the most fervent supporters of terrorism and death squads from the Reagan years in Otto Reich, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte, Elliott Abrams, and Lino Guterriez; men who can now work in a more killer- friendly environment.
3. Escalated support for authoritarian regimes.
The United States actively helped bring to power and supported large numbers of murderous regimes in the years 1945-1990, on the excuse of the Soviet Threat, but really because those regimes were suitably subservient to U.S. interests and willingly provided that crucial "favorable climate of investment" (especially, union-busting). With the Soviet Threat gone, for a while there was a problem finding rationalizations for the long-standing and structurally-rooted anti-populist and anti-democratic bias, but now we have the "war on terrorism," which will do quite nicely.
The Washington Axis has already leapt to the support of the military dictator of Pakistan, the ex-Stalinist boss of Uzbekistan, and it is clear that willingness to serve the "war on terrorism" will override any nasty political leadership qualities.
At the same time, as with Sharon in his escalated crackdown on the Palestinians and Putin in Chechnya, cooperation with the war will mean support for internal violence against dissidents and minorities, forms of state terrorism that will readily be interpreted as part of the "war on terrorism." Just as militarization and war do not conduce to democracy, the effects of mobilization of countries to support the Washington Axis of Evil's war will damage democracy globally.
4. Destabilization effects.
Corporate globalization has had a major destabilizing effect in the global economy, causing increased unemployment, civilian budget cuts, large-scale internal and external migrations, and environmental destruction. The more aggressive penetration of oil interests, in collusion with local governments in Nigeria, Colombia, and now Central Asia, and the new war on terrorism, should intensify destabilization trends.
5. The fight against democracy at home.
At every level the Bush team has fought against the basics of democracy and attempted to concentrate unaccountable governmental authority in its own hands. Militarization itself is anti-democratic, but the team has attempted to loosen constraints on the CIA and police, reduce public access to every kind of information, and constrain free speech.
They have put in place a secret government and are moving the country toward a more openly authoritarian government, and, if they can keep it going, their planned open-ended war on terrorism should serve this end well.
6. The Bush "vision" versus the "End of History."
This process does not comport well with Francis Fukayama's vision of the new peaceful, democratic order that would follow the death of the Soviet Union and triumph of capitalism.
Fukayama missed the boat on three counts. He failed to see that the end of the Soviet Union and termination of a socialist threat would also end the need to accommodate labor with social welfare concessions--in other words, that there could be a return to a pure capitalism such as Karl Marx described in the first volume of Capital.
Second, he failed to see that corporate globalization and greater capital mobility would make for a global "reserve army of labor" and weaken labor's bargaining power and political position.
Finally, he failed to recognize that without the Soviet Union's "containment" the United States would be freer to use force in serving its transnationals, forcing Third World countries to join the "free trade" nexus, and preventing them from serving the needs of their citizens (as opposed to the needs of the transnational corporate community).
As this entire process will involve further polarization and immiseration of large numbers, insurgencies are inevitable, justifying more militarization and an escalated war on "terrorism" in a vicious cycle.
What can be more frightening and dangerous to the world than facing the Washington Axis of Evil as the overwhelmingly dominant holder of "weapons of mass destruction," which it is seeking to improve and make more usable, with the elite's longstanding arrogance and self-righteousness at an all-time high, and with no countervailing force in sight? Bin Laden's threat is nothing by comparison.
What is more, the Bin Laden threat flows from U.S. actions, which played a crucial role in building up the Al-Qaeda network, and policies which have made a hell of the Middle East and polarized incomes and wealth across the globe. The cycle of violence will only be broken if the Washington Axis of Evil is defeated, removed from office, and replaced by a regime that aims to serve a broader constituency than oil, the MIC, the other transnationals, and the Christian Right.
2.
From: http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/03.17A.Kucinich.Interview.htm
We are Governed by Fear: An Interview with Congressman Dennis Kucinich
By Scott Galindez
March 14, 2002
TO.SG | Congressman Kucinich welcome to t r u t h o u t. I recently attended Americans For Democratic Action's "Our Democracy After 9-11: Can We Save It?" function in Los Angeles, and listened to you deliver your "Prayer for America..."
KUCINICH | You were there?
TO.SG | Yes, we posted the transcript on t r u t h o u t and received an enthusiastic response. It was one of the most widely read and re-distributed pieces we have ever published.
KUCINICH | Wow, that's interesting
TO.SG | In that speech in Los Angeles, you described the bunker mentality in Washington after September 11th. Could you elaborate a little on that?
KUCINICH | That was even before I knew there were bunkers. I found out a couple of weeks later that there actually were bunkers. Members of the Administration had retreated to bunkers outside Washington so that they could keep the government going. The bunker mentality I referred to in my speech represents the presence of security and police and national guards, the jersey barriers that are everywhere, where we have to literally negotiate a labyrinth of concrete barriers in order to go to vote. Aesthetically, it is unacceptable, but we're talking about politically, in terms of a democracy, that's definitely not the message that you get. This is architecture worthy of a different form of government, shall we say.
TO.SG | And that still exists?
KUCINICH | Oh yes. What it does is -- the level of security creates a mentality of caution, and an underlying sense of fear. And when that's there, it has a way of affecting consciousness, like a virus can adversely affect a healthy organism. So, when members vote, you know all of us make decisions that are affected by the conditions under which we live and work --and our political, the socio-political reality at Capitol Hill has been reconstructed. It is a reality which is socially affirmed. We have circumstances that are not conducive to healthy decision-making in a democratic society. In addition to that, members are not told why. There is no discussion of these things. It just happens.
TO.SG | Okay. Also, within the last week, the reports surfaced concerning the contingency plan for using nuclear weapons against seven countries. Is that a major policy shift? Some people say it's not a shift, some say it is.
KUCINICH | Of course it is. It is a major policy shift because -- there are a number of things in the nuclear posturing here which need reviewing. Number one is the equation of conventional to nuclear weapons, and loose talk of a prerogative for a first strike. There is incautiousness. The report is riddled with a fundamental incautiousness about the dangers of the use of nuclear weapons. And the release of the report -- which I have no doubt came from the Administration itself -- was still another attempt to heighten the level of fear in the country and make it impossible for people to be able to make rational decisions as to what their own interest might be.
TO.SG | The report also talked about developing new battlefield nuclear weapons ...
KUCINICH | That is what I'm saying: they're equating the nuclear weapons with conventional weapons, which flies in the face of all science, because any nuclear explosion underground will send out shock waves, and a nuclear explosion underground can affect the water table. All nuclear explosions release debris that goes out into the atmosphere and changes the ambient air quality. You know this is all grotesquery, masquerading as serious public policy, and it's not acceptable, period.
You see, it is one thing to say, "Well, this has existed in the past," this nuclear posture review -- but that it would be released in a climate of such turmoil in the world: of conflict in the Middle East, of the United States bombing Afghanistan and planning an invasion of Iraq, and of the U.S. sending troops to various countries all over the world -- to inject into that a miasma, a nuclear threat, a resumption of not just the Cold War mentality, but the resumption of the psychology of first strike ...
TO.SG | You proposed legislation for a Department of Peace.
KUCINICH | Oh yes.
TO.SG | What would the Department of Peace do?
KUCINICH | Well, the purpose of a Department of Peace and the motivating factors involve a desire to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society for domestic as well as international policy, and on an international level to seek to make war archaic. On a domestic level, to deal with issues such as child abuse, spousal abuse, domestic violence in the home, community relations challenges, racial violence, anything that exemplifies a lack of ability to deal with human relations, would be dealt with by the Department of Peace. And it's a cabinet level position, which would raise the whole issue of non-violence and conflict resolution to serious level of discussion in society.
TO.SG | Okay, you also proposed legislation to ban weapons in space. What's its status and why is it so important?
KUCINICH | It is very important with an Administration that wants to use space as the next platform for its weapons, so that America can achieve hegemony in space. You know, it is almost some kind of a 21st century parody of the Spanish Armada, of yesteryear, seeking to rule the seas. Now it's the United States trying to seize the highest ground in the universe, space. It is not our business to do. There is no other nation that has the capacity to mount an attack against the United States from space. So, what's this about? Perhaps some crude attempt at -- using space as the next junkyard for military contractors.
TO.SG | What can readers do to help take the country back?
KUCINICH | That is exactly the right question. The response to my speech has been just electrifying. I have had over 15,000 emails in the last three weeks, and they are just pouring into my personal email. I mean, it's just like one of those personal emails like you get your friends to send things to, and all of sudden it starts to get flooded.
So, we are organizing a whole new approach to create a new political movement in this country. If you want to keep your eyes at our site,-- which is http://www.thespiritoffreedom.com -- we are going to be putting stuff on the website that talks about organizing. So we are going to help people get organized all around the country in a nonviolent way, in a creative way, in a way which is empowering to people, and which can help people assert their own basic rights as citizens of this country and as citizens of the world, because this is not just about America.
Peace is in our national interest. International cooperation is in our national interest. We need to have grand civic dialogue about what we might be able to do here to change the direction of the nation. It certainly needs change. We can spend an extra forty-five billion dollars this year for military when they can't even keep track of their own budget, and still we have forty-two million people without adequate health insurance, senior citizens splitting pills in order to try to meet their health requirements and still protect their budget. We have schools that are still falling apart with programs that don't work. We have so much to do. Yet, society is becoming militarized.
People want change. The fifteen thousand emails in the last three weeks told me that people want a different direction. I think they are representative of millions of Americans who want to take a different approach. They don't want to be trapped into a condition that the level of support for war is equated with patriotism.
3.
From: http://www.theconversation.org/updates/031502.html
Letter to President Bush
Physicians for Social Responsibility -- March 8, 2002
Dear Mr. President,
We write to you on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), an organization which shares the Nobel Peace Prize and which represents over 20,000 U.S. physicians and health professionals deeply engaged with caring for our fellow humans and the social, economic, and ecological systems essential to health and well-being. We are profoundly concerned about the recent pronouncements, policies, and priorities of your Administration in the wake of the initial military response to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
US military actions to capture or destroy Al Qaeda and eradicate its base of support from the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan have been supported by most Americans. These efforts are carried out with authorization from the United States Congress and in accordance with the UN Charter's right of self-defense. However, such authority was not intended as an unending license to permit unilateral, unauthorized attacks anywhere on the globe or to drastically escalate US military spending and overseas military bases, to promote massive arms transfers, and to conduct diplomacy by threat.
We are particularly disturbed by bellicose, provocative rhetoric and unilateral threats to sovereign nations, made outside the framework of international law and without the support of the international community. Such statements erode the honored place of the United States as a nation that has, at its best, not only defended freedom, but upheld human rights, international cooperation, humanitarian aid, and the rule of international law. We are specifically opposed to:
* The depiction of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil," blurring distinctions between nations and people, foreclosing diplomacy, and providing rallying points for anti-American extremists.
* The proposed Defense budget increase of $48 billion, composed mainly of bloated Cold War programs. This amount alone is roughly double the entire sum the US spends annually on all diplomacy, international relations, and aid. Just this increase, by itself, exceeds the defense budget of any nation in the world, with the exception of Russia. This is excessive and will perpetuate a permanent US war economy.
* The unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, the unilateral renunciation of the Kyoto Protocol, the failure to support the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the failure to support any effective verification mechanisms for the Biological Weapons Convention.
* The Nuclear Posture Review which foresees US nuclear weapons possession and production throughout the 21st Century. This stance flouts U.S. legal obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and stimulates the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proliferation increases terrorists' ability to obtain nuclear devices.
* The abandonment of long-standing US policy under various Administrations to renounce the use of nuclear weapons against nations which do not possess them. According to the International Court of Justice, this is both morally indefensible and legally impermissible.
Taken together, these and other actions of your Administration are fueling anti-American sentiment worldwide. Coupled with inattention to economic development, medical and public health demands, environmental degradation, human rights, education and other needs both abroad and at home, such policies threaten, in the long term, to bring on the instability, conflict, and terrorism we all seek to prevent.
We therefore call upon you to renounce unilateral military actions and to carry out US foreign and military policies in accordance with international law. We call upon you to shift US priorities away from military solutions and toward nuclear disarmament, the diplomatic resolution of conflicts, and the fulfillment of worldwide human needs.
As President, we call upon you to lead Americans in overcoming fear and reclaiming our core democratic values after the tragic events of September 11. This goal cannot be accomplished by military action alone. You must lead us in declaring our love of civil rights, freedom, and fairness. Lead us in a renewed American commitment to the painstaking work of peaceful, collaborative conflict resolution. Lead us to a world united in oneness of purpose as we confront global military and environmental threats to human health, sustainability, survival. Such leadership, we believe, will be most consistent with our long-term security interests and with America's deepest values. We will look forward to working along with you and with all Americans to achieve these aims.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Musil, PhD, MPH Roy Farrell, MD
Executive Director and CEO President
Physicians for Social Responsibility
4.
From: http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/mediafile_Feb25.htm
Insight MediaFile
Mondays,
10:30 p.m. ET, 7:30 p.m. PT
Repeats: Thursdays at 1:30 a.m. ET, 10:30 p.m. PT
Barrie Zwicker, Insight Media Analyst
"The Great Deception"
Part 6 - Conclusion
Transcript of Mon.,Feb 25, 2002 Broadcast
""What Really Happened on Sept. 11th?" Conclusion (What Did George Bush Know and When Did he Know it?" popularly known as "The Great Deception.")"
Subject: Moral and spiritual challenges amidst fear and denial in a propagandized society
The editors at the New York Times made the right judgment call, in my opinion, by playing this story ["Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad; Debate over Credibility; New Office Proposes to Send News or Maybe False News to Even Friendly Lands," by James Dao and Eric Schmitt] at the top of their front page recently. Because a campaign of government deception is a moral issue.
But in a way, these headlines are laughable, including as they do phrases such as ".readies efforts.?" And ".proposes to send.false news.?"
Are readers supposed to believe the Pentagon might. start lying?
Those who have seen the documentary The Panama Deception will find this assumption impossible to swallow. [VIDEO CLIP from "The Panama Deception," Jeff Cohen of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) of New York City, speaking]:
"The U.S. military said 250 civilians were killed. There isn't a single credible source in Panama that believes that's true, whether it's ambulance drivers, human rights monitors, people - doctors who worked in hospitals, neighbours of bombed-out blocks. It's just clearly false. That sotry would be so easy to tell for any journalist worth his or her salt. But they're not telling it."
Back to the Times article. The odd thing about it is that you can go over it with a divining rod and find that neither the writers, nor anyone they quote, makes so much as a passing reference to the simple wrongness of government lying. Not once are the words "moral," "morality," "ethics" or such, used, let alone "lies" or "lying."
In my moral book, publishing a story with morality at its heart, without mentioning the word, is committing the sin of omission.
The story also accepts foolish statements about Saddam Hussein and prints them with a straight face, as it were. It's claimed he ".has a charm offensive going on.' "
I don't know about you, but I've noticed the offensive part but not the charm part.
" '.and we haven't done anything to counteract it,' a senior military official said."
Well, if you don't count the U.S. government's all-out propaganda campaign against the Iraqi leader for more than a decade, then I guess this guy's got a point.
Readers are also misled to focus on side issues such as "public perceptions," "strategy," "possible illegality" and bureaucratic turf wars. This article - representing the crème de la crème of U.S. journalism - symbolizes how disconnected the U.S. media and government have become from moral questions, one might almost say, from reality.
To give credit where credit's due the Times ran an editorial terming the Pentagon's proposed new Office of Strategic Influence "Orwellian." Yet the editorial fails as well to question the fundamental justness of the Pentagon.
Which brings me to my main point. The less people ask themselves questions about deceit the more it clears the way for organizations such as the CIA to continue to receive seemingly unending billions of dollars. Taxpayer money used to train terrorists, as the CIA acknowledges it has. To destabilize governments, as former CIA agent John Stockwell writes in his book In Search of Enemies. And to inject toxic grey, white and black disinformation into the world's information systems, as William Blum spells out in Killing Hope. All with barely a whisper of dissent.
"The lie," wrote theologian Andre Dumas, "is biblically portrayed as 'the first and most poisonous source of injustice.'" "Truth telling," he wrote "is.absolutely essential to the very life and health of the whole community."
Which is at the heart of the Great Deception, about what really happened on September 11th. For the past five weeks I've asked questions: How could it be that no U.S. Air Force jet interceptors turned a wheel on September 11th until it was too late? Is it coincidence that the war on Afghanistan triggered by September 11th will clear the way for petroleum pipelines of huge interest to the White House? How to explain the virtual non reaction of President George Bush immediately following the planes slamming into the World Trade Center?
These marked-up passages are from my dog-eared copy of a gem of a book, The Idea of Disarmament, Rethinking the Unthinkable, by Alan Geyer. Geyer, in 1982, writes: "The nuclear arms race has become this generation's severest test of truth. It is zealously promoted with false words, deceptive jargon, pretentious dogmatics, hateful propaganda, and arbitrary bars on access to the truth. "No realm of public policy," he continues, "is more corrupted by untruthful speech than national security."
Today the Big Lie of the so-called war on terrorism - itself firmly based on the linchpin of the implausible official version of what happened on September 11th -- is an even more severe test of truth, in my opinion. Under the banner of the war on terrorism George W. Bush - with the aid of the media -- zealously promotes perpetual global war in the service of resource looting and permanent popularity for himself.
There's unprecedented militarism. The USA is spending more than half its budget on wars past, present and future, according to the Center for Defense Information.
As Christian humanist Geyer writes in words truer today, in my view, than when written: "Demythologizing has become the indispensable theological tool of peacemaking: it is the operation empowering the people of God to understand the stratagems by which inhuman speech violates the Word of God. Those stratagems include a relentless outpouring of myths about weapons, strategy, security, enemies, history, and human nature - from government bureaucracies and adjunct think tanks and co-opted media and electronic theologians."
And in this gem of a book I find the perfect conclusion to this series about what really happened on September the eleventh, about the Great Deception, about moral and spiritual challenges amidst fear and denial.
In the 1930s there was a powerful peace movement. At that time a play by Viennese poet Stefan Zweig was produced. The play's principal character, Jeremiah, bursts forth with these words:
Peace is not a thing of weakness.
It calls for heroism and action.
Day by day you must wrest it from the mouths of liars.
You must stand alone against the multitude, for clamor is always on
the side of the many.
And the liar has ever the first word.
The meek must be strong.
Sources:
BOOKS
Blum, William: Killing Hope, U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Black Rose Books, 1998, 457 Pages, ISBN 1-55164-096-1
Geyer, Alan: The Idea of Disarmament! Rethinking the Unthinkable, The Brethren Press, Elgin, Illinois and The Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy, Washington, D.C., 1982, 256 pages, ISBN 0-87187-396-7
Stockwell, John: In Search of Enemies, A CIA Story, W. W. Norton & Company, 1978, 285 pages, ISBN 0-393-00926-2
FILMS
The Panama Deception, 1992, by The Empowerment Project, in association with Channel Four, London, and Rhino Home Video. Produced by Barbara Trent, Joanne Doroshow, Nico Panigutti and David Kasper. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen. Greatly relevent to our future.
NEWSPAPERS
The New York Times, Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2002, pages A1 and A10.
Toronto Star, Thursday, Feb. 21, 2002, page A24
WWW SITES
Center for Defense Information
http://www.cdi.org/
Transcripts
THE GREAT DECEPTION :
Show Transcripts(Complete Series)
http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/resources_popup.htm#GreatDeceptionTranscripts
VISIONTV INSIGHT RESOURCES
http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/resources_popup.htm
© VisionTV 80 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 1X2 Telephone 416-368-3194
