December 6, 2002

The Writing On The Wall Series #11: Awakening to Sobering Realities, Hoping for the Best and Acting with Determination

Hello everyone

Here is one last compilation for you this week. And as usual you'll receive sometimes tomorrow the next Meditation Focus.

Have a good weekend ;-)

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

This compilation is archived at


1. The Demon in the Freezer: A True Story
2. Does Bush ever listen to himself???
3. A Nightmare to Love
4. Study: Iraq War Could Cost $1.9 Trillion
5. World Survey Says Negative Views of U.S. Are Rising
6. Posters for Peace
7. ONLINE PETITION - Ask Bush to Let the Inspections Work
8. TAKE ACTION: Secure Loose Nukes Now or Pay the Real Price Later On
9. Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced Immunizations

See also:

Mothers for Peace Petition Online

Sherlock Kissinger

Will Iraq Fold?

Kissinger is Back





"The Demon in the Freezer: A True Story"

Never mind Ebola, the hemorrhagic disease that was the main subject of Preston's 1994 #1 bestseller, The Hot Zone. What we really should be worrying about, explains Preston in this terrifying, cautionary new title, is smallpox, or variola. But wasn't that eradicated? many might ask, particularly. CLIP


A Chilling Mastery, A Horrific Threat..., October 16, 2002

Reviewer: Earl Merkel from Homewood, IL

In the eleven months I spent researching my novel of bioterrorism, ..., I interviewed dozens of experts in biological weapons, terrorism and medicine.

And everywhere I went, I found myself following the footprints of Richard Preston, whose knowledge and professionalism sets the standard in writing about this dark subject. Preston's a hard act to follow-- particularly so because his latest book, The Demon In The Freezer, is all so terribly true.

Written in an episodic style, the book has the feel of a journal, albeit one written by a man quietly horrified by the revelations he records.

The book centers around the high probability --so high as to constitute a virtual certainty-- of what itself is a horrifying fact: that the variola virus --smallpox, history's greatest mass murderer of humanity-- has come back from its official eradication as a disease in the mid-'70s to emerge today as a biological weapon possessed by a number of rogue states (most likely among them, Iraq) and potentially accessible to fanatical terrorists driven by a hatred of Western society.

Preston builds his case through a narrative based on interviews with experts --perhaps the most disturbing, an almost pastoral description of a meeting between Ken Alibeck (who defected from the Soviet bioweapon program, which produced weaponized smallpox by the metric ton and for whom Alibeck invented a particularly lethal variant of anthrax) and former U.S. biowarrior Bill Patrick at the latter's Maryland home. Here, Preston records how the pair chat about mega-death and the ease of bioweapon delivery, even to the point of Patrick using a mundane garden sprayer to send a plume of simulated bio-agent into the gentle breeze, which he posits will carry it to a major urban center within hours. In my other reviews on this subject (Alibeck's BIOHAZARD, for instance) I've already expressed my jaw-dropping astonishment at the appallingly casual attitude so often in evidence among the former high priests of biowarfare. Never has it been portrayed so revealingly as it is in Preston's account.

But anthrax, lethal though it may be, is incapable of human-to-human contagion; as such, it becomes only a subnote in "Demon." Always, Preston returns to the real threat: the virtual certainty that a genetically-engineered version of smallpox has been developed-- a variant that is unaffected by any existing vaccine and which has been further tweaked to enhance its ability to kill. Not only does Preston tell us how this viral monster has probably been created, he lets us follow him to a modest laboratory. Here, a bio-geneticist allows Preston to participate in an almost-identical gene-splicing process involving mousepox virus, a cousin of smallpox.

A reasonably bright high-school student could do the same, if he had access to mousepox... or smallpox. The genie has indeed escaped the bottle, and awaits only a monster to make the first wish to bring on the Final Epidemic of our nightmares.

"The Demon In The Freezer" recounts a mounting litany of horror, phrased in Preston's always calm style, and includes the author's own reaction to such events as the World Trade Center attacks, the subsequent anthrax-in-the-mail terrorism, even to today's probability of war in Iraq.

And then the book ends, as abruptly as a sharp intake of breath.

Wisely, Preston does not attempt a profound summation, for he had already known what his readers now realize. Doomsday viruses are in the hands of the ruthless and possibly the insane; the survival of humanity teeters in tentative balance.

As we wait, in a justified fear Preston has documented so well.

- Earl Merkel Author

Check also: "The Bioweaponeers": and

The Specter of a New and Deadlier Smallpox


Date: 03 Dec 2002
From: "John T. Linnell" <>
Subject: Does Bush ever listen to himself???

This to me is the pot calling the kettle black. Think about it.


"Like the Nazis and the Communists, Bush said, "the terrorists seek to end lives and control all life." But the visage of evil conjured up by Bush during his European trip was not that of Bin Laden, who still lives and threatens, but that of Saddam Hussein. Iraq's dictator was singled out as the "great evil" who "by his search for terrible weapons, by his ties to terrorist groups, threatens the security of every free nation, including the free nations of Europe."

Excuse me but isn't the US where the Atom and Hydrogen bombs were developed as well as the AIDS and West Nile Virus and a hell of a long list of other WMDs and who also invented and used Depleted Uranium weapons? Someone please tell me how this makes any sense? All he is doing is describing himself.

Don't know about you Jean but I am getting quite a few inquiries about emigrating to Canada from "Nazimerica"



A Nightmare to Love

Published on December 2, 2002

How the Peace Movement Can Use Bush's "Almost Desperate Attempts" to "Destroy the Arms Inspection"

by Jeremy Brecher

A nightmare scenario is facing the Bush Administration. Imagine that Iraq continues to let UN arms inspectors inspect without impediment. By the December 8 deadline for reporting on its weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi government makes an extensive declaration of activities and materials that might be used to make such weapons but also might have other purposes. The Iraqis then allow the inspectors to inspect all the sites they wish to enter. If the inspectors find some materials that might be used for weapons of mass destruction, they destroy them. The inspectors report to the Security Council; then most countries except the US and Britain declare that, whether or not Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction, it no longer does. Enforcement of sanctions begins to crumble and world pressure to lift them builds.

To prevent this scenario, the Bush Administration is working frantically to discredit the inspection process. As former assistant secretary general of the UN Hans von Sponeck recently put it, "No one, not even the casual reader, can miss the almost desperate attempts by the US authorities to destroy the arms inspection before it's properly begun."

Bush Administration officials have systematically tried to smear the inspectors professionally and personally. They are maintaining that even the most trivial actions by Iraq would justify an attack. As the inspectors entered Iraq, US and British warplanes fired on Iraq; when Iraqi anti-aircraft returned the fire, the US (unsupported by any other country, even Britain) maintained it was a "material breach" of UN resolutions, something it claims would justify war against Iraq.

The Bush administration is claiming that it, not the Security Council, has the right to determine whether Iraq has complied with the inspection requirements. "The UN can meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission," says White House chief of staff Andrew Card. It is claiming the right to decide what will replace the existing Iraqi government; indeed, it has even proposed to install an American general as Iraq's ruler.

The Bush Administration is opposing anything, such as the lifting of sanctions, that would give Iraq an incentive to cooperate with inspections. Indeed, it abruptly insisted that the UN Security Council place new restrictions on the "oil-for-food" program. According to The New York Times, "Other Council diplomats were frustrated that the United States insisted on the revisions to the list as the deadline approached. . . Most Council nations were hoping to avoid getting into it again until sometime next year, to avoid undermining the weapons inspections." Evidently the Bush Administration is not so averse to "undermining the weapons inspections." Finally, the Bush Administration continues preparing for war. It is pre-positioning planes, tanks, and fuel in the region and conducting a stealth mobilization of the reserves. Its top officials are running around the world cutting deals to buy support with a share of the spoils of war as a bribe.

The Bush Administration is undoubtedly preparing to escalate this strategy after December 8. With stunning cynicism, it declined to make its intelligence information on Iraq's weapons programs available to the UN inspectors until after December 8. Could it possibly be planning to then release intelligence designed to show that the inspectors have been conned by the Iraqis?

Of course, if the inspectors then inspect Iraq and don't find the weapons that the US government has alleged are there, it will be a bit embarrassing for the US. But the Bush Administration has a remedy. There's no need to find an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to justify attack on Iraq; all that's necessary is for Iraq to continue denying it has such an arsenal. As President Bush recently put it, Should Saddam Hussein "again deny that this arsenal exists, he will have entered his final stage with a lie. And deception this time will not be tolerated. Delay and defiance will invite the severest of consequences."

There is one problem with this strategy: The overwhelming majority of Americans, not to mention the peoples and governments of the rest of the world, want the inspection process to work. The "almost desperate attempts by the US authorities to destroy the arms inspection before it's properly begun" could boomerang if war opponents make an issue of them. Those desperate attempts provide us a golden opportunity to appeal to the American public. Peace advocates can lay out what the US can and should do if it really wants inspections to work:

Stop smearing the inspectors.

Stop claiming that trivial inspection problems justify war.

Stop military operations and provocative overflights against Iraq.

Stop claiming that the US, not the Security Council, has a right to determine what's a violation.

Recognize that the US does not have the right to decide who will govern Iraq.

Halt the movement of war materiel to the region.

Stop mobilizing the reserves (something many reservists and their families will welcome).

Stop bribing other countries by promising a share in the spoils of war.

Provide full disclosure to Congress and the American people of all offers made to other countries regarding oil rights, construction contracts, defense commitments, debt reduction, immigration policy changes, and any other valuable considerations offered in exchange for war support.

Stop threatening to go to war over what Iraq does or doesn't put on a piece of paper.

Laying out what is necessary to make the inspection process work provides a positive alternative to current policies. Equally important, it sets in relief all that the Bush Administration is doing to ensure the inspectors' failure.

The Bush Administration is hardly likely to accede to any such demands. But it doesn't have to for the peace movement to win.

Starting with Kofi Annan's response the day after George Bush's September 12 address to the Security Council, the UN and the countries opposing a war have carefully preserved a face-saving way out for President Bush. They have repeatedly praised him for forcing the international community to deal with the "Iraqi problem" so that he can claim credit for the success of the inspection process. If he does so peace advocates may shudder at the hypocrisy, but we'll know the super hawks have lost a round.

Of course, instead of claiming the inspections as a success, the Bush Administration may go on sabotaging the inspection process, even though the American people and the whole rest of the world want it to work. But if they do, they will court political isolation abroad and at home.

Kofi Annan recently observed that "poll after poll" showed Americans were eager for the President to act with the United Nations. Going to war on a flimsy pretext, Annan pointed out, would draw opposition not only from Security Council nations but also from ordinary Americans who have expressed a desire for Mr. Bush to work with the United Nations in confronting Iraq. The "almost desperate attempts by the US authorities to destroy the arms inspection" give those "ordinary Americans" good reason for opposing the drive toward war. The anti-war movement should not ignore this gift.

Jeremy Brecher ( is a Connecticut-based historian and the author of twelve books, including Globalization From Below, and a political commentator for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at


See also:

Iraq to Hand Over Weapons Report to U.N. (Dec 6)
On the eve of Iraq's declaration of its weapons programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said Friday that U.N. experts will keep secret all sensitive material on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the massive report — even from the United States and other Security Council members. Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri said Friday his government will hand over the declaration to inspectors in Baghdad at 8 p.m. local time on Saturday. He reiterated Iraq's claim that the country is now free of weapons of mass destruction, but said the declaration would contain "new elements."

Criticised weapons inspectors insist that stealthy visits are getting results (Dec 6),3604,854736,00.html
Saddam makes a u-turn with plea for Iraqis' cooperation to disprove US allegations. (...) A watershed will be reached this weekend when Iraq has promised to provide the comprehensive list of biological, chemical and possible nuclear weapons and components for them demanded by the US resolution. UN officials expect President Saddam to swamp them with thousands of pages of documents listing all equipment classified as dual-use: that is, it can be used for civil or military purposes. Iraq has promised to hand over the list on Saturday. It will have to be flown to New York to be presented to the security council, possibly on Sunday. US and British government sources say they will not give a knee-jerk reaction but will pore over the documents, comparing them with their own intelligence. That intelligence will be passed to the weapons inspectors to investigate, a process that could take months.

Iraq inspections 'could last a year' (Dec 2),2763,851983,00.html
Warning by world's leading expert is likely to rankle with hawks in Washington.

White House Pressures U.N. Inspectors (Dec 8)
The White House pressured U.N. officials and weapons inspectors Friday to more aggressively court Iraqi weapons scientists with promises of safety and asylum in exchange for evidence against Saddam Hussein

Democrat hawk whose ghost guides Bush (Dec 6),3604,854703,00.html
Scoop Jackson's body is 20 years in the grave but his spirit goes marching on - One man more than any other can credibly claim the intellectual and political credit for the Bush administration's bellicose showdown with Iraq and its muscular new doctrine of pre-emption. This lynchpin politician is not a member of the government, not even a Republican, but a maverick Democrat senator who has been dead for nearly 20 years. Henry "Scoop" Jackson is the common thread linking the hawk ideologues who have taken the driving seat since September 11. Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, the two leading strategists at the defence department, and Richard Perle, an unusual but influential Pentagon adviser, are all former Democrats who worked for Jackson in the 70s, and looked on him as their mentor. CLIP



Study: Iraq War Could Cost $1.9 Trillion (Dec 6)

In the worst case, a war with Iraq could cost the United States almost as much as the government spent in the last budget year — nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections.

Researchers concluded in a study released Thursday that war with Iraq could cost the United States from $99 billion to more than $1.9 trillion over a decade.

The lower figure assumes a successful military, diplomatic and nation-building campaign; the higher figure assumes a prolonged war with a disruption of oil markets and a U.S. recession, the authors say in a study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Both figures assume a U.S. involvement in the country for 10 years.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said it was premature to comment on cost estimates. "War is the last resort," he said. "We're hoping for a peaceful solution."

The 1991 Persian Gulf War cost America an estimated $61 billion, but allies reimbursed all but about $7 billion. By some accounting methods, the United States may have even made a profit.

Direct military spending could range from $50 billion in a short campaign to $140 billion in a prolonged war with Iraq, said the study titled, "War With Iraq: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives." The study was done by the academy's Committee on International Security Studies.

The report cautioned that aside from the estimates of direct military costs, all the numbers should be "regarded as informed conjecture."

Occupation and peacekeeping costs could be $75 billion in the best case to $500 billion in the worst, the study said. Reconstruction and nation-building costs are estimated at $30 billion to $105 billion, and humanitarian aid at $1 billion to $10 billion.

Economic ripples of war with Iraq are likely to spread beyond budgetary costs, with the prospect of raising the cost of imported oil, slowing productivity growth and possibly triggering a recession, the report said.

A prolonged disruption of world oil markets could cost the U.S. economy up to $778 billion, the researchers estimated. On the other hand, Iraq's huge oil resources could satisfy U.S. needs for imported oil at current levels for almost a century and otherwise benefit the economy by $40 billion.

A short war could actually benefit the United States in terms of its macroeconomic impact, which includes employment, by $17 billion. A long war, in contrast, could have a $391 billion negative effect.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences (, founded in 1780 and based in Cambridge, Mass., is an international society of scientists, scholars, artists, business people and political leaders.


Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002
From: "John T. Linnell" <>
Subject: Slowly the world is waking up to who is the terrorist

World Survey Says Negative Views of U.S. Are Rising


New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 - While people in most non-Muslim countries continue to view the United States favorably, negative opinions have increased in most nations over the past two years, according to public opinion surveys in 44 countries.

The surveys of 38,000 people conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press indicated that, although there is widespread support for the United States-led campaign against terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, it was tempered by large minorities or even majorities in many countries who say the Bush administration is ignoring their nations' interests.Moreover, followup polls last month in four countries - Britain, France, Germany and Russia ˜ found substantial percentages of people saying they thought that the main reason the United States would go to war with Iraq would be "because the U.S. wants to control Iraqi oil." That view was held by 44 percent in Britain, 54 percent in Germany, 75 percent in France and 76 percent in Russia. A parallel survey in the United States found 22 percent agreeing with the war-for-oil theory. CLIP


From: "Jason West" <>
Subject: Posters for Peace
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002

December Call for Youth Action / Please Forward

International Posters for Peace Project


Create Posters or Flyers and display them all around your community before December 10th, 2002 to protest the United States invasion of Iraq.

If you don't have time to create posters or flyers of your own a full color flyer is available to download and print on our website. Pease visit:

Thank you,

902 West Maple St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701


Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002
From: Andrée Trépanier <>
Subject: ONLINE PETITION - Ask Bush to Let the Inspections Work

Please join me in signing an online petition asking President Bush to let the weapons inspections work, rather than rushing to war.

Inspections in Iraq have started. Most of us breathed a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, it's become clear that the ultra-hawks in the Bush administration -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle -- will not
take yes for an answer. While the rest of the world thinks Iraq has backed down, these men are beginning a massive public relations blitz for war.

With the possibility of a peaceful resolution to this crisis at hand, we cannot allow a few men to push the world to war. Send a message to President Bush to let the inspections work at: will compile our messages and present them to the administration, including Secretary of State Powell, and to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The good news is that the ultra-hawks face some serious opposition. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other members of the Bush Administration are willing to give diplomacy a chance, and the State
Department's interpretation of the U.N. resolution is a lot more reasonable than the White House's interpretation.

Unless wiser heads prevail, this is what we should expect:

(1) starting December 8th, members of the Bush Administration will claim that Iraq is in material breach of the U.N. resolution, citing supposed omissions in the coming multi-hundred page report, based on undisclosed intelligence;

(2) soon thereafter some "hot" incident, like anti-aircraft fire on U.S. patrols in the no-fly zone, will be used to solidify public support for war, and finally (3) the bombing campaign will begin.

This could all begin before Christmas -- another wonderful gift to the world from the Bush administration.

President Bush has agreed that war should be the very last resort. Let's hold him and his Administration to those words:

Please join me and sign on today. We must support policy makers who will oppose these few extremists in the Bush White House who have been looking for an excuse for war from the very beginning.


Here's the text of the message that the MoveOn will send with the list of compiled individual comments:

Dear Mr. President,

On October 11, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution on Iraq that authorizes you to use war as a last resort -- if and only if diplomacy fails to accomplish the U.S.'s national goals.

In this context, we are deeply concerned by your Administration's repeated attempts to frame Iraqi anti-aircraft fire within the no-fly-zone as a material breach of the resolution. As U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other U.N. diplomats have pointed out, the resolution clearly excludes such events from its jurisdiction.

We are also concerned that you have already found Iraq's response "not encouraging" when the inspectors have been at work only for a week and so far have not encountered Iraqi obstruction.

The United States has made a commitment to approaching the danger that Saddam Hussein poses through the international community. The resumption of the inspections regime is a triumph for the U.S., international law and multilateralism. But the United States will lose all credibility with its allies if it appears that it will go to war regardless of the inspections' success. And by alienating and infuriating allies through unilateral action, the U.S. could throw the success of the campaign against terrorism into jeopardy.

Mr. President, it appears that your administration is looking for an excuse to go to war, when a peaceful and just solution may be at hand. We ask that you live up to your word and give diplomacy a chance.

We can win without war.


From: "The Justice Project" <>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002
Subject: TAKE ACTION: Secure Loose Nukes Now or Pay the Real Price Later On

For less than one percent of what we already spend on national defense, our country can help eliminate threat of weapons of mass destruction. Tell President Bush to increase funding in the FY 2004 budget for programs that account for, secure and eliminate existing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. To send your letter, sign in at

Even though Congress hasn't yet finalized a budget for FY 2003, President Bush and his Cabinet are already preparing their national defense and homeland security budget recommendations for FY 2004. The administrationís budget will be finalized and presented to Congress in late January 2003, so we must act now to make sure that eliminating weapons of mass destruction becomes a budget priority.

We know that terrorists like Osama bin Laden are seeking chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons -- in fact, the Russian government lists up to 200 terrorist organizations it believes may be trying to obtain nuclear material! Yet the cost to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction is equal to less than one percent of what we already spend on our national defense.

The choice seems clear: we can either spend a small amount to secure one nuclear, chemical or biological weapon at its source right now, or we can spend billions of dollars to keep that weapon from penetrating our borders later on.

We need your help to make sure the President includes increased funding for vitally needed programs that address the problem of unsecured weapons of mass destruction in his 2004 budget recommendations -- itís a cost-effective investment that could save all of our lives.

To send a free fax to the President, please update your contact information at to elected officals are more effective when they contain your full postal address), then visit our Action Center and click on the alert called, "Secure Loose Nukes Now or Pay the Real Price Later."

You can also help by forwarding this message to others interested in homeland security and reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you for your commitment to creating a safer future for ourselves and our children.



Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced Immunizations

The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently approved by the Senate and President Bush. What does this mean for Americans? It means that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now be forced to receive immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical exemptions allowed -- and refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and imprisonment. Moreover, as it stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies from potential liability in vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for protecting the population from impending bio-terrorism threats, and with a promise that the special interest conditions, such as the one relating to pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised early next year.


The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other slew of illnesses potentially linked to vaccinations will have no legal recourse against the pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

A related bill that also potentially limited the freedom of Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA), was passed in December 2001 This law gave state legislatures the right to vaccinate people, enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property without any compensation and ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency situations.

As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled the law while 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed all or parts of it. In states where the law was passed, citizens will be charged with a crime if they refuse vaccinations.

The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of whether vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the individual. This violation of freedom takes away our right to decide what is best for our own bodies and leaves it in the hands of the federal government, and the special interest groups that potentially control it.

GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002



So is the situation completely hopeless? Never. In fact, not even close in this case.

As the article states, the U.S. Senators who approved Homeland Security made a promise that the special interest provisions would be revised early next year. These include the provisions (otherwise known as "pork") in the bill that let pharmaceutical companies off the hook for the great damage their vaccines may have done, and that eliminates your rights to refuse vaccinations for medical, personal or religious reasons.

So what can you do right now?

Contact both of your state Senators, multiple times if you so choose, and remind them how important it is that they keep their word and revise these provisions in early 2003!


This contact list for U.S. Senators provides phone, mail and email addresses:


See also:

Drug Industry Seeks Ways to Capitalize on Election Success



Vaccination Liberation


If you would like to subscribe to the Earth Rainbow Network automated listserver, and regularly receive similar compilations covering a broad range of subjects, including each new Meditation Focus issued every two week, please click on this SUBSCRIPTION page.