January 3, 2003

Defeating the U.S. War Plans Series #12: Trying to Prevent a Mini-Holocaust Through Exposing The Truth and With Peace Mobilization

Hello everyone

We all have high hopes as this new year begins that finally humanity as a whole will understand that war and all forms of violence against each other and Nature must be banned forever and that active goodwill, compassion and love are the only viable way ahead to a brighter future for all.

Please help making this a reality!

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

P.S. Please see my notice above regarding the duplicate emails problem. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.

This compilation is archived at


1. Defence redefined means securing cheap energy
2. US/Afghanistan 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed
3. U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
4. Shredding the First Amendment

See also:

Code Pink: The Women's Pre-emptive Strike for Peace. (THIS SITE IS *REALLY* WORTH A LOOK!)
If you're making year-end donations to worthy causes, please consider them, the Women's Peace Vigil, who have maintained a daily presence at the White House since November. They also have done other actions, including "caroling" at Rumsfeld's residence, which got a fair amount of media attention. They will be at the White House until Intl. Women's Day in March, and are organizing a big event to coincide with the January anti-war march. Checks may be made out to Global Exchange, indicating that the money is for the Women's Peace Vigil.

The address is:
Women's Peace Vigil
733 - 15th St., NW #507
Washington, DC 20005
Sent by "Sallie Kjono" <>

In the United States, the Defenders of Freedoms Defy George W Bush (Dec 24)
In several cities, the municipal elected officials voted for resolutions asking for the respect of the basic rights.

Peace movement's ranks include some unlikely allies

At Home and Abroad, Bush's "War on Terror" Faces Mounting Criticism (Dec 30)
At home and abroad, US President George W. Bush's "war on terror" was facing mounting criticism over fears that fundamental human rights and freedoms were being eroded. Actors, writers, lawyers, politicians, and millions of ordinary people worldwide have in recent weeks all questioned the no-holds-barred US policy which many fear will be counter-productive. Huge anti-war demonstrations have taken place in cities across the globe and more are planned for the new year, including a major one in Washington on January 18. (...) In Germany, where anti-US sentiment is at its highest level since the euro-missile crisis of the 1980s, Nobel prize-winning author Guenter Grass called Bush's response to the September 11 attacks on the United States as "truly dangerous" and a major threat to world peace." CLIP

America Bullying the World, Canadians Say in Poll (Dec 28)

Marines prepare for war: not 'if' but 'when' (Dec 31)

The Dead Remember (January 1)
The last big story of 2002 jumped off the front page of the Washington Post on Monday, December 30th. The headline read, "U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup - Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds." This was by no means a new story. (...) These are facts in the public record as we roar into the brave new world of 2003. These are facts that the mainstream television media will not share with you; understand that NBC and MSNBC, for one example, are owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors on earth. General Electric stands to make incredible profit from a war with Iraq, despite the fact that its corporate brothers and sisters profited by helping to create the supposed menace not so long ago. Why would GE's media outlets give you the facts? Facts interfere with the bottom line. Here is your bottom line. This country is headed to war with a nation we armed in the first place for a tidy corporate profit, despite the fact that there is no evidence that nation is a threat anymore. Beyond the tens of thousands of civilian deaths this war will bring to the people of Iraq, beyond the potential for hundreds or thousands of American casualties, beyond the vastly increased threat of stateside terrorism this will cause, yet another tidy corporate profit will be made. Simultaneously, corporations and our government collude to keep average Americans from being able to call to account those who poisoned children during 40 years of profitable manufacture of what appears to have been a neurological poison.

AP Poll: Americans Wary of Tax Cuts, War (Dec 30)

Inspectors 'Have Zilch' Thus Far (Dec 31)

The FBI has a new way of tracking terrorists
Recommended by "Joe Sehl" <> who wrote: "I laughed until I cried. It was a much needed comic relief."

Bush Administration Stumbles Again in Venezuela (Dec 19)


HERE IS HOW I INTRODUCED MY LAST MEDIA COMPILATION THAT BEGINS WITH THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE (This Media Compilation #106: Killing Innocents For Cheap Oil is Not OK! is archived at

Dear journalist

The cat if out of the bag and must be grabbed by world media, hanged on front page or prime time for all to see and shot down by world public opinion (See "Defence redefined means securing cheap energy" below). There is no way cheap oil for America's gaz-guzzling SUVs will be accepted as a reasonable motive to go kill tens of thousands of innocent human beings in Iraq -- all for the sake of "protecting" the American Way of Life that is now killing the very planet on which we all depend. This is sheer dementia, pure and simple, and those advocating such madness must be put where they belong: in the the dustbin of History along with the dinosaurs and all other antediluvian things such as the combustion engine and other fossil fuel based contraptions. Time to kick asses at GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler so as to get them to mass produce already existing and well-proven clean technologies such as fuel cell vehicles (as Toyota is doing albeit on a very limited basis this year). Time also for the oil companies to shift to mass producing and supplying everywhere hydrogen fuel. Time finally too for the consumers to accept to pay for having their cars retrofitted with a full cell engine (if technically feasible) within the next 5 years so as to do away with this stupid oil-based combustion engine and thus contribute to ridding the planet of one of the worst forms of pollution and begin the long-overdue global effort to stop and reverse global warming.

I rest my case...

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002
From: Caspar Davis <> (by way of Mike Nickerson)
Subject: US Security = Control of World's Resources

Bush's strategists urge "the legitimacy of 'shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower gas prices.'"

Thanks to GlobalNetNews



Defence redefined means securing cheap energy

December 26 2002

Behind George Bush's high-minded rhetoric on why America may go to war with Iraq is a long history of weighing the price of securing its oil supplies. Ritt Goldstein writes.

As troops and equipment pour into the Gulf for a looming war with Iraq, United States military thinkers admit that "defence" means protecting the circumstances of "daily life" - and in the US daily life runs on cheap oil.

As far back as 1975, Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, said America was prepared to wage war over oil. Separate plans advocating US conquest of Saudi oilfields were published in the '70s. So it should come as little surprise that in May last year - four months before the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York - a battle plan for Afghanistan was already being reviewed by the US Command that would carry it out after September 11. Military strategists were highlighting the energy wealth of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and its importance to America's "security".

The Indian media and Jane's Intelligence Review reported that the US was fighting covert battles against the Taliban, months before the "war on terrorism" was declared. General William Kernan, commander-in-chief of the US Joint Forces Command, let the revelation about the battle plan review casually drop in July while extolling the success of America's Millennium Challenge war games to Agence France-Presse.

Earlier, during the northern spring last year, Michael Klare, an international security expert and author of Resource Wars, said the military had increasingly come to "define resource security as their primary mission". Over several months beginning in April last year a series of military and governmental policy documents was released that sought to legitimise the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. Simultaneously, the energy task force of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, was working to tackle a looming US oil crisis. Reflecting a shifting strategic policy, the influential Council on Foreign Relations urged that the Defence Department be included in Cheney's energy group.

During that spring of 2001, as the US military examined the all-out battle scenario that would soon become the operational plan for the war in Afghanistan, events fatefully spun towards September 11's trigger. But these events did not occur in a vacuum. Providing a summary of the US military's coming role, over the summer of 2000 the Army War College (a foundry for the US military's strategic thinking) published a declaration that security "is more than protecting the country from external threats; security includes economic security".

The policy statement appeared in an article by Lieutenant-Colonel P. H. Liotta, professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, one of a handful of present US national security gurus. His article went on to advocate the use of military force "for more than simply protecting a nation and its people from traditional threat-based challenges". Colonel Liotta argued that defence meant protecting the US lifestyle, the circumstances of "daily life". Reflecting the relationship between pronouncements by such policy gurus and Washington's actual policies, in the Journal of Homeland Security of August this year, Colonel Liotta said America "will practise pre-emption against those who seek to harm our vital interests and our way of life".

At the end of September President Bush unveiled a national security strategy of pre-emption.

And so the months preceding September 11 saw a shifting of the US military's focus. Publications of the US Army War College and the army General and Command Staff College argued that, when it came to oil and gas, "where US business goes, US national interests follow". They highlighted the energy wealth of Central Asia and its importance to America's "security". Oil and gas were on the military's agenda.

Cutting to the crux of present-day issues, a spring 2001 article by Jeffrey Record in the War College's journal, Parameters, argued the legitimacy of "shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower gas prices". Mr Record, a former staff member of the Senate armed services committee (and an apparent favourite of the Council on Foreign Relations), also advocated the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict. Mr Record explicitly urged painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilising public support for a conflict.

Amplifying the impact of the military papers, in a document commissioned early in the Bush presidency, two key US policy groups, the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, explicitly advocated a convergence of military and energy issues. Their joint report - Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century - approved of "military intervention" to secure energy supplies. It also urged Pentagon participation in Mr Cheney's energy task force. And the report warned that the US was running out of oil, with a painful end to cheap fuel already in sight.

Virtually concurrent with the report's release on April 10 last year, Tommy Franks, commander of US forces responsible for the Persian Gulf/South Asia area, added his voice. An April 13 report on his congressional testimony defined General Franks's command's key mission as "access to [the region's] energy resources". That May it was his command that reviewed the soon-to-be-used details for the coming war in Afghanistan.

Also early last year, the security expert Michael Klare warned that US military action to secure oil "could emerge as the favoured response to future [oil] crises". In the months preceding September 11, US governmental and military policymakers increasingly built military frameworks around energy questions.

Iraq has 10 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves, with The New York Times reporting in October that the Bush White House is planning for the installation of a US military government there in the event of a war leading to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In a parallel with Afghanistan, US covert action has reportedly already begun.


From: "Joseph Graffis" <>
Subject: US/Afghanistan 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002

(*Editors Note | Since September 11th, 2001, there has been intense speculation regarding Bush administration negotiations with the Taliban regarding this very project prior to the attacks. American petroleum giant Unocal very much wanted this project for years, but it was stymied in 1998 after bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa, causing the Taliban to be diplomatically isolated. There are a number of reports that describe a reinvigoration of this pipeline plan after Bush took office, and further describe the Bush administration's negotiations with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. Some say these threats, in the name of the pipeline, triggered the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is gone, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant, and the pipeline deal is finally done. - wrp)

Agreement On US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed

December 28, 2002

Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries.

The ceremony was held at the Presidential Palace with the three leaders, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signing the document.

The framework agreement defines legal mechanism for setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline.

According to a study by Asian Development Bank (ADB), the 1460 km pipeline would use gas reserves at Dauletabad fields in Turkmenistan, which has world's fifth largest reserves, while passing through Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The three countries had earlier signed a trilateral agreement to develop a natural gas and oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan in May this year, during the first trilateral summit in Islamabad.

The three countries are laying great importance on the project as it could provide much needed boost to their economies.



U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup

December 30, 2002

Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.


In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.


According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."


See also:

U.N. Broadens Iraqi Import Ban (Dec 31)
Viruses, Motorboats Among Items With Possible Military Use
UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 30 -- The U.N. Security Council today adopted a U.S.-sponsored resolution that tightens regulations on Iraqi imports of some viruses, airplane flight simulators, communications equipment and high-speed motorboats that have potential military applications. The 15-nation council voted 13 to 0 to add the items to a 302-page list of products that require Security Council approval before they can be imported into Iraq. Russia and Syria abstained, marking the first open sign of council division on Iraq policy since it unanimously passed a resolution last month demanding Iraq submit to the resumption of U.N. inspections. The council's decision to regulate additional imports to Iraq follows an intense effort by the Bush administration to convince council members that Baghdad may convert these items to military uses in a war against a U.S.-led coalition. It immediately drew charges from Iraq and Syria, the council's only Arab member, that today's action would worsen the plight of ordinary Iraqi citizens. "This will hinder and create obstacles in the implementation of the oil-for-food program," said Iraq's deputy U.N. ambassador, Mohammed S. Ali, referring to a U.N.-supervised humanitarian program. "This program has not been able to respond to the needs of the Iraqi people, and nothing but the lifting of sanctions will end their suffering." CLIP



Mainstream journalism: Shredding the First Amendment (Nov 7)

The national broadcast and print news media's inability to critically assess George W. Bush's foreign and domestic policies and to serve as a watchdog for the public's interest is nothing less than a threat to the country's democratic processes. Not only has the national news media been unable to piece together a cogent and balanced review of Bush's policies, it has helped the administration to shape and spin national debate and muddy the waters to cover its actual intentions.


There is plenty of evidence to show that broadcast journalists are willing co-conspirators in spinning the news. Describing how Sunday talk shows pander to the administration and "fabricate" the news, John Tierney of the New York Times blithely described the weekly ritual recently as "a cross between Sunday morning church and American football. "The talk shows may bore many Americans," he said, "but they are crucial vehicles for the White House in setting the news agenda for the week. For the networks, the programs not only keep the news machine going on a slow day but also generate handsome profits because of their low costs—and the fact that the big-name guests do not have to be paid." Coming from the pages of the New York Times, these observations are a bit disingenuous. Throughout the fall the Times published a rash of leaks from unnamed sources that were clearly part of an orchestrated administration effort to portray Saddam Hussein as a direct and immediate threat to the United States and to link him to al Qaeda. Much of the information provided by these unnamed sources turned out to be misleading or inaccurate. But the articles enabled the administration to direct the nation's news agenda toward war and away from the economy and to spin the facts to its liking.


The scope of the national media's failure to honestly and thoroughly inform the American people on issues of the day was dramatically illustrated recently by a new polling organization that conducts national opinion surveys that capture the affects of misinformation. The organization is called Retro Poll, and its pilot poll, completed recently, looked at the war on terrorism.

According to the organization?s October 17, 2002, press release, the Retro Poll "attempts to show that public opinion is molded by media misinformation and disinformation (propaganda). It addresses the question: does the public opinion reported in the usual major media polls reflect the true values and beliefs of those Americans polled . . . ?"

The terrorism poll involved people from 39 states and "showed a link between misinformation on Iraq and support for a U.S. war against that country." The poll's results suggest that by "continually highlighting Washington's viewpoint unchallenged, the news bureaus in the U.S. can change the facts in the minds of many Americans. The opinions formed from those unsubstantiated facts are then used by polling organizations to report back the values, ideas, and thinking of the public." CLIP


See also:

Poll Proves that Media Manufactures Consent (Nov 13)

Mainstream journalism: Iraq, a conspiracy of silence and compromise (Nov 14)
Most Americans have never heard of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) but the project is very important to their lives and to the future of their nation. The project has much to do with Bush's call for a strike on Iraq and his so-called doctrine of preemption. Americans will not have heard much about PNAC because the national media has chosen not to tell them about it. The work of PNAC calls into question the administration's claims that Saddam Hussein has become a direct and immediate threat to the United States, who must be attacked now before it's too late. The administration claims that Saddam is on the verge of building nuclear weapons that may then be used against us. The administration claims that Saddam is reconstituting his chemical and biological weapons and those weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists and be used against us. The American people have been told that Saddam is conspiring to aid and support world terrorists, including al Qaeda. Bush has even claimed that Iraq has a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used for "missions targeting the United States." Clearly these statements are meant to frighten the American people in the aftermath of 9/11. (...) Meanwhile, Bush has not yet produced credible evidence that Iraq is the immediate and direct threat that his administration claims, in fact, evidence has been produced by the intelligence community disputing Bush's claims while leaks from Pentagon and intelligence sources indicate that the White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to manufacture the evidence it needs. (...) During all of this, the bulk of the national news media, especially the cables and networks, have nonetheless stuck with the Bush line, despite the increasing weight of evidence that the administration's bloodlust for Iraq has nothing to do with the events of September 11 and may, in fact, hinder Bush's "war on terrorism." CLIP


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.