January 16, 2004

The Empire of Darkness Series #5: Could it Get Worst Than That? You Bet!

Hello everyone

Of all the compilations I've networked in the past 6+ years, this is probably the one containing articles and views that are the most critical of the United States I've ever circulated. And what I just wrote is probably the strongest understatement I've ever written. Just to give you an idea... I was originally intending to send you only the first article below, "Paranoid shift: Understanding Tyranny", because it is so powerful and so hard-hitting that I wanted it to be a stand alone to really get your attention. But then I already had a 48-page long compilation (The Big Brother Files #50) that was ready to be sent and so I thought it should include along immediately some relevant material from this other compilation - which I'll email you next week.

I know I've passed on much reading material already this week, some of which was not exactly a piece of cake to assimilate, but the cherry on the cake was missing. Now you have it. As for my subject title: Could it Get Worst Than That? You Bet!... But only if we continue to allow the repressive regime put in place by a corrupt corporate/military elite to continue its expansion unchallenged. And the best way to challenge it is to first accept responsibility for its existence and then accept to totally, unconditionally love all the souls directly responsible for this situation — no blame, no rage, no shouting and certainly no violence — just expressing the sheer infinite magnitude of the Universal Love we are ALL able to shine, for when we will truly find within ourselves the Will to Be that kind of radiant Stars of Love, then not only shall darkness vanish from the face of this living sphere but the Divine Power of Love will also heal all those frightened, manipulated, unloved souls back into their complete remembrance of Who They Really Are. It may sound simplistic but it is really that simple.

All They Need is Love...

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

P.S. Good news! I've been able to add back on the ERN listserver all 370 AOL subscribers because the bouncing problem has now been resolved, hopefully permanently. A final note: watch for the next Meditation Focus in your email box this Sunday, about 7 hours before the global meditation time as usual.

Your comments are most welcomed and may be included in a coming compilation. Circulating this compilation (or parts of it) to others and personally inviting them to join the ERN family of Light Servers would certainly be a useful contribution. Just make sure to include the following note along with your forward:
Free subscription to such compilations through or by sending a blank email to

This compilation is archived at

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

— Julius Caesar

"Aggressive militarization under the rubric of defense against terrorism threatens to provoke a chain reaction among nuclear nations, big and small, that, once set in motion, may prove impossible to control. No military confrontation anywhere in the world is free from this ominous and ever-present danger."

-Helen Caldicott, The New Nuclear Danger, 2002

"Security policy" has led us into the most dire insecurity the world has ever faced. The politics of nuclear confrontation imposes a brand of insanity upon us that says, "In order to defend freedom, we must be prepared to destroy life itself." The system is bankrupt when humanity shrinks from recognizing that it is in the process of destroying itself. The enormous expenditure of energy, scientific sophistication and wealth on the military is the main cause of poverty, inflation and despair in the world."

-Petra Kelly, Fighting For Hope, 1984

"Because the United States is run by a criminal syndicate that has merged the financial influence of the petroleum and pharmaceutical industries with the lawless behavior of the government, America is now a criminal nation, and all Americans, hiding in their self-centered, consumerist ignorance, are accessories to an awesome array of crimes against humanity. Our daily murders of innocent people in Third World countries have always been a blatant part of American foreign policy (that's the great blind spot of all U.S. citizens), but this carnage has been greatly accelerated by the general acceptance of the 9/11 myth, which focuses hatred outward onto brown-skinned Arab peoples even though the actual crime of 9/11 was devised, executed and continues to be covered up by rich white men in Washington, D.C. (...) No one in public life is willing to recognize that America is committing heinous crimes much worse than the alleged depredations of Hitler and Stalin. Our rationale for invading Iraq has been exposed as a total lie, and yet the American people stumble on, refusing to confront the shameful truth that we are the invading army, killing people for no good reason. Worse, no one in public life has the courage to explain how those people who died when New York City skyscrapers collapsed were killed by plans concocted by the same people who seek your votes on election day, and still talk about freedom and justice while they pocket checks from large corporations intent on profiting from rebuilding the faraway cities we reduce to rubble."

- John Kaminski - Taken from "'Power Hour' blocks Kaminski at last minute" at
Check his many other articles at and

Worthy of Your Attention

Watch a new animation by Eric Blumrich (MOST POWERFUL! I CRIED WATCHING THIS)
Check also Kucinich's excellent and doable "Ten-Point Plan to Bring Our Troops Home From Iraq" at
Hear also Dennis Kucinich's legendary speech "A Prayer for America" in his own voice at

Take 5 minutes to check the short book reviews at Greg Palast bookstore.
It will peel away any residual illusions you may have about the mega-corporate crooks who bought their way into the Black House, err, I mean the White House.

THE BEST DEMOCRACY MONEY CAN BUY: The Bushes and the Billionaires Who Love Them
Scalding revelations excerpted from Greg Palast's book - A MUST READ!
Who owns America? How much did it cost? Was the transaction cash, check or credit card? Was it a donation to my son who's running for president? Or a consulting contract to my wife's former law partner to comfort him on his way to the federal penitentiary? And what do you give a billionaire who has everything? Immunity from prosecution? Then there's the practical difficulty of gift wrapping the U.S. Congress. George W. Bush may have lost at the ballot box but he won where it counts, at the piggy bank. The Fortunate Son rode right into the White House on a snorting porker stuffed with nearly half a billion dollars: My calculation of the suffocating plurality of cash from Corporate America ("hard" money, "soft" money, "parallel" spending and other forms of easy squeezy) that smothered Al Gore runs to $447 million. They called it an election but it looked more like an auction. What did all this loot buy? In May 2001, I flew to Texas to find out. CLIP

Misleader a Daily Chronicle of Bush Administration Distortions


1. Paranoid shift: Understanding Tyranny
2. JFK, 9-11, and the REAL America: Tying It All Together
3. PILGER: What They Don't Want You To Know
4. Much farther down the road to hell: Americans ignore U.S. atrocities in Iraq

See also:

The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. (...) In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book. CLIP

Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start (Jan 13)
Comments could boost criticism of president's case for war against Iraq

Palm Trees Never Lie - But the Bush Administration Apparently Can and Does
An email has been going around the Internet saying that the photo we saw of Saddam Hussein's spider hole being opened on the 15th of December actually had to have been taken months before that. You see, there's a date tree in the background — complete with dates in the yellow stage of early ripening. But dates start to ripen in August and early September. After that, they turn brown. AND BY DECEMBER, THE DATE TREES ARE BARE! CLIP Recommended by Aradhana>

American Held Iraqi Bludgeoned, Electrocuted into a Coma (January 9, 2004)

Guantanamo Bay: a global experiment in inhumanity (Jan 10),3604,1119994,00.html
The US example now legitimises oppression across the world (...) Worldwide, the experiment is becoming the norm. It has been estimated that at least 15,000 people are being held without trial under the justification of the "war on terrorism". They include more than 3,000 detained in Iraq after the war, of whom at least 1,000 are still in detention; an estimated further 1,000 to 3,000 detained at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan; and an unknown number being held on the British territory of Diego Garcia. Bagram is a CIA interrogation centre, practising "stress and duress" or "torture lite". An investigation has reportedly begun there after the deaths of two prisoners in suspicious circumstances. US personnel stationed at Bagram have described the regular practice of sensory deprivation and sleep starvation, as well as incidents of throwing prisoners against walls while hooded. (...) In the US itself, the experiment continues. Over 1,000 people were arbitrarily detained in the immediate aftermath of September 11. The US government refused to give names or details to civil rights groups. Many became subject to immigration procedures and were eventually deported. Inevitably, non-US citizens in this situation receive no attention from the national media. But there are also three US Muslims detained indefinitely as "enemy combatants", two of whom were detained on US soil. (...) It is of grave concern that the example being set by the US and the UK is being used to legitimise repression internationally on an ever-increasing scale. From China, which has imprisoned up to 100 Chinese Muslims without trial, to Uzbekistan (up to 1,000), Yemen (200), Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, India and Indonesia, this alarming lead is being eagerly followed. In Israel and Chechnya, there would be far more people in prison without trial had not the authorities there taken matters one step further and authorised extra-judicial killings. They were safe in the knowledge that the US government boasted last year of killing alleged al-Qaida members in Yemen. (...) What can an ordinary person do about a world turned on its head, where governments that claim to be democratic engage in repression, coercion and even torture on an international scale? Everyone needs to protest - peacefully, but as loudly and as persistently as they are able. Every act counts. And let everyone be certain of this: those who experiment in inhumanity will have no appetite to stop unless there is such protest.

Chickenhearts at Notre Dame (December 13 / 14, 2003)
The Pervasive Fear of Talking About the Israeli Connection - It is wide open now. Israelis are training Americans at Fort Bragg on their well tested techniques for carrying out targeted-and of course extrajudicial-assassinations. Americans in Iraq are copying this and all the other wretchedly cruel, unjust (and failed) Israeli occupation tactics in the West Bank and Gaza, tactics that the U.S. through its massive aid enables and encourages Israel to pursue. It is impossible to exaggerate the stupidity and just plain evil of the Bush administration in transferring such copycat policies to Iraq, at a time when hatred of U.S. policies is already rising daily around the world. The training of assassination teams is only one of many manifestations of the United States' "Israeli connection." CLIP



Paranoid shift



By Michael Hasty Online Journal Contributing Writer

January 10, 2004—Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, was a bitter man. He felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy." They really only wanted "absolute power."

Angleton told author Joseph Trento that the reason he had gotten the counterintelligence job in the first place was by agreeing not to submit "sixty of Allen Dulles' closest friends" to a polygraph test concerning their business deals with the Nazis. In his end-of-life despair, Angleton assumed that he would see all his old companions again "in hell."

The transformation of James Jesus Angleton from an enthusiastic, Ivy League cold warrior, to a bitter old man, is an extreme example of a phenomenon I call a "paranoid shift." I recognize the phenomenon, because something similar happened to me.

Although I don't remember ever meeting James Jesus Angleton, I worked at the CIA myself as a low-level clerk as a teenager in the '60s. This was at the same time I was beginning to question the government's actions in Vietnam. In fact, my personal "paranoid shift" probably began with the disillusionment I felt when I realized that the story of American foreign policy was, at the very least, more complicated and darker than I had hitherto been led to believe.

But for most of the next 30 years, even though I was a radical, I nevertheless held faith in the basic integrity of a system where power ultimately resided in the people, and whereby if enough people got together and voted, real and fundamental change could happen.

What constitutes my personal paranoid shift is that I no longer believe this to be necessarily true. In his book, "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower," ( William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of "conspiracy theory" an immediate "object of ridicule."

This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class—for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls "the media's most effective tool—silence."

But in case somebody's asking questions, all you have to do is say, "conspiracy theory," and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention.

On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words "conspiracy theory" (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth. Take September 11—which I identify as the date my paranoia actually shifted, though I didn't know it at the time.

Unless I'm paranoid, it doesn't make any sense at all that George W. Bush, commander-in-chief, sat in a second-grade classroom for 20 minutes after he was informed that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, listening to children read a story about a goat. Nor does it make sense that the Number 2 man, Dick Cheney—even knowing that "the commander" was on a mission in Florida—nevertheless sat at his desk in the White House, watching TV, until the Secret Service dragged him out by the armpits.

Unless I'm paranoid, it makes no sense that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sat at his desk until Flight 77 hit the Pentagon—well over an hour after the military had learned about the multiple hijacking in progress.

It also makes no sense that the brand-new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat in a Senate office for two hours while the 9/11 attacks took place, after leaving explicit instructions that he not be disturbed—which he wasn't.

In other words, while the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the entire top of the chain of command of the most powerful military in the world sat at various desks, inert. Why weren't they in the "Situation Room?" Don't any of them ever watch "West Wing?"

In a sane world, this would be an object of major scandal. But here on this side of the paranoid shift, it's business as usual.

Years, even decades before 9/11, plans had been drawn up for American forces to take control of the oil interests of the Middle East, for various imperialist reasons. And these plans were only contingent upon "a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," to gain the majority support of the American public to set the plans into motion.

When the opportunity presented itself, the guards looked the other way . . . and presto, the path to global domination was open.

Simple, as long as the media played along. And there is voluminous evidence that the media play along. Number one on Project Censored's annual list ( of underreported stories in 2002 was the Project for a New American Century (now the infrastructure of the Bush Regime), whose report, published in 2000, contains the above "Pearl Harbor" quote.

Why is it so hard to believe serious people who have repeatedly warned us that powerful ruling elites are out to dominate "the masses?" Did we think Dwight Eisenhower was exaggerating when he warned of the extreme "danger" to democracy of "the military industrial complex?"

Was Barry Goldwater just being a quaint old-fashioned John Bircher when he said that the Trilateral Commission was "David Rockefeller's latest scheme to take over the world, by taking over the government of the United States?"

Were Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt or Joseph Kennedy just being class traitors when they talked about a small group of wealthy elites who operate as a hidden government behind the government?

Especially after he died so mysteriously, why shouldn't we believe the late CIA Director William Colby, who bragged about how the CIA "owns everyone of any major significance in the major media?"

Why can't we believe James Jesus Angleton—a man staring eternal judgment in the face—when he says that the founders of the Cold War national security state were only interested in "absolute power?" Especially when the descendant of a very good friend of Allen Dulles now holds power in the White House.

Prescott Bush, the late, aristocratic senator from Connecticut, and grandfather of George W Bush, was not only a good friend of Allen Dulles, CIA director, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and international business lawyer.

He was also a client of Dulles' law firm. As such, he was the beneficiary of Dulles' miraculous ability to scrub the story of Bush's treasonous investments in the Third Reich out of the news media, where it might have interfered with Bush's political career . . . not to mention the presidential careers of his son and grandson.

Recently declassified US government documents, unearthed last October by investigative journalist John Buchanan at the New Hampshire Gazette, reveal that Prescott Bush's involvement in financing and arming the Nazis was more extensive than previously known.

Not only was Bush managing director of the Union Banking Corporation, the American branch of Hitler's chief financier's banking network; but among the other companies where Bush was a director—and which were seized by the American government in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act—were a shipping line which imported German spies; an energy company that supplied the Luftwaffe with high-ethyl fuel; and a steel company that employed Jewish slave labor from the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Like all the other Bush scandals that have been swept under the rug in the privatized censorship of the corporate media, these revelations have been largely ignored, with the exception of a single article in the Associated Press. And there are those, even on the left, who question the current relevance of this information.

But Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis do more than illustrate a family pattern of genteel treason and war profiteering—from George Senior's sale of TOW missiles to Iran at the same time he was selling biological and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, to Junior's zany misadventures in crony capitalism in present-day Iraq.

More disturbing by far are the many eerie parallels between Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush: A conservative, authoritarian style, with public appearances in military uniform (which no previous American president has ever done while in office). Government by secrecy, propaganda and deception. Open assaults on labor unions and workers' rights. Preemptive war and militant nationalism. Contempt for international law and treaties. Suspiciously convenient "terrorist" attacks, to justify a police state and the suspension of liberties.

A carefully manufactured image of "The Leader," who's still just a "regular guy" and a "moderate." "Freedom" as the rationale for every action. Fantasy economic growth, based on unprecedented budget deficits and massive military spending. And a cold, pragmatic ideology of fascism—including the violent suppression of dissent and other human rights; the use of torture, assassination and concentration camps; and most important, Benito Mussolini's preferred definition of "fascism" as "corporatism, because it binds together the interests of corporations and the state."

By their fruits, you shall know them. What perplexes me most is probably the same question that plagues most paranoiacs: why don't other people see these connections? Oh, sure, there may be millions of us, lurking at websites like Online Journal, From the Wilderness, Center for Cooperative Research, and the Center for Research on Globalization, checking out right-wing conspiracists and the galaxy of 9/11 sites, and reading columnists like Chris Floyd at the Moscow Times, and Maureen Farrell at Buzzflash. But we know we are only a furtive minority, the human remnant among the pod people in the live-action, 21st-century version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

And being paranoid, we have to figure out, with an answer that fits into our system, why more people don't see the connections we do. Fortunately, there are a number of possible explanations.

First on the list would have to be what Marshal McLuhan called the "cave art of the electronic age:" advertising. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Karl Rove, gave credit for most of his ideas on how to manipulate mass opinion to American commercial advertising, and to the then-new science of "public relations." But the public relations universe available to the corporate empire that rules the world today makes the Goebbels operation look primitive. The precision of communications technology and graphics; the century of research on human psychology and emotion; and the uniquely centralized control of triumphant post-Cold War monopoly capitalism, have combined to the point where "the manufacture of consent" can be set on automatic pilot.

A second major reason people won't make the paranoid shift is that they are too fundamentally decent. They can't believe that the elected leaders of our country, the people they've been taught through 12 years of public school to admire and trust, are capable of sending young American soldiers to their deaths and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians, just to satisfy their greed—especially when they're so rich in the first place. Besides, America is good, and the media are liberal and overly critical.

Third, people don't want to look like fools. Being a "conspiracy theorist" is like being a creationist. The educated opinion of eminent experts on every TV and radio network is that any discussion of "oil" being a motivation for the US invasion of Iraq is just out of bounds, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist."

We can trust the integrity of our 'no-bid" contracting in Iraq, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist." Of course, people sometimes make mistakes, but our military and intelligence community did the best they could on and before September 11, and anybody who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist."

Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist." Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don't make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility.

If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system.

And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance"—like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face.

It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire's technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global.

It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as "terrorism." In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves. It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

But as a paranoid, I'm ready to join the resistance. And the main reason is I no longer think that the "conspiracy" is much of a "theory."

That the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was "probably" the result of "a conspiracy," and that 70 percent of Americans agree with this conclusion, is not a "theory." It's fact.

That the Bay of Pigs fiasco, "Operation Zapata," was organized by members of Skull and Bones, the ghoulish and powerful secret society at Yale University whose membership also included Prescott, George Herbert Walker and George W Bush; that two of the ships that carried the Cuban counterrevolutionaries to their appointment with absurdity were named the "Barbara" and the "Houston"—George HW Bush's city of residence at the time—and that the oil company Bush owned, then operating in the Caribbean area, was named "Zapata," is not "theory." It's fact.

That George Bush was the CIA director who kept the names of what were estimated to be hundreds of American journalists, considered to be CIA "assets," from the Church Committee, the US Senate Intelligence Committe chaired by Senator Frank Church that investigated the CIA in the 1970s; that a 1971 University of Michigan study concluded that, in America, the more TV you watched, the less you knew; and that a recent survey by international scholars found that Americans were the most "ignorant" of world affairs out of all the populations they studied, is not a "theory." It's fact.

That the Council on Foreign Relations has a history of influence on official US government foreign policy; that the protection of US supplies of Middle East oil has been a central element of American foreign policy since the Second World War; and that global oil production has been in decline since its peak year, 2000, is not "theory." It's fact.

That, in the early 1970s, the newly-formed Trilateral Commission published a report which recommended that, in order for "globalization" to succeed, American manufacturing jobs had to be exported, and American wages had to decline, which is exactly what happened over the next three decades; and that, during that same period, the richest one percent of Americans doubled their share of the national wealth, is not "theory." It's a fact.

That, beyond their quasi-public role as agents of the US Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Banks are profit-making corporations, whose beneficiaries include some of America's wealthiest families; and that the United States has a virtual controlling interest in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, the three dominant global financial institutions, is not a "theory." It's fact.

That—whether it's heroin from Southeast Asia in the '60s and '70s, or cocaine from Central America and heroin from Afghanistan in the '80s, or cocaine from Colombia in the '90s, or heroin from Afghanistan today—no major CIA covert operation has ever lacked a drug smuggling component, and that the CIA has hired Nazis, fascists, drug dealers, arms smugglers, mass murderers, perverts, sadists, terrorists and the Mafia, is not "theory." It's fact.

That the international oil industry is the dominant player in the global economy; that the Bush family has a decades-long business relationship with the Saudi royal family, Saudi oil money, and the family of Osama bin Laden; that, as president, both George Bushes have favored the interests of oil companies over the public interest; that both George Bushes have personally profited financially from Middle East oil; and that American oil companies doubled their records for quarterly profits in the months just preceding the invasion of Iraq, is not "theory." It's fact.

That the 2000 presidential election was deliberately stolen; that the pro-Bush/anti-Gore bias in the corporate media had spiked markedly in the last three weeks of the campaign; that corporate media were then virtually silent about the Florida recount; and that the Bush 2000 team had planned to challenge the legitimacy of the election if George W had won the popular, but lost the electoral vote—exactly what happened to Gore—is not "theory." It's fact.

That the intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was deceptively "cooked" by the Bush administration; that anybody paying attention to people like former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, knew before the invasion that the weapons were a hoax; and that American forces in Iraq today are applying the same brutal counterinsurgency tactics pioneered in Central America in the 1980s, under the direct supervision of then-Vice President George HW Bush, is not a "theory." It's fact.

That "Rebuilding America's Defenses," the Project for a New American Century's 2000 report, and "The Grand Chessboard," a book published a few years earlier by Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, both recommended a more robust and imperial US military presence in the oil basin of the Middle East and the Caspian region; and that both also suggested that American public support for this energy crusade would depend on public response to a new "Pearl Harbor," is not "theory." It's fact.

That, in the 1960s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously approved a plan called "Operation Northwoods," to stage terrorist attacks on American soil that could be used to justify an invasion of Cuba; and that there is currently an office in the Pentagon whose function is to instigate terrorist attacks that could be used to justify future strategically-desired military responses, is not a "theory." It's fact.

That neither the accusation by former British Environmental Minister Michael Meacham, Tony Blair's longest-serving cabinet minister, that George W Bush allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen to justify an oil war in the Middle East; nor the RICO lawsuit filed by 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Council on Foreign Relations (among others), on the grounds that they conspired to let the attacks happen to cash in on the ensuing war profiteering, has captured the slightest attention from American corporate media is not a "theory." It's fact.

That the FBI has completely exonerated—though never identified—the speculators who purchased, a few days before the attacks (through a bank whose previous director is now the CIA executive director), an unusual number of "put" options, and who made millions betting that the stocks in American and United Airlines would crash, is not a "theory." It's fact.

That the US intelligence community received numerous warnings, from multiple sources, throughout the summer of 2001, that a major terrorist attack on American interests was imminent; that, according to the chair of the "independent" 9/11 commission, the attacks "could have and should have been prevented," and according to a Senate Intelligence Committee member, "All the dots were connected;" that the White House has verified George W Bush's personal knowledge, as of August 6, 2001, that these terrorist attacks might be domestic and might involve hijacked airliners; that, in the summer of 2001, at the insistence of the American Secret Service, anti-aircraft ordnance was installed around the city of Genoa, Italy, to defend against a possible terrorist suicide attack, by aircraft, against George W Bush, who was attending the economic summit there; and that George W Bush has nevertheless regaled audiences with his first thought upon seeing the "first" plane hit the World Trade Center, which was: "What a terrible pilot," is not "theory." It's fact.

That, on the morning of September 11, 2001: standard procedures and policies at the nation's air defense and aviation bureaucracies were ignored, and communications were delayed; the black boxes of the planes that hit the WTC were destroyed, but hijacker Mohammed Atta's passport was found in pristine condition; high-ranking Pentagon officers had cancelled their commercial flight plans for that morning; George H.W. Bush was meeting in Washington with representatives of Osama bin Laden's family, and other investors in the world's largest private equity firm, the Carlyle Group; the CIA was conducting a previously-scheduled mock exercise of an airliner hitting the Pentagon; the chairs of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were having breakfast with the chief of Pakistan's intelligence agency, who resigned a week later on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks; and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States sat in a second grade classroom for 20 minutes after hearing that a second plane had struck the towers, listening to children read a story about a goat, is not "theoretical." These are facts.

That the Bush administration has desperately fought every attempt to independently investigate the events of 9/11, is not a "theory." Nor, finally, is it in any way a "theory" that the one, single name that can be directly linked to the Third Reich, the US military industrial complex, Skull and Bones, Eastern Establishment good ol' boys, the Illuminati, Big Texas Oil, the Bay of Pigs, the Miami Cubans, the Mafia, the FBI, the JFK assassination, the New World Order, Watergate, the Republican National Committee, Eastern European fascists, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations, CIA headquarters, the October Surprise, the Iran/Contra scandal, Inslaw, the Christic Institute, Manuel Noriega, drug-running "freedom fighters" and death squads, Iraqgate, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, the blood of innocents, the savings and loan crash, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the "Octopus," the "Enterprise," the Afghan mujaheddin, the War on Drugs, Mena (Arkansas), Whitewater, Sun Myung Moon, the Carlyle Group, Osama bin Laden and the Saudi royal family, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States, is: George Herbert Walker Bush. "Theory?" To the contrary.

It is a well-documented, tragic and—especially if you're paranoid—terrifying fact.

Michael Hasty is a writer, activist, musician, carpenter and farmer. His award-winning column, "Thinking Locally," appeared for seven years in the Hampshire Review, West Virginia's oldest newspaper. His writing has also appeared in the Highlands Voice, the Washington Peace Letter, the Takoma Park Newsletter, the German magazine Generational Justice, and the Washington Post; and at the websites Common Dreams and I

In January 1989, he was the media spokesperson for the counter-inaugural coalition at George Bush's Counter-Inaugural Banquet, which fed hundreds of DC's homeless in front of Union Station, where the official inaugural dinner was being held.

Permission to reprint is granted, provided it includes this autobiographical note, and credit for first publication to Online Journal.

Download a printable version at

For a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader, go at

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Online Journal.
Copyright © 1998-2004 Online Journal™. All rights reserved.

NOTE: Many interesting books are featured at


Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004

JFK, 9-11, and the REAL America: Tying It All Together

by Jon Phalen

22 Nov 2003

Modified: 11 Dec 2003

An organic reconsideration of US history and major "conspiracy theories" of the past 40 years, including those pertaining to the 9-11 attack, and how they shed light on America's present drift into fascism.


What makes you think you actually KNOW what happened on those planes? All four were obliterated, along with everyone on board, remember? No crime scene, no direct evidence, no recognizable remains, no witnesses whatsoever -- it's a blank canvas. How convenient for any party intent on launching a new era of global imperialism, and willing to spin this tragedy into a viable excuse. Indeed, all of the attack's consequences are far better explained by this agenda than by Bin Laden's purported death wish. Those presuming to examine this matter, i.e. ALL OF US, need to recognize that such trickery is a timeless specialty of governments.

And yet from that very day we have allowed the government-media complex to focus all attention on one rather thin explanation: Crazy Arabs did it! George W. Bush and his cabinet have made it known to us, in the most arrogant terms, that they will brook no discussion of other possibilities -- an edict most Americans, in their desperation to believe in this man, seem to have embraced. The Bush Administration even withholds its "proof" of Al Qa'eda's guilt; clearly, it considers mere citizens too unimportant to require full explanations, and once again, we're just rolling over and taking it.

The phrases 'spiritually broken' and 'morally adrift' come to mind...

Until the full case against Al Qa'eda is made available for public review, we have absolutely no assurance that this "proof" isn't exactly like the "proof" of Iraq's weapons programs -- i.e., a big fat lie from top to bottom. On these terms, wholesale acceptance of the hijacker scenario will continue to be what it has always been: a pathetic display of blind faith in this administration's utterances, and in those of its media accomplices. At present, it is astonishing that anyone places faith of any kind in either party: by means of the "WMD" debacle, both have proven themselves amoral, duplicitous, and utterly devoid of humanity. Indeed, why do we give them so much as a moment of our attention? No one with a lick of sense would do this.

A rigorous civilian investigation of 9-11 would help resolve such doubts. If Bush and the rest were standing on firm ground, they would fully support such a thing. Instead, they have worked to thwart both its formation and its progress, using every resource within their reach. Some time last year, they seem to have realized they were only fueling suspicions this way, so Bush grudgingly approved an "independent" investigation. The arrogance of this bunch is so disabling, however, that they actually damaged their credibility even further by naming Henry Kissinger to lead it. This is a man whose dedication to "US interests" verges on homicidal psychosis (see his treatment of Cambodians 1970, Chileans 1973, East Timorese and Kurds 1975, MUCH more). He could only be expected to skew this investigation accordingly, i. e., to omit and cover up any issue not conducive to empire building. Ironically, even Henry had the sense to admit he was an inappropriate choice, thus resigning from this duty, whereupon Bush immediately returned to his original tactic of stonewalling (1). Could the man possibly have something to hide?

To appreciate the ugliest possibilities of the 9-11 attack, one must first become aware of the continuous practice of such manipulations by the entire progression of American politicians. The need to cultivate this awareness is itself an enigma: if you have the honesty to see this pattern at all, its full enormity, emerging over time, will at some point cause your previous ignorance to amaze you. Imagine living your entire life with an 800-pound gorilla, then realizing one day it's not a sofa, after all. At the same time, finding this enlightenment is challenging, because the relevant facts are usually withheld from the public for decades, seldom appearing in mainstream discourse even after they become common knowledge -- not because of some grand conspiracy, but because legions of 'America Firsters,' including most of the famous and powerful, simply don't want to hear it. The telling of these facts is an affront to their most cherished political assumptions. Invariably, they respond with hostile apologetics, ranging from simple denial and ridicule to the claim that such incidents are random and unrelated "mistakes." That they can sincerely believe this 'unrelated' claim is remarkable, given the way it crushes into dust under any burden of historical proof: America's state crimes have been ethically monstrous, vast in both scale and number, unilateral in their aggression, virtually uninterrupted in their chronology, and very coherent in both motive and method. Certain themes just keep popping up:

1) Greed, particularly for territory;

2) Supremacism, driven only partly by race, perhaps more so by delusions of national grandeur allowed to ramify without limit;

3) An enthusiasm for "total war" -- i. e., the indiscriminate butchery of entire populations. This seems most likely to happen when "strategic" territories, resources, or victories are at stake. That is, when those in authority feel they "must win," and so discard principle to whatever extent is necessary;

4) The systemic corruption and antidemocratic functioning of every level of American government, made abundantly clear by its relations with sworn enemies of the public interest, namely corporations;

5) The bid for global empire that has all but defined the American agenda since W.W.II, in flagrant violation of democratic principle.

This last "US interest," discussed openly by flacks and shills only since 9-11 suspended all moral judgment on such matters, actually represents the driving passion of our ruling elite, going all the way back to the Revolution. Indeed, grasping the means of power, beginning with sovereign domain, was their main motive for pursuing revolution at all. Starting then and continuing ever since, they have whipped the people up to support their warped appetites, even as they have misrepresented them spectacularly. EVERY SINGLE TIME we as a people have committed to a war of expansion, we have been duped into doing so by their twin handservants, American politics and American media: [snip]

Read the rest at:



From: or or

PILGER: What They Don't Want You To Know

Jan 10, 2004

By John Pilger, The New Statesman

The disaster in Iraq is rotting the Blairite establishment. Blair himself appears ever more removed from reality; his latest tomfoolery about the "discovery" of "a huge system of clandestine weapons laboratories," which even the American viceroy in Baghdad mocked, would be astonishing, were it not merely another of his vapid attempts to justify his crime against humanity. (His crime, and George Bush's, is clearly defined as "supreme" in the Nuremberg judgment.)

This is not what the guardians of the faith want you to know. Lord Hutton, who is due to report on the Kelly affair, will provide the most effective distraction, just as Lord Justice Scott did with his arms-to-Iraq report almost ten years ago, ensuring that the top echelon of the political class escaped criminal charges. Of course, it was not Hutton's "brief" to deal with the criminal slaughter in Iraq; he will spread the blame for one man's torment and death, having pointedly and scandalously chosen not to recall and cross-examine Blair, even though Blair revealed during his appearance before Hutton that he had lied in "emphatically" denying he had had anything to do with "outing" Dr. David Kelly.

Other guardians have been assiduously at work. The truth of public opposition to an illegal, unprovoked invasion, expressed in the biggest demonstration in modern history, is being urgently revised. In a valedictory piece on 30 December, the Guardian commentator and leader writer Martin Kettle wrote: "Opponents of the war may need to be reminded that public opinion currently approves of the invasion by nearly two to one."

A favorite source for this is a Guardian/ICM poll published on 18 November, the day Bush arrived in London, which was reported beneath the front-page headline "Protests begin but majority backs Bush visit as support for war surges." Out of 1,002 people contacted, just 426 said they welcomed Bush's visit, while the majority said they were opposed to it or did not know. As for support for the war "surging," the absurdly small number questioned still produced a majority that opposed the invasion.

Across the world, the "majority backs Bush" disinformation was seized upon – by William Shawcross on CNN ("The majority of the British people are glad he [Bush] came..."), by the equally warmongering William Safire in the New York Times and by the Murdoch press almost everywhere. Thus, the slaughter in Iraq, the destruction of democratic rights and civil liberties in the west and the preparation for the next invasion are "normalized."

In "The Banality of Evil," Edward S. Herman wrote, "Doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on 'normalization'... There is usually a division of labor in doing and rationalizing the unthinkable, with the direct brutalizing and killing done by one set of individuals... others working on improving technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive Napalm, bomb fragments that penetrate flesh in hard-to-trace patterns). It is the function of the experts, and the mainstream media, to normalize the unthinkable for the general public."

Current "normalizing" is expressed succinctly by Kettle: "As 2003 draws to its close, it is surely al-Qaeda, rather than the repercussions of Iraq, that casts a darker shadow over Britain's future." How does he know this? The "mass of intelligence flowing across the Prime Minister's desk," of course! He calls this "cold-eyed realism," omitting to mention that the only credible intelligence "flowing across the Prime Minister's desk" was the common sense that an Anglo-American attack on Iraq would increase the threat from al-Qaeda.

What the normalizers don't want you to know is the nature and scale of the "coalition" crime in Iraq – which Kettle calls a "misjudgment" – and the true source of the worldwide threat. Outside the work of a few outstanding journalists prepared to go beyond the official compounds in Iraq, the extent of the human carnage and material devastation is barely acknowledged. For example, the effect of uranium weapons used by American and British forces is suppressed. Iraqi and foreign doctors report that radiation illnesses are common throughout Iraq, and troops have been warned not to approach contaminated sites. Readings taken from destroyed Iraqi tanks in British-controlled Basra are so high that a British army survey team wore white, full-body radiation suits, face masks and gloves. With nothing to warn them, Iraqi children play on and around the tanks.

Of the 10,000 Americans evacuated sick from Iraq, many have "mystery illnesses" not unlike those suffered by veterans of the first Gulf war. By mid-April last year, the US air force had deployed more than 19,000 guided weapons and 311,000 rounds of uranium A10 shells. According to a November 2003 study by the Uranium Medical Research Center, witnesses living next to Baghdad airport reported a huge death toll following one morning's attack from aerial bursts of thermobaric and fuel air bombs. Since then, a vast area has been "landscaped" by US earth movers, and fenced. Jo Wilding, a British human rights observer in Baghdad, has documented a catalogue of miscarriages, hair loss, and horrific eye, skin and respiratory problems among people living near the area. Yet the US and Britain steadfastly refuse to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct systematic monitoring tests for uranium contamination in Iraq. The Ministry of Defense, which has admitted that British tanks fired depleted uranium in and around Basra, says that British troops "will have access to biological monitoring." Iraqis have no such access and receive no specialist medical help.

According to the non-governmental organization Medact, between 21,700 and 55,000 Iraqis died between 20 March and 20 October last year. This includes up to 9,600 civilians. Deaths and injury of young children from unexploded cluster bombs are put at 1,000 a month. These are conservative estimates; the ripples of trauma throughout the society cannot be imagined. Neither the US nor Britain counts its Iraqi victims, whose epic suffering is "not relevant," according to a US State Department official – just as the slaughter of more than 200,000 Iraqis during and immediately after the 1991 Gulf war, calculated in a Medical Education Trust study, was "not relevant" and not news.

The normalizers are anxious that this terror is again not recognized (the BBC confines its use of "terrorism" and "atrocities" to the Iraqi resistance) and that the wider danger it represents throughout the world is overshadowed by the threat of al-Qaeda. William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, has attacked the antiwar movement for not joining Bush's "war on terror." He says "the left" must join Bush's campaign, even his "preemptive" wars, or risk – that word again – "irrelevance." This echoes other liberal normalizers who, by facing both ways, provide propaganda cover for rapacious power to expand its domain with "humanitarian interventions" – such as the bombing to death of some 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan and the swap of the Taliban for US-backed warlords, murderers and rapists known as "commanders."

Schulz's criticism ignores the truth in Amnesty's own studies. Amnesty USA reports that the Bush administration is harboring thousands of foreign torturers, including several mass murderers. By a simple mathematical comparison of American and al-Qaeda terror, the latter is a lethal flea. In the past 50 years, the US has supported and trained state terrorists in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The toll of their victims is in the millions. Again, the documentation is in Amnesty's files. The dictator Suharto's seizure of power in Indonesia was responsible for "one of the greatest mass murders of the 20th century," according to the CIA. The US supplied arms, logistics, intelligence and assassination lists. Britain supplied warships and black propaganda to cover the trail of blood. Scholars now put Suharto's victims in 1965–66 at almost a million; in East Timor, he oversaw the death of one-third of the population: 200,000 men, women and children.

Today, the mass murderer lives in sumptuous retirement in Jakarta, his billions safe in foreign banks. Unlike Saddam Hussein, an amateur by comparison, there will be no show trial for Suharto, who remained obediently within the US terror network. (One of Suharto's most outspoken protectors and apologists in the State Department during the 1980s was Paul Wolfowitz, the current "brains" behind Bush's aggression.)

In the sublime days before 11 September 2001, when the powerful were routinely attacking and terrorizing the weak, and those dying were black or brown-skinned non-people living in faraway places such as Zaire and Guatemala, there was no terrorism. When the weak attacked the powerful, spectacularly on 9/11, there was terrorism.

This is not to say the threat from al-Qaeda and other fanatical groups is not real; what the normalizers don't want you to know is that the most pervasive danger is posed by "our" governments, whose subordinates in journalism and scholarship cast always as benign: capable of misjudgment and blunder, never of high crime. Fueled by religious fanaticism, a corrupt Americanism and rampant corporate greed, the Bush cabal is pursuing what the military historian Anatol Lieven calls "the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism," inspired by fear of lethal threats. Bush's America, he warns, "has become a menace to itself and to mankind."

The unspoken truth is that Blair, too, is a menace. "There never has been a time," said Blair in his address to the US Congress last year, "when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood or when, except in the most general sense, a study of history provides so little instruction for our present day." His fatuous dismissal of history was his way of warning us off the study of imperialism. He wants us to forget and to fail to recognize historically the "national security state" that he and Bush are erecting as a "necessary" alternative to democracy. The father of fascism, Benito Mussolini, understood this. "Modern fascism," he said, "should be properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state, military and corporate power."

Bush, Blair and the normalizers now speak, almost with relish, of opening mass graves in Iraq. What they do not want you to know is that the largest mass graves are the result of a popular uprising that followed the 1991 Gulf war, in direct response to a call by President George Bush Sr. to "take matters into your own hands and force Saddam to step aside." So successful were the rebels initially that within days Saddam's rule had collapsed across the south. A new start for the people of Iraq seemed close at hand.

Then Washington, the tyrant's old paramour who had supplied him with $5bn worth of conventional arms, chemical and biological weapons and industrial technology, intervened just in time. The rebels suddenly found themselves confronted with the United States helping Saddam against them. US forces prevented them from reaching Iraqi arms depots. They denied them shelter, and gave Saddam's Republican Guard safe passage through US lines in order to attack the rebels. US helicopters circled overhead, observing, taking photographs, while Saddam's forces crushed the uprising. In the north, the same happened to the Kurdish insurrection. "The Americans did everything for Saddam," said the writer on the Middle East Said Aburish, "except join the fight on his side." Bush Sr. did not want a divided Iraq, certainly not a democratic Iraq. The New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman, a guard dog of US foreign policy, was more to the point. What Washington wanted was a successful coup by an "iron-fisted junta": Saddam without Saddam.

Nothing has changed. As Milan Rai documents in his new book, Regime Unchanged, the most senior and ruthless elements of Saddam's security network, the Mukha-barat, are now in the pay of the US and Britain, helping them to combat the resistance and recruit those who will run a puppet regime behind a facade. A CIA-run and -paid Gestapo of 10,000 will operate much as they did under Saddam. "What is happening in Iraq," writes Rai, "is re-Nazification... just as in Germany after the war."

Blair knows this and says nothing. Consider his unctuous words to British troops in Basra the other day about curtailing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Like so many of his deceptions, this covers the fact that his government has increased the export of weapons and military equipment to some of the most oppressive regimes on earth, such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Nepal. To oil-rich Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 11 September hijackers and friend of the Taliban, where women are tormented and people are executed for apostasy, go major British weapons systems, along with leg irons, gang chains, shock belts and shackles. To Indonesia, whose unreconstructed, blood-soaked military is trying to crush the independence movement in Aceh, go British "riot control" vehicles and Hawk fighter-bombers.

Bush and Blair have been crowing about Libya's capitulation on weapons of mass destruction it almost certainly did not have. This is the result, as Scott Ritter has written, of "coerced concessions given more as a means of buying time than through any spirit of true cooperation" – as Bush and Blair have undermined the very international law upon which real disarmament is based. On 8 December, the UN General Assembly voted on a range of resolutions on disarmament. The United States opposed all the most important ones, including those dealing with nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has contingency plans, spelt out in the Pentagon's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, Syria, Iran and China. Following suit, the UK Defense Secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, announced that for the first time, Britain would attack non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons "if necessary."

This is as it was 50 years ago when, according to declassified files, the British government collaborated with American plans to wage "preventive" atomic war against the Soviet Union. No public discussion was permitted; the unthinkable was normalized. Today, history is our warning that, once again, the true threat is close to home.


See also:

US rejects Iraq DU clean-up (April 14, 2003)
The US says it has no plans to remove the debris left over from depleted uranium (DU) weapons it is using in Iraq. (...) Reports from Baghdad speak of repeated attacks by US aircraft carrying DU weapons on high-rise buildings in the city centre. The UK says: "British forces on deployment to the Gulf have DU munitions available as part of their armoury, and will use them if necessary." It will not confirm they have used them. Many veterans from the Gulf and Kosovo wars believe DU has made them seriously ill. One UK Gulf veteran is Ray Bristow, a former marathon runner. In 1999 he told the BBC: "I gradually noticed that every time I went out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time longer and longer. "Now, on my good days, I get around quite adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances. Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair." Ray Bristow was tested in Canada for DU. He is open-minded about its role in his condition. But he says: "I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used. "But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."

Most amazing piece of disinformation and utter denial on DEPLETED URANIUM's effects
This is from the website of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, the Pentagon spokesperson charged to cover up the infamous Gulf War Illness Syndrome (see which is attributed to "overexposure to pesticides by servicemembers during the 1990-1991 Gulf War"... They even have the nerve to write "Analysts from the Deployment Health Support Directorate concluded that some troops may have been potentially overexposed to pesticides and that this may have contributed to some of the unexplained symptoms reported by some Gulf War veterans. However, there is little documentation that quantifies Gulf War pesticide overexposures and veteran interviews suggest that less than 10 veterans sought treatment for pesticide exposure. Since publishing the interim report, our office has received no new information that would have changed its conclusion."

Bloggers aside, expert rips dangers of depleted uranium (January 10, 2004),1299,DRMN_38_2565644,00.html
This is great. Turns out scientists were wrong to claim that exposure to depleted uranium munitions are harmful. News media critic Dave Kopel's "top of the heap" Web logger, Walter, says so ("Blogs unearth dubious sources," Jan. 3). So go back to sleep, all you worried military wives, parents and sufferers of Gulf War Syndrome. This means that nuclear scientist and former chief of the Nuclear Sciences Division at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, who as a U.S. Army colonel served as a unit commander in Operation Desert Shield, was wrong when he said: "Depleted uranium enters the body via inhalation, ingestion and absorption. Uranium is water soluble and can be transported throughout the body. The alpha particle released by decay of the uranium atom gives up a large amount of energy in a distance no longer than a couple of microns. Causing breaks and ionization of molecules, it is capable of destroying proteins, enzymes, RNA, and damaging DNA in many different ways, including double-strand breaks." The darned doctor goes on to claim that depleted uranium causes kidney damage, leukemia, emotional and mental deterioration, as well as genetic damage that can be passed from generation to generation. Now, folks, who you gonna believe, some darned alarmist director of Uranium Medical Research Center ( or Dave Kopel's favorite right- wing blogger? Thought so.

Date: 09 Jan 2004
From: John Kaminski>

Much farther down the road to hell: Americans ignore U.S. atrocities in Iraq

By John Kaminski

Maybe I'm only deluding myself, but I seem to remember stories during the Vietnam war when American reporters at least pretended to be outraged when U.S. troops were accused of sickening war crimes. I mean, the My Lai massacre was a big deal when it was revealed ˜ accidentally, as I recall. At least a couple of officers were prosecuted and sentenced to long prison terms in country club jails, and TV and newspapers reporters at least wagged their fingers while proclaiming this was not the way Americans were supposed to behave.

But on the other hand, we noticed that recent exposé in the Toledo Blade newspaper in which it was revealed that many U.S. units in Vietnam were given carte blanche by their superiors to butcher women and children in a pathetic attempt to frighten the Vietnamese natives into supporting the froth-mouthed white-skinned invaders who were eviscerating their jungle paradise.

Wild as they were, the 1960s were a more innocent time in America. Doing the right thing and treating foreigners with respect had not yet been eliminated from the social repertoire of American behavior.

But that was then and this is now.

Savage terrorists who hold nothing sacred, least of all the precious lives of innocent civilians, are now running roughshod over the obliterated dump once known as the prosperous nation of Iraq - and they are wearing American uniforms.

But most Americans don't notice. They don't mention that stuff on TV anymore. The reporters are embedded with the troops, and those who try to report accurately from the battlefield - and there are numerous instances of this nowadays - wind up with an accidental bullet in their heads if they do. Another example of the new American way.

It isn't bad enough that no one in a position of authority in either the American government or practically all of American public life bothers to mention that the U.S. has absolutely no business being in Iraq, and that all these needless murders and corrupt business practices have created a 21st century America that makes Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union look humane by comparison. Just ask all those innocent people of Arab descent who remain in jail without access to their lawyers.

The stark fact is America has gone to war, demolished an entire nation, and squandered the lives of thousands of its own soldiers for reasons that are lies - proven, documented, and deliberate perversions of the truth - and nearly no one on the homefront in positions of authority has had the moxie to stand up and say America is now the most dangerous rogue nation in the world as it threatens to spread its economic coercion and radioactive rape to every country on the planet.

While the dapper Democratic candidates wax poetic in front of the TV cameras while gently chiding our demonstrably insane president for his bad manners and utter repression of government accountability, every day American soldiers are murdering innocent Iraqi families ˜ and for what? For corporate thievery and dictatorial hegemony over the entire planet.

Those who aren't paying attention to the continuing atrocities being committed in our names might say I'm exaggerating.

Well, as a good example, I bid you consider a mere one day's news from Iraq, as reported by our premier American daily e-newspaper, Information Clearing House. And today (Friday, 1/9/04) was as good a day as any, very typical of the past ten months' daily news from Iraq.

Just consider what the American "liberators" did to its hapless victims in Iraq ˜ just today, one single day.

- A 55-year-old Iraqi man had been removed from his house in August after a search by American soldiers found no weapons there. His family had been desperately searching for him for months, and they finally found him, brain dead in a Tikrit hospital.

After performing diagnostic tests, doctors told his family he had suffered massive head trauma, electrocution, and other beatings on his arms. The family was told he would be in a coma for the rest of his life from the obvious trauma suffered from torture.

It turns out that American soldiers had dropped him off at the hospital, saying he had had a heart attack.

- In a similar story, the Arab newspaper Al-Bawaba reported the presidential secretary of former leader Saddam Hussein died two days ago while in U.S. custody. He had been taken into custody in June. Reports in the Arabic press noted he was tortured by U.S. investigators to pressure him to provide information on weapons development programs.

- The New York Times reported the Bush administration has quietly withdrawn from Iraq a 400-member military team whose job was to scour the country for military equipment. So much for the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. The Times said "some military officials" said the administration might have lowered its sights and no longer expected to uncover the caches of chemical and biological weapons that the White House cited as a principal reason for going to war last March.

- The London Financial Times reported Bush administration officials "systematically misrepresented" the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to war, according to a new report to be published by a respected Washington think-tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. These distortions, combined with intelligence failures, exaggerated the risks posed by a country that presented no immediate threat to the US, Middle East or global security, the report says.

- The London Financial Times also reported U.S. intelligence bowed to political pressures in assessing the threat posed by Iraq, undermining a critical element of the Bush administration's national security doctrine. That same think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, concluded that U.S. intelligence was clearly unable to provide accurate information necessary for reliably acting in the absence of an obvious imminent threat.

Thursday's Information Clearing House report also included stories on a new investigation into a secret Pentagon intelligence unit that led the nation to war by pushing disinformation and faulty intelligence to produce wildly exaggerated threats posed by Iraq, quotes from Richard Perle's new book about how the U.S. should make a preemptive strike on North Korea, how nearly as many U.S. soldiers were wounded in Iraq last month as during the entire six-week period of major combat operations, an evocative piece on how an American father visited Iraq to mourn his dead son killed in combat, and a story on how a Spanish journalist was deliberately killed by coalition troops.

But the capper was this:

- An Iraqi mother has written to President Bush and other top politicos around the world to ask them to explain why her son was deliberately murdered by U.S. troops. In her heart-wrenching letter, she explained that her 19-year-old son, who was soon to be married, was returning home with friends when their truck broke down. After being confronted by an American patrol, they were searched and handcuffed, and led three kilometers to a nearby dam, then ordered to jump into the raging waters.

One of the three boys survived to tell the tale, but her son, who could not swim, was never found, only his jacket. Then as a final signature, U.S. soldiers flattened the boys' vehicle by running over it with heavy equipment.

The distraught mother, wrote: "To document the incident, my son's name is Zaydun Ma'mun Fadhil Hassun Al-Samarrai, born in the 1st of June 1984...Yes, they killed him and they broke my heart, try to imagine that dear sirs and ask your wives how hard it is for a mother to see her fruit ripen only to be thrown by sinful hands and to be swept away without any mercy or humanity. Those soldiers have turned everything America has ever stood for into one big lie. I was a victim, and there are and will be many more."

(You need to read this whole story, and see the boy's photo, if you want to really cry (

Two thoughts:

1. Americans are wretched people. We should be long out of Iraq because the reasons we are there have been proved to be lies. That we are still there says a lot about the American people, that we are much farther down the road to hell than we thought.

2. Information Clearing House, the prodigious and informative compendium compiled daily by a single high-integrity gentleman named Tom, is the single most valuable daily newspaper in America, in my humble opinion. It is the one e-mail that I never fail to read every day, and you can get it, too, just by signing up at

If you're interested in supporting real journalism in the 21st century but can't afford to write more than one check, this would be the place to send it. I know of hundreds of other individuals and sites trying to tell the truth and fighting off the wolves at the door who could all use our support, but the first check should go here.

Now, if you want to spread the support around and have a lot more bread to spread, another very interesting (but relatively expensive) investment to make would be to get Bob Chapman's International Forecaster, a weekly financial newsletter that is sure to curl your hair with its pithy observations about the world's political situation in addition to level-headed insights about money matters, both personal and international.

Chapman's a retired financial consultant to the big boys with a fair and honest eye toward what's really happening in the world behind the scenes. Consider these two excerpts from his latest post.

"You are now warned that in the name of terrorism, the two Patriot Acts, Executive Order and Fatherland Security, that after the next elitist planned terrorist act your remaining freedoms will be taken from you. Undesirables such as us will be removed to concentration camps never to be seen again. We believe we'll be shot upon arrival, because we represent leadership, which the elitists must extinguish. Americans are in denial. They don't want to hear about what is being done to them. Many are simply brain-dead. We believe that what is ahead of us means millions of Americans will die at the hands of their own government. From almost a year before 9/11 we contended that the elitist Bush neocons were going to stage a tragedy and they did. The Bushes do business with the bin Ladens, and have for years. Bin Laden didn't cause U.S. air defenses to stand down. Only a halfwit would believe that bin Laden acted alone."

And ....

"2004 is an election year and we believe the possibility of a terrorist act is excellent. Not from the terrorists, but instigated by the Bush contingent and executed by the terrorists if Mr. Bush's run for reelection runs into trouble. As we said before he may miraculously discover Osama bin Laden in a cave appearing as a cave man should appear, something similar to Spiderman. A simple bombing at a sports event, airport or shopping mall will do the trick. There doesn't have to be a great loss of life. Just an event. That would send world financial markets into a spin; gold and silver would rocket and Mr. Bush could use martial law to reassure his reelection. There is no risk premium in this stock market, just smooth sailing with mega P/E ratios. We could also see an escalation of the insurgent warfare in Iraq and the escalation of US and UK battle casualities. We could have major events in the Middle East, particularly in Israel or over in Indonesia. The possibilities are endless. If we exit Iraq on July 1, it could be followed by civil war involving four different factions. North Korea just might go off the deep end. It now looks like Pakistan is in play again. This is an Islamic nuclear power that could easily fall into the hands of radical fundamentalists. We can assure you Fatherland Security is not going to stop any terrorist attack, they are there to suppress the American people. If a terrorist wants to do something, he is going to do it, and no one can stop him."

OK ... just one more excerpt ˜ I don't want him to bust me for plagiarism, but everytime I read him I just want to stand up and applaud him for his clarity and his courage.

"We see little sign of sanity from George W. Bush nor his neocon hawks. The latest manifesto demands regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a preemptive strike on its nuclear sites. We are sure the Chinese are viewing this proposal with great interest. It recommends that France and Saudi Arabia be treated not as allies, but as rivals and possibly enemies. This is contained in a new book by famous neocon Richard Perle, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. This is an effort to regain the initiative in Iraq and further their concept of perpetual war for perpetual peace. This tome is called "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror." It attacks Colin Powell who is on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation. The book urges Mr. Bush to tell the truth about Saudi Arabians, some of whom back terror-tainted organizations. They say the EU should be forced to choose between Paris and Washington. These nutcases are bound and determined to incite a nuclear war. The Bush-neocon administration is a catastrophe that could cost all of us our lives."

Amen, Robert. To find out how to receive Chapman's International Forecaster, inquire at I'll let him tell you how much it costs, but if you can afford it, it's indispensable.

And to Tom and Robert, thank you for your continuing efforts to attempt to inform us how far America has fallen and how ugly and dangerous our nation has become.

John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays posted on hundreds of websites around the world. For more information, or to make a contribution to assure he continues writing his essays (from which he otherwise derives no income), click

To read more of his essays, click


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, simply send a blank email at from the email account to which you want to receive the material compiled and networked by the Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator. Subscription is FREE!