As many of you know,
Signs of the Times is not supported by major funding like
many other news sites, and is not affiliated with any
government, political group, corporation, or news agency.
SOTT is financed by any donations we receive as well as
money out of our own pockets. The benefit of this setup
is that we do not have any sponsors that might introduce
unwanted bias into our work. The
obvious and major drawback is that we do not have the
funding to do all the things we would like to do for our
readers.
Almost one year ago, SOTT created the P3nt4gon Str!ke presentation, which has now been viewed by
well over 300,000,000 people worldwide, and is available
in nine different languages. Recently, we wrote and produced
the song You
Lied, performed by Away
With the Fairys. We also recorded our first ever podcast,
beginning a project which we had been trying to get off
the ground for over a year.
A
SOTT editor poses next to his computer
To produce the Signs page, we work very long days (often
upwards of 14-16 hours) without pay. We do it because
we love it, and because our readers often write to tell
us how they have benefited from our work. In order to
continue expanding our work and deepen our analysis and
understanding of our world, we need to enlarge our library.
There are many books we would like to have that we cannot
afford. With our increasing use of sound files and our
future projects that include video, we have and will continue
to incur higher bandwidth costs. As well, the Signs page
and related projects are created on several computers
which are each upwards of five years old. They are very
slow, increasingly unreliable, and won't support regular
podcasts and videos.
Unfortunately, we do not have the financial means to
purchase the books we need, much less new equipment. Current
donations only support our basic needs and living expenses.
In order to continue producing the Signs page, the podcast,
Flash presentations, and expand our operations further,
we need your support.
At the moment, we are preparing six Signs of the
Times Commentary books. These books are collections
of SOTT commentary grouped according to theme. They will
be available for sale soon, and any proceeds will go towards
helping to cover our increasing operating costs.
Our target, based on estimated costs for all the necessary
materials, upgrades, and operating costs for the coming
year is 28,000 euros.
--
Here's How You Can Help Signs of the Times --
Any donation you
can make will help us to continue to produce and improve
the Signs page.
If you donate 50 euros
(approximately US$60; click
here for current exchange rate), you will be a Bronze
Supporter.
Bronze
Supporters will receive a complementary
copy of the 911 Conspiracy Signs
Commentary book.
If you donate 100
euros, you will be a Silver
Supporter.
Silver
Supporters will receive a complementary copy
of 911 Conspiracy, US Freedom, and The
Media.
Donations
of 175 euros will qualify you as a Gold
Supporter.
Gold
Supporters will receive the entire set of
six commentary books: 911 Conspiracy, The
Human Condition, The Media, Religion,
US Freedom, and The Work.
Donations of 250 euros will
qualify you as a Platinum Supporter.
Platinum
Supporters will receive the entire set of
six commentary books: 911 Conspiracy, The
Human Condition, The Media, Religion,
US Freedom, and The Work. In addition,
they will receive one other book of their choice free
from our bookstore.
We have more projects like our podcast in
the works - but we need your
help to make them a reality!
Thank
you in advance from the editors and the rest of the team
at Signs of the Times!
If
you like music but don't like Bush, then check out the latest
Signs of the Times production, You Lied.
The words are now translated into French, German, Spanish, Italian,
and Portuguese.
The cover stories are
flying thick and fast as British investigators try to
put some kind of cap on the London attacks.
It turns out, if you believe the Brooklyn Bridge is for
sale, that actual IDs of bombers were found in separate
piles of rubble at the sites of the blasts.
These IDs must have been engraved deeply in three-foot-thick
steel.
Remember the 9/11 hijacker passport that floated out
of the crashing jetliner on 9/11 and landed intact on
a New York street?
Here is a Sky News report out of London. There are too
many points to make up front, so I've inserted comments
in caps and brackets as you go:
BOMBER DIED IN TUBE BLAST
It is "highly likely" one of the Tube bombers
died in the attacks on the Underground network, police
say.
[LATER IN THIS PIECE WE'LL LEARN THAT IT'S LIKELY ALL
THE BOMBERS ARE DEAD.]
The suspected bombers travelled down from the West
Yorkshire and met at Kings Cross station shortly before
the attacks were launched on Thursday morning, police
said at a press conference.
Their images were captured by CCTV cameras.
Personal documents have been found at all four bomb
scenes and although the four attackers are thought to
have died [OH THEY'RE ALL CONVENIENTLY DEAD BUT THE
BOMBS THEMSELVES WERE ON TIMERS, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN
THE KILLERS TIME TO WALK AWAY FROM THE BOMBS---I SEE---IT
WASN'T SUICIDE BOMBINGS, IT WAS JUST FOUR COINCIDENTAL
SCREW-UPS BY THE TERRORISTS THAT RESULTED IN THEIR DEATHS]
police were careful not to say whether Britain had suffered
its first suicide bomb strike.
Anti-terror police said they had traced the bombers
and six arrest warrants have been issued for addresses
in West Yorkshire.
Police said there was forensic evidence that meant
it was "very likely" the bomber responsible
for the train explosion at Aldgate died there.
[WHAT EVIDENCE? WILL WE EVER SEE IT?]
One of the four men had been reported missing by his
family on the day of the attacks and his property was
found at the bus blast scene. The second man's property
was found at the scene of the Aldgate blast and the
third man's property at both the Aldgate and Edgware
Road blasts.
[PROPERTY? PLANTED BY OPS AGENTS? DESKS, CHAIRS, JEWELRY?
ENCASED IN STEEL VAULTS?]
One man has just been arrested in west Yorkshire in
connection with the attacks. Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Peter Clarke, head of Scotland's Yard anti-terrorist
branch, said: "The investigation quite early led
us to have concerns about the movement and activities
of four men, three of whom came from the West Yorkshire
area. "We are trying to establish their movements
in the run-up to last week's attack and specifically
to establish whether they all died in the explosions.
[THEY'RE ALL LIKELY DEAD. NO MAYBE NOT. LOOKS LIKE YES.
WE CAN'T TELL. BUT WE HAVE THEIR 'PROPERTY' RIGHT THERE
AT THE BLAST SCENES. MAYBE IT WAS PLANTED SO THEY COULD
ESCAPE. TYPICAL AL QAEDA. PRETEND TO BE A SUICIDE BOMBER
AND THEN ESCAPE. FORGET THE OTHER COVER STORY ABOUT
THE AL QAEDA MO BEING SUICIDE AND GOING TO PARADISE.
THIS IS DIFFERENT. BUT IT'S THE SAME. IT'S AL QAEDA.]
We executed six warrants under the Terrorism Act at
premises in the West Yorkshire area."
These included the home addresses of three of the four
men. A detailed forensic examination will now follow
and this is likely to take time to complete."
[THE PUBLIC HAS NO RIGHT TO LEARN THE DETAILS OF THAT
EXAMINATION. NOT NOW. NOT EVER. WE'LL ONLY RELEASE THE
CONCLUSIONS.]
He continued: "We know that all four of these
arrived in London by train on the morning. We have identified
CCTV footage showing the four men at King's Cross Station
shortly before 8.30am on that morning, July 7.
[THEY POSED FOR A JOINT PICTURE FOR THE CAMERAS? BUT
THEY WERE BRIGHT ENOUGH TO LEAVE 'PROPERTY' AT THE BLAST
SCENES AS EVIDENCE OF DEATH, AFTER WHICH, WITH THEIR
MUGS ON CAMERA, THEY ESCAPED. SURE, THAT MAKES SENSE.]
"One of them who had set out from West Yorkshire
was reported missing by his family to the casualty bureau
on July 7. We have been able to establish that he was
joined on his journey to London by three other men.
We have since found personal documents bearing the names
of three of those four men close to the seats of three
of the explosions." [IN PRISTINE CONDITION, NO
DOUBT, WITH LARGE RED ARROWS POINTING TO THE NAMES,
RIGHT THERE AT THE VERY CENTERS OF THE BLAST SCENES.
IMMORTAL IDs.] As regards to the man who is missing,
some of his property was found on the route 30 bus in
Tavistock Square. Property of a second man was found
at the scene of the Aldgate bomb and in relation to
a third man property with his name was found at the
Aldgate and Edgware Road bombs." [BUNDLES OF CLOTHING
WITH HIS NAME SEWN ON LABELS? CLOTHING MADE OF ASBESTOS?]
We have strong forensic evidence that it is very likely
that one of the men from West Yorkshire died at the
explosion at Aldgate."
Sky News terror expert Steve Park said the documents
may have been deliberately planted to "send police
the wrong way".
[STEVE PARK HAS JUST RECEIVED A NEW ASSIGNMENT REPORTING
ON BIRDS IN ALASKA. ANYWAY, WHO WOULD HAVE DONE THE
PLANTING OF EVIDENCE? TERRORISTS? AFTER THEY POSED FOR
A JOINT PICTURE IN FRONT OF A TV CAMERA ON THEIR WAY
TO LONDON? SAY IT, STEVE. OPS AGENTS OR COPS MUST HAVE
PLANTED THE EVIDENCE.]
The news comes as armed police search a house in Leeds
after the Army used a controlled explosion to get in.
[I THOUGHT THEY HAD PEOPLE OVER THERE WHO COULD PICK
LOCKS. AND IF THEY REMOTELY SUSPECTED EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS
MIGHT BE IN THE HOUSE, WAS THE CONTROLLED EXPLOSION
DONE TO GAIN ENTRANCE OR TO DESTROY REAL EVIDENCE?]
It was the discovery that the bus bomber was likely
to have died in the blasts that triggered the raids.
[AREN'T AMERICAN NEWS OUTLETS CLAIMING THE REAL CLUE
WAS PROVIDED BY A PHONE CALL ON THE 7TH FROM A FAMILY
IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? CAN'T THEY KEEP THEIR COVER STORIES
STRAIGHT?] Hundreds of people were evacuated from the
area around Hyde Park Road, Burley.
No one was in the house at the time but armed officers
had been used as a precaution. Five other homes in Leeds
had earlier been raided by police hunting the terrorists
behind last week's attacks.
Neighbours at one of the addresses said a 22-year-old
man who lived there with his family had gone missing.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said
the raids were "directly connected" to Thursday's
atrocity.
Hours later, police evacuated Luton railway station
and car park to recover a vehicle suspected of being
linked with the terrorist attacks. The car was blown
up in two controlled explosions.
[BLOWN UP WHEN? BEFORE OR AFTER EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED
FROM THE CAR. SEEMS LIKE THE AUTHORITIES ARE BUSY BLOWING
UP KEY EVIDENCE. WAIT A FEW MINUTES. THEY'LL BLOW UP
AREAS OF THE SUBWAY SYSTEM WHERE THE BLASTS WENT OFF.]
end Sky News article
This has to be one of the most transparent and amateur
efforts at stitching together cover stories I've ever
run across. Right up there with 9/11 and the OKC bombing.
1) Hire a Crisis Management firm to set up an exercise
that parallels the terrorist attack you are going to carry
out. Have them run the exercise at the precise locations
and at the very same time as the attack. If at any stage
of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it
was part of an exercise.
2) Hire four Arabs and tell them they're taking part
in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist
attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly
explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives
and wouldn't harm a fly.
3) Tell four Arabs to meet up at London Underground and
disperse, each getting on a different train. Make sure
Arabs meet in a location where you can get a good mug
shot of them all on CCTV which you can later endlessly
repeat to drooling masses on television.
4) While four Arabs are in London, plant explosives in
their houses in Leeds. Plant some explosives in one of
their cars in Luton for the police to later discover.
Remember that Qu'ran and flight manual in the hijackers'
car? Ha ha, they fell for that one hook, line and sinker.
No need to change tactics on this one.
5) Before the bombings take place, make sure you warn
any of your buddies who are scheduled to be anywhere near
where the bombs go off. If this gets leaked to the press,
just deny it.
6) 4th Arab goes out partying in London night before
and ends up getting out of bed late. No worries, the 9/11
'hijackers' did the same thing but that didn't cause us
a big problem. 4th Arab catches bus to see if other Arabs
are waiting for him. 4th Arab starts hearing about explosions
in the London Underground. 4th Arab comes to the realization
that this he is being set up and freaks out. 4th Arab
starts fiddling in his rucksack. 4th Arab sets bomb off
and is blown up.
If you hired any additional Arabs and they also got wind
of the set up, make sure tere are GPS locators in the
rucksacks so you can have police snipers ready to kill
them before they can blow the whistle.
7) After the bombs go off, put out a story for over an
hour that the explosions are a simple electrical fault.
This gives you cover time to make sure the lazy bus Arab
is dead and any other hired Arabs who reneged are also
dead. Make sure any CCTV footage that doesn't support
your official story is either seized or destroyed.
8) A few hours after the bombings, have one of your boys
post an 'Al-Qaeda statement' claiming responsibility.
Don't worry about the whole 'misreferencing the Qu'ran'
thing, these idiots don't have the attention spans to
figure it out.
9) After you have made sure that all the Arabs are dead
and you are managing the story accordingly, wait for four
days until the police piece together the story and find
the explosives you planted in Leeds and in the car in
Luton. Remember that Qu'ran and flight manual in the hijackers'
car? Ha ha, they fell for that one hook, line and sinker.
No need to change tactics this time either. The time delay
will convince the gullible public that a real investigation
is taking place. Create a background of the hired Arabs
being militant Muslims. The drooling masses, as was the
case with the '9/11 hijackers,' will ignore stories of
neighbours saying they were the quiet, educated types
who liked children and playing sports.
BBC excerpt: One local resident described him as "a
nice lad".
"He liked to play football, he liked to play cricket.
I'm shocked."
Another resident said he was just a "normal kid"
who played basketball and kicked a ball around.
10) Sit back and enjoy as Blair and his minions grandstand
in front of television cameras about staying the course
in the war on terror. The pay raise, extra agency funding,
and power to strip more freedoms and liberties made the
ten easy steps to staging a terrorist attack a worthwhile
venture. The dozens of dead people were necessary collateral
damage. This is a dirty war, we need to be less moral
than the terrorists to defeat them.
And that's how the government staged the bombings in
ten easy steps.
Granted, you can interchange different pieces of the
puzzle. The bombers could be real terrorists that knew
exactly what they were doing. All you would need to do
is control the 'mastermind' behind the attack and make
sure his boys carried out the job in the way you wanted.
Voila.
by Brian Richards
LONDON, ENGLAND -- (OfficialWire) -- 07/14/05
Give me a break. Four
young men, maybe five though one chap remains a secret
at present, simply decided to blow themselves up in support
of a cause none of them had ever previously mentioned
to their families, friends or anyone who knew them. Does
that sound right?
In fact, UK intelligence agencies had never heard of
these guys. They, the alleged London bombers, had everything
to live for and no motive in becoming suicide bombers.
Do you believe that?
Comment:
It took many, many months after 9/11 for large numbers
of people to begin putting the pieces together, to begin
seriously questioning the official story. Today it is
going on in real time. Researchers are taking the story
in different directions, which is to be expected because
everyone has their particular angle, and, human nature
being what it is, some people will want to make a name
for themselves. Add the disinfo artists that one expects
in cases like this, and it will likely be very confusing
to get at the real story.
For this reason, we need to be able to stand back and
observe the London bombings in the larger context of the
neocon designs on the world which appears to be instigating
the "clash of civilisations" they so fervently
promote. Whether "Greater Israel" is the final
goal or just a smokescreen for something else, such as
the annihilation of the Semites, will demand more work.
We have our suspicions that the ultimate goal may be far
more extreme than most people imagine, and may well have
something to do with ethnic
specific weapons.
With all that we see
happening with the London bombings, I think it is wise
for us to take a brief look at some historical information.
History could be repeating itself. British and American
targets have been bombed many times in the past and the
evidence seemed to point to specific perpetrators. But
as was discovered numerous times, the evidence was faked.
Numerous writers, scientists, investigators and even
political figures have pointed out Israel’s involvement
with 911. There is a huge pile of evidence that is being
ignored, shoveled under the carpet and being labeled as
“urban legend” regarding Israel’s involvement
in 911. We should know that Jews have a consistent history
of fraudulent actions resulting in the loss of lives of
millions of human beings to accomplish their purpose.
False flag operations are not new for Jews. As I will
show in the list below, false flag operations, the act
of committing terrorist actions and having others blamed
for it, is a technique that they have employed in numerous
situations for hundreds even thousands of years. Not only
have they done false flag operations to blame Muslims,
they have done these actions to have others blamed like,
the Czarist government in Russia, other Jews, Germany,
enemy organizations and states, etc. I also find it interesting
that they have been caught red handed in numerous false
flag operations. Not once but several times they have
been caught. As regards today’s terrorists actions,
it is interesting to note that Israelis have been caught
in false flag operations attempting to have Muslims blamed,
but yet there is not one false flag operation where Muslims
were caught attempting to blame Jews. We should really
think about this and ask the reasonable question of, “I
wonder why that is?”
Here is a brief look at some past Jewish actions showing
their treachery, deception and fraud in having innocents
take the blame for their horrible actions. I have summarized
this and provided links... [...]
NEW YORK - Police in New York will
board city buses and subway trains and teach passengers
how to recognize suicide bombers, officials said on
Thursday in the wake of the deadly blasts blamed on
such bombers in London.
New York, hardest hit by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
has been spared suicide bomb attacks such as those that
plague daily life in Iraq and have frequently shaken
Israel.
The bombings of three subways and a bus in London last
week, which killed at least 53 people, were Britain's
first suicide attacks.
Alerting the public to identify suicide
bombers is part of a broader plan to step up warnings
on New York's public transportation system of possible
terror-related activity, officials said.
The idea of alerting people face-to-face comes after
the New York Police Department got a positive public
response when a city police officer who was searching
a bus the day of the London bombings spoke to commuters
about being aware of suspicious activity, said Police
Commissioner Raymond Kelly.
"It is kind of unique to be on a bus to be able
to do that," Kelly said at a news conference. "In
reality, we can't do it on every bus, but I think we
are going to use that where we can, where it is reasonable
to do it."
New York's 37,000-member police force is already on
high alert, working overtime with bomb-sniffing dogs
to patrol subways, buses, ferries and prominent buildings,
and the warnings about suicide bombers will be added
to those efforts, officials said.
"People could be told to
look out for bulky clothing in warmer weather, or people
repeatedly returning to a package," said Police
Department spokesman Paul Browne. [...]
The July 17 editorial in The Boston
Globe was headlined, "Ashcroft vs. Americans."
It began: "Operation TIPS - The Terrorism Information
and Prevention System - is a scheme that Joseph Stalin
would have appreciated. Plans for its pilot phase,
to start in August, have Operation TIPS recruiting
a million letter carriers, meter readers, cable technicians,
and other workers with access to private homes as
informants to report to the Justice Department any
activities they think suspicious." - The Boston
Globe went on to say, "Ashcroft's informant corps
is a vile idea not merely because it violates civil
liberties . . . or because it will sabotage genuine
efforts to prevent terrorism by overloading law enforcement
officials with irrelevant reports about Americans
who have nothing to do with terrorists. Operation
TIPS should be stopped because it is utterly anti-American."
Well, it's back - only this time,
it'll be ordinary Americans bombarding law enforcement
officials with reports of "suspicious" individuals
and activities. Remember, don't carry around large boxes,
bags, or backpacks. Don't return to the same spot more
than once on a train, a bus, or at a public transport
station. And finally, if you become ill during warmer
weather, don't wear any extra layers no matter how miserable
you feel.
"Truth will come to light; murder cannot be
hid long".
~ William Shakespeare ( Thanks to Brian Cloughley
)
"ICH" - - "Does anyone doubt that 10,000
bin Ladens have been created by the events of the past
two and a half years? If they do, they have their head
in the sand." MP George Galloway; British Parliament,
7-7-05
"The destructiveness of the occupation affects
the vast majority of Iraqis in a negative way and thus
they are fed up with the presence of occupiers on our
land. The resistance is not short on recruits to join
them. Quite simply there are hundred of thousands of
people in Iraq who are ready to sacrifice their lives
for their country." Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi, speaking
for the Iraqi National Resistance; Counterpunch, 7-12-05
America has never been involved a war more clearly
immoral than Iraq. From the phony pretext of weapons
of mass destruction to the sadistic treatment of prisoners
at Abu Ghraib, the conflict has been a nauseating chronicle
of butchery and deception. Now, the victims of that
massive crime are striking back in London and Madrid
while the Bush press-corps regurgitates the same stale
theories about radicals and Islam.
What baloney. Baghdad has morphed
into an assembly-line for extremists churning out enough
fanatics for 1,000 London-type bombings. This is Bush's
work; and Blair's. The people who were killed in the
London subway died for the crimes of their government,
not because some young Muslim studied under a fiery
cleric in South Leeds.The
carnage is as much Bush and Blair's responsibility as
if they had carried the bombs on the subway and detonated
them themselves.
Those who've watch the developments in Iraq carefully
know that the situation has steadily deteriorated. Rumsfeld's
storm troopers (The Wolf Brigade) now roam the country
freely, killing and maiming as they see fit; spreading
terror to every corner of the Sunni heartland. (Just
today, another 10 young Sunnis were dumped at the Baghdad
morgue with gunshot wounds to the back of their heads)
At the same time, the US military is moving from city
to city; applying the "Falluja-solution" of
wanton destruction to every town they invade. Falluja,
Sammarra, Ramadi, Karbala, Heet, Qaim; everywhere the
story is the same; the cities are pounded mercilessly
while the people are denied water, food, electricity
and vital medical supplies. The crusade to crush
the resistance is reducing more and more Sunni cities
to rubble.
This is Rumsfeld's remedy for resistance. This is Bush's
"Liberation". Take a good look.
The people in London are the lucky ones. If they'd
been in Iraq (after the explosions) the passers-by would
have been cut-down by snipers on top of surrounding
buildings. Their ambulances would have fired on as they
tried to remove the dead and wounded. Their hospitals
would have been bombed and occupied by a foreign army.
They would have been deprived of even basic medical
supplies to keep them alive. How can anyone compare
the bombings in London to the all-encompassing campaign
of terror in Iraq?
The victims of the London bombings disserve our sympathy,
just as surely as the cut-throats in Washington and
10 Downing Street disserve our contempt. MP
George Galloway summarized the feelings of many of us
when he said, "Members of Parliament find it easy
to feel empathy with people killed in explosions by
razor-sharp red-hot steel and splintering flying glass
when they are in London, but they can blank out of their
mind entirely the fact that a person killed in exactly
the same way in Falluja died exactly the same death."
There's a straight line between Falluja and the London
subway; just as there is a straight line between the
gulags at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the terror attacks
that Americans can expect to face in the near future.
For America, the prospect of London-type bombings is
a mathematical certainty.
American newspapers are all breathlessly circulating
their theory of "suicide bombers" in headlines
across the nation.
Why not? It fits nicely with the racist
ideology the underscores Bush's war on terror. Washington
knows that their support would disappear in a flash
if they failed to conjure up the requisite racial stereotypes
that feed the public rage. And, no one is better at
demonizing and fear-mongering than the Bush administration.
Look at Bush's comments following the London attack:
"And the contrast couldn't be clearer between
the intentions of those who care deeply about human
rights, and those who kill, those who've got such evil
in their hearts that they will take the lives of innocent
folks." What rubbish; Bush fouling the air with
his lies when he's already killed more than 100,000
Iraqis.
And, Bush's "war-poodle" Blair reads from
the same script:
"It is important, however, that those engaged
in terrorism realize that our determination to defend
our way of life is greater than their determination
to cause death and destruction to innocent people in
a desire to impose extremism on the world."
"Our way of life"? Is that what we are defending,
or the blatant misuse of military force to subjugate
an entire nation and steal its resources?
No one is fooled by Bush-Blair's
facile rhetoric. Bin Laden doesn't care a whit
about "our freedoms"; his message has been
consistent throughout; "Get out of our countries,
stop training our brutal secret police, stop propping
up our corrupt regimes, and stop stealing our resources."
When the imperialism stops, so, too, will the terrorism.
We know the root of terrorism now; the secret has been
divulged. Robert Pape has done an exhaustive study that
provides scientifically-researched answers to all the
critical questions surrounding suicide bombers. His
findings are more important to antiwar activists than
the contents of the Downing Street memo.
Why? Because his research proves
beyond a doubt that suicide bombing is the predictable
upshot of occupation. As social scientist Scott
Atran said, "Most jihadists have no history of
religious education prior to becoming 'born again' radical
Islamists, and many are well-educated, middle class
and married. Most would-be suicide bombers say they
act to restore dignity to their communities -- real
or virtual -- marginalized by globalization and humiliated
by military occupation."
This not only obliterates Bush's specious yammering
about "hating our freedoms", but also counters
the propaganda from the mainstream media. Every editorial
columnist from Tom Friedman (who calls the bombers a
"jihadist death-cult") to Christopher Hitchens
(who coined the phrase "Islamo-fascism") has
added to the media-smokescreen by feeding the idea that
terrorism emerges from an irrational hatred of the West
or from religious zealotry. Neither
is true. These theories have only confused the public
and perpetuated a conflict that serves the exclusive
interests of elites.
Pape's 7-9-05 column in the New York Times ("Al
Qaida'a Smart Bombs" or "The Logic of Suicide
Terrorism" informationclearinghouse.info) dispels
the commonly held illusions about terrorism and exposes
the underlying reason for the current violence; Occupation.
The driving force behind terror attacks, Pape says,
is "to compel the United States and its Western
allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula
and other Muslim countries". Period.
Pape's findings have armed us
with the most priceless of weapons: the Truth.
He has uncovered the vile fraud that fuels Bush's orgy
of carnage and pointed the way out of the war on terror.
With a clear-eyed approach to terrorism we can cut-through
the demagoguery and propaganda and block the Bush strategy
for perennial war.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can
be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
By Stephen Pizzo
News for Real
Posted July 15, 2005
Need proof that the U.S. is on
the down-slope of the empire bell curve? Take a look
at our turkey of a space shuttle and the skyrocketing
cost of medical care.
Ever wonder why empires don't last forever? After
all, by definition an empire holds all the cards. They
dominate trade, education, science, literature, quality
of life and so on. So, why do they all inevitably whither?
Because, nothing fails quite like success.
Here are two examples from the world's current Imperial
office holder -- the U.S. of A.
It's a bird. It's a plane. No, it's a turkey.
And there it was yesterday, all dressed and no place
to go. America's only manned space vehicle, the space
shuttle, steaming off liquid oxygen like a giant upright
turd in the Florida sun.
The space shuttle is the actualization of the old joke,
"An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee."
The reason I choose the space shuttle as proof the
US is on the down-slope of the empire bell curve is
because, of all the ways we could have explored space,
we chose to invest all our marbles in bolting an 18-wheeler
to rockets.
Sending a Mack truck into orbit required some very
complicated and expensive engineering contortions. Satellites
sent up on the shuttle cost $25 million a ton. Compare
that with the cost of sending the same payload up on
simpler Russian or Chinese rockets, $3-6 million a ton.
It costs upwards of $10,000 per pound to launch anything,
including the crew, into orbit on the shuttle, a cost
that is more than triple that charged by the workhorse
expendable launch vehicles of NASA's heyday, the Apollo
era.
What happened to NASA's own "right stuff"?
"Once we won the Space Race in 1969, NASA morphed
from a can-do, risk-taking, think out-of-the-box organization,
to Just Another Tax-Fed Federal Bureaucracy, that,
instead of playing to "win", was instead
playing "not to lose." (Thomas Andrew Olson,
Libertarian Institute)
The space shuttle is a mind-bogglingly expensive example
of this process. It's too damn big, too damn expensive,
too damn dangerous and too damn unreliable. It was designed
40 years ago. If it were a car it would be spending
its days being lovingly polished in the garage by some
old geezer trying to recapture his youth. Instead, the
folks now running NASA decided to put a garage in orbit,
call it a space station, and send the shuttle there
to polish their own image.
There are a lot of cheaper ways to put people in space.
The Russians, who can barely run their own country,
do it regularly. Thanks to the
Russians' simple and reliable Soyuz capsules we didn't
end up with three skeletons floating around the space
station after the shuttle crash two years ago.
With any luck a bolt of lightening will reduce the
next shuttle to a pile of tile on its way to the launch
pad. That would leave just two shuttles. We could put
one in the Smithsonian and sell the other to Disney
World.
Then turn NASA over to Bert Rutan and Richard Branson.
They seem to be the current possessors of the right
stuff. Imagine what they could do with just a fraction
of NASA's $16 billion annual
budget. We'd be orbiting Earth sipping diet cola
and munching peanuts in cramped coach seating within
five years. (But please remember to return your seat
backs to the full upright position for re-entry. Items
in overhead compartments may have shifted in weightless
conditions.)
Bad Medicine
What good is an empire if it can't provide affordable
medical care for its own citizens? Good question, and
one that confronts Americans now.
President Bush and Big Medicine would have you believe
that the skyrocketing cost of medical care is the fault
of lawyers who sue. But a study released yesterday disputes
that, noting that malpractice suits have a miniscule
impact on medical costs.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Americans
pay more for health care per person than citizens
anywhere else in the world, doling out half
again as much in medical expenses each year as the
second-highest-cost country, according to a new study.
According to Dr. Gerard Anderson, lead author of a
report just issued by John Hopkins Bloomberg School
of Public Health, "We pay
for drugs and hospital stays and doctor visits 2 to
2.5 times as much as other countries pay."
And why, you ask? Malpractice suits? Nope. According
to the study, lawsuits add less than 1% to health care
overhead. Another 8% in increases come from so-called
"defensive" medicine -- doing lots of unnecessary
tests to avoid being sued.
The remaining 91% of increases
are price, not cost increases. Americans are being financially
disemboweled by the pharmaceutical/health care industries.
The average American paid $5,267 on health care in 2002,
compared with an average $1,821 in other industrialized
nations. [...]
Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books,
including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's
Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.
by Bruce Schneier
Founder and CTO
Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.
April 15, 2004
As a security technologist, I regularly
encounter people who say the United States should adopt
a national ID card. How could such a program not make
us more secure, they ask?
The suggestion, when it's made by a thoughtful civic-minded
person like Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times,
often takes on a tone that is regretful and ambivalent:
Yes, indeed, the card would be a minor invasion of our
privacy, and undoubtedly it would add to the growing
list of interruptions and delays we encounter every
day; but we live in dangerous times, we live in a new
world....
It all sounds so reasonable, but there's a lot to disagree
with in such an attitude.
The potential privacy encroachments of an ID card system
are far from minor. And the interruptions and delays
caused by incessant ID checks could easily proliferate
into a persistent traffic jam in office lobbies and
airports and hospital waiting rooms and shopping malls.
But my primary objection isn't the totalitarian potential
of national IDs, nor the likelihood that they'll create
a whole immense new class of social and economic dislocations.
Nor is it the opportunities they will create for colossal
boondoggles by government contractors. My
objection to the national ID card, at least for the
purposes of this essay, is much simpler.
It won't work. It won't make us more
secure.
In fact, everything I've learned about
security over the last 20 years tells me that once it
is put in place, a national ID card program will actually
make us less secure.
My argument may not be obvious, but it's not hard to
follow, either. It centers around the notion that security
must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on
how it fails.
It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works
when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people
that would carry it. What matters is how the system
might fail when used by someone intent on subverting
that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made
to fail, and how failures might be exploited.
The first problem is the card itself. No matter how
unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even
worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent
names.
Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's
licenses in fake names. And even
if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national
ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity
would be determined by other identity documents... all
of which would be easier to forge.
Not that there would ever be such thing as a single
ID card. Currently about 20 percent of all identity
documents are lost per year. An entirely separate security
system would have to be developed for people who lost
their card, a system that itself is capable of abuse.
Additionally, any ID system
involves people... people who regularly make mistakes.
We all have stories of bartenders falling for obviously
fake IDs, or sloppy ID checks at airports and government
buildings. It's not simply a matter of training; checking
IDs is a mind-numbingly boring task, one that is guaranteed
to have failures. Biometrics such as thumbprints show
some promise here, but bring with them their own set
of exploitable failure modes.
But the main problem with any ID system
is that it requires the existence of a database. In
this case it would have to be an immense database of
private and sensitive information on every American
-- one widely and instantaneously accessible from airline
check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.
The security risks are enormous. Such a database would
be a kludge of existing databases; databases that are
incompatible, full of erroneous data, and unreliable.
As computer scientists, we do not know how to keep a
database of this magnitude secure, whether from outside
hackers or the thousands of insiders authorized to access
it.
And when the inevitable worms, viruses,
or random failures happen and the database goes down,
what then? Is America supposed to shut down until it's
restored?
Proponents of national ID cards want us to assume all
these problems, and the tens of billions of dollars
such a system would cost -- for what? For the promise
of being able to identify someone?
What good would it have been to know
the names of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or the
DC snipers before they were arrested? Palestinian suicide
bombers generally have no history of terrorism. The
goal is here is to know someone's intentions, and their
identity has very little to do with that.
And there are security benefits in having a variety
of different ID documents. A
single national ID is an exceedingly valuable document,
and accordingly there's greater incentive to forge it.
There is more security in alert guards paying attention
to subtle social cues than bored minimum-wage guards
blindly checking IDs.
That's why, when someone asks me to rate the security
of a national ID card on a scale of one to 10, I can't
give an answer. It doesn't even belong on a scale.
Comment: Upon
considering the author's perfectly reasonable arguments,
the only logical conclusion that remains is that the
powers that be want national ID cards and a giant database
not to keep us all safe, but to track and control us.
AUSTRALIA - Attorney-General Philip
Ruddock has been forced to admit that the government
is considering introducing national identity cards,
three days after flatly ruling out the suggestion.
Prime Minister John Howard put the idea on the agenda,
saying circumstances had changed since he opposed the
Hawke Labor government plan in 1987.
"We haven't made a decision to have an ID card
in this country, but it should be properly on the table,"
Mr Howard told reporters in Sydney before flying out
on a 12-day overseas visit.
The change of heart comes in the wake
of both the London bombings and a damning report into
how immigration officials mistook two Australians for
illegal immigrants - detaining one and deporting the
other.
Mr Ruddock says the government has had to reconsider
security issues after suicide bombers attacked three
trains and a bus in London last week, killing at least
54 people, including Australian man Sam Ly.
"We've made it very clear that at a time like
this you put everything on the agenda and you ask yourself
the question again, is this something we need to reconsider?"
Mr Ruddock told Sydney radio 2SM.
But speaking at a security conference
on Tuesday, Mr Ruddock ruled out the idea, saying: "We've
made it very clear that we're not about establishing
a national identity card."
Labor is sceptical about Mr Ruddock's about-face, speculating
that it is aimed at diverting attention from former
federal police chief Mick Palmer's scathing report on
immigration bungles.
"Labor waits with interest to see what ID card
proposal - if any - the government comes up with,"
opposition homeland security spokesman Arch Bevis said.
[...]
WASHINGTON - Despite
two failed attempts, the White House on Wednesday
said it wanted the Senate to vote again to try to win
confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations.
But Republican and Democratic senators said the stalemate
continued on Bolton's nomination over demands from Democrats
that the White House provide information they said would
shed more light on his suitability for the job.
The nomination of the blunt-spoken conservative has
been held up by accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence
and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his
hawkish views in his post as the top U.S. diplomat for
arms control.
"We continue to believe
that John Bolton should have an up or down vote on the
floor of the Senate. That remains our position,"
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. [...]
Comment: We're
not sure why exactly, but something gives us the feeling
that the White House will not stop asking the Senate
to vote on Bolton until he is approved. So much for
democracy...
Looks like Karl Rove
did break the law, the same federal law that got Martha
Stewart sentenced to six months in prison.
It now appears that Rove, President Bush’s chief
of staff, may have lied to the FBI in October 2003—a
federal crime—when he was questioned by federal
agents investigating who was responsible for leaking information
about a covert CIA operative to the media.
During questioning by the FBI about his role in the Plame
affair, Rove told federal agents that he only started
sharing information about Plame with reporters and White
House officials for the first time after conservative
columnist Robert Novak identified her covert CIA status
in his column on July 14, 2003, according to a report
in the American Prospect about Rove’s testimony
in March 2004, a copy of which can be found here.
But Rove wasn’t truthful with the FBI what with
the recent disclosure of Time magazine reporter Matthew
Cooper’s emails, which reveal Rove as the source
for Cooper’s own July 2003 story identifying Plame
as a CIA operative, and show that Rove spoke to Cooper
nearly a week before Novak’s column was published
and, according to previously published news reports, spoke
to a half-dozen other reporters about Plame as early as
June 2003.
“Iit was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently
works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction]
issues who authorized (Wilson’s) trip," Cooper’s
July 11, 2003, email to his editor, obtained by Newsweek,
says. “Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover
agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of
Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later
included the essence of what Rove told him in an online
story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues:
"not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d]
suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly
there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring
u ranium fro[m] Niger .. "
Moreover, evidence suggests that President Bush was aware
as early as October 2003 that Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter”
Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff,
were the sources who leaked Plame’s undercover CIA
status to reporters and after the president was briefed
about the issue the president said publicly that the source
of the leak will never be found.
Furthermore, a few aides to Condoleeza Rice, then head
of the National Security Council, may have played a role
as well by being the first officials to learn about Plame’s
role as a CIA operative and gave that information to Rove,
Libby and other senior administration officials.
The disclosure of Plame’s name and CIA status was
an attempt by the White House to discredit Plame’s
husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken
critic of the Iraq war who had alleged that President
Bush misspoke when he said in his January 2003 State of
the Union address that Iraq acquired yellow-cake uranium
from Niger.
Wilson was recommended by Plame, his wife, to travel
to Niger to investigate the yellow-cake claims but he
said publicly that he Cheney’s office sent him there.
Cheney did in fact contact the CIA at first to arrange
the mission but Plame ultimately recommended Wilson. Still,
in February 2002, he went to Niger and reported back to
the CIA that there was no truth to those claims.
Here’s the fullest account yet of how the events
leading up to the disclosure that Wilson’s wife
was a CIA operative unfolded, and how it all leads back
to Rove. But first let’s get to the real story behind
the leak, the catalyst behind this issue.
Comment:
The tone in the White House news room was noticeably different
this week, with Press Secretary facing a newly aroused
press corp. Reporters recovered their memories and were
able to refer back to statements made two years ago! We'll
see if this memory enhancement works when the war drums
begin again for Iran. So far, there has been precious
little comparison between the arguments for war against
Iran with those same arguments when used against Saddam.
Sceptics as we are, we start to wonder whether all this
commotion might not be a diversion. Certainly, Rove is
a scoundrel who should be behind bars, but then so are
the rest of the occupants of the White House and other
high offices in the Bush government. They have lied to
us for years with impunity, not be mention being responsible
for 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the occupation of
Iraq, as well as the imposition of the Patriot Act in
the US. Will the sacrifice of Rove or Scooter Libby change
any of that? Or would it simply reinforce in people's
minds that "the system, slow as it might be, works"?
Did White House political
adviser Karl Rove deliberately reveal the identity of
an undercover CIA operative? Only two people can answer
that question, and neither one is talking: Rove himself
and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating
the question.
Sooner or later, we probably will get an answer. Fitzgerald
has been so aggressive in this investigation -- to the
point of jailing a New York Times reporter who
refused to reveal her confidential sources -- that indictments
are reasonably likely.
In the meantime, it's important to look beyond the immediate
political spectacle in Washington -- White House spokesman
Scott McClellan finally confronted by reporters who feel
abused and lied to -- to the reason Rove was talking to
a reporter about ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson at all.
The real issue, more serious and less glitzy than whether
Bush will stand by his political adviser, is the extraordinary
efforts the Bush administration made to protect a case
for war in Iraq from all contradictory evidence -- in
effect, as the British spymaster Sir Richard Dearlove
put it, to "fix" the facts and intelligence
so they would support a decision already made.
Enter Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover
CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction.
As Wilson tells it, a question arose at the CIA early
in 2002, prompted by an inquiry from Vice President Dick
Cheney's office, about reports that Iraq had purchased
uranium for nuclear weapons from the African country of
Niger, where Wilson previously had served. When someone
was needed to travel to Niger, Plame apparently told her
superiors that her husband had good contacts there. CIA
officials talked with Wilson and decided he should be
the one to make the trip.
In late February of 2002 Wilson made the trip, talked
with numerous people in Niger, including the U.S. ambassador,
and concluded there was nothing to reports of an Iraq-Niger
connection. He briefed officials at both the CIA and State
Department on his conclusions.
In January 2003, however, President Bush asserted an
Iraq-Africa uranium connection in his State of the Union
message. Subsequently, it turned out that Bush was indeed
referring to Niger. The Niger-Iraq connection became one
of the pillars in Bush's case for war with Iraq.
After the start of the war, Wilson wrote a lengthy op-ed
piece for the New York Times laying out the facts
of his trip and saying he had "little choice but
to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's
nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the
Iraqi threat."
Five days later, Rove told Time reporter Matt
Cooper he should "not get too far out on Wilson."
His trip to Niger, Rove said, wasn't approved by Cheney
or CIA Director George Tenet. Cooper wrote to his boss,
"It was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works
at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip."
Three days later, columnist Robert Novak identified Plame
as a CIA operative and said two "senior administration
officials" told him Plame suggested sending her husband.
About the same time, a confidential source also told a
Washington Post reporter that the trip was a
"boondoggle" arranged by Plame.
This is a classic Rove technique:
undercut a critic by planting the notion that he was off
to Africa on a lark arranged by his wife. Rove's
history as a rough political player is well-documented.
But this wasn't about a political campaign; this was about
a serious question of national security and the justification
for a difficult war.
It also wasn't true. On July 22, Newsday reported
that a "senior intelligence officer confirmed that
Plame was a directorate of operations undercover officer
who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked
her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not
recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment."
This senior intelligence officer also told Newsday
that it was incorrect to suggest " 'she was the one
who was cooking this up.' " Besides, he said, "
'We paid his airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly
a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to
go there.' " The CIA always said Plame did not recommend
her husband.
It is instructive to remember that the investigation
into who revealed Plame's identity was initiated by Tenet,
not by administration critics. Remember also that Wilson
was correct; ultimately the White House had to retract
Bush's State of the Union statement on the Niger connection.
In addition to discrediting critics of the Niger connection,
the Bush administration, through the actions of John Bolton
-- now nominee to be U.N. ambassador -- sought to intimidate
intelligence analysts who objected to conclusions about
Iraq's WMD, and to get a U.N. chemical weapons official
fired so he wouldn't be able to send inspectors back to
Iraq, where they might disprove more of the case for war.
In the scheme of things, whether Rove revealed Plame's
identity, deliberately or not, matters less than actions
by Rove, Bolton, Cheney and others to phony up a case
for war that has gone badly, has cost thousands of lives
plus hundreds of billions of dollars, and has, a majority
of Americans now believe, left the United States less
safe from terrorism rather than more.
A gay prostitute, a
phony media organization that managed to sneak its "reporter"
into White House press briefings, and the lies that were
fed to the media and the American people in the run-up
to war with Iraq what possible connection could
these items have to one another?
The answer: a man called "Jeff Gannon."
Amid the media frenzy over Gannon's journalistic bona
fides, or lack of them and the lurid speculation
going on in the left lane of the blogosphere about how
a purported male hooker got admitted to White House press
briefings before his "Talon News Agency" (a
front group created by "GOPUSA") was even created
one has to ask: who cares?
Answer: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for one, the chief prosecutor
in an investigation that could rope in several high-ranking
administration officials and even lead to the White House
itself. And those of us who have been awaiting the come-uppance
of this White House, for two, and are ready to get out
the popcorn and the chips-and-dip and settle down for
a nice long juicy scandal.
Let's go back to my column for Jan. 12, 2004, in which
I pointed to an interview with Iraq war critic Joe Wilson
conducted by Gannon. Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon,
was sent to Niger by the CIA to find out whether Saddam
had been trying to procure uranium in that African nation
as part of his weapons development program you know,
the one that turned out not to exist. When Wilson returned,
he reported that no such attempt had been made, and he
was therefore astonished when the president, in his 2003
State of the Union address, made reference to Saddam Hussein,
who supposedly "sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa." Wilson went public with his
mission and its results, which is when the neocon smear
machine went after him hammer and tongs. Robert Novak
wrote a column in which administration officials were
cited as saying that Wilson was a partisan out to get
the president and had only gotten the job because his
wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent.
At that point, Ms. Plame's career as a covert agent
apparently assigned to nuclear nonproliferation issues
came to an abrupt end. A crime had been committed
a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection
Act, which makes it a felony to "out" a CIA
agent on a covert mission and an investigation was
launched. When then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused
himself and appointed a special counsel to look into the
matter, the political implications of the case became
clear.
Whoever was guilty of engineering the "outing"
of Plame was also part of a more general effort to discredit
Wilson and head off any further investigation into
how so much phony "intelligence" came to be
touted by the president and his White House as "fact."
The president's infamous "16 words" alluding
to the Niger uranium caper supposedly launched by the
Iraqis turned out to be based on an elaborate forgery
which was exposed by the scientists at the International
Atomic Energy Agency, using Google, within hours of receiving
the documents.
How did such a fantastic hoax get perpetrated on the
Bush White House and by whom? You can bet the Bushies
were really interested in finding out the answers to these
questions. That explains the otherwise mysterious Ashcroft
recusal and the launching of an extensive investigation
that, in its relentless hunt for information, has several
journalists facing subpoenas and the threat of jail.
Enter Jeff Gannon, aka Jim Guckert,
supposedly a journalist for the "Talon News Agency."
Gannon, a familiar face at White House press briefings
who had distinguished himself as outspokenly pro-Bush
by the nature and tenor of his questions, somehow finagled
Wilson into doing an interview, which was subsequently
published on the Talon Web site (and then erased), in
which he asked:
"An internal government memo prepared by U.S.
intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002
where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine
service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that
you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you
dispute that?"
How did Gannon get his hands on
an "internal government memo" that was classified
information? That's what I wanted to know last
year at around this time, and the authorities were similarly
interested, as the Washington Post reported:
"Sources said the CIA believes that people in
the administration continue to release classified information
to damage the figures at the center of the controversy,
former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife,
Valerie Plame. …
"Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation
of a still-classified document to conservative news
outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her
husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document,
written by a State Department official who works for
its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes
a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson
was discussed, said a senior administration official
who has seen it.
"CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of
the INR document, the official said, because the agency
officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged
role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended
the meeting."
It is true that news of the internal memo cited by Gannon
had already appeared in the Wall Street Journal,
but when confronted on the Free Republic Web site, where
he frequently posted, as to the provenance of the memo
and his knowledge of it, Gannon did not deny that he had
seen it and never so much as mentioned the Journal
article. [...]
This story isn't about sex although Gannon's reported
sideline as a gay escort (or was his "journalism"
the sideline?) could figure even more prominently as the
personal and the political meet and merge in this case.
It's about a bitterly fought internal power struggle inside
the Bush administration, pitting the neoconservative clique
centered in the office of the vice president and the civilian
upper echelons of the Pentagon against the remnants of
resistance in the intelligence community, in the top ranks
of the military, and in the diplomatic corps.
It's about the lies the former told in order to bamboozle
Congress and the nation into a disastrous conflict in
the Middle East and the crimes they committed in
covering up the lies. It's a story about the neocon "alternative"
media such as "Talon News" and its many
proliferating clones in cyberspace and the world of print
and television the purpose of which is to refract
and distort images of an unjust and increasingly troubling
war into the illusion of "victory." It's about
payola pundits and media whores who swallow the party
line without question and without even charging a fee.
If Gannon is a plant, then what about the other right-wing
screamers and ranters with an identical agenda and tactics
who are, in many cases, just as sleazy?
Who planted Gannon in the White House press pool, and
gave him all that access and to what purpose?
Clearly part of the scheme was to lob softball questions
at a beleaguered White House press secretary facing a
barrage of pointed questions about the war and the Bush
administration's many scandals.
However, the idea was also to debunk and distract attention
away from the questions that were beginning to be raised
not only about the Plame matter, but also about the series
of outright fabrications that represented a great deal
of this administration's case for going to war. That case
had been made by influential neocons now facing scrutiny
from Congress and the Justice Department, and Gannon served
as their personal pitbull, going after Wilson and other
debunkers of the neocons' war myth.[...]
If we follow the slime trail left by Gannon and his sponsors
all the way to the end, we'll stand face-to-face with
the real authors of the Iraq war, and the full record
of their crimes in the reckless pursuit of power and imperial
glory. Gannon may be a minor player in all this, but then
so was the Watergate burglary a minor escapade the
unraveling of which eventually led to the resignation
of Richard M. Nixon and a general disillusionment with
the neoconservative agenda of global interventionism.
What I wrote last winter about the Plame case applies
equally to l'affaire Gannon:
"This case is about much more than the outing
of a CIA agent: It's about a cabal of ruthless liars
who stopped at nothing not even treason
to achieve their goals, and kept lying (and committing
forgery) even after they were caught. It's about a bogus
war fought on account of faked 'evidence.' It's about
the hijacking of American foreign policy on behalf of
interests that are neither American nor morally defensible."
From putting together
all of the pieces about the Plame affair that have appeared
here in the past few days, it looks as if the initial
information leaked from the State Department, from the
file they keep on Joe Wilson. That probably means John
Bolton, who had access to State Dept files, is the one
who introduced the information abot Plame to the White
House staff.
After the Wilson op ed piece in the NYTimes,
Bolton, who also had access to CIA files about its operatives,
probably told Rove and Libby about Plame and her possible
connection to Joe Wilson and his trip, and it was Rove
and Libby who called Cooper, Novak, and the other reporters
on strict background (double super secret, whatever that
means; obviously much deeper cover than cross your heart
and hope to die).
In addition, Bush and Cheney were probably told about
the Plame-Wilson by Rove and/or Libby, and that explains
why they hired personal counsel outside the White House,
so that they would be protected by client-attorney privileges,
and to have counsel if they were required to testify about
Rove or Libby.
But, where does Miller fit in? Is she protecting Bolton?
Is it possible that Bolton was really her source for all
of that disinformation about WMDs in the runup to the
Iraq War, and not Chalabi (as we were led to believe by
a supposedly secret email that may have itself been leaked
disinformation)?
If the above is true, and if Miller testifies about how
she got her information, she gives the evidence necessary
for Fitzgerald to indict Bolton, Rove, and Libby, and
eventually possibly Cheney and Bush if any of those three
go to trial!
White House officials
told The Washington Post they fear someone in
the Bush administration may be indicted regarding the
leak of a covert CIA operative's name.
The Post report Thursday did not name its sources,
saying "officials acknowledged privately" that
an indictment naming a member of the administration could
come this year. [...]
Comment:
Before people begin to get too cocky about bringing down
Karl Rove, take a look at what Robert Parry writes in
the following.The Bush family has a long history of getting
out of tight spots.
If there is one trait
that has followed the Bush family through generations
of privilege, it is the ability to escape scandal –
a skill that will be put to the test again over the leaking
of the identity of an undercover CIA officer, apparently
to get back at her husband for criticizing George W. Bush’s
case for invading Iraq.
The criminal investigation into who revealed Valerie
Plame’s identity – and endangered clandestine
operatives working with her – has been building
for two years. But it is finally reaching critical mass
with the disclosure that Bush’s political guru Karl
Rove discussed Plame’s CIA work with Time
correspondent Matthew Cooper in July 2003.
Rove appears to have been part of a P.R. campaign to
punish Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph
Wilson, for writing an article on July 6, 2003, that the
administration had reason to doubt claims about Iraq seeking
yellowcake uranium when Bush cited that dramatic allegation
in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
A United Nations agency debunked the yellowcake claim
in March 2003 – finding that it was based on forged
documents – but Rove and other Bush allies still
went on the offensive against Wilson in July 2003. Their
primary line of attack was to assert that his CIA wife
had authorized his trip to Niger in 2002 to check out
the allegations.
It was never clear why this trip-authorization argument
was relevant. Presumably it was meant to discredit Wilson
by suggesting that the guy was untrustworthy or needed
his wife’s help to get a job. (Incidentally, Wilson
and Plame denied that Plame authorized the trip, which
was ordered by her CIA superiors.)
Yet, even today, Republicans and the powerful conservative
news media are continuing this denigration of Joe Wilson.
Since the disclosures about Rove tipping Time magazine
about Mrs. Wilson’s CIA work, Bush’s defenders
have resumed the debate about who authorized Wilson’s
Niger trip.
False Memo
On July 12, the Republican National Committee distributed
“talking points” asserting that Rove’s
comments to Cooper were simply to save the reporter from
publishing a “false story based on a false premise”
– which the RNC defined as “Joe Wilson’s
allegation that the vice president sent him to Niger.”
But this assertion in the RNC’s talking-point memo
is false, even according to the Republicans’ own
citation.
Here is how the Republicans lay out their case in the
memo: “Wilson falsely claimed that it was Vice President
Cheney who sent him to Niger, but the vice president has
said he never met him and didn’t know who sent him.”
However, the talking-point memo then details what Wilson
actually said:
“Wilson says he traveled to Niger at CIA request
to help provide response to vice president’s office.
‘In February 2002, I was informed by officials at
the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Cheney’s
office had questions about a particular intelligence report.
… The agency officials asked if I would travel to
Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response
to the vice president’s office.’”
So, Wilson is not claiming that Dick Cheney “sent
him” to Niger. Indeed, there is no contradiction
between Wilson’s explanation about the CIA asking
him to check out a report that had interested Cheney and
Cheney’s statement that he didn’t know Wilson.
The RNC’s accusation that Wilson lied is another
example of the continuing GOP campaign against Wilson.
It’s a case of the RNC lying, not Wilson lying.
Neocon Strategy
The “talking point” memo also is a classic
example of how the neoconservatives have used rhetorical
games since the early 1980s when they rose to power under
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
When people have come up with information that can cause
the neocons trouble, the neocons have applied an approach
called “controversializing” the accuser.
The process works whether that person is a federal prosecutor
(as in the case of Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence
Walsh), a member of Congress (as with Rep. Henry Gonzalez
and his probe of George H.W. Bush’s secret aid to
Iraq); a journalist (as with New York Times correspondent
Raymond Bonner, who wrote about Central American death
squads in the early 1980s); or a private citizen (like
Wilson was when he questioned Bush’s use of the
yellowcake allegations).
In 1991-92, for instance, Walsh – a lifelong Republican
– closed in on the obstruction of justice that had
surrounded the Iran-Contra scandal for five years. Walsh’s
investigation broke through the White House cover-up when
his staff discovered hidden notes belonging to former
Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.
The notes made clear that there was widespread knowledge
of the 1985 illegal arms shipments to Iran and that George
Bush Sr. had been lying when he claimed that he was “not
in the loop” on the covert Iranian shipments.
Walsh Bashing
The belated discovery led to indictments against senior
CIA officials and Weinberger. In retaliation, the conservative
Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal’s
editorial page fired near-daily barrages at Walsh often
over trivial matters, such as his first-class air fare
or room-service meals.
Congressional Republicans also denounced Walsh and called
for an end to his investigation. Key mainstream columnists
and editorial writers for the Washington Post
and the New York Times – along with many
TV pundits – joined in the Walsh bashings. Walsh
was mocked as a modern-day Captain Ahab, the character
from Moby Dick.
In his memoir, Firewall, Walsh compared his
trying experience to another maritime classic, Ernest
Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea. In that story,
an aging fisherman hooks a giant marlin and, after a long
battle, secures the fish to side of his boat. On the way
back to port, the marlin is attacked by sharks that devour
its flesh and deny the fisherman his prize.
“As the independent counsel, I sometimes felt like
the old man,” Walsh wrote, “more often, I
felt like the marlin.”
The congressional and media attacks limited Walsh's ability
to pursue other false statements by senior Reagan-Bush
officials. Those perjury inquiries could have unraveled
a variety of national-security mysteries of the 1980s
and helped correct the history of the era. But Walsh could
not overcome the pack-like hostility of official Washington.
Rep. Gonzalez, D-Texas, encountered similar ridicule
in 1991-92 when he revealed that George H.W. Bush and
other senior Republicans had followed an ill-fated covert
policy of coddling Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.
Nazi Investments
The Bush family’s success in brushing aside scandals
dates back even further to when Prescott Bush, George
W. Bush’s grandfather, escaped disgrace despite
his role in helping to finance the Nazi war machine in
the years before World War II.
By the mid-1930s, Prescott Bush was a managing partner
of Brown Brothers Harriman, which handled a variety of
sensitive investments in Germany. When Germany and Japan
went to war against the United States in 1941, these holdings
became political liabilities.
The U.S. government seized the property of the Hamburg-Amerika
line under the Trading with the Enemy Act in August 1942.
The government also moved against affiliates of the Union
Banking Corporation where Nazi financial backer Fritz
Thyssen had placed money. UBC was run by Brown Brothers
Harriman, and Prescott Bush was a UBC director.
For many public figures, allegations of trading with
the enemy would have been a political kiss of death, but
the disclosures barely left a lipstick smudge on Prescott
Bush, Averell Harriman and others implicated in the Nazi
business dealings.
“Politically, the significance of these dealings
– the great surprise – is that none of it
seemed to matter much over the next decade or so,”
wrote Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty. “A
few questions would be raised, but Democrat Averell Harriman
would not be stopped from becoming federal mutual security
administrator in 1951 or winning election as governor
of New York in 1954. …
“Nor would Republican Prescott Bush (who was elected
senator from Connecticut in 1952) and his presidential
descendants be hurt in any of their future elections.
It is almost as if these various German embroilments,
despite their potential for scandal, were regarded as
unfortunate but in essence business as usual.”
But the quick dissipation of the Nazi financial scandal
was only a portent of the Bush family’s future.
Unlike politicians of lower classes, the Bushes seemed
to operate in a bubble impervious to accusations of impropriety.
[For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy &
Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to
Iraq.]
That protective bubble has grown thicker over the decades
with the emergence of a strong conservative news media
that can be counted on to defend George W. Bush’s
interests regardless of the merits of his position.
Parallel Universe
Yet, in the continuing assault on former Ambassador Wilson,
Bush’s political allies seem to be testing the limits
of how far they can lure Americans into a parallel universe
where Bush and his White House team are always beyond
reproach.
Rather than finally accept that some senior officials
in the White House may have acted improperly two years
ago in divulging the identity of Wilson’s wife as
a covert CIA officer, the Republican attack machine has
stayed on the offensive.
“The angry Left is trying to smear” Rove,
declared Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman, even
as White House officials refused to answer questions by
citing an “ongoing investigation.” [Washington
Post, July 13, 2005]
So Rove – famous for his smear campaigns against
George W. Bush’s opponents from Texas Gov. Ann Richards
to Arizona Sen. John McCain – is being reinvented
as a blameless victim.
Recent history also is being turned on its head. What
should be clear by this point is that the Bush administration
was determined in 2002 to construct a case for invading
Iraq regardless of the evidence and was using weapons
of mass destruction as the hot button that was sure to
terrify the American people.
According to the infamous Downing Street Memo on July
23, 2002, Richard Dearlove, chief of the British intelligence
agency MI6, described his discussions with Bush’s
National Security Council officials.
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military
action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and
WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around
the policy,” Dearlove said.
The memo added, “It seemed clear that Bush had
made up his mind to take military action, even if the
timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam
was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability
was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”
'White Paper'
Though the British knew how flimsy the case was, Prime
Minister Tony Blair agreed to throw in his lot with Bush
for the sake of the Anglo-American alliance.
On Sept. 24, 2002, Blair’s government published
a “white paper” on Iraq’s WMD stating,
“there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the
supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
While this statement was technically true, the reality
was that the so-called “intelligence” resulted
from an apparent forgery.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003, Bush
then cited the British “white paper” in what
became known as the “sixteen words.” In making
his case for war with Iraq, Bush said, “The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Little more than a month later, on March 7, 2003, the
International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the Niger documents
as “not authentic.” The next day, a State
Department spokesman acknowledged that the U.S. government
“fell for it.”
Wilson – a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Niger
– then appeared on CNN, saying that the U.S. government
had more information about the Niger fabrication. After
that appearance, Wilson wrote in his memoir, The Politics
of Truth, that sources told him that a meeting in
the vice president’s office led to a decision “to
produce a workup” to discredit Wilson.
Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.
Though U.S. forces ousted Saddam Hussein’s government
three weeks later, no caches of WMD were discovered, nor
was there any evidence of an active nuclear-weapons program.
On July 6, 2003, Wilson wrote an op-ed article for the
New York Times entitled “What I Didn’t
Find in Africa” and appeared on NBC’s “Meet
the Press” to elaborate on his conclusion that Iraq
had not tried to buy uranium from Niger. Two days later,
Wilson wrote in his memoir, right-wing columnist Robert
Novak told one of Wilson’s friends that he (Novak)
knew about Plame’s work for the CIA.
On July 11, 2003, Time magazine correspondent
Cooper wrote an internal e-mail saying that he “spoke
to Rove on double super secret background” and had
gotten a “big warning” not to “get too
far out on Wilson.” Rove was pushing the theme that
Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by Cheney
or CIA Director George Tenet, but rather “wilson’s
wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues.”
The timing of Cooper’s e-mail was significant because
it preceded Novak’s public disclosure of Plame’s
name three days later on July 14. That meant Rove, a political
operative, had been given a discrete intelligence secret
– the identity of a covert CIA officer – prior
to its appearance in the public domain.
Novak Column
In the July 14 column, Novak also stressed the supposed
relevance of Wilson’s wife allegedly intervening
to get Wilson the assignment. “Two senior administration
officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending
him to Niger to investigate” the yellowcake report.
After Novak’s column, the Bush administration appears
to have intensified its campaign to discredit Wilson.
On July 20, 2003, NBC’s correspondent Andrea Mitchell
told Wilson that “senior White House sources”
had called her to stress “the real story here is
not the 16 words … but Wilson and his wife,”
according to Wilson’s memoir.
The next day, Wilson said he was told by MSNBC’s
Chris Matthews that “I just got off the phone with
Karl Rove. He says and I quote, ‘Wilson’s
wife is fair game.’ I will confirm that if asked.”
In that time frame, Novak told Newsday that
he was approached by the his sources with the information
about Plame. “I didn’t dig it out, it was
given to me,” Novak said. “They thought it
was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”
[Newsday, July 22, 2003]
On July 30, 2003, the CIA requested a Justice Department
investigation into the disclosure of a covert CIA officer,
leading to the appointment of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
as a special prosecutor five months later.
So far the Bush administration has been able to contain
the damage from the scandal. Rove personally oversaw Bush’s
re-election campaign in 2004, when the Plame case was
barely mentioned. After Bush’s victory, Bush promoted
Rove to deputy White House chief of staff.
Since the scandal has resurfaced in the past few weeks
– as New York Times reporter Judith Miller
went to jail rather than divulge her sources and Time
magazine agreed to cooperate with Fitzgerald – the
White House has refused to comment while letting the RNC
and the conservative news media carry the fight.
On July 13, 2005, the Wall Street Journal editorial
depicted Rove as not just a victim, but a hero. “Mr.
Rove is turning out to be the real ‘whistleblower’
in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal,” the editorial
said. “Mr. Rove provided important background so
Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t
a whistleblower but a partisan trying to discredit the
Iraq War in an election campaign.”
The pundits on Fox News and on right-wing talk radio
have pounded out similar messages to their audiences.
Still, whether George W. Bush can match his father and
grandfather in turning aside scandal is yet to be decided.
Comment:
Wishful thinking can be the downfall of the proud and
arrogant. They overlook a detail, they believe their own
lies and underestimate others, they are so removed from
reality, and in the case of the White House, even boast
about it, that sometimes a small slip can bring down the
house of cards.
So maybe, just maybe, this incident could threaten the
Bush administration. But rest assured that if that looks
like a possibility, the war on terrorism will be brought
back to the shores of the United States in order to once
again recast GW in the role of commander-in-chief.
If the words someone
speaks do not match reality, are they lies? If a person
sincerely believes what he is saying but the words are
not true, is that still a lie? If a person suffers from
megalomania and announces that he is Napoleon or Jesus
or a deity, is it a lie from his standpoint? If we strongly
disbelieve someone saying they are Napoleon or Jesus or
a deity doesn’t that make them a liar?
When we examine a person’s credibility do we categorize
lies into big dark ones and little bitty white ones? Should
we distinguish between playful evasions and outrageous
untruth?? Should we distinguish between lies, falsehoods,
fabrications, deceit, fibs, prevarications, misinformation,
mendacity, dishonesty, mendacity, untruthfulness, perversion,
misconduct, equivocation, dodging the truth, spinning
the truth, evading the truth, knavery, and half-truths?
Should we overlook that fact that everybody, at one time
or another, has lied consciously in order to escape some
consequence of their actions, or to obtain some advantage?
Is there anyone who has never said a phrase like, “No,
I never saw it’ or “Not me” or “I
have no idea of how that happened” when you did
something. Even examining the history of Church saints
one realizes that prevarication was in general use.
About half of the U.S. general population has lived through
a period when President Bill Clinton presented a fascinating
display and classification of lying to protect him from
the consequences of at least one blow-job. In case you
have forgotten, or somehow missed this presentation, it
created a National fire-storm of moral indignation, high
dudgeon, string-him-up rhetoric, and endless prying into
sordid detail of pleasures supposedly forbidden to politicians.
Preachers wrung their hands in anguish at such goings-on,
supposedly never seen before by civilized men, and thundered
that the world was at the point of collapse into some
sort of divine destruction.
Senators pressed their avid noses into the metaphorical
crotch of a buxom intern, and reveled in details of kneeling
pads, cigars, and positions taken. Drooling seemed to
occur daily with calls for ever more details. Some of
the sex-repressed senators must have come close to sexual
climax with juicy details of how stains got on a dress.
Clinton responded with a definition of what IS is, and
several distinguished senators came close to apoplexy
before and after terms of impeachment. Certainly nearly
half of Congress decided that lying merited impeachment,
if not castration. Their wrath, their fuming and fulminating
were high theater for people glued to their television
screen. And, it is reported, that several adventurous
souls tried variations of the missionary position by reading
the Kama Sutra.
We have no idea how many yards of cloth were ruined by
moist stains after this debauchery.
When does lying become treason? Is it not when lives
are lost on the basis of deliberate misinformation, and
wars fought on the basis of some pretended intention or
Napoleonic-like dream of world conquest? Is it not when
national reputation, morals and morale is damaged by deliberate
misinformation?
But here again we face the megalomania part of the scheme.
Is it treason if people suffering some form of mania believe
their own lies? Is it lying when a leader is told that
he is really above the law, and by finding clever definitions
evades the law? Is it lying when someone has been brain-washed
from their alcoholic stupor by religious devotees into
thinking they are selected by some deity to legislate
quotations from their sacred book?
Half of Congress, about the same half and people that
vociferously demanded the impeachment of Bill Clinton,
are remarkably uninterested in any details of any sort
of shenanigans the President has perpetuated. Lies, for
them, seem to be relative to party discipline, and irrelevant
to any sort of legalistic inquiry. All the corruption,
missing billions, corporate criminality, sycophant chorus
lies of a venal overly-aggressive True Believer cabinet,
civil repression, etc., are too frivolous to be noticed.
All the failures, the unfulfilled promises, the misuse
of public funds, are simply minor details to be quickly
forgotten in the pursuit of corporate profit. After all,
Bush did get that dangerous felon, Martha Steward, even
if Ken Lay is walking about free as a swallow.
Lies, for many people, are worthwhile if the ends to
be gained are worthwhile. To pronounce someone EVIL and
then declare war is a perfectly good way to make air-bases,
start a plan for world conquest, and get scarce resources.
Having several thousand soldiers die for lies is no big
deal when the stakes are set by Almighty God himself whispering
into the ear of a President. It was worth-while for Julius
Caesar, so it should be good enough for our Saint George.
Golly, he would gladly have sacrificed many times that
number of lives, U.S. and Iraqi, for his vision of world
domination and apocalypse. At least he says it was worthwhile,
and that’s all that counts. Right?
It may all be relative, but we must ask: Does George
W. Bush lie? Does he lie habitually or only incidentally?
Does he lie from some mania or psychosis? And, finally,
do his lies add up to an impeacheable offense?
Comment:
The question not asked is: if his lies add up to an impeachable
offense, is there the will in Congress, or the votes,
to follow through?
And if Bush went, would Cheney follow, or would he ascend
to the Oval Office?
By Jesœs Davila, El
Diario
July, 2005
Translated from Spanish by Carolina Gonzalez.
Official
US. government reports on soldiers under US command killed
in Iraq are so fragmented that they account for less than
half of the total number, according to information uncovered
as part of an inquiry by the Government of Puerto Rico
regarding the total number of Puerto Rican war casualties.
This analysis was confirmed by El Diario/La Prensa's
review of multiple documents, including official reports
issued by the US Department of Defense, the Iraqi Ministry
of the Interior and more than 230 battlefront reports,
which reveal that more than 4,076
troops under US command have been killed in 799 days of
battle.
This information contrasts markedly with the limited
information on casualties generally issued by US military
authorities, which focus only on US uniformed troops.
These total 1,649.
Military affairs expert Jose Rodriguez Beruff from the
University of Puerto Rico said that the figures showing
more than 4,000 dead indicate that, far from winning the
war in Iraq, "what is happening is that the troops
are being worn down." He said that traditional theorists
calculate that for an armed invading force to win a guerrilla
war, its casualties should be one to ten of its enemy's.
In this case, that would require 40,000 casualties among
the insurgents.
In addition, Rodriguez Reduff warned that the reports
should be reviewed on an ongoing basis, as he suspects
that the number of casualties is even higher.
Calculations are even more difficult when it comes to
the wounded, which US authorities number at more than
12,600, and medical discharges -- those maimed or suffering
from physical and mental injuries -- about whom only partial
reports can be obtained. In this category,
large discrepancies in counts have been publicized by
news outlets such as the national German Press Agency
(DPA), which ran a story reporting on US Army documents
putting the number of US soldiers with war-related mental
ailments at 100,000. That issue is more controversial.
The Argentine press agency Argenpress reported about 17,000
unreported cases of war-related mental illness. But no
matter the scenario, the numbers of wounded and medical
discharges are larger than those officially announced,
as is the case with casualties.
The figures came to light in the course of an ongoing
investigation that El Diario/La Prensa is making
on the number of Puerto Rican and Hispanic casualties
in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That inquiry prompted
Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY) and Anibal Acevedo Vila,
then Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, to request a full casualty report, which yielded
a partial list with 200 Puerto Rican losses, including
casualties, wounded and medical discharges.
After his election as Governor, Acevedo Vila renewed
his request to the Department of Defense for a total and
specific accounting, but as of press time he had yet to
receive an answer.
According to documents reviewed by this paper, in addition
to the 1,649 fatalities among US uniformed troops, there
were 88 from Great Britain, 92 from other coalition member
countries, 238 reported by private contractors, and at
least 2,000 from members of the Iraqi Army. The biggest
defect in published counts is the missing casualties among
Iraqi troops under command of the occupying forces.
Today I’m going
to do something a little bit like journalism, except I
haven’t done any real follow-up. Still, it’s
an important issue, and I’d like any Google maestros
reading to help.
Go to your local newspaper site, or TV station site,
and do a search for “local man woman killed wounded
Iraq”. Weed out the duplicates, total the numbers,
and then check them against the casualty lists, because
there’s something funny going on here.
I started to notice something several
months ago. The local papers would interview the mother
of someone killed or wounded in Iraq, and more often than
not, there’d be a bitter aside: “Of course,
for some reason, he’s not included in the official
totals.”
Somehow, that struck a chord. And the thought crystallized:
They’re lying about the numbers. Think about it
it’s absurd to think they wouldn’t,
considering everything else they’ve done.
So, I started reading. Here’s what I’ve found.
[...]
U.S.
Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en
route to German hospitals have not previously been counted.They total about 6,210 as of 1 January,
2005.The ongoing, underreporting
of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately
reducing the figures. A review of many foreign
news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than
the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are
never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent
and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the
numbers are just under 100,000. [...]
The government gets away with
these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only
soldiers actually killed on the ground in Iraq are reported.
The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route
to military hospitals outside of the country and not reported
on the daily postings.Anyone
who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad
airport is not listed and neither are those who die in
the US military hospitals. Their families are certainly
notified that their son, husband, brother or lover was
dead and the bodies, or what is left of them (refrigeration
is very bad in Iraq what with constant power outages)
are shipped home, to Dover AFB.
You ought to realize that President Bush personally ordered
that no pictures be taken of the coffined and flag-draped
dead under any circumstances. He claims that this is to
comfort the bereaved relatives but is designed to keep
the huge number of arriving bodies secret. Any civilian,
or military personnel, taking pictures will be jailed
at once and prosecuted.
Bush has never attended any kind of a memorial service
for his dead soldiers and never will. He is terrified
some parent might curse him in front of the press or,
worse, attack him. As Bush is a coward and in denial,
this is not a surprise. [...]
A Lithuanian court
has fined the owner of a popular newspaper 3,000 litas
for publishing an anti-Semitic editorial.
Vitas Tomkus, the owner and editor-in-chief of the daily
Respublika, was found liable for his scurrilous
attacks aimed at homosexuals and Jews. In an editorial
published last year, entitled "Who Rules the World?,"
Tomkus warned readers to be suspicious of America, because
it, "is ruled by Jews." He added that "Jews
use the issue of the Holocaust to conceal their own crimes."
An editorial cartoon, also published last year, depicts
a caricatured Jewish figure holding aloft a globe. He
is standing next to a man identified as a homosexual.
Representatives of Lithuania's 4,000 Jews testified in
court. One spokesperson accused the paper of "openly
promoting anti-Semitic hysteria." The incident had
provoked denouncements from around the world, including
the United States. In a letter to the Lithuanian ambassador
from New Jersey Senator Steve Rothman, signed by 19 other
congressman, the Senator warns: "[P]rejudice against
Jews and gays will only threaten the stability of trans-
Atlantic relations between Lithuania and the United States
and potentially slow the progress of the Republic of Lithuania's
integration into European institutions."
A Danish pizzeria owner
has gone to jail for refusing to pay a fine imposed after
he barred German and French customers from his restaurant.
Aage Bjerre acted in protest against the French and German
governments' opposition to the US-led war in Iraq.
He will now serve an eight-day sentence at a minimum
security prison, the Associated Press reports.
"I'm doing it to show my sympathy with the United
States," he said. He refused to pay a 5,000-kroner
(£461;$800) fine.
In June 2003 a Danish court convicted of him of racial
discrimination.
The 46-year-old was forced to sell his pizzeria on the
western island of Fanoe after repeated vandalism and a
plunge in sales.
In February 2003 he had put up signs at his pizzeria
with bars through the images of people coloured in the
French and German flags.
He also reprinted his menus without German translations.
The island is a popular spot with tourists from neighbouring
Germany, but there are few French visitors to Fanoe, which
has a year-round population of 3,300.
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing
and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Financial Times
Published: July 14 2005
"If the Americans draw their
missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target
zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond
with nuclear weapons," said General Zhu Chenghu.
Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists
organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added
that China's definition of its territory included warships
and aircraft.
"If the Americans are determined to interfere
[then] we will be determined to respond," said
Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National
Defence University.
"We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction
of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans
will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities
will be destroyed by the Chinese."
Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged "hawk" who
has warned that China could strike the US with long-range
missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a
conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior
Chinese official in nearly a decade. [...]
Gen Zhu said his views did not represent
official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war
with the US.
Britain was prepared to use nuclear
weapons against states such as Iraq if they ever used
"weapons of mass destruction" against British
troops in the field, said Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon
on Wednesday.
Hoon told the MPs that he was not certain Britain's
nuclear arsenal would deter a first strike from a state
willing to sacrifice its own people to make a "gesture".
Bush orders Pentagon to target seven nations for attack
By Patrick Martin 11
March 2002
The Bush administration has told
the US military to greatly expand preparations for the
use of nuclear weapons in future wars, according to
press reports on the weekend which have been confirmed
by the Pentagon and White House.
The Pentagon has been directed to develop contingency
plans for nuclear attacks on seven different countries.
These include China and Russia,
the two powers which have long been targeted by the
US nuclear arsenal; Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the
three countries demonized by Bush as the "axis
of evil" in his State of the Union speech; and
Libya and Syria.
An initial draft of this report, called the "Nuclear
Posture Review," was delivered to Congress on January
8. A copy of the classified material was obtained by
William Arkin, military columnist for the Los Angeles
Times, and the newspaper reported its contents March
9. The New York Times obtained the same material a day
later. [...]
CAIRO - The alleged bomb-maker
in the July 7 London terror attacks has been arrested
in Cairo, where he is being interrogated,
Egyptian officials said.
They named the man on Friday as 33-year-old Magdy Nashar
and said he had been arrested "several days ago."
The did not give any further details.
British police said Friday they were "aware"
of an arrest in Egypt in connection with the investigation
into last week's London bombings.
"We are aware of an arrest made
in Cairo but are not prepared to discuss if we may or
may not wish to interview (the person) in connection
with this investigation," a spokeswoman for London's
Metropolitan Police told AFP.
"This remains a fast-moving investigation with
a number of lines of enquiry, some of which may have
an international dimension."
The US network ABC News reported the
arrest earlier Friday, saying Nashar is the alleged
bomb-maker behind the attacks on three Underground trains
and a double-decker bus that killed at least 54 people
and injured some 700.
Citing sources including the
FBI, ABC said the detained man helped set up
the attackers' bomb factory and left Britain two weeks
before the blasts.
Previous reports in Britain said police were seeking
a man with a similar name
who had been studying for a doctorate in chemistry at
Leeds University, in the same city where three of the
suspected bombers lived.
A British grant-awarding group said Friday it had given
the man financial support to pursue research which had
an industrial application.
Comment: So,
Egypt arrests a "terrorist" who is now being
tortured - er, interrogated. The reader may recall that
Egypt has been the foremost destination for many years
now for prisoners rendered to other nations by the US:
[...] Extraordinary rendition,
the American practice of exporting
foreigners suspected of involvement in terrorism to
countries where torture is routine, has been practised
since the mid-1990s, but became frequent after
the 11 September attacks. Egypt
is the most common destination, but suspects
have also been sent to Syria, Morocco and Jordan.
[...]
BRUSSELS - British Home Secretary
Charles Clarke on Wednesday ruled out setting up surveillance
at mosques after last week's London bombings, following
a proposal to do so by French Interior Minister Nicolas
Sarkozy.
"We are considering the position of some of the
preachers in certain circumstances and if it is necessary
to do so," Clarke said in Brussels after a meeting
of EU interior ministers.
"But I think to move to an overall position that
says surveillance is the right way is a big step which
we need to consider carefully.
"It is important in everything that we do, that
we work with the legitimate mainstream Muslim community
and do not alienate what they do," he
said.
Police now believe that four young British Muslims
of Pakistani origin carried out last Thursday's morning
rush-hour bombings, killing at least 52 people and injuring
some 700.
In his statement to the ministers,
Sarkozy said that places of worship should be watched
to help stop radical preachers recruiting militants.
Clarke said he did not criticise the
proposal but that he thought Sarkozy might have been
proposing something that was more appropriate for France.
MADRID - A man was seriously injured
when a letter bomb exploded as he opened it at his home
in the northwestern city of La Coruna, Spanish state
radio said on Thursday.
Police were investigating the explosion, which shattered
car windows in the street outside, the radio said.
On Tuesday, a metal coffee pot packed with explosives
blew up in the doorway of the Italian Culture Institute
in Barcelona on Tuesday, slightly wounding a policeman.
Later the same day, four bombs exploded near a power
station in Spain's Basque country after a warning from
Basque separatist guerrillas ETA. They caused no damage
or injuries.
SCHIZOPHRENIA
was much more common in the developed world, possibly
because people with the mental illness in poorer countries
were more likely to recover, an Australian expert
said today.
In the most comprehensive survey of the prevalence of
schizophrenia worldwide, John McGrath and colleagues from
the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, reviewed
data from 188 studies published between 1965 and 2002.
Their findings are expected to rewrite international
textbooks on the devastating mental illness characterised
by symptoms such as hallucinations, delusions, disorganised
communication, poor planning and reduced motivation.
Although previous research by Professor
McGrath's team found the number of new cases emerging
each year were similar in both western and developing
nations, the latest survey finds the prevalence is "significantly
lower" in poorer countries.
Although the reasons were still largely
a mystery, Prof McGrath said people with the disorder
in the developing world had a better prognosis.
"If you get schizophrenia in a place
like India, for example, you tend to have a type of illness
that recovers," Prof McGrath said.
"If you get schizophrenia in a place
like New York or London, you tend to have an illness that's
less likely to respond to treatment.
"It's extremely paradoxical. You'd think in the
developed world like Australia, the UK, Canada and America
we'd have better treatments so you'd be more likely to
recover but that's not the case." [...]
The survey, published recently in the American-based
journal, Public Library of Science Medicine, also confirms
schizophrenia is more common in migrants than in native-born
people.
Again, the reasons are unclear but migrants with darker
skin tend to have an increased risk of schizophrenia,
suggesting lack of vitamin D may play a part.
"It could be stress-related to racism, it could
be vitamin D, it could be something we don't know about,"
Prof McGrath said.
While textbooks worldwide commonly report schizophrenia
affects one in 100 people no matter where people live,
the survey finds this is over-stated.
Prof McGrath said rates varied worldwide and the overall
prevalence was more likely to be between seven and eight
in 1000 people.
Published online: 13 July 2005;
| doi:10.1038/news050711-4
Mark Peplow
Nature
Movement
into the past gets one step less improbable.
One of the major difficulties of travelling backwards
in time has just been solved, according to an Israeli
theoretical physicist. And the solution, he says, is doughnut-shaped.
Trips in time have been theoretically possible ever since
Einstein worked out that heavy masses can warp both time
and space, and that objects travelling close to the speed
of light tend to experience the passage of time more slowly.
Moving forwards in time is therefore easy. Certain short-lived
cosmic particles, for example, can be seen on Earth. Their
journey looks to us as if it has taken thousands of years,
but the particle feels as though it has whipped across
space in just a few minutes, and arrives on Earth before
it has had time to decay. In effect, the particle has
travelled into the future, living beyond its years.
But getting back to the past is more problematic. Researchers
thought you would need all kinds of strange things to
do this, including a neutron star (which we know to exist),
worm holes (which we don't), and a kind of exotic matter
that we can only imagine.
Time present and time past
This is where Amos Ori from Technion, the Israel Institute
of Technology in Haifa, comes in. He says that according
to Einstein's theories, space can be twisted enough to
create a local gravity field that looks like a doughnut
of some arbitrary size. The gravitational field lines
circle around the outside of this doughnut, so that space
and time are both tightly curved back on themselves. Crucially,
this does away with the need for any hypothetical exotic
matter.
Although it is difficult to describe what this would
look or be like in real life, Ori says the mathematics
reveal that every period of time between when the doughnut
was created and the present moment would be somewhere
in the vacuum inside the doughnut. All you need to do
is work out how to get there.
In theory, it should be possible to travel back to any
point in time after the time machine was built, reports
Ori in Physical Review Letters1. One slight snag
is that he has not worked out how to generate the gravitational
doughnut, although he has some ideas. "It's wild
speculation, but you may need to move large masses rapidly
in a circular motion," Ori says.
An abstraction
"The paper is a welcome addition to the subject,
and it does look like an improvement on the previous models,"
says Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at Macquarie
University in Sydney, Australia, and author of How
to Build a Time Machine.
The leading model of travel into the past involves zipping
through a wormhole, which offers a shortcut between two
distant points in space. If you could connect a wormhole
between Earth and something very heavy, such as a neutron
star, this would set up a time difference between the
two ends. This is thanks to the fact that mass can warp
space and time, such that a clock on the surface of a
dense neutron star would run about 30% slower than it
does on Earth.
But wormholes are tricky beasts, and need something to
stop them collapsing under their own intense gravity.
Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicist at the California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, has speculated that
some form of exotic antigravity matter would be needed
to keep the wormhole open. Unfortunately for eager time
lords, physicists have never seen anything like this.
A perpetual possibility
There are still difficulties to overcome with the doughnut
model, however. Davis thinks that the instability of the
compact vacuum core might be an insurmountable problem.
"Closed time-like curves are inherently unstable
against quantum fluctuations," he says. He expects
a huge energy surge inside the doughnut would probably
destroy it.
Ori agrees that energy fluctuations might be problematic,
but thinks this is probably soluble. "Unfortunately
it's not going to be in existence in our generation, or
maybe ever," he says. Still, he puts the chances
of ever being able to construct a time machine at 50:50.
References
1. Ori A., et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95.
021101 (2005).
Comment:
Should we take Ori seriously? The article ends with:
"Unfortunately it's not going
to be in existence in our generation, or maybe ever,"
he says. Still, he puts the chances of ever being able
to construct a time machine at 50:50.
Well, if there is a 50% chance that a future generation
may be able to construct a time machine, then there is
a pretty good chance that they "already" constructed
it in the future, and we are being manipulated by them.
But Ori evidently does not want to bring his reasoning
to the logical conclusion!
We are terrorized by thoughts of space rocks with 0.01
probability of impact. What about 50% probability of being
impacted by the future?
The great physicist took his own peep at the paranormal
74 years ago. George Pendle tells of 'spooky action'
Thursday July 14, 2005
The Guardian
The 100th anniversary
of Albert Einstein's "annus mirabilis" has not
passed quietly. Newspapers, magazines and TV documentaries
have all trumpeted the year in which Einstein published
five papers fundamentally rethinking the laws of time
and space. This year also marks the 50th anniversary of
the former patent clerk's death.
Yet lying between these two dates is a less well-known
anniversary. It is 74 years since Einstein attended the
only seance of his life. What could have persuaded Einstein,
harbinger of the scientific age, to attend such an unscientific
event?[...]
In Pasadena, the 51-year-old Einstein found solace in
the company of one of the locale's most notorious gadflies,
the author Upton Sinclair. The Michael Moore of his time,
Sinclair's The Jungle (1906) had exposed the
unsanitary conditions and labour exploitation rife in
Chicago's meat-packing industry. The book caused a national
outcry and so horrified President Theodore Roosevelt that
he reputedly threw his sausages out of the White House
window.
Sinclair went on to write further jeremiads against big
business, yet his latest project was quite different.
He had become obsessed with extra-sensory perception and
had written a book, Mental Radio (1930), about
experiments he had conducted that seemed to prove telepathy's
existence.
Sinclair had sent Einstein a copy of Mental Radio before
his arrival in the US. Einstein was a great admirer of
Sinclair's previous, muckraking works and offered to write
an open-minded, if ultimately non-committal, preface.
[...]
Other than in the preface to Mental Radio, Einstein
had never professed any kind of interest, let alone belief,
in supernatural beings or extra-sensory powers. "Even
if I saw a ghost," he once said, "I wouldn't
believe it." But Sinclair was particularly excited
by a new prospect he had been nurturing and thought that
this was his best chance to convert Einstein to his cause.
Count Roman Ostoja was a muscular, dark-eyed man who
claimed to be a Polish aristocrat, although he was really
from Cleveland, Ohio. He had been working the west coast
under the stage name of Nostradamus and gained plaudits
for being buried underground in a coffin for three hours.
He claimed to have studied under "occult masters"
in India and Tibet and had wowed Sinclair with his mind-reading.
Nevertheless, Ostoja must have been slightly overawed
by what was now suggested to him. Sinclair wanted Ostoja
to conduct a seance at his house to which would be invited
not only Einstein, but Richard Tolman, soon to be chief
scientific adviser to the Manhattan Project, and Paul
Epstein, Caltech's professor of theoretical physics. When
the evening came, Sinclair addressed the learned crowd,
warning them not to panic. At a previous seance Ostoja
had managed to levitate a table, while in a trance. If
Ostoja could repeat the performance for the scientists,
surely the world would not ridicule Sinclair's interest.
Helen Dukas, Einstein's secretary, remembered being "frightened
to death" by the proceedings. Ostoja went into a
cataleptic trance and began mumbling incomprehensible
words. Each of the guests was invited to ask him questions.
Silence fell, the table shook, "and then," remembered
Dukas, "nothing happened". Sinclair was distraught.
He grumbled about "non-believers" being present
at the table.
Curiously enough, when Einstein was asked, years later,
about his beliefs in the telepathic experiments of Dr
JB Rhine, then studying parapsychology at Duke University,
he stressed his scepticism in strictly scientific terms.
All of Rhine's experiments had reported that psi-forces
did not decline with distance, unlike the four known forces
of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force
and the weak force. "This suggests to me a very strong
indication that a non-recognised source of systematic
errors may have been involved," Einstein wrote.
Indeed it was scientific fallacies such as these, rather
than drawing room seances, that could most reliably send
a shiver up Einstein's spine. When he was confronted with
seemingly illogical phenomena in quantum mechanics - where
particles appear to communicate instantaneously with each
other - he chose to label it in terms more suited to one
of Sinclair's seances as "spooky action-at-a-distance".
The good news is that
polls continue to show that between one and two-thirds
of the public thinks that extraterrestrial life exists.
The weird news is that a similar fraction thinks that
some of it is visiting Earth.
Several recent television shows have soberly addressed
the possibility that alien craft are violating our air
space, occasionally touching down long enough to allow
their crews to conduct bizarre (and, in most states, illegal)
experiments on hapless citizens. While these shows tantalize
viewers by suggesting that they are finally going to get
to the bottom of the so-called "UFO debate",
they never do. That bottom seems perennially out of reach.[...]
Additional evidence that is endlessly cited is "expert
testimony." Pilots, astronauts, and others with experienced
eyes and impressive credentials have all claimed to see
odd craft in the skies. It’s safe to say that these
witnesses have seen something. But just because you don’t
recognize an aerial phenomenon doesn’t mean that
it’s an extraterrestrial visitor. That requires
additional evidence that, so far, seems to be as unconvincing
as the trickery-free saucer snaps.
What about those folks who have experienced alien beings
first-hand? Abduction stories are an entirely separate
field of study and one which I won’t address here,
although I must confess that it’s intriguing to
see photos of scoop marks on the flesh of human subjects,
coupled with the claim that these minor disfigurements
are due to alien malfeasance. But even aside from the
puzzling question of why beings from distant suns would
come to Earth to melon-ball the locals, this evidence
is, once again, ambiguous. The scoops might be due to
aliens, and then again, they could be the consequence
of spousal abuse or many other causes.
When push came to shove, and when pressed as to whether
there’s real proof of extraterrestrial visitation,
the experts on this show backed off by saying that "well,
we don’t know where they come from. But something
is definitely going on." The latter statement is
hardly controversial. The former is merely goofy. If the
saucers and scoopers are not from outer space, where,
exactly, are they from? Belgium?
The bottom line is that the evidence for extraterrestrial
visitors has not convinced many scientists. Very few academics
are writing papers for refereed journals about alien craft
or their occupants. Confronted with this, the UFO experts
usually take refuge in two possible explanations:
The material that would be convincing proof has been
collected and secreted away by the U.S. government.
While endlessly appealing, this is an argument from
ignorance (tantamount to saying "we can’t
show you good evidence because we haven’t got
it"), and perforce implies that every government
in the world has efficiently squirreled away all alien
artifacts. Unless, of course, the extraterrestrials
only visit the U.S., where retrieval of material that
falls to Earth is supposedly a perfected art form.
Scientists have simply refused to look carefully at
this phenomenon. In other words, the scientists should
blame themselves for the fact that the visitation hypothesis
has failed to sway them.
Not only is this unfair, it’s misguided. Sure,
rather few researchers have themselves gone into the field
to sift through the stories, the videos, and the odd photos
that comprise the evidence for alien presence. But they
don’t have to. This complaint is akin to telling
movie critics that films would be better if only they
would pitch in and get behind the camera. But critics
can compose excellent and accurate evaluations of a movie
without being participants in the business of making films.
The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not
those who find the data dubious. If there are investigators
who are convinced that craft from other worlds are buzzing
ours, then they should present the absolute best evidence
they have, and not resort to explanations that appeal
to conspiratorial cover-ups or the failure of others to
be open to the idea. The UFO advocates are not asking
us to believe something either trivial or peripheral,
for after all, there could hardly be any discovery more
dramatic or important than visitors from other worlds.
If we could prove that the aliens are here, I would be
as awestruck as anyone, however, I await a compelling
Exhibit A.
Comment:
Between one-third and two-third... what number could that
be? A little math shows us that it is 50%! Why couldn't
the author come out and say it?
A traffic stop in Greer,
S.C., this month is turning into a holy war of sorts,
as a practicing Druid couple claim they were targeted
by a Christian police officer who tried to convert them
away from their pagan belief.
Debra and Tony Gainey say they were pulled over because
they had a bumper sticker reading "It's A Druid Thing."
Tony Gainey was driving at the time of the stop June
10 and was taken into custody on charges of driving with
a suspended license, operating a vehicle with an improper
tag and failure to have proof of insurance.
"The reason they were stopped was the tag was improper
on the vehicle," Greer police Lt. Cris Varner told
WHNS-TV.
But Debra Gainey, a minister at the local Emerald Sanctuary
Druidic Church, believes it was the druid sticker that
prompted the traffic stop, as evinced by the conversation
with officer Tony Stewart.
"[Stewart said], 'Did those bumper stickers come
on the car or did you put them on?' and I said I put them
on," Debra said.
She says the officer asked if she knew what they meant.
"So he started talking to me about God and Jesus
Christ. ... I just felt like he was really getting into
it, I had never expected to actually follow- up with a
letter or anything."
According to Mrs. Gainey, the officer sent a card and
letter to her home address days later.
"In this letter, he promises our problems will continue
unless we listen to the words of the Baptists," she
told the station. "We're feeling like those are threats."
[...]
AP, via the Casper Star-Tribune,
USA
July 8, 2005
Paul Foy
SALT LAKE CITY (AP)
- Two women who gave their life savings to an apocalyptic
religious group will get a new trial on their terms, the
Utah Court of Appeals decided Friday.
Kaziah Hancock and Cindy Stewart
sued leaders of a polygamous church for failing to make
good on promises they'd get land, some money back and
a face- to-face visit with Jesus. The promises
were made in return for their contributions to The True
and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of The Last
Days.[...]
Stewart was promised she'd be repaid for liquidating
her retirement accounts early. Both were excommunicated
from the church in 1997 before they could redeem any promises,
court papers say.
Harmston's attorney, Kevin Bond, had argued that the
promises were rooted in church doctrine, not a business
contract that never was drafted. He
said the promises were to be fulfilled by God, not Harmston.[...]
Praying
for someone who is ill and preparing to undergo a risky
medical procedure appears to have no effect on the patient's
future health.
That's the finding of one of the largest scientific investigations
of the power of prayer, published today in the British
medical journal the Lancet. Scientists said it
undoubtedly will renew debates over whether prayer has
a measurable effect on illness and even whether it's a
suitable subject of scientific inquiry.
Researchers at Duke University recruited nearly 750 people
undergoing heart-related procedures. Religious groups
of different denominations were randomly assigned to pray
for the health of half the volunteers; the other half
received no organized prayers.
The prayers by representatives of Christian,
Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist faiths had no effect on whether
patients experienced postprocedure complications, such
as heart attack, death or readmission to the hospital.
But a nontraditional intervention known as "MIT
therapy," which involves playing music and administering
therapeutic touch at the bedside, had a slight beneficial
health effect.
Volunteers who received MIT therapy, researchers found,
had less emotional distress before their procedures and
slightly lower mortality rates six months after admission.[...]
Thu Jul 14, 2005
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
- Unborn U.S. babies are soaking
in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts
and pesticides, according to a report released on Thursday.
Although the effects on the babies are not clear, the
survey prompted several members of Congress to press for
legislation that would strengthen controls on chemicals
in the environment.
The report by the Environmental Working Group is based
on tests of 10 samples of umbilical-cord blood taken by
the American Red Cross. They found
an average of 287 contaminants in the blood, including
mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical
PFOA.
"These 10 newborn babies ... were born polluted,"
said New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who spoke a news
conference about the findings on Thursday.
"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution
laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial
chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived
outside the womb," Slaughter, a Democrat, said.
Cord blood reflects what the mother passes to the baby
through the placenta.
"Of the 287 chemicals we detected
in umbilical-cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer
in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous
system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development
in animal tests," the report said.[...]
Slaughter had similar tests done on her own blood.
"The stunning results show chemicals
daily pumping through my vital organs that include PCBs
that were banned decades ago as well as chemicals like
Teflon that are currently under federal investigation,"
she said in remarks prepared for the news conference.
"I have auto exhaust fumes, flame
retardant chemicals, and in all, some 271 harmful substances
pulsing through my veins. That's hardly the picture of
health I had hoped for, but I've been living in an industrial
society for over 70 years."
The Government Accountability Office issued a report
on Wednesday saying the Environmental Protection Agency
does not have the powers it needs to fully regulate toxic
chemicals.
The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, found that
the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act gives only "limited
assurance" that new chemicals entering the market
are safe and said the EPA only rarely assesses chemicals
already on the market.
"Today, chemicals are being used to make baby bottles,
food packaging and other products that have never been
fully evaluated for their health effects on children --
and some of these chemicals are turning up in our blood,"
said New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who plans
to co-sponsor a bill to require chemical manufacturers
to provide data to the EPA on the health affects of their
products.
An earthquake swarm
near the remote desert town of Ludlow raised eyebrows
among Southern California seismologists Thursday.
The series of roughly 30 quakes resembles
- but does not precisely mimic - a pattern of temblors
that preceded the magnitude 7.3 Landers earthquake in
1992.
The 1992 swarm started roughly seven hours before the
Landers event and was felt by people near that isolated
desert community. But, at the time, it went mostly unnoticed
by scientists.
The recent swarm began Wednesday afternoon and included
about 30 quakes, the largest being two magnitude 3.1 temblors
around 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. that evening. It continued throughout
the day and into Thursday evening.
"As a personal opinion, it is not the most reassuring
sequence I have ever seen," said Susan Hough, a seismologist
with the U.S. Geological Survey.
Hough said published academic papers have indicated a
connection between swarms of small quakes followed by
larger events in the same area. But
the connection isn't completely predictable or consistent.
"It is not something you can quantify and say there
is an X percent chance," Hough said.
Some areas of California are known for producing such
swarms without a subsequent larger event. The area around
Ludlow is not among those places.
"In this case it is a little bit hard to say this
happens all the time," Hough said. "But again,
we don't have enough studies of foreshock sequences to
really be able to say anything."
A color-coded earthquake hazard forecast map posted online
by the USGS indicated an increased likelihood for an earthquake
in the desert west of Needles. Before the swarm began,
the map, which is updated regularly and automatically
by computer, was a light-green tint in the area - indicating
the likelihood of such a quake would be around one in
10,000 at any given moment.
A map for Wednesday evening after the two magnitude 3.1
quakes showed the region was a lighter, brighter yellow,
indicating the likelihood of a magnitude 4.5 or greater
quake had increased to around one in 100.
A later version of the map posted Thursday evening at
8:22 p.m. indicated the likelihood was decreasing toward
the pre-swarm level.
By MICHAEL BASCOMBE
Associated Press
Fri Jul 15, 2:48 AM ET
ST. GEORGE'S, Grenada - Hurricane
Emily grew even more powerful Friday after slamming
into Grenada, tearing up crops, flooding streets and
striking at homes still under repair from last year's
storms. At least one man was killed.
The storm strengthened to a dangerous Category 4 after
it cleared the Windward Islands, unleashing heavy surf,
gusty winds and torrential rains on islands hundreds
of miles away: Trinidad in the south, nearby Venezuela,
to the west and Dominican Republic in the middle of
the Caribbean Sea.
Venezuelan authorities ordered some oil tankers to
stay in port in the key oil refining zone of Puerto
la Cruz, port captain Jose Jimenez Quintero said.
The storm, the second major hurricane of the Altantic
season after Dennis, was packing sustained winds of
135 mph. "That makes Emily
a very rare Category 4 hurricane in the Caribbean Sea
in the month of July," said Stacy Stewart,
a meteorologist with the U.S. National Hurricane Center
in Miami.
Emily struck hard in Grenada, especially in the northern
parishes of St. Patrick's and St. Andrew's and the outlying
islands of Carriacou and Petit Martinique, authorities
said.
The damage comes as the island nation is still recovering
from last year's Hurricane Ivan, which destroyed thousands
of residences and damaged 90 percent of the historic
Georgian buildings in the capital.
"Just as we were trying to rebuild ... this is
a very, very major setback," said Barry Colleymore,
a spokesman for Prime Minister Keith Mitchell. "There's
been lots of destruction."
The Organization of American States expressed concern
at the prospect of a "severe economic setback"
to countries hit by hurricanes, especially Grenada,
and called an emergency meeting for Friday. [...]
SOFIA - Bread prices are expected
to rise by as much as 40 percent in Bulgaria in the
wake of heavy rains and flooding that ruined grain crops,
the bread producers' union predicted.
"We expect a poor harvest to follow the abundant
rainfall and flooding this summer and, together with
the recent hike in fuel prices, it will necessitate
a 30 to 40 percent increase in bread prices in some
regions of the country," union chief Dimitar Ludiev
told BTA news agency.
Grain crops are also threatened by an ever increasing
rat population in Bulgaria's wheatbelt around Dobrich
(southeast), press reports said.
In the past week wind, hail, and torrential
rain turned vast tracts of farmland into swamps and
flooded thousands of houses around the country.
Whole towns were cut from the world with no electricity,
communications and running water, as landslides cut
through highways, railroads and bridges in Ruse and
Silistra to the north, and Gabrovo and Veliko Tarnovo
in central Bulgaria, state emergency services announced.
An uprooted tree hit and killed a woman during a storm
Tuesday in Karlovo (central), the Standard daily newspaper
reported.
Two cargo trains were derailed Tuesday night in the
region of Stara Zagora because of track damaged by the
rains.
One of UNESCO's world heritage sites in Bulgaria, the
rock-hewn churches near Ivanovo in the northeast, dating
back to the 12th century, is in critical condition,
local authorities reported.
They sought governmental help Wednesday to preserve
the precious murals severely damaged by the rains. [...]
Finance Minister Milen Velchev requested
Tuesday 75 million euros (91 million dollars) in financial
aid from the European Commission to rebuild submerged
infrastructure, his ministry announced.
One fourth of Bulgaria's population has suffered from
flooding, with more than 6,300 innundated or completely
ruined houses, 52 destroyed bridges, 420 streets and
35 kilometers of railroad.