February 14, 2003 Today's edition of Brought to You by The Bush Junta, Produced and Directed by the CIA, based on an original script by Henry Kissinger, with a cast of billions.... The "Greatest Shew on Earth," no doubt, and if you don't have a good sense of humor, don't read this page! It is designed to reveal the "unseen." If you can't stand the heat of Objective Reality, get out of the kitchen!

Okay folks its time to come off the fence and decide whos side you are on. Today the US declared in front of the rest of the world at the UN that regardless of the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE to support a war on the Iraqi people, with Blix rubbishing Powell's satellite image "evidence", they are determined to have their bloody war for oil. Tomorrow may be your last chance to stand up and be counted. This is history in the making. It will be the largest worldwide antiwar demonstration ever. I urge you to take this opportunity to join with millions of others around the globe in showing your solidarity with the Iraqi people by saying NO to US and UK imperialism and greed! Check this list of 309 cities worldwide that will be demonstrating.

Just in case you are in two minds, perhaps this excellent Flash presentation will help you decide.

'The most pitiful sight I have ever seen' The 1991 Gulf war was my first experience as a war reporter. As a freelancer, I had knocked on the door of the Irish Times's D'Olier Street office with a piece of gold glittering in my palm: a valid Iraqi visa. I got to meet the editor, who bought me a ticket to Baghdad. Abu Tariq, my taxi driver in the capital, knew I wasn't quite sure how to be a war reporter. So he looked after me, taking me home at night to his wife. On one of those nights, all seven of his children were sitting around the dining room table, cutting up their white cotton table cloth into 10in squares. "They're making gas masks to cover their face with when the war comes," he said. The first days of that war had a curiously surreal air. Most of the press had left before the bombing started. The desperately ambitious, the thrill-seekers and the conscientious stayed on. Still, we were 1,000 miles from the front.

We rattled around at breakfast in the al-Rashid banqueting hall. The bread ran out. Our Iraqi censor, Sadoun, a large man who had gone to Aberdeen University and liked whisky, would bring his pen to check the reports before we filed them. Sometimes he censored, sometimes he didn't. It depended on the time, our numbers, his boredom threshold. John Simpson bossed the Iraqis around in his well-brought-up way. Marie Colvin of the Sunday Times kept a yellow canary in her room like a heroine from a Sebastian Faulks novel, but nobody worried too much about being gassed.Then, one night, Abu Tariq took me to the war. At a bus station south of Baghdad I came across a road filled with the wives, mothers and daughters of the cannon fodder you see in these pages. They were the women of the soldiers of the Basra Road. They were rushing at each battered minibus, taxi and truck arriving from the front at Basra. Like black bees at a honeycomb, they were hurling themselves at the survivors, pulling at the bloodied, wounded men in search of their sons, their fathers and those they loved. "Have you seen him?" "Where is he?" "Is he not with you?" Then, as each heard the news, she would fall to her knees to mourn for one of the 37,000 men who would not come home. It went on all night, a wail of pain and desperation. It was the most pitiful sight I have ever witnessed.

Two days later, I flew home, my head still filled with the women's faces. I picked up a copy of Newsweek on the plane. On the cover was the jubilant General Norman Schwarzkopf. Inside was his description of their victory at the Basra Road. There was obscene detail of F16s and laser-guided missiles, and how they had trapped the fleeing Iraqi army from the air. He was reliving the highlights as if they were the final moments of a cup match. I cried on that plane. Partly still in shock at the women and the pain at that Baghdad station, and partly with shame, because I knew we had done such a lousy job of reporting the war. Few of the pictures you see on these pages were ever seen at the time. The body parts of these men being shovelled into the mouths of the bulldozers were men whose choice was to die at the front or be shot for deserting.

This time they face the same choice. I've been back to Iraq many times. Mostly it has been to write about the sanctions that have destroyed the people of that pitiful nation. In between, I've been to other wars, but as this one builds, it becomes almost unbearable to follow. Except at moments of sanity such as last week's life-affirming stand by Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister, when he told an astonished Donald Rumsfeld: "You have to make the case; I'm sorry but I am not convinced."After 10 years of reporting wars in Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo and East Timor, I believe passionately that war can only ever be the absolutely final option for humanity. Unfortunately, we have been so protected from its pain and horror by the impenetrable wall of censorship and euphemism - as we will continue to be - that war is allowed to prevail as a legitimate means of conducting human affairs.

Here is a bit of collateral damage: The first time I met Abu Ziad was in 1998. He had been the chief accountant with the British Iraqi Oil Company. Then, he had five children and lived in a big house by a bomb shelter. He recalled how during the Iran-Iraq war, when nearly 1 million young men died on each side, he would be at home in Baghdad, hearing the sounds of women wailing in the night for another lost son, husband or lover. He remembered thanking God that he had married late, and that his children were too young to be sent to fight. Then, three years after that war, President Saddam led them into another. At 2am on February 13 1991, two bombs hit the al-Amiriya bomb shelter near his home. The first was a drilling bomb that pierced the roof and cut open the central heating tank. Boiling water poured through the ceiling on to the women and children below, who were playing dominoes, watching Tom and Jerry videos dubbed into Arabic and eating kebabs. Only 15 minutes later, the second bomb exploded with such force that he never had the chance to identify the bodies of his wife and four of their five children: Zena, aged 14; Fuad, aged 12; Lena, aged seven; and Sadaad, aged six. "I saw a body being brought out, then I saw it was Zena's, but they were piling them on top of each other and I couldn't see if it was her. We weren't allowed to go close." Later that morning, Abu Ziad stood outside the shelter. He remembers noticing the ankles of the dead women and children. Their skin had been branded with the metal coils of red-hot mattress springs as they struggled to climb over the metal beds, and each other, to get out. The doors had been locked for security. Four hundred and six people, mostly women and children, died inside. Comment: This is what you are being asked to support people, the murder of innocent women and children, the US government has deliberately tried to scupper the inspections process because they know that it will find no WMD and therefore provide no justification for war. Who knows, perhaps it is part of their agenda to decimate the worlds population, ask Henry kissinger about it.

Vanetine's Day: What better valentine than to commit to being at a march against the madness tomorrow along with millions of others. You may wonder what difference it would make. This short piece by a teacher at the Quantum Future School gives one reason:

I just started reading Jung's The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, and he makes an interesting statement:

"[...] The archetype corresponding to the situation is activated, and as a result those explosive and dangerous forces hidden in the archetype come into action, frequently with unpredictable consequences. There is no lunacy people under the domination of an archetype will not fall prey to. If thirty years ago anyone had dared to predict that our psychological development was tending towards a revival of the medieval persecutions of the Jews, that Europe would again tremble before the Roman fasces, and the tramp of legions, that people would once more give the Roman salute, as two thousand years ago, and that instead of the Christian Cross an archaic swastika would lure onward millions of warrior ready to death-why, that man would have been hooted at as a mystical fool. And today? Surprising as it may seem, all this absurdity is a horrible reality. [...]

I just finished reading Malachi Martin's Hostage to the Devil over the weekend, and musing over it afterwards I thought that demonic possession may be a good analogy for those who are fully immersed into the A influence reality and those who are susceptible to what ever archetype that is introduced by the powers that be.

When talking about the current world situation with those who ask, I have heard after they agree with everything said, what good does knowing this do since we can't do anything, and with obvious relief stop thinking about it.

What is interesting, is that this is the same attitude of those who are about to be possessed. There is a build up of great pressure, and rather than resisting they give in and feel a great relief and are rewarded by a feeling of bliss. Of course, they may regret their decision as they lose all will and live the most horrifying and degrading lifestyle. Most possession is a long process where their will is gradually worn down. Those who are badgered in this manner often have some twist to their thinking that if followed to it's extreme leaves them vulnerable to giving up their free will to this something other.

When we send letters to our elected representatives, or physically go to demonstrations, it is not so much what the effect may be, although there may be an effect. We live in a quantum reality, with linear minds, so it may not be feasible for us to map out what energy we send from us has in real world effects. That is not the point.

Every action we take is an act of will, and a defiance against this realities possession of us. It is also a removal of our energy from the artificially introduced archetype to make the masses easily malleable. Every individual who does not give up their individual will to this archetype means less energy usable for it's overall dominance. It is necessary for the false gods of the media, the modern day oracle in the living room, to constantly reinforce the consensus reality, to constantly play on people desire to appear normal, and to belong to something larger than themselves, otherwise it would just collapse into itself.

Who can deny that at the core of our reality is some dark and mechanical ooze that bubbles up to the surface that mars the superficial glossy sheen painted over this reality with a thin veneer? The perfectly possessed can. There is some discussion of the perfectly possessed in Martin's book, and they are the ones who do not act out of the ordinary, or at least can conduct themselves under acceptable parameters in society without drawing undue attention to themselves, and are often successful. One could say that the organic portals are the perfectly possessed, and all those so worn down by being drained by the portals that they can no longer act or think for themselves, and just accept what ever the television oracle declares.

Just some of my thoughts, before the State of the Union address, which I will not have the stomach to watch. And I read Hostage to the Devil, without flinching, before going to sleep.

Bush's Mayport beach speech 13/Feb/02: A QFS member remarks:"Dubya did it again, I watched part of Bush's speech at the Mayport base today I heard the same thing I heard in his State of the Union speech, and it sounds to me like an admission of murder. This is from the text of his speech":

"With our allies, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with -- (laughter) -- many of the key commanders of al Qaeda. And that includes the terrorist who planned the bombing of the USS Cole. (Applause.) So far, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Just about that number met a different kind of fate. They're not a problem anymore. (Applause.)" full text here:

QFS member: "It is truly appalling that there could be laughter at his first remark, and applause at his second remark. When he got the laughter and the applause, a sinister little smile appeared on his face. He loved getting not only tolerance, but approval for what he's done. Life has no value to this man, and people allow it and applaud it in the twisted reality he's created where murder makes people feel safer."

False Alarm? Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a "dirty bomb" sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination.

The informant described a detailed plan that an al Qaeda cell operating in either Virginia or Detroit had developed a way to slip past airport scanners with dirty bombs encased in shoes, suitcases, or laptops, sources told ABCNEWS. The informant reportedly cited specific targets of government buildings and Christian or clerical centers. "This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.

It was only after the threat level was elevated to orange — meaning high — last week, that the informant was subjected to a polygraph test by the FBI, officials told ABCNEWS.

"This person did not pass," said Cannistraro.

According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was "not familiar with the scenario," but did not think it was accurate.

Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted. Comment: Think the manufacturers of duct tape have an in with al Qaeda? Reminds me of a joke circulating on the Internet this week.

Jacques Chirac and Colin Powell were having a meeting about the situation in Iraq. Chirac began expressing the concerns of the French Government about the course of action the US was taking regarding Iraq.

Chirac: "We understand the US position, but we, the French, are not so convinced as you that the Iraqis are hiding weapons of mass destruction."

Powell: "The American Government is absolutely positive the Iraqi Government has weapons of mass destruction that they are not making available to the UN Inspectors."

Chirac: "How can you be so sure."

Powell: "We still have the receipts."

Iraq Missiles Violate U.N. Rules Experts have concluded that Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles can travel beyond the 93-mile limit allowed under U.N. resolutions, a capability that the United States calls a serious violation.

[...]

Iraq's Deputy Premier Tariq Aziz denied the allegations.

[...]

He said the missiles were short-range and do not have a guidance system.

"When a missile doesn't have a guidance system, it goes five to 10 to 15 kilometers (3 to 6 to 10 miles) beyond'' its range, he said. "That is not very dangerous.''

US Govt Insiders now beginning to spill the beans on 9-11 / CIA connections An interview with Michael Springman exposes the CIA's links with the terrorist attacks on September 11[...]: Michael Springmann worked for the US government for 20 years with the foreign service and consulate. He just went public with the story of his involvement in a large scale CIA operation that brought hundreds of people from the middle east to the US, issued them passports and trained them to be terrorists. Springmann says that the CIA is working closely with Bin Laden and his operatives in Jeddah and has been since 1987. The most haunting implication from this interview is that all of the terrorist acts of late were planned and paid for by the CIA with US taxpayers money so that the US could legitimately bomb the hell out of Afghanistan.

Hear the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) interview here.

Discharged Reservist: 'This War Is Wrong' Sudbury, 27, of Salt Lake City, enlisted in the Army Reserve after he graduated from Hillcrest High School in 1994. "I was filled with the pride and honor in defending my country," he says. In January 2000, he re-enlisted for another three years. Like many other soldiers, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, filled him with anger and a desire to retaliate. "Then I started asking myself why anyone would want to do this to the United States?" Sudbury says. Answering that question led him to a new view of the United States and to the conclusion that there is a rift between the government and the people. He came to believe that "our government has lied and even manipulated events in order to get us to go to war."

Misleading the Public On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State dropped a bombshell at a Congressional hearing on Iraq and revealed that he had a transcript of an 'upcoming' audio message from Osama bin Laden which betrays the links between bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. However, the White House may have put its foot in its mouth this time around.

Upon careful scrutiny of the audio message from bin Laden (and broadcast at 3pm EST on the Arabic News Network Al- Jazeerah), it appears the Bush administration may have been so desperate to pin anything on Saddam and bin Laden that they did not wait to actually hear the contents of the message, nor provide adequate and reliable translation. The bin Laden message expresses solidarity with the Iraqi people, advises them to remain steadfast in the coming invasion of their country and declares that Saddam and his aides are not important. "It is not important if Saddam and his government disappear," the man thought to be bin Laden says. "This is a war against you, the Muslims, and you must take arms to defend yourselves." U.S. officials were quick to point out that the bin Laden message directly incriminates Iraq and proves the existence of ties between bin Laden's Al-Qaida and Saddam. U.S. media touted the official line before even hearing the tape, or awaiting a reliable translation. "Undeniably links Iraq with Al-Qaida," says one CNN anchor.

And then something happened that neither the U.S. administration nor the media anticipated: bin Laden called Saddam an apostate.

The audio message goes on to reveal that bin Laden believes Saddam to be a socialist, and declares "socialists and communists are unbelievers," thereby labelling Saddam an apostate of Islam, an infidel. It is worth mentioning that the government of Iraq is quasi-socialist and secular, and not Islamic. Walid Phares, an Arabic-speaking MSNBC Analyst finds that the audio message undermines Saddam's regime: "Osama bin Laden does not care about Saddam in fact he can't wait till the demise of Saddam; he is trying to position himself to offer Iraqis an alternative ideology - he calls socialism abhorrent to Islam." The voice alleged to be bin Laden's in the audio message also called on the spilling of Saddam's blood: "His blood is halal." This wording is used to indicate what is permissive or legally allow for the killing of a usurper or criminal. The audio message also called for the overthrow of governments supporting the U.S. - Nigeria, Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

If bin Laden is effectively calling on Muslim Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and that Saddam is irrelevant in the coming war and Iraqis should not fight for him, how then can the U.S. administration use this message to prove Saddam and Al-Qaida are linked? That question left some analysts baffled. Kenneth Pollack, CNN analyst and anti-terrorism specialist, says that this is not the first time that bin Laden has used the plight of Iraq under sanctions and under Saddam to rally Muslims to his cause. In fact, bin Laden has spoken of the Iraqi issue since 1996, and has not hidden the fact that he is growing distaste for Saddam's socialist, Baathist regime. "The October audio message this year was a four minute tape and bin Laden expressed sympathy for the Iraqi people," says Peter Bergen, CNN consultant on terrorism. "I don't see today's audio message as endorsing Saddam," he concludes.

If anything, bin Laden's message directed to the people, not leadership of Iraq, (any Arab speaker with two ears can testify that the opening lines of the audio message distinctly declare that this is a message to the Iraqi people) is ambiguous as pertains to alleged links with Saddam. Nevertheless, U.S. officials maintain that this is all the proof they need. However, the U.S. viewing public must be aware that the they were only allowed to view excerpts of the 16-minute audio message, and contrary to what CNN has been proclaiming, it is not all about Iraq. The audio message also includes advice on refraining from alcohol and illicit sex, and respecting one's parents, in addition to other spiritual advice. The audio message will not go down so easily in Europe and the Middle East and will be seen as a desperate attempt by a U.S. administration that has taken a bashing in Nato and at the U.N. to turn the tables around.

According to the BBC, "BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner, said the figure on the tape voiced support for Iraq, but that in no way did it prove a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi leadership."Arabic speakers are sure to pour scorn on the official U.S. line. U.S. Congressional leaders, who have appeared on talk shows immediately following the excerpted broadcast of the audio tape have alluded to incorrect translations of the original Arabic content.By default, the U.S. public is offered a half-censored, half-baked version of the audio tape. While U.S. officials have conceded that the voice on the tape is indeed that of bin Laden, no one has bothered to focus on why the man U.S. President Bush vowed to get "dead or alive" is very much alive and a clear and present danger.

February 13, 2003

Patriot Act, the sequel: Someone in the Justice Department clearly wants to preserve our most cherished civil liberties. Last week, that individual leaked a bill secretly drafted by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff to the Center for Public Integrity. "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," is a chilling sequel to the USA Patriot Act, passed shortly after Sept.11, 2001. It's already been dubbed "Patriot Act II." The draft legislation would reduce judicial oversight of surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create new death penalties and allow the government to revoke the citizenship of any American who is a member of -- or gives material support to -- a group designated as a "terrorist organization" by Ashcroft. Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, speculates that the Bush administration may have planned to introduce this legislation after another terrorist attack or in the middle of a war with Iraq.

Congress, moreover, was not consulted. Ashcroft's office only sent copies to House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Vice President Dick Cheney on Jan. 10, 2003. Secret arrests? Expatriation because you belong to a suspicious political group? Unchecked surveillance? These are instruments of repression, used by totalitarian states. They are why American soldiers have fought -- and died -- in wars against fascism and communism. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., warned that "Patriot Act II" amounts to "little more than the institution of a police state." We call upon our congressional delegation, as well as Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, to vigorously challenge any such attempt to undermine constitutional rights.. Comment: This is not a drill folks, the signs are there for all who choose to see, now is the time to take your stand before it really is too late. The Germans under Hitler choose to turn their heads. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Hard To Believe Probably the toughest thing for most Americans to do is to recognize that their own government is deliberately deceiving them. Americans have a tendency to place implicit faith in their leaders.Unfortunately, there have been too many instances of government deception for me to overcome skepticism. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which plunged us into a real war in Vietnam, was based on an incident that never happened. In the buildup to the first Gulf War, two major deceptions were practiced on the American people. One is the infamous tale of Iraqi soldiers yanking babies out of incubators. It never happened. The other is the claim that Iraqi forces were massing for an invasion of Saudi Arabia. That, too, never occurred.The fact that Saddam Hussein lacks credibility doesn't mean that President Bush and his administration have it. They, too, have been engaging in deception. Both Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell continue to claim that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program. The nuclear inspectors, however, say they have found no evidence of any nuclear weapons program. Moreover, a top Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected to Canada (and therefore has no obligation to tell American officials what they want to hear) broke his silence recently.

He was in Iraq up until 1998.He said Iraq was so devastated by the war that scientists working on the nuclear program were all pulled off and reassigned to help rebuild the country's infrastructure. Dr. Imad Khadduri, now a college instructor in Toronto, said, "All we had after the war from that nuclear program were ruins, memoirs and reports of what we had done ... on the nuclear weapon side, I am more than definitely sure nothing has been done." In an interview with Reuters, he said further, "For Bush to continue brandishing this image of a superhuman Iraqi nuclear power program is a great fallacious information."

Once again, Powell brought up the aluminum tubes as alleged evidence of Iraq's nuclear program. Technical experts say, however, that the kind of tubes necessary for a nuclear device must not be anodized. Yet the tubes Iraq tried to buy were specifically ordered to be anodized. Again, the nuclear inspectors agree with Iraq and not with Bush and Powell.Bush has repeatedly cited the 1988 gassing of Kurds in Halabja as evidence of Iraqi cruelty. Recently, Stephen C. Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, has reminded us of a Defense Intelligence Study that concluded that (1) the Kurds were casualties in a battle for the city between Iraqi and Iranian forces and not the object of the attack; and (2) that it was the Iranian gas that killed the Kurds.I remember reading a story in The Washington Post about this report. Now, one of two things is inescapable: Either the U.S. government was lying when it issued the report, or the president and his people are lying today when they blame it on Iraq. It has to be one or the other.As for Powell's dog-and-pony show, the satellite photos and the alleged voice intercepts prove nothing, and both can be easily fabricated.

If you don't think American intelligence agencies indulge in fabrications and forgeries, then you have a lot of reading to do on the history of those agencies. The rest of his presentation was based on "anonymous sources" and defectors who, as any veteran intelligence officer will tell you, always have to be taken with a grain of salt. Since their request for asylum depends on the intelligence agency's recommendation, they have a tendency to say what they know the intelligence people want to hear. In the year 2003, it is way too late for Americans to view their government as a benign big daddy who always tells the truth and always has their best interests in mind. Sadly, government just doesn't work that way. The bottom line is that Iraq is not a threat to the United States, but it does have oil that's not now controlled by any American or British company.

Billions Are Wondering Why: Several billion people in the world - including myself - are wondering why:

* America is hellbent on destroying its own Constitution. The first Patriot Act torpedoed most of it, but now the new Patriot Act II - currently under wraps and about to be deployed secretly for a rigged vote in Congress - actually contains a provision to revoke the citizenship of American citizens if they are deemed to be connected with a terrorist organization. This decision would require no proof, only an assertion by the government. It means that people who attend peace protests are now eligible for indefinite detention without access to lawyers or phone calls to family. To be clear, it means quite literally that America is no longer a free country, and that its citizens are no longer Constitutionally protected from arbitrary punishment by its war-mad government.

Several billion people don't understand why all Americans aren't out screaming in the streets that their freedom has been taken away by rich fascists who don't tell the truth about anything.

* Nobody is talking about the experiments by an Israeli astronaut that may have brought down space shuttle Columbia. Despite controversial photos of lightning hitting the craft, and knowledge that Ilan Ramon was working on a new way to spy on Iraq, the phrase "americium-242" - which is apparently the new technology to take us to Mars - remains hidden from the public. As Yoichi Clark Shimatsu wrote: "The negative charge of the high-energy electron pulse from the americium-242 would attract the positive charge of the gas plasma generated by sprites (lightning is positive in the upper elevations) .... A lightning burst would account for the sudden surge in temperature, the immediate shutdown of heat sensors and communications systems (why the ghostly "last words" were never transmitted to NASA monitors), and for the tumbling that sent Columbia, a flaming chariot of the heavens, to her doom." Ramon was testing an infrared spy camera that can see through clouds.

* Anyone believes these "terror alerts" so frequently declared by the American government. More people are beginning to notice that these things are called for one of two reasons: either when some nasty bit of political revelation threatens to further tarnish the already-trashed reputation of the Bush regime - as most recently when Secretary of State Powell used plagiarized material to impress the world about how dangerous Iraq was - or, when the Bush regime wants to clandestinely sneak another repressive legislative measure past American's comatose Congress, as it does now, with Patriot Act II. Because the spinoff stories completely seize control of the attention of the prostituted major news media, these terror alerts are clearly meant to distract the public from the actual news, as in the current case, which is the dismantling of the Constitution, and the continued coverup of Bush financial crimes.

* There has never been an effort to investigate the events of 9/11 and explain what happened on this sad day to the general public. Clearly most of the several billion - including myself - believe that the reason is obvious: because the people who did the crime are doing the coverup. How else could eight of the named hijackers still be alive? A good point made by a friend the other day was that how could Osama bin Laden have been praising the devotion of suicide hijackers when eight of them were still alive. Or how about: how does Colin Powell already know what bin Laden is saying before the TV station which is going to reveal the piece has done so? Did you know al-Jazeera used to be a BBC outlet? Who is bin Laden, what is his purpose, and who does he really work for? Um-hmm.

* Few people are raising questions about the obviously false statements we have been told about 9/11? Why did it take 28 minutes for flight controllers to notify NORAD two planes had been hijacked when the average time to do so in such a case is 3 minutes? Why were fighters scrambled from a base 180 miles away when seven other bases had fighter jets ready that could have done the job in a fraction of the time? Why was FEMA in New York the night before the crashes? Why did those fires at the base of the towers burn for 100 days? Why did Bush read a book for a half hour when he knew two planes had hit and two more were hijacked? Why was the binLadin family flown out of the country when all flights were grounded? Why did the FBI chief say we had no warning this was coming and everybody else in the FBI say we had plenty of warning? Who did make the billions of dollars from all those put options on two airlines the day before the attacks? These are only a fraction of the question the government continues to cover up, as several billions of people know.

* All the targets of American aggression in recent history have been former allies who were armed and supported by Washington, but then suddenly "went bad." Saddam and Osama bin Laden are only the latest examples. Iraq was a staunch U.S. ally when it was using chemical weapons sold by Donald Rumsfeld against Iran. Osama bin Laden was the recipient of billions of U.S. aid when he was involved in fighting the Soviets. Panama's Manuel Noriega was a personal friend of the first President Bush when he suggested he was going to blow the whistle on American drug smuggling; soon, 5,000 Panamanians were killed by U.S. soldiers and Noriega's doing 40 in a Supermax. How does it happen that who America supports with guns and money soon become America's enemies? Is there an American formula to "set up" other countries with military aid only for the purpose of creating threats to be combatted in the future? It is very easy to read history in this way, and it makes you wonder who Saddam and Osama are actually working for, not to mention Yasir Arafat. Will we soon invade Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and all those Stans to whom we have recently given so much money?

* There is no legitimate opposition party in Washington, D.C. Zealous American patriots, many of whom voted for George W. Bush, used to castigate the Soviet Union as being an evil one-party dictatorship, but given the recent votes in Congress, how can there be any doubt that the United States has become " or perhaps has always been " a one-party state? Only eight senators voted against continuing America's falsely framed aggression against Iraq. Virtually the entire Congress voted for Patriot Act I without even reading it, according to Rep. Ron Paul, the principled Texas congressman who has undoubtedly been targeted for deportation by Jewish groups. Virtually the entire Congress accepts the premise that Iraq should be invaded because it represents a threat to the United States, when in fact, this sanctions-ravaged country is not even a threat to its nearest neighbors.

It is crystal clear to billions of people around the world that the United States is doing the bidding of Israel, which controls vital communications and financial systems in the U.S. and plans to conduct the mass expulsion of Palestinians once the U.S. provides adequate cover with its invasion of Iraq.

* There are no actual human beings among the world's leaders. In all of the discussions about how to split up Iraq, there has been no discussion by any of the principal leaders of the world about the people of Iraq, who have been savaged by 12 years of unrelenting bombing, and continue to suffer from the effects of illegal bombing and poisonous uranium contamination, all approved by not only the American people but by the populations of all its major allies as well. Even Germany, France, and Russia, who recently have expressed support for additional moves to forestall the cynical American invasion, are not doing it to protect the millions of innocent people who will surely be killed or injured by such an invasion. They're doing it because they want to get more leverage when Iraq's oil is stolen by the capitalist vigilantes who covet it.

* Why are we so willing to throw away our freedom? The obviously false pronouncements that we hear everyday are merely justifications for the robbery and enslavement of all the world's people by the evil men who control our money, our media, and our beliefs. They believe that they can buy their friends. They believe that if you give someone enough money, those who accept these bribes will look the other way when their neighbors are killed. The "blackmail, terror and mass murder" President Bush speaks of are not something the U.S. and its allies are combatting, they are things the U.S. is perpetrating. This is the Orwellian doublespeak that now assails us.

The famous Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti once described the difference between an individual and a human being. An individual is someone who is concerned only with aspects of his own life; a true human being is concerned with aspects of the lives of every person in the whole world.

We are on the cusp of a new world. Whether we advance toward a new age of enlightened empathy and understanding or regress back into the dark ages of traditionally secret political manipulation is a question that currently hangs in the balance. Perhaps a billion people all over the world will be out on the streets Saturday (2/15/03) to express which way they hope this question will go. There are demonstrations against the unjust invasion of Iraq planned in virtually every American city. Find out where it is and go. If you don't, there may come a day - and maybe real soon - when you can't.

Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences:

US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech Wednesday, February 12, 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. Comment: He deserved a standing ovation. Bravo!

CIA 'sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details' Senior democrats have accused the CIA of sabotaging weapons inspections in Iraq by refusing to co-operate fully with the UN and withholding crucial information about Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Led by Senator Carl Levin, the Democrats accused the CIA of making an assessment that the inspections were unlikely to be a success and then ensuring they would not be. They have accused the CIA director of lying about what information on the suspected location of weapons of mass destruction had been passed on. The row is of heightened significance given the Bush administration's preparations to argue later today before the UN Security Council that the inspections have run their course and it is now time to move to military action. France, Russia, Germany and other members of the Security Council are likely to back a counter-proposal to increase the number of inspectors, providing them, if necessary, with the support of armed UN soldiers, as a means of avoiding a military strike.

The accusation of US sabotage emerged from a series of Senate hearings on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, George Tenet, the CIA director, told the armed services committee panel that the agency had provided the UN inspectors with all the information it had on "high" and "moderate" interest locations inside Iraq – those sites where there was a possibility of finding banned weapons. But Mr Tenet later told a different panel that he had been mistaken and that there were in fact "a handful" of locations the UN inspectors may not have known about. Senator Levin, from Michigan, responded by saying the CIA director had not been telling the truth. Citing a number of classified letters he had obtained from the agency, he said it was clear the CIA had not shared information with the inspectors about a "large number of sites of significant value".

He said the CIA had told him additional information would be passed to the inspectors within the next few days. Mr Levin pushed Mr Tenet on whether he thought the inspections had any value. The CIA director replied: "Unless [President Saddam] provides the data to build on, provides the access, provides the unfettered access that he's supposed to, provides us with surveillance capability, there is little chance you're going to find weapons of mass destruction under the rubric he's created inside the country ... The inspectors have been put in a very difficult position by his behaviour. Mr Levin said later he believed the CIA had, in effect, taken the decision to undermine the inspections. "When they've taken the position that inspections are useless, they are bound to fail," he told The Washington Post. "We have undermined the inspectors." Mr Levin has raised his concerns with the White House. In a letter to President Bush, the senator asked that America provide the inspectors with as much information as available. He wrote: "The American people want the inspections to proceed, want the United States to share the information we have with the UN inspectors and want us to obtain United Nations support before military action is used against Iraq." Comment: Here's the proof that the US government has no interest in Iraqs weapons of mass destruction, you are being asked to support a war that will likely lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, and it has NOTHING to do with protecting the world from WMD. We say it again: IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

10 million join world protest rallies Up to 10 million people on five continents are expected to demonstrate against the probable war in Iraq on Saturday, in some of the largest peace marches ever known. Yesterday, up to 400 cities in 60 countries, from Antarctica to Pacific islands, confirmed that peace rallies, vigils and marches would take place. Of all major countries, only China is absent from the growing list which includes more than 300 cities in Europe and north America, 50 in Asia and Latin America, 10 in Africa and 20 in Australia and Oceania. Many countries will witness the largest demonstrations against war they have ever seen. The majority will be small but 500,000 people are expected in London and Barcelona, and more than 100,000 in Rome, Paris, Berlin and other European capitals. In the US, organisers were yesterday anticipating 200,000 marching in New York if permission is given. A further 100,000 are expected to march in 140 other American cities. What is extraordinary, say the organisers, is the depth and breadth of opposition that the US and Britain are meeting across the world before a war has even started.

"This is unprecedented. Demonstrations only got this large against the Vietnam war at the height of the conflict, years after it started," said a spokesman for Answer, a coalition of US peace groups which helped organise a march of 200,000 people last month in Washington.Many in the global peace movement optimistically hope that public opposition to a war is becoming politically significant and could now affect the timing of an invasion of Iraq and possibly even help avert conflict altogether. "The internationalism of the opposition is the most powerful weapon people have. It's all we have. We think that Bush and Blair are well aware that global opposition is mounting fast and that they are now desperate to start the war before they are completely isolated by world opinion," said a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, a US coalition. New polls in Europe and the US yesterday suggested that opposition is still mounting and is likely to continue even if the US gets a second resolution. Spanish and Dutch polls showed that more than 70% now oppose even UN-mandated action, with slightly fewer in Italy. Yesterday CND reported that it was struggling to cope with the deluge of people wanting to join. In Germany, more than 300 towns are sending coaches to Berlin, where more than 100,000 people are expected to march.

"Opposition is broader than at any time in the past. This will be the largest peace march in 20 years," said Malte Keutzseldt of Attac, Germany. "The peace movement is getting older now, but a new generation of young people is deeply concerned. The churches and unions have linked to make the coalition far broader than even the anti-nuclear missile marches in the 1980s". In Paris, a march organiser said that feeling was running high and that he expected the anti-war demonstration to be largest ever. The most unusual rally is expected to be in the international territory of Antarctica, where dozens of scientists and others at the US McMurdo base on the edge of the Ross sea will take to the ice.

The idea of an international day of action against the war was first suggested in London after the last peace march in October. It was discussed by peace and anti-globalisation groups from 11 countries at the European social forum in Florence in November, but only became truly international following meetings in Cairo, Egypt and Porto Alegre, Brazil, last month. Since then the idea of coordinating international peace protests has spread rapidly across the world and up to 30 new cities a day are believed to be planning demonstrations. Next month activists from all continents will meet in London to propose further global actions. Coordinated international demonstrations have flourished in the past five years with anti-capitalist marches and campaigns by environmentalists and anti-globalisers against corporations like McDonald's, Shell and Esso, and against global warming or international trade. Mostly organised on the web by activists working below the radar of the mainstream media, they have taken the establishment by surprise in many countries and only been reported by independent media.

"The whole world's marching," said Helmut, a German student in London. "This peace party should be better than the millennium celebrations." The Stop The War Coalition (STWC) is planning a display of mass direct action designed to bring Britain to a standstill on the day any war starts with Iraq. The protests would involve demonstrations in the centre of London and other big towns and cities, wildcat strikes by anti-war supporters and mass sit-ins at schools, colleges and universities across the country. A spokeswoman for the SWTC said: "We do think there will be a whole wave of civil disobedience if war breaks out. People want to be peaceful and are quite slow to anger, but they will be very angry if after Saturday's mass show of opposition Tony Blair refuses to listen." Comment: I honestly cannot think how else the case for a war in Iraq will be made other than some form of staged "terrorist" attack and the US and British governments will be relying on people not making the OBVIOUS connection that Saddam would be the LEAST likely perpetrator since it would simply give justification for an invasion that he has gone to great lengths to avoid. Again, to discern who is behind any attack look to who benefits. The US have done it before, in Pearl Harbour and the gulf of Tonkin. As Roosevelt said: "Nothing happens by accident in politics, if it happens you can bet it was planned that way."

America gripped by fear of 'dirty bomb' attack. From the anti-aircraft missiles around Washington to government recommendations that families prepare bunkers in their homes against biological, chemical, radiological weapons, America is suffering its most acute bout of terror jitters since the attacks of 11 September. Nerves began to jangle last week when the new Department of Homeland Security raised its colour-coded threat alert to orange, denoting a "high" risk of an attack. Then came the latest purported Osama bin Laden tape, urging more suicide attacks against American citizens. And yesterday, George Tenet, the CIA director, issued his grimmest warning yet, telling a Senate panel that a strike could come as early as this week, either in America or in the Arabian peninsula, perhaps involving a dirty bomb. The threat was "the most specific we have ever seen", he warned. Hours earlier, the Pentagon confirmed that anti-aircraft Stinger missiles had been deployed around key sites in Washington, considered with New York the likeliest targets for the terrorists. But all along the eastern seaboard tensions are running high, and ordinary people are taking precautions.

"Duct tape, plastic sheeting, can openers; you name it, we're selling it," the manager of Candey's hardware store, just half-a-dozen blocks from the White House, said yesterday. The run was sparked when Homeland Security officials issued a list of instructions on how to prepare for an emergency. Families are being urged to designate a "safe room" in their house, which could be sealed with plastic sheeting and tape. They should stockpile three days of food and water, at the rate of a gallon per person per day, as well as blankets, torches, radios and spare batteries. Families should also have pre-arranged plans on how to keep in contact if separated. The government insists the precautions are "prudent planning", just as people should prepare for natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornados or floods. But officials freely compare the measures to steps taken by Israel, whose citizens face the risk of attack every day. The threat of a terrorist outrage in America in the next three weeks was "perhaps the equivalent of eight on a scale of one to 10", Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security Secretary, has said. Most at risk now are not traditional targets such as airports and government buildings, but so-called soft targets, such as schools, banks, shopping centres and sports arenas. The attacks could be more insidious too, with bombs replaced by poison in the water supply. Comment: He's definitely under your bed! Again I say it, that Osama really is more of a friend to the US administration that anything else. I mean, just when Dubya is under serious pressure over his warmongering, with more and more nations oppsing him, and with the biggest worldwide anti war demos scheduled in just two days time, up pops Osama to scare us all into oblivion! What a coincidence...again!

Under siege from every side Pressure is mounting on Tony Blair over Iraq after MPs from all parties repeatedly attacked his policy yesterday, a cabinet minister publicly criticised the United States and the French ambassador added a withering critique of his own. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, failed in an attempt to calm the fears of Labour MPs by giving them a six-page dossier answering criticisms of Mr Blair's stance. Mr Straw was given a rough ride at a private meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), while Mr Blair faced hostile questions from Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs at Prime Minister's Questions. Cabinet tensions resurfaced when Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, warned a Commons committee that Iraq faced a "disastrous humanitarian situation". She said: "Getting the US military to take on humanitarian considerations is and was very difficult." She added: "There are a lot of military people who think that it will all be over very quickly and that people will be pleased not to be under Saddam, but these other risks are there." At a heated 90-minute PLP meeting devoted to Iraq, 19 speakers challenged the Government's line and only seven defended it. Alice Mahon, the MP for Halifax, complained of "dirty tricks" against anti-war MPs after Clive Soley, the PLP's former chairman, said the alternative to showing loyalty to Mr Blair was to end up siding with Saddam. Alan Simpson, MP for Nottingham South, told Mr Straw: "You should be more concerned with the prospect of the disintegration of the Labour Party than engaging in a war which the public believe to be quite immoral."

Some 41 MPs from the three main parties signed a Commons motion saying Britain should not go to war in Iraq until "all other policy options have been exhausted". The MPs demanded "clear evidence" that Iraq poses an imminent threat and for any war to be explicitly authorised by the UN Security Council and the Commons.The sponsors included two Conservative former cabinet ministers, Douglas Hogg and John Gummer, and the former Labour minister Chris Smith, who said: "The Iraq issue is a very important point in the life of the PLP. It has galvanised public opinion in a way I have not seen on any other issue in the past six years." Mr Blair told MPs: "The moral choice in relation to this is a moral choice that has to weigh up the moral consequences of war. But the alternative is to carry on with a sanctions regime which, because of the way Saddam Hussein implements it, leads to thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year.'' Meanwhile, Gerard Errera, the French ambassador in London, denied that France was "posturing" over Iraq and appeared to dash Mr Blair's hopes that Paris would not veto a new UN resolution authorising a war. He said France would defend its "deeply held convictions" without apologies.

Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org
Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.