March 3, 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!

"Let us imagine that there existed a country in the world that wished to have the power to do whatever it wished without having to answer to anyone else. It is a rogue state, the neighborhood bully, the local Mafia don. In response to this rogue state, other countries attempt to work together to find ways to contain the unbridled violence and arrogance of the rogue. They are doing this in part to protect themselves, in part to protect their economic interests, in part for other reasons. But in an international community, they are entitled to do this, to find ways to contain the aggression of the bully. Within the rogue state, any attempt by the world community to control the rogue would be seen as an affront on its sovereignty, on its "freedom" to do as it pleases. It might even begin to label this world organization as "evil", as "less free", as totalitarian, as the real danger. And the world community is a danger to the designs the rogue has on the rest of the world.

Now imagine that the press and media within the rogue state are completely controlled by those in power and that news of what life is like in the rest of the world is only shown if it conforms to the propaganda interests of the controllers. Imagine that the citizens of the rogue state are encouraged to stay home because no one else has it so good, because the rest of the world is jealous of them and therefore it is potentially dangerous to travel abroad. Imagine that the citizens of this rogue state have a very poor understanding of the rest of the world.

They might tend to believe the propaganda that this "world government" was something evil. They would have no direct experience to use as a basis of comparison. At the heart of it all is the deeply ingrained brainwashing of the American people to believe that their country is somehow better than anyone else.
That is one lie that every American will have to confront

Now imagine that this is exactly the situation at present in the US"

The Last One OK, this is my last anti-war column. The president's going to go, and I have a rule that when Americans go into combat, I don't criticize the war they're in. I'll raise hell trying to stop them from going to war, but once they're in it, I support them.

So I want you to do me, and yourself, a favor. Buy or rent two videos. One is "Black Hawk Down," the story of the Rangers' battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, and the other is "We Were Soldiers," the story of the battle in Drang Valley in Vietnam. Both are very good films, both are based on true stories, and both give as reasonably accurate a picture of war as you can get without making the audience throw up in their popcorn. You watch these two films and then remind yourself "When I say 'let's go to war,' I'm saying young Americans should be subjected to this. While I'm sitting at home watching the war on television, this is the kind of hell these young men and women will be going through."

In both battles, Americans fought so heroically, sacrificed themselves so selflessly, it makes you want to cry. But you know what's really sad about these battles? Neither one mattered a damned bit. Neither one changed anything. A quarter of a million wounded and 57,000 dead Americans later, Vietnam went communist. In Mogadishu, not only was Mohammed Aideed never captured, but the United States later cut a deal with him. He died in 1996, and one of his sons is now the warlord. All that heroism, all that blood, all that pain, all that suffering was for nothing. It accomplished nothing, nada, zero and zip.

Maybe you think that after Saddam Hussein is gone, everyone will live happily ever after, but I'm here to tell you that it will be the same. Nothing will change. No liberal democracy is going to bloom in the ancient desert of old Babylonia. No American will be able to say "I'm safer and freer now" because those young people died in Iraq. No Iraqi standing in the rubble is going to say, "Gee, I'm glad the Americans got rid of Saddam by destroying my home and my family." All this war is going to accomplish is to add to the world's store of misery — more death, more wounded, more destruction, more debt, more poverty, more hatred, more profits for the merchants of death, more pollution and more terrorism.

To waste something so precious as a young life is awful to think about. Look at the faces of these young soldiers. Many are barely more than boys, really. Boys always fight wars because it's too strenuous for old geezers. These days, the generals will sit in air-conditioned comfort far from the sound of guns. They will hold their briefings for the press. When the war is over and the young men are buried or packed away in VA hospitals or sent home to try to make a living, the generals will get the book contracts, take off on the lecture circuit and get rich. Some of them might even get gifts of stocks from grateful corporations that profited from the war. When the next war comes, they'll be on television as "Fox News consultants."

And I haven't even mentioned the suffering that will be inflicted on the Iraqis — their young boys, their children, mothers, fathers and grandfathers. You saw how Americans ran terrified from the collapse of the towers in New York. Imagine what it's like to be in a city that is being bombarded with 2,000-pound bombs, cruise missiles, artillery and Gatling guns. Imagine trying to save your children in such a mad inferno. Imagine what it would be like to see your children torn into ragged, bloody chunks of meat by shrapnel, or burned into a twisted piece of charcoal, with wet, yellow intestines leaking out. It's pure hell to be the collateral damage. But sit back and enjoy your war. It's what you want

'Serves rude America right' Nesrin Aloglu, a bank clerk, is delighted that Turkey’s parliament has thrown Washington’s plans for an attack on Iraq into disarray by blocking the deployment of US troops. “Serves them right. Now they can apologise.” Apologise, she said, for the way in which the United States so rudely took Turkey for granted and issued threats, insults and ultimatums when it did not get what it wanted.

In rejecting Washington’s demands, the recession-hit country is turning its back on US aid worth more than $20 billion (£13 billion). But Turks still support the parliament’s decision. “At least it’s cleared Turkey’s name and dispelled the image abroad that Turkey can be bought,” Zafer Dorttas, a 27-year-old customs official, said. Ordinary Turks were incensed by US media references to haggling in a carpet shop and by what they saw as insulting American behaviour.

The final straw came when a series of American newspaper cartoons were broadcast. They depicted Turkey as a money-grabbing belly dancer, or a prostitute bargaining for the price of its favours. “I can’t tell you how awful I felt when I saw the cartoons,” Ayse Akin, a student, said. “They were so deeply insulting. America can stick its money and its troops up its backside.” Comment: You tell 'em!

Facing Reality: US barbarism As the warmongers at Westminster and in the White House continue their maniacal drive towards war, the all pervasive Anglo-American mass media has been spewing forth an unrelenting stream of extravagant propaganda about Iraq. In “the gospel according to CNN, Fox and the BBC”, Iraq is the baleful and cynical “evil-doer”, while the United States is the pure and innocent “city on the hill”, radiating goodness and light.

But as we all know, even the devil can quote “scripture” to serve his own nefarious purpose. Let us therefore face reality by examining some of the facts pertaining to the historical relationship between Iraq and the United States. To begin with, let us recognise that Saddam Hussein is not the first leader of Iraq that the United States has sought to assassinate and remove from office. The first Iraqi president targeted for assassination by the United States – way back in 1963 – was General Abdul Karim Kassem.

You see, in 1958, General Kassem led a military uprising which overthrew the Anglo-American puppet monarchy of Iraq, and went on to establish a republican form of government and a national oil company which promised to wrest control of Iraq’s immense oil wealth from the hands of British and American companies. For this “sin”, General Kassem became the subject of a CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] assassination plot, and in February 1963 was overthrown in a coup and summarily executed.

The world has also heard an awful lot from the Western media about Saddam Hussein’s “gassing” of the Kurdish people of Iraq. But what they never refer to is the cynical and diabolical manner in which the United States government has used and manipulated the Kurdish people over the past 40 years. In an effort to destabilise the nationalist government of General Kassem, the United States commenced funding Kurdish guerrilla groups in Iraq in the early 1960s. This support was intensified by United States National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger in the 1970s, for the express purpose of destroying both the Kurds and the Iraqi government.

A 1974 CIA memo made it clear that neither the Americans, nor their ally, the Shah of Iran, wanted either side to win the bloody and debilitating conflict – “Iran, like ourselves, has seen benefit in a stalemate situation in which Iraq is intrinsically weakened by the Kurds’ refusal to relinquish semi-autonomy . . . Neither Iran nor ourselves wish to see the matter resolved one way or the other”. Thus, the Kurdish people of northern Iraq have been used as virtual cannon fodder by a cynical United States over the years. But of course, the greatest savagery against the people of Iraq was manifested during the 1991 Gulf War and in the years since then.

This is how the American author, William Blum, describes this period in his important book, Rogue State: “Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial assault in the history of the world to that time; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancers; blowing up chemical and biological weapons and oil facilities, a terrible poisoning of the atmosphere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed; sanctions continued into the 21st century, multiplying the health problems; more than a million children dead from all these factors, even more adults.”

And do the Americans care anything about the devastation they have inflicted on the people of Iraq? In 1991, General Colin Powell was questioned by a reporter about the number of Iraqis killed in the Gulf War, and his cavalier reply was – “It’s really not a number I am terribly interested in”. Similarly, United States Secretary of State Madeline Albright was questioned by television reporter, Lesley Stahl, on United States national television, about the morality of killing 500 000 Iraqi children in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Her reply was: “We think the price is worth it.” In the meantime, the United States government continues to support the terrorist Iraqi opposition group, the “Iraqi National Accord” with millions of dollars. This organisation specialises in using car bombs and other explosives in Baghdad and other cities, in an effort to destabilise Saddam Hussein. To date hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed.

Iraq war may start on March 13 A US-led war against Iraq could start as soon as March 13, just hours after a crucial UN Security Council vote on Baghdad, a media report said on Monday. "The moment we know we have the nine (UN Security Council) votes needed (for a military action against Iraq), we will go for it. The military won't hang around after that," a top US intelligence source was quoted as saying by Britain's Sun newspaper. "The timing is tactical," the unnamed intelligence source said. A new Iraq resolution is expected to be put to vote in UN Security Council on March 12, following this Friday's report by UN Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix on Iraq. The paper also reported that allied commander warned Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein last night that the war "will be soon, it will be swift and it will be short." It said Saddam's palaces and other known hiding places will be targeted, and ground troops will go in as soon as possible after the "bomb blitz." "One of the first casualties of the conflict - apart from Saddam - is likely to be French President Jacques Chirac" who is against war on Iraq, the paper said.

It said US President George W Bush telephoned Chirac last week and told him that "we will not forgive and we will not forget." Comment: What a sad, pathetic, infantile comment to make from one supposed world leader to another. I am dismayed at the fact that there seems to be a man with the mentaility of 2 year old in charge of the strongest, most brutal military on earth.

Analysts: Bush Plan Backfires [......] Edward Walker, president of the Middle East Institute, a Washington-based research center on the region, said Bush may be unable to turn back from the war anyway, that he has cornered himself into attacking Iraq. "He is stuck in a box," Walker said. "Even though the public is not inclined to support force, he has reached a point where he has no political option but to go forth with the war."

Walker said Bush is now carrying out a policy that was drafted as early as 1996 by planners such as Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory panel. The plan was outlined in a paper titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." Walker said the control of Iraq is a centerpiece of an overall policy for the Middle East. He added that the plan is to first control Iraq, then Iran and Syria.Full article here "This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions,"

Baghdad reveals location of nerve agent and anthrax It also threatens to halt destruction of missiles, which it began on Saturday, if Washington signals that it will attack Ongoing excavations have uncovered important quantities of anthrax and VX nerve agent, Iraqi presidential adviser Amer al-Saadi said yesterday. United Nations inspectors have been seeking clarification of the whereabouts of such deadly agents for years. Mr Saadi said excavations at the al-Aziziya air base, 104 km south-west of Baghdad, had uncovered nearly all bomb fragments filled with tonnes of toxic agents which Iraq insists it destroyed unilaterally in 1991. He said that so far Iraq had not quite found all 157 tonnes of anthrax, 'but we are nearing it, there is work in progress', he told a news conference. The material 'is in a site called al-Hakam, and this is what the meeting this evening is all about', he said, referring to talks between newly-arrived UN biological experts and Iraqi authorities.

He added that 1.5 tonnes of VX still to be accounted for 'was unilaterally destroyed in a dumping site near al-Muthanna State Establishment, and we have made analyses which strongly indicate that the total material was destroyed there'. Previously, Iraqi officials had offered to hold talks with UN inspectors on VX and anthrax stocks that it says it has destroyed, in what seemed a new move to head off Washington's threat of military action. Mr Saadi also indicated that Baghdad could cut off its destruction of banned Al-Samoud 2 missiles if the United States signals it will attack.

'If it turns out at an early stage during this month that America is not going a legal way, then why should we continue?' he asked. Iraq complied with an order from UN weapons inspectors and began to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missile program on Saturday. It destroyed four missiles Saturday and another six yesterday. Meanwhile, US defence officials said they could quickly adjust their war plans after the Turkish Parliament dealt a severe blow to American plans by refusing to grant US troops access to the country's bases for a possible invasion.

'US military planners make their living by planning for contingencies,' a senior US defence official said. 'Our plans are flexible enough to meet any change.' Though far from ideal, a strong option would be to insert thousands of troops into northern Iraq aboard air force cargo planes landing on existing primitive airstrips or highways, analysts say. But the officials still held out hope that Turkey would come around, and have asked the Nato ally for 'clarification' after the Parliament first appeared to pass and then to reject Washington's request. Comment: There ya have it, Saddam is clean, these are the chemical weapons that Bush was basing his accusations on. So Iraq is no longer a real threat, no need for war then, right George? After all, the threat has diminished, and of course there is nothing to that ludicrous suggestion that you want to invade Iraq for its oil and to ensure global dominance...right?

'Bush would be guilty at Nuremburg' If he launches an attack on Iraq without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, George W. Bush will be guilty of crimes on par with those committed by the infamous Nazi leaders who were tried at Nuremburg in 1948, after World War II.The law is clear. At Nuremburg, American, British, French and Soviet jurists used international conventions, legal precedent and a global moral consensus to establish a code of conduct deemed the standard for all nations. Key was the "crimes against humanity" prohibition stemming from the conscious slaughter of six million Jews, leftists, gypsies and others by the Nazi fanatics.

But also crucial was the ban on unprovoked attack by one nation against another. The explosive fuse that set off World War II was the September 1,1939 Nazi attack on Poland, which was unprovoked by any stretch of the military imagination. By all accounts it was an act of aggression and conquest, which led ultimately to as many as 50 million deaths over the next six years Article VI of the Nuremburg Charter defines "Crimes Against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties . . . or participation in a common plan or conspiracy . . . to wage an aggressive war.

A week before the unprovoked Nazi assault on Poland, Hitler promised his generals he would provide "a propagandistic reason for starting the war. He then justified a "preemptive" strike based on lies about a non-existent Polish Army attack against Germany. The Nazi attack date had been set for more than a year. "The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not," Hitler told his generals. "In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory."

After Hitler's deceptions were revealed at Nuremburg, the surviving Nazis based their defense on the claim of "preventative war," claiming a need to protect Germany from a pending Polish attack. They were the last, until Bush, to use that rationale. It didn't work. For this attack, ranking Nazi commandants, starting with Hermann Goering, Hitler's Number Two, were convicted and sentenced to death. That charge and that alone was deemed sufficient to warrant hanging. Unless Saddam Hussein launches an attack on the United States very soon, any American attack on Iraq without UN approval would be on a legal par with the Nazi attack on Poland.

Pakistan raid nets possible al Qaeda names The names of possible al Qaeda operatives, including some believed to be in Washington and other U.S. cities, were found among a "treasure trove" of material recovered during Saturday's capture of al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Pakistan, sources told CNN Monday.

Mohammed is the suspected mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, (he's also suspected of being dead since last year) Government sources would not say in how many cities the suspected operatives may be located. FBI agents are trying to track them down, an effort that includes continuing surveillance on people with possible links to al Qaeda, the sources said. With the CIA continuing a second day of questioning of Mohammed, U.S. officials are taking a fresh look at previously unearthed ideas al Qaeda may have considered. CIA agents are questioning Mohammed at an undisclosed location outside the United States and outside Pakistan, officials said. Interrogators are using "all appropriate pressure" to extract information from the al Qaeda operations chief, officials said. Through White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, President Bush on Monday offered his thanks to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his country for their help in the capture.

"This is a very serious development, a blow to al Qaeda, and the president is appreciative to Pakistan for the fine efforts they have been carrying out in the war against terror and their fine work in this most recent success," Fleischer said. U.S. officials said another al Qaeda detainee told them in recent weeks that around the time of the September 11 attacks Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders looked at the idea of targeting bridges, gas stations and power plants, including some in New York City. Officials said Mohammed and others explored the idea of getting operatives to steal tractor-trailer tankers and crash them into gas stations. Another idea included cutting suspension cables on bridges. Comment: According to US government sources and backed up by "media whores" CNN, the evil terrorists had also planned to hire a giant gorilla to kidnap a beautiful woman and climb the empire state building, terrorising the city. They has also conspired to agitate a nest of ferocious killer bees, inciting them to sting the bejaysus out of the entire US population. So there. Will you all let us attack Iraq now?

Mystery surrounds convenient arrest of the al-Qa'ida mastermind 'behind 11 September' The United States badly needed a big victory in its war on al-Qa'ida to counter those critics who said that the violent and fanatically anti-Western network represents a far greater and more immediate threat to Americans than Iraq. And now, just as its generals and Pentagon strategists apply the finishing touches to their plans to invade Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein, America says this is precisely what it has secured.

Pakistani agents, who have been working with the CIA and FBI, have, with immaculate timing, captured a man who is, by their account, almost as important as Osama bin Laden himself, an alleged mastermind of the 11 September atrocities that set off the current global crisis, a man of such criminal genius that – according to The Washington Post – he is known within the counter-intelligence world merely as "The Brain". Almost every big attack against the Americans and their allies by Islamist extremists over the past decade has been linked with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was arrested in Pakistan at the weekend and – amid some confusion last night over whether he was in US or Pakistani custody – spirited off to a secret location.

He has been described by the White House as the central planner of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington and a "key al-Qa'ida planner". He has been referred to by others as al-Qa'ida's chief military operations officer, a conduit for money, people and plans throughout the Middle East, south Asia and Europe. There have been suggestions that he was involved in the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, in which 224 people were killed. Intelligence agents in the Philippines believe he was part of a cell that plotted to kill the Pope in 1995. His name has been linked with the attack on the US warship the USS Cole, in Yemen, in which 17 American sailors were killed in 2000.

His was the hand that allegedly drew the knife across the throat of a terrified Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped and killed in Karachi as he was investigating Islamist extremist groups. He has, it is said, 27 aliases, speaks five languages, and is – say the Americans – as smooth and unruffled in a sleazy nightclub or in a restaurant in North Carolina, where he studied engineering in Chowan College, as he is in a staunchly conservative Islamic home in Pakistan.

If all these allegations are true – and it remains a significant "if" – he is about as breathtakingly ruthless and sinister as they come, a man with the blood of thousands of people on his hands and a $25m American reward on his head. Read more Comment: Thats all as may be, but the guy they are talking about above has apparently been dead for a year Anyone want "freedom BS" with their "freedom fries"?

Elsewhere, around the globe, the conflicts continue ... From Colombia to Congo, Afghanistan to Thailand - a world of turmoil The interim president of Afghanistan – the focus of obsessive international attention a year ago – was in Wash-ington last week to urge George Bush to continue supporting his country, no matter what happens in Iraq. Apart from the growing nuclear threat from North Korea and the endless violence in Israel and the occupied territories, the looming war in Iraq has driven most other events out of the news. After their meeting the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, and Mr Bush reaffirmed their "iron-clad and lasting partnership" in pursuit of a "prosperous, democratic" Afghanistan. But at almost the same moment the United Nations announced it was suspending operations in parts of the country because of fighting between warlords and general insecurity.

If Afghanistan has fallen out of the news, other conflicts have slipped even further down the agenda. In the past week the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, took time out from the Iraq crisis in a last-ditch attempt to end the 29-year division of Cyprus. The civil war in Colombia, which has lasted even longer, threatened to spill over into neighbouring Latin American countries. The number of people killed in a crackdown on drugs in Thailand reached 1,100, according to some estimates. And further peace talks in South Africa failed to stem the murderous civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But all these developments were more or less ignored.

Despite urging them to seize a "once in a generation" chance, Mr Annan could not persuade Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to agree on the latest revision of a complex power-sharing plan that would create a single state and set off population and territory exchanges. In the end he suggested leaving the decision to the communities they represent. If polls can take place, there is still time for the island to enter the European Union as a united country in 2004.

The recent kidnapping by Colombia's Farc rebels of three Americans on "US government business" in the south of the country has alarmed the US public, but Colombia's neighbours are more worried that the instability will spread to them. The hardline government of Alvaro Uribe, who became President in August, has embarked on the toughest anti-terrorism measures seen in Colombia in decades, and the rebels have responded with a spate of bombings. When Spanish and Colombian missions were bombed in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, last week, there were initial fears of Farc involvement.

Thailand has an equally hardline leader in Thaksin Shinawatra, whose latest anti-drugs campaign has evolved into a near-war. More than 1,100 people have been killed – including 10 children and a pregnant woman who happened to be passing during a drugs raid. The authorities suggest that the toll is so high because gangs are killing potential informers; the police say they have shot "only" 22 people, all in self-defence. The Prime Minister has vowed to wipe out methamphetamine trafficking, which blights the lives of three million addicts, by the end of April. One statistic is claimed as a measure of success: the price of a speed tablet has quintupled to 400 baht, or £6.

Despite a peace deal signed in December between President Joseph Kabila's government and key rebel move- ments, fighting is still claiming thousands of lives in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Aid agencies say a flu epidemic in the desperately poor state has killed more than 1,000 people. But it is hard to get attention – even the recent UN report which accused Congo rebels of cannibalism went largely unnoticed. Last week a helicopter carrying General Mountago Diallo, the chief of the UN military mission, came under fire. If it had been Hans Blix, there would have been a sensation, but Gen Diallo's close shave caused scarcely a ripple. Fortunately, he was unhurt. Comment: Yep, dont fall asleep now folks, the show is just starting.

March 2, 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!

America is not what we have been lead to believe it is. America is not the land of the free. America is not the greatest democracy on earth, it is not the peace keeper of the world. Of course this comes as a shock to many, but that is simply a testimony to the efforts that have been made to keep these truths from the people. There is evidence a plenty, but it is not reported, so naturally how could we have known. We are all guilty of the atrocities that have been carried out by the US and other countries over the past century through our desire to believe the fantasy that all was right with the world and when it wasnt, we were on the side of righteousness. This time has passed, perhaps for the first time has there is now an opportunity to see what really IS, however some effort is required on our part, we must be willing to identify and, if for a moment only, suspend the programming we have all unwittingly been subjected to by our governments and media and open our eyes to the reality of the world we live in and the men that are steering it down the road to perdition. We must do everything we can to stand up for the truth, because, in case you havent noticed, something very wicked this way comes

Top 9/11 suspect seized in Pakistan Police in Pakistan yesterday seized Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. Considered the most dangerous Islamic terrorist actively operating in the world, his arrest represents a stunning blow against the al-Qaeda organisation. Twenty heavily-armed police officers and US intelligence agents arrested the 38-year-old in a dawn raid on a house in Rawalpindi, close to the capital Islamabad, according to senior government sources in Islamabad. They broke into the modest brick house in the West Ridge area of the city at around 2.30 am yesterday. Mohammad was one of three men arrested in the raid. 'We have finally apprehended Khalid Sheikh Mohammad,' said military spokesman Major-General Rashid Qureshi. 'It is a big achievement. He is the kingpin of al-Qaeda.' He said the arrest was the work of Pakistan's intelligence agencies. Read more Comment: This is another setup, read this article where it is alleged that Khalid was arrested several months ago and would be trotted out when it suited the US interests. Also read how the sister of the other man arrested testified that he was the only one in the house at the time of the arrest and is "a bit slow and not very clever". Or this article that suggests that he was actually killed several months ago. This story stinks to high heaven expecially in light of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) links to funding the 9/11 attacks. Unsurprisingly the "suspects" will be interrogated by the US "overseas" i.e. they are not being extradicted to the US since if they were to come under the rule of US law the truth of the fraud would soon become apparent.

Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please? Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda. It's heart-warming to hear Tony Blair's concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and how the only possible way to help them is to bomb them with everything the Americans have. Mr Blair's sudden sympathy for the Iraqis' political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN.

But I'm a bit worried that Tony may be deluding himself that his friends in the White House share his altruistic ideals. I'm sure Tony has been reading all the recent stuff about PNAC - "The Project For The New American Century" - but has he looked at their website? As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.

PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." They don't split hairs at the PNAC. George W. Bush and his advisers' stated aim is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what's more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy - that's old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce the Pax Americana through military might.

Does Tony Blair know that? Has Tony Blair read the PNAC Report called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000"? It refers to the new technologies of warfare and goes on: "Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate." So when George Bush and his colleagues talk about Saddam Hussein posing a "threat" to America - they don't mean he's going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) - what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East.

Does Tony Blair know that's what they mean?

In fact, does Tony Blair know that President Bush's advisers regard Saddam Hussein as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." So Iraq is merely "the immediate justification" and Saddam's regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf.

Does Tony Blair know that?

If he has read PNAC's Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and - most important perhaps - to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy. On the other hand, if Tony Blair, has not read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000" or gone to the PNAC website to learn exactly what motivates Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, and so on then why the hell hasn't he? Go to your computer now, Mr. Blair. Look at the reality behind all this sanctimonious wringing of hands over the plight of the Iraqi people. Read what your American Republican friends are really intending. Please. Comment: This is missing the point, Blair is well aware of the real reasons behind the attack on Iraq and the fact that Saddam is a long term patsy of the US gov. He is just playing the game as he is being instructed to.

Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.

The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia. The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'. Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441. It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests.

Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC' - Quick Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations. Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that their staff also 'pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations'. Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines [ie, intelligence sources].' Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels.' Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what many expect to be his final report to the Security Council.

It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US. Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery. The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations. The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.

The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up. While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged, the memo reveals for the first time the scope and scale of US communications intercepts targeted against the New York-based missions. The disclosure comes at a time when diplomats from the countries have been complaining about the outright 'hostility' of US tactics in recent days to persuade then to fall in line, including threats to economic and aid packages. The operation appears to have been spotted by rival organisations in Europe. 'The Americans are being very purposeful about this,' said a source at a European intelligence agency when asked about the US surveillance efforts. Comment: yep, good ol democracy-loving USA, nothing like a bit of bribery and blackmail when pther countries have the cheek to challenge you.

Sharon To Use Iraq War As Cover For An Attack On Lebanon Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the go-ahead for the army to launch an attack on thousands of Hizbullah rockets in south Lebanon during hostilities in Iraq, an Israeli security source has told the London Sunday Times. The paper quoted the source, an officer in the IDF's anti-terror branch, as saying that "it is clear to us that Hizbullah is our job in the war against terrorism." "If they are stupid enough to open a second front during the war with Iraq, it will give us a great pretext," the source was quoted as saying. "But we'll hit them in any case." Hizbullah has expanded its presence along the border since Israel evacuated the security zone almost three years ago and now has more than 20 outposts, from the Mediterranean to the Syrian border.

Hizbullah is believed to have some 10,000 rockets, mostly short-range Katyushas, but the real cause for concern are Iranian-made Zelzal-2 and Fajr rockets, which could strike Haifa and Tel Aviv. The longer-range missiles are said to be under the control of Iranian Revolutionary Guards based in the Beka'a Valley of east Lebanon.Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz is said to be a strong advocate of military action against Hizbullah. The Sunday Times quoted military sources as saying any operation in Lebanon would not involve a fresh occupation and could be over in a day: "We are talking here about a very swift operation based on good intelligence regarding the whereabouts of the secret locations of the missiles," said one source. Comment: Seems the jigsaw pieces are being put in place to ensure the ultimate agenda of this war in Iraq, i.e. the destruction of all semetic people in the middle east.

Blair: My Christian conscience is clear over war. The Prime Minister answers questions from 'Independent on Sunday' readers over his beliefs and motives Tony Blair has told critics that his Christian conscience is clear about the terrible death toll which could follow a military strike against Iraq. In a unique dialogue with Independent on Sunday readers, the Prime Minister declared: "I would never go into war if I thought it was morally wrong." Mr Blair has responded in detail to the many concerns raised by our readers over the past weeks. Read more A QFS member comments: Yeah, well, we know how the "Christian conscience" has served to justify the annihilation of infidels and non-believers for thousands of years. Why should that change now, eh?"

Blair gives go-ahead for war without UN Tony Blair last night vowed to wage war on Iraq even if the international community refuses to back a military campaign to oust Saddam Hussein. The Prime Minister is planning to join the United States in a "renegade" attack on Iraq within two weeks, regardless of the outcome of a UN Security Council vote on the crisis which is expected within days. Blair has instructed key government figures to prepare for "plan B" if French, German, Russian and Chinese opposition denies the British and Americans a United Nations mandate for invasion. The acceptance in Downing Street that Britain may have to defy the UN and join a ‘coalition of the willing’ with America comes despite the first step towards disarmament by the Iraqi regime, which yesterday destroyed four of its Al-Sumoud missiles. Both the British and American governments immediately dismissed the move as Iraqi propaganda.

Meanwhile, several indications have emerged that a military conflict is imminent. Scotland on Sunday has learned that the Commons defence committee has been forced to cancel a fact-finding visit to neighbouring Turkey, planned for the week of the expected UN vote. "We were due to be there around the 14th, but we have been told the visit has been cancelled on the advice of the Foreign Office," one of the MPs on the committee said last night. It can also be revealed that a special Scottish police unit is to be established at Strathclyde Police headquarters in Glasgow to deal with the grim job of passing on details of servicemens’ deaths to relatives. Comment: So now we see Blair showing his true colors, it was all a sham, Tony and George were just playing "good cop bad cop" to see just how much they could "pull the wool". The gloves are off, its two fingers to public opinion and the UN and off to organised death we go!

George W. Bush Can't Tell the Difference Between a Democracy And a Puppet Government Cynics might argue that it is understandable that George W. Bush can't tell the difference between a democracy and a puppet government. After all, Bush was installed as president -- despite having lost the election by more than a half a million votes -- by a 5-4 vote instigated by a partisan hack Supreme Court Justice who thinks he is a judicial agent of God (we're talking about Antonin Scalia here). Bush's presidential "appointment" was the crowning culmination of a long-term right wing strategy aimed at controlling America through packing the courts and hijacking the electoral process. Just as the Bush Cartel is going to seize the second largest oil fields and colonize the Middle East -- Hell or high water -- the right wing extremists were going to place their puppet in the White House in 2000 no matter what it took.

In his February 26th speech at the right wing American Enterprise Institute -- with the Stalinist John Ashcroft at his side -- Bush read carefully crafted remarks that were meant to tug at the love Americans have for our memory of when we were a democracy (before Bush, before the 6 year attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, before election 2000, before the KGB reign of John Ashcroft). Among the many hot button appeals to our heritage as a democracy, he declared, "Success in Iraq could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state." That sentence is a key example of the latest fraudulent Bush marketing message aimed at selling the Iraq war.

After all, the Bush Cartel would never allow the uncertainty of outcomes that true democratic elections (outside of Israel) might offer in the Middle East. In all likelihood -- and by all accounts -- if it an open internationally-supervised election were held in the West Bank and Gaza today, the contest would be between Arafat and the likes of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. The "moderate" Palestinians would be left in the dust. Saddam Hussein makes a show of supporting families of suicide bombers, but to imply that he is responsible for the suicide bombings is wishful thinking. People don't decide to kill themselves because of Saddam Hussein. The 15 Saudis of the 19 hijackers who flew themselves into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weren't inspired by Saddam Hussein. The Islamic Jihad that conducts a terrorist war against Israel doesn't fight because of Saddam Hussein.

The very notion that one can impose a democracy in a region of the world that has been marked by warring factions of Islam, with age old hatreds of each other, who are united only by their hatred of the U.S. and Israel, is untenable. Iraq itself is composed of Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish factions, among others, that will be at each other's throats the moment Saddam is deposed (although he will probably personally escape the incompetent Bush Cartel, just as Osama bin Laden did.) A truly elected democracy in Iraq would probably end up being more fundamentalist -- and equally anti-American and anti-Israeli -- than the current secular state dictatorship under Hussein. Of course, the Bush administration will use the long period of "viceroy" government by an American general to "rid" Iraq of anyone who they might consider a trouble maker, which could be just about anyone in Iraq. So be prepared for a lot of "wet jobs," executions and "disappeared" Iraqis, all under the auspices of the American military government.

Ruling Arab nations as a neo-colonial occupying power will be a nasty business. In order for the Bush Cartel to install propped up "oil company" friendly regimes, American soldiers, CIA agents and "contracted" companies, are going to have to torture and kill a lot of people who might -- as the first step in a nascent democracy in Iraq -- want to toss the occupying power out of the country. In his American Enterprise Institute remarks, Bush made the argument that skeptics were wrong about the difficulty of grafting democracy onto cultures where it has not traditionally thrived. He cited, as his two examples, the development of democracies in post World War II: Germany and Japan. Only one problem with his examples: they were more deception and deceit from Bush. The truth is that Germany and Japan both had histories of elected governments prior to World War II. In fact, the Weimar Republic preceded the ascension of Hitler to power. Hitler, of course, used an arson attack on the Reichstag (German parliament), in 1933, to win forthcoming elections. In short, Hitler assumed power within a democracy. He also used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to assume the authority that allowed him to curtail the civil rights of opponents and make arbitrary arrests "to protect the German people and government."

What the Bush Cartel doesn't say about its craven appeal to our natural enthusiasm for democracies is that the Bush Cartel is going to only allow democracies that support the goals of the Bush Cartel "corporate cronyism administration." In short, the Bush Cartel is not in the business of promoting democracy. It is in the business of promoting puppet governments that have the appearance of democracy. Take Kuwait, for instance. According to a recent Washington Post article, Kuwait is still basically a feudal kingdom eleven years after Poppy Bush liberated its people from an Iraqi invasion (which Bush the elder had given Saddam a green light for in the first place, but that's another story). Part of the Bush the Elder's justification for war with Iraq was that the U.S. was going to ensure democratic reforms in Kuwait. The Bush family is always quick on promises and short on delivery.

Then there's Pakistan, which had more to do with promoting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda than any country outside of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is a "show democracy," which means that it goes through the motions of elections, with the outcome of Musharraf winning known in advance. It is widely conceded that if Musharraf allowed a truly free election, the Muslim fundamentalists would win in a blow out. So much for democracy. Let's not forget Afghanistan, a nation currently held together with bailing wire. By all accounts, outside of Kabul, the country is up for grabs. Officials of the U.S. installed government have been assassinated. American soldiers die in "accidents." The Bush administration is so "committed" to Afghanistan, it didn't even include humanitarian aid for them in the White House budget sent to Congress. Women's rights are reverting back to the stone age. The country is one warlord bullet away from imploding. So much for democracy.

The truth will out, the Bush administration doesn't want to dirty itself with dealing with "democratically elected" governments. (Look at how the Bush chicken hawks spend their time mauling two of our staunchest allies, France and Germany.) After all, Bush is the man who has said on three occasions, in public, that it would be a lot easier if he were a dictator. And Bush's strongest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia (the true home of the September 11th suicide hijackers), is a feudal monarchy. If one wants to argue with our premise, than one needs to explain to BuzzFlash why the Bush administration was actively involved in trying to recently overthrow the democratically elected president of Venezuela. Explain why the Reagan/Bush presidencies helped to ensure that right wing regimes in the Western Hemisphere were "re-elected" again and again despite polls showing that they weren't supported by the people. Explain why Salvador Allende, a democratically elected leader was overthrown -- and killed -- through the support of a "pro-democracy" Nixon administration. Explain why many of the Bush administration appointees have bloody hands from supporting the right wing death squads in Central America. One can agree or disagree with the ideologies of left wing leaders in the world, but if they are democratically elected, why is the U.S. overthrowing them?

Indeed, in following through with the Bush Cartel's demented obsession for endless war and empire building, we are even risking upsetting long standing viable democracies and turning them from secular states into religious states. Take Turkey, an Islamic nation, where more than 95% of the citizens, by some estimates, oppose a war with Iraq. The Turkish government will get billions of dollars for selling the opinions of their citizens short. In the last elections, a moderate Islamic party gained considerable ground. The literal sellout by the current government to the U.S. will very possible accelerate a fundamentalist surge. The Bush Cartel, in its maniacal war lust, may turn Turkey from a secular state to a Pakistan like Islamic Republic, or, conversely, lead to turmoil that would result in a military coup.

And the Turks are getting something else out of the deal according to reports (if it finally goes through after many setbacks). What the Bush Cartel is giving them -- in addition to money -- demonstrates, in a different fashion, how the fanatics in the Bush administration don't give a hoot about democracy. The Bush oil-empire-building extremists are going to allow Turkey to "neutralize" the nascent democracy that the Kurds have enjoyed in a "free state" that Saddam's forces were prohibited from entering. Because Turkey fears that the Bush Cartel war would lead to the formal establishment of an independent Kurdistan, which might arouse Turkey's own Kurdish population to seek alignment with it, Turkey is apparently being given permission, by the U.S., to de facto control, after the war starts, most of the currently free Kurdish territory in Iraq. In essence, the Bush Cartel will be rescinding a modicum of democracy for the Kurds, who have perennially been used and betrayed by western powers.

Terrorism is a subtle, difficult problem to battle. It needs a multi-faceted, resilient, well-thought-out strategy and a lot of sweat equity. What it doesn't need is platitudes about democracy that are really a war for oil and empire-building wrapped in the camouflage of "patriotic" language meant to pull at the heart strings of Americans. (The secondary purpose of the war is to drive domestic issues out of the news, so that the Bush Cartel won't be held responsible for an economy that has gone down the tubes and the extremist right wing social and environmental policies that it has implemented.) As BuzzFlash has argued again and again since September 11, our lives are at stake. We have a right and an obligation to speak out on what most effectively will reduce the threat of terrorism. The Bush Cartel is driven by priorities other than battling terrorism. They wave the flag of democracy even while they are doing everything to subvert it. The bullheaded Bush policy leaves us at greater risk for terrorism, not less.

It's not just the patriotic thing to oppose the opportunistic war and neo-colonial occupation that the Bush Cartel is about to undertake. It is a matter of self-survival. It is a matter of the survival of the American democracy. And once the war starts, as it will, because Bush and his fellow chicken hawks feel that it will make them real men (without having to actually do the difficult work of really battling terrorism), the true American patriots should not be cowed by the Bush Cartel threat that to protest a war is to undermine our troops. Remember Vietnam. Remember how so many lives of our service men were finally saved because of patriots -- like Daniel Ellsberg and millions of Americans -- who protested again and again, until we won. Remember democracy. Keep its flame alive against the forces of darkness who wrap themselves in the cloak of God and false patriotism.

The war against Iraq will be used as another excuse to further dismantle our Constitution and civil liberties at home. The miscalculated hubris and religious fatalism of the Bush Cartel will inevitably lead to actions that trigger another terrorist attack, which in turn will be used as an excuse for Ashcroft to cross over the line of using the Patriot Act I (and proposed Patriot Act II) for seizing suspected terrorists to using it to arrest political dissenters. The war against Iraq will inevitably lead to the Bush Cartel's Reichstag fire (although some would argue September 11th was that fire). Bush will become the dictator in law that he has always wanted to be. It will be too late to turn back the clock, with the rabid Tom DeLay running the House of Representatives and Bill "Yes Man" Frist running the Senate on behalf of the White House, legislation will be passed that will put the final nail in the coffin of this splendid democracy we know as America.

The next step, after the next terrorist attack, will be using these Pinochet-like powers to seize dissenters, American citizens, from their homes and businesses and hold them without trial or advice of counsel. The judicial panel in D.C. that is the final arbiter on many of the "anti-terrorism" provisions (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review) is dominated by right wing partisan "loyalty oath" "yes" men. The court consists of three judges who were appointed by Reagan, including the infamous Laurence Silberman. These Surveillance Court Review judges were appointed by, you guessed it, William Rehnquist. You do the math on whether or not Ashcroft will be able to get away with turning America into a "KGB" state. In Iraq, the media will conspire with the Bush Cartel to cover up civilian deaths, executions and torture, done in the name of the United States of America. OUR country. The Bush Cartel: They've hijacked God -- and they've hijacked democracy.

Don't give up the fight. Your lives and the future of this great country are at stake. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are driving us on a power-drunk 200 miles per hour joy ride into the jaws of Armageddon.

This isn't democracy. It's insanity in a ten-gallon hat.

Bush's Presidency Most 'Faith-Based' in Modern Times; War President Bush's aides say his quiet but fervent Christian faith gives him strength but does not dictate policy. He's only seemed like the preacher-in-chief, they say, because of what one called "a confluence of events": the horrors of 9-11, the terror alerts and the Columbia shuttle explosion. Still, belief gives him something more than confidence, says his closest friend Commerce Secretary Don Evans: "It gives him a desire to serve others and a very clear sense of what is good and what is evil."

In the March 10 Newsweek cover story, "Bush & God," (on newsstands Monday, March 3), Chief Political Correspondent Howard Fineman writes a "faith portrait" of the president, looking at Bush's background of strong religious faith and belief and how they saved his life and family and shaped a political career and a national government. Every president invokes God and asks His blessing and promises, though not always in so many words, to lead according to moral principles rooted in Biblical tradition. But, Fineman reports, it has taken a war, and the prospect of more, to highlight a central fact: this president -- this presidency -- is the most resolutely "faith-based" in modern times, an enterprise founded, supported and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God.
In the debate over whether Iraq is a "just war," in Christian terms as laid out by Augustine in the fourth century and amplified by Aquinas, Luther and others, Bush has strong support from his base. Leading advocates for the moral virtue of his position include Richard Land, the key leader of the Southern Baptist Convention's political arm and Michael Novak, the conservative Catholic theologian.

But Bush faces a mighty force of religious leaders on the other side, including the pope, and he will meet with a papal envoy this week, Newsweek has learned. "People appreciate his devotion to faith but, in the context of war, there is a fine line, and he is starting to make people nervous," says Steve Waldman, the editor and CEO of Beliefnet, a popular and authoritative Web site on religion and society. "They appreciate his moral clarity and decisiveness. But they wonder if he is ignoring nuances in what sounds like a messianic mission." The atmosphere inside the White House, insiders say, is suffused with an aura of prayerfulness. There have always been Bible-study groups there; even Clintonites had one. But the groups are everywhere now, Fineman reports.

The language of good and evil -- central to the war on terrorism -- came about naturally, says David Frum, the author and former Bush speechwriter. From the first, he says, the president used the term "evildoers" to describe the terrorists because some commentators were wondering aloud whether the United States in some way deserved the attack visited upon it on September 11, 2001. "He wanted to cut that off right away," says Frum, "and make it clear that he saw absolutely no moral equivalence. So he reached right into the Psalms for that word." He continued to stress the idea, Fineman reports. Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts were "evil."

In an accompanying essay, Martin E. Marty, a former president of the American Catholic Historical Association and a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, writes about the effects of Bush's rhetoric on world religious leaders. "One hopes that the Bush people will keep in mind that claims of God's always being on our side are alienating to many former or would-be allies. More dangerous is that Bush's God talk will set the tinderbox that is the Muslim world on fire. Neither the president nor the American Christian majority have to yield their own faith in order to get along, but how they express it matters," Marty writes. He writes that few doubt Bush is sincere in his faith. "The problem isn't with Bush's sincerity, but with his evident conviction that he's doing God's will."

Marty writes that the billion humans in the Muslim world, leaders and followers alike, had good reason to seethe when the evangelist who prayed at Bush's Inaugural -- and who remains close to the president -- persisted in calling Islam "a very evil and wicked religion." "The administration had to reject that claim -- and it did. Regular appearances by the president at meetings of certain evangelical groups, however, make it hard for friendly Muslims not to hear the word 'Islam' whenever Bush portrays 'terrorists' as absolute evils. And, as evangelical theologian Richard Mouw points out, 'Those inflammatory statements stimulate further antagonism on the part of Muslim extremists,' who can go recruiting among moderates," Marty writes Comment: Not that I need to say this, but, HAH! what a joke! The only thing Bush prays for (to who I wonder?) is that we all remain dumb enough to believe his lies. Perhaps we should remind ourselves of his speech about "dealing" with terrorists and the evil little smirk on his face: 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.)"

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." Bush is not a man of god, he is evil incarnate.

American billions keep Arab regimes sweet It was pathetic. The President of the United Arab Emirates – too old and too sick to visit Sharm el-Sheikh – sent a message begging Saddam Hussein to go into exile, just as the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had told the Arabs to do last Thursday, when he urged them to get President Saddam "out of the way and let some responsible leadership take over in Baghdad".

Even the Saudis didn't oppose the Emirates' plea, while the Egyptians – host to the Arab League summit – could only claim that they were "not in the business of changing one regime for another". How much does it cost to produce this kind of subservience? In Egypt's case, $3bn (£1.9bn) in US aid and other credits, plus another $1bn in gifts. Another $1bn for Jordan, which has just accepted US troops on its territory – only to man Patriot missile batteries, of course.

Money seems to make the Arab world go round. The Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram and the Saudi newspaper Al-Hayat are singing the Emirates' tune and demanding a "regime change" in Baghdad. Turkey – not an Arab country – is waiting for its $26bn in promises to let the US army tramp across its border into Iraq.

Syria alone – since it may well be number two on Washington's list for "regime change" – said that it was a mistake to identify the Iraqi leadership as the source of the current crisis. President Bashar Assad said that America wanted Iraq's oil and wished to "redraw the region's map". The latter is undoubtedly true, since Mr Powell unwisely admitted just that last week. "We are all targeted ... we are all in danger," President Assad said.

The Iraqis, needless to say, responded with considerable anger to President Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan's demand from the Emirates. Other Arab leaders were meanwhile scurrying to form a consensus over whether they should send one of their beloved delegations just to Baghdad, or to Baghdad, the US, the UN and the EU as well.

What it came down to was whether the Arabs should allow the Americans the use of their territory to attack Iraq or whether – this from President Assad of Syria – they should ban the US from their territory if they wished to use it as a springboard for war. The Kuwaitis, liberated from Iraqi occupation by the US and its coalition partners 12 years ago, said that this view was "not realistic". The real problem is that the US is already, in effect, in occupation of a fairly large number of Arab nations.

US forces control half of Kuwait; they are in Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman and in Jordan. Every one of these countries will be called an "ally" if – when – the Americans storm over the border into Iraq. So will Turkey. So, probably, will Egypt. And so, of course, will Israel.

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.