Just in case you forgot, in March last year, the presidential commission concluded that Saddam had no WMDs and that the widespread belief to the contrary was due to the US intelligence community's inability to communicate intelligence.
Gold and oil prices continue to climb while the markets in Japan and the US begin to shake. Precursors of a larger crunch?
The BBC Article stated:
"Iran wants further talks amid some reluctance to give up control of a key part of the nuclear cycle.
'The Russians came up with the idea and I support it... because I do believe people ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power,' said Mr Bush.
But he added that he did not believe 'non-transparent regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon'.
Russia should also collect nuclear waste of use in weapons, he added.
'The Iranians have said We want a weapon and it's not in the world's interests that they have a weapon,' Mr Bush said in Washington.
It was not immediately clear to what Iranian statement the US leader was referring."
Let's have a look at some excerpts:
[...] "I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land."Indeed, Bush did say that the invasion of Iraq was about fighting the "war on terror" and that al-Qaeda is in Iraq. So we would of course expect Osama to counter such claims and tell us the real reason for the US invasion of Iraq, right? Think again, this guy isn't getting paid to contradict the Bush government!
Osama: "I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God"
In a riveting display of modern technological efficiency that undoubtedly thrilled the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine, last Friday, by way of a Predator drone aircraft, the CIA fired missiles at a group of houses in a village on Pakistan's north-western border with Afghanistan. Eighteen Pakistani villagers, including women and children, were either blown to pieces, burned to death or crushed as their homes collapsed on top of them as they slept in their beds.
© Unknown
Of course, this opinion did not magically spring from humanity's collective unconscious but was implanted into the mind of the average citizen by the U.S. government by way of the mainstream media. It should come as no shock therefore that such beliefs about the history of this Central Asian country are, at best, an extremely subjective interpretation of the facts, and at worst, an outright lie.
In 2005, Laura Bush graced Afghan soil and, referring to the previous Taliban regime, declared:
"It's very hard to imagine the idea of denying girls an education, of never allowing girls to go to school."The only conclusion that we can draw from such a comment is that Laura is not much of a history fan, particularly the history of the latter part of the 20th century which concerns US foreign policy in Central Asia. If Laura had bothered to delve into the harder-to-find history books, she would have discovered the real reason that Afghan women were treated like cattle throughout the 1980's and 90's.
Running Time: 00:33:07
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
Running Time: 00:33:07
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
Historians, when writing about history, not only discuss the theoretical facts that are being proposed as the timeline, but also the means by which they arrived at their ideas. Generally, they draw their conclusions about history by reading "sources," or earlier accounts of the matter at hand. In some cases these are eye-witness accounts, in others, accounts told to a scribe by a witness, and so on.
Historians try to make a distinction between sources as "primary" and "secondary." A primary source is not necessarily an eye-witness account - though it would be nice if it was - but is defined by historians as one that cannot be traced back any further and does not seem to depend on someone else's account. Secondary sources are those that are essentially copies or "re-worked" primary sources. Often, they consist of material from several sources assembled together with commentary or additional data.
Well, obviously this could present a problem if the primary source is completely falsified.
Historians try to make a distinction between sources as "primary" and "secondary." A primary source is not necessarily an eye-witness account - though it would be nice if it was - but is defined by historians as one that cannot be traced back any further and does not seem to depend on someone else's account. Secondary sources are those that are essentially copies or "re-worked" primary sources. Often, they consist of material from several sources assembled together with commentary or additional data.
Well, obviously this could present a problem if the primary source is completely falsified.
Running Time: 00:49:42
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
