February 23, 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. Let the truth prevail, for a change.

Dems: Bush Limiting Talks With Governors Democrats said Saturday that the White House was taking unprecedented steps to limit conversation at Monday's scheduled policy discussion between governors and President Bush. With their states' economies in tatters, members of the National Governors Association - who began their four-day winter meeting Saturday - are hoping to win more federal aid to cover soaring costs for health care, homeland security and education. But the governors have been told that most of them won't be able to directly question the president during Monday's White House gathering, according to Nicole Harburger, communications director for the Democratic Governors Association. "Several of the governors are considering not attending the meeting," Harburger said. "The governors are upset and concerned that the White House is not interested in a dialogue." She said the governors have been told the group as a whole will be allowed just two questions - and must submit them in writing beforehand. Washington Gov. Gary Locke, chairman of the Democratic governors, said, "There are many Democratic governors talking about not even attending under these circumstances." Read more Comment: now there's censorship for ya! Nazi style! So is it obvious yet? Can we see it yet? How clear do we need it to be? The US government is the fourth reich in everything but name.

How the US let Al Qaeda go

JANE WALLACE: Let's talk about Konduz. During the war with Afghanistan--

SY HERSH: Great story.

JANE WALLACE: -- you reported that during a key battle our side in that battle had the enemy surrounded. There were a reported perhaps 8,000 enemy forces in there.

SY HERSH: Maybe even more. But certainly minimum that many.

JANE WALLACE: It's your story, take it.

SY HERSH: Okay, the cream of the crop of Al Qaeda caught in a town called Konduz which is near ... it's one little village and it's a couple hundred kilometers, 150 miles from the border of Pakistan. And I learned this story frankly-- through very, very clandestine operatives we have in the Delta Force and other very...

We were operating very heavily with a small number of men, three, 400 really in the first days of the war. And suddenly one night when they had everybody cornered in Konduz-- the special forces people were told there was a corridor that they could not fly in. There was a corridor sealed off to-- the United States military sealed off a corridor. And it was nobody could shoot anybody in this little lane that went from Konduz into Pakistan. And that's how I learned about it. I learned about it from a military guy who wanted to fly helicopters and kill people and couldn't do it that day.

JANE WALLACE: So, we had the enemy surrounded, the special forces guys are helping surround this enemy.

SY HERSH: They're whacking everybody they can whack that looks like a bad guy.

JANE WALLACE: And suddenly they're told to back off--

SY HERSH: From a certain area--

JANE WALLACE: -- and let planes fly out to Pakistan.

SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe mmore. I've heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.

And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.

JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?

SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized — Donald Rumsfeld who — we'll talk about what he said later — it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.

JANE WALLACE: The Department of Defense said to us that they were not involved and that they don't have any knowledge of that operation.

SY HERSH: That's what Rumsfeld said when they asked him but it. And he said, "Gee, really?" He said, "News to me." Which is not a denial, it's sort of interesting. You know,

JANE WALLACE: What did we do that? Why we would put our special forces guys on the ground, surround the enemy, and then-- fly him out?

SY HERSH: With al Qaeda.

JANE WALLACE: With al Qaeda. Why would we do that, assuming your story is true?

SY HERSH: We did it because the ISI asked us to do so.

JANE WALLACE: Pakistani intelligence.

SY HERSH: Absolutely.

JANE WALLACE: Yeah.

SY HERSH: Yeah. That's why. You asked why. Because we believe Musharraf was under pressure to protect the military men of — the intelligence people from the military, ISI, that were in the field. The Pakistanis were training the Taliban, and were training al Qaeda.

When the war began, even though this is-- again, you know, this is complicated. Musharraf asked, as a favor, to protect his position. If we suddenly seized, in in the field, a few dozen military soldiers, including generals, and put them in jail, and punished them, he would be under tremendous pressure from the fundamentalists at home.

So, to protect him, we perceive that it's important to protect him, he asked us-- this is why when I tell you it comes at the level of Don Rumsfeld, it has to. I mean, it does. He asked-- he said, "You've got to protect me. You've got to get my people out." Read more

Americans were duped before; it could be happening again Are you being duped? Ask yourself that question before condemning those who oppose bombing, invading and occupying Iraq. It wouldn't be the first time your own government, including your president, has lied to justify war. It happens in every other generation. This nation fought a war against Spain over a century ago because many in the media parroted the government line that Spaniards blew up the Battleship Maine in Cuba. Turns out that most likely was a mistake at best, a big fat lie at worst. During World War I, Germans were depicted as brutal barbarians who reveled in nailing babies to fences and gouging out their eyes, and World War I was billed as the war to end all wars. Instead, it led directly to World War II, the rise of communism and the Cold War in the bloodiest century the world has ever known. Many of today's hawks are too young to remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the big fat lie that plunged us into Vietnam in the 1960s. Look it up. Then there was the Iran-Contra affair, a web of lies that helped shape the dismal dilemma we face now. Remember Iran-Contra? That was the covert operation of the Reagan-Bush administration in the 1980s to sell missiles to a radical Iranian government in exchange for its help in freeing American hostages held in Lebanon.

Yes, folks, our government dealt with terrorists and sold arms to radical Muslim governments. Money from the missiles we sold to Iran was used to arm the Contras in Central America. Some called them terrorists, but they were our terrorists, so we called them freedom fighters. Reagan's national security adviser, John Poindexter, was convicted in 1990 of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government and destroying evidence in the Iran-Contra scandal. He got off on grounds that he had been granted immunity from prosecution by the same Congress he lied to. Incredibly, Poindexter now serves as director of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office, which snoops on the electronic transactions of ordinary Americans. It gets more mendacious. While Poindexter, Oliver North and others were secretly funneling weapons to Iran, our government also supported Iran's hated enemy, Iraq, selling the Iraqis cluster bombs and chemicals for weapons of mass destruction. Our government, including Donald Rumsfeld and others now surrounding President George W. Bush, shamelessly played both sides against the middle in the 1980s, promoting trench warfare that resulted in about 1 million dead, crippled and emotionally scarred Iranians and Iraqis.

Later, our government lied to make its case for the first Gulf War.

Our government claimed in 1990 to have a photograph showing 265,000 Iraqi soldiers and 1,500 tanks massed on the Saudi border ready to overrun that country's oilfields. That claim compelled the Saudis to let us use their country as a staging ground for the Gulf War. A prize-winning writer for the St. Petersburg Times went to the source of the photograph and exposed it as one more lie. The first Bush bunch also lied to the Kurds and other enemies of Saddam Hussein, promising we would liberate them if they rose up to oppose that hated tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Instead, Kurds were slaughtered by Iraqi helicopters as U.S. forces withdrew. We mostly protected the Kurds from further Iraqi vengeance, but the lies keep coming, to the Kurds and to us. A New York Times poll shows that 42 percent of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Our government helped create that impression in its obsessive drive toward regime change in Iraq.

If you love America as I do, then you owe it to yourself and your children to seek the truth and reject even the lies told with the best of intentions by our own leaders. Governments throughout history have lied, and many folks around the world have become smart enough to know it. Maybe that explains why, even as talking heads on CNN and ABC gushed over how brilliantly Secretary of State Colin Powell had made the case for war against Iraq - with his photographs of trucks and bulldozers and his little bag of phony anthrax and his weird tape recordings - the world responded with the largest peace demonstration in history against a war that hadn't even started. It's one that doesn't have to if the truth be told.

Two-week countdown to war Australia could be at war with Iraq in just over a fortnight under a timetable outlined by Foreign ister Alexander Downer. Mr Downer said a new UN Security Council resolution was likely to give Iraq only days to disarm. At the same time, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he expected the resolution soon after UN weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered his next report on March 7. The foreign minister, who flies to Seoul on Monday, will discuss the resolution and ways to mobilise world support with Mr Powell in the South Korean capital later this week. Mr Downer also vowed that Australia would not be deterred by terrorist threats.

He told the Nine Network he expected the resolution to be introduced into the Security Council this week, where it would be discussed, debated and amended. While a new resolution was not legally necessary to justify war, it would broaden international support for whatever action was taken. "The new resolution would be a message to (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein that he had just a few days left," he said. " ... Saddam Hussein would either have to dramatically change policy, or else there would be military action - he'd be disarmed forcibly." Mr Downer said he expected the resolution would pass the Security Council and he thought France was unlikely to veto it, although it might abstain. He said even a single veto would be undesirable. Mr Downer said Australians, as part of the western community, were terrorist targets. Terrorists would continue to target western countries, and an attack on Iraq might prompt them to amend their timetable. "For us to say that we won't bother disarming a maverick regime like saddam Hussein's regime, consistent with international law, because we are frightened of terrorists is to concede the game both to terrorists and to a maverick who is in breach of international law," he said. Mr Powell told journalists in Tokyo that the Security Council would have to decide what to do soon after Mr Blix's March 7 report.

One Man Against the World
--- A great, civilized nation democratically elected a fanatic demagogue, who preached war. Actually, he did not really receive the majority of votes, but, somehow, his ascent to power was arranged nevertheless.
--- Soon after assuming power, he manipulated a dramatic incident in order to tighten his grip upon the country and prepare for attack on smaller nations. An immense propaganda machine turned "enemies" into devils, the incarnation of evil.
--- The call for war enabled him to unite the whole people behind him, to silence all opposition, gradually abridge human rights, overcome the economic crisis and embark upon a voyage towards world dominion.
--- He loved being photographed in uniform, walking along lines of soldiers, pretending to be a great military leader ---

I mean, of course, Adolf Hitler.

The German people, which gave him power and followed him with closed eyes even when he committed heinous crimes, paid a heavy price. It has learned the lesson. Now it abhors war, any war, from the depth of its soul. Hundreds of thousands - young people, children, grandchildren and grand-grandchildren of that generation - march these days through the streets of Germany to protest against Bush's war. Their leader, Schroeder, was reelected solely because he expressed this deep longing for peace. The most warlike people has turned into the most anti-warlike. That's great, isn't it? Not at all! American and British leaders condemn Germany for its refusal to go to war. The Israeli government heap scorn on its head. Wet rugs, these Germans! Damn pacifists! Cowards! Pitiful people who refuse to fight!

All this less than 60 years since Hitler's suicide. Who would have believed.

And this is not the only miracle that is happening these days. Not by any means. A personal memory (excuse me if you have read it before): when I was 8 years old, two years before my family fled Germany after Hitler's coming to power, I was a pupil in the third class of an elementary school in Prussia, a Social Democratic bulwark at the time. Once the teacher told us about Hermann, the national hero, who had succeeded in 9 AD to lure the Roman army into a trap and annihilate it. The Roman commander, Varus, fell on his sword and Augustus Ceasar uttered his despairing cry: "Varus, give me back me legions!" On the spot where the historic battle was supposed to have taken place, there stands now a huge statue of Hermann. "Hermann stands with his face towards the Erbfeind (hereditary enemy)!" our teacher proclaimed. "Children, who is the Erbfeind?" All the pupils in the class shouted in unison: "Frankreich! Frankreich (France)!" Now Germany and France, the hereditary enemies, stand together, shoulder to shoulder, against Bush's war plans. The Americans curse and abuse them, but they stand firm: Enough of war. Enough of destruction and bloodshed. Other ways to solve problems must be found. That is another miracle. But even this is a minor one compared to the third, historic miracle that is happening in front of our eyes: President Putin appeared in Berlin and Paris, embraced Chirac and Schroeder and added his voice to theirs. One front from Cherbourg on the Atlantic to Vladivostok on the Pacific. That has never happened before. From earliest times, European history is full of alliances of some states against others. Germany and Russia divided Poland between them. France and Russia allied themselves several times to contain Germany. Napoleon tried to unite Europe and did not succeed. The Texan cowboy is succeeding where the Corsican emperor has failed. Bush has invented the childish term "Axis of Evil" to group together Iraq, Iran and North Korea. That's nonsense. But in the meantime a French-German-Russian axis has come into being and is facing the United States. (The term "axis" to design a coalition of states was also invented at the time of Hitler. The original axis of evil included Germany, Italy and Japan. When using this term, Bush intended to recall that memory.) It is too early to say if this new axis will hold on and if it will be strong enough to face the enormous might of the United States. But even if it will be broken this time, its very birth is a harbinger of things to come.

These three countries, contemptuously called by the American Secretary of Defense "Old Europe", are, on the contrary, united by considerations pertaining to the New Europe. This Europe worries the Americans. It is becoming an economic superpower, able to compete with, and perhaps overtake, the United States. A symbol of this is the fact that the euro has indeed overtaken the dollar.As I remarked in a previous article, the war in Iraq is primarily a war against Europe and Japan. The American occupation of Iraq will ensure American control not only over the vast oil reserves of Iraq itself, but also of the Caspian Sea and the Gulf States. The hand on the oil tab of the world can choke Germany, France and Japan, because it can manipulate at will the price of oil throughout the world. Lower the price, and you choke Russia. Raise the price, and you choke Europe and Japan.

Therefore, preventing the war is an essential European interest, in addition to the profound longing for peace of the European peoples.Washington does not even hide its desire to bring Europe to its knees. Lately, there is a crude American effort to create a coalition of peripheral countries in order to oust Germany and France from the leadership of the European Union. America is organizing a bloc of the former Communist nations, who are about to join the Union, together with the UK, Spain and Italy. The Paris-Berlin axis, aided by Moscow, is designed as a defense against this ploy, too. This war, then, goes much beyond the Iraqi problem. It is not a war against Saddam's microbes. It is, quite simply, a war for world dominion, economic, political, military and cultural. Bush is ready to spill a lot of blood to achieve this (as long as it is not American blood). Israel is involved in this game without quite knowing what it is doing there, a boy in a game of world-league bullies. It has nothing to gain, it can only lose.

UN inspectors provide Bush with fresh trigger for war An invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain could come even sooner than expected, as United Nations weapons inspectors threw down a double challenge to Saddam Hussein, and President Bush issued his sternest warning yet to the UN to fall into line or face irrelevance. The new pressure on Baghdad comes as Tony Blair risks a huge Commons rebellion this week when Labour MPs are ordered by the whips to support the threat of military force against Iraq. Last night, war appeared closer than ever as the UN's top nuclear weapons inspector warned that Iraq was still stalling. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iraq was not fully co-operating with weapons inspectors. Another trigger for war could be the unexpected deadline issued by his colleague, Hans Blix, that Iraq should start destroying dozens of missiles with a range which exceeds UN limits. Baghdad complained that this would be "tantamount to suicide".

And from his ranch at Crawford Texas, where he met Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, Mr Bush warned: "Time is short." Accusing Saddam of continuing to cheat and dissemble, he insisted that this was a last chance "for the Security Council to show its relevance". The two leaders discussed the final draft of the "clear and simple" second resolution the US and Britain will introduce at the Security Council tomorrow, declaring that Iraq is in breach of its UN obligations and therefore faces "serious consequences" ­ diplomatic code for war. But opposition to war is mounting around the world and particularly in Britain, where Mr Blair desperately needs the political cover of a new UN resolution. Yesterday's summit of 114 non-aligned nations joined the African leaders who met last week in Paris in backing France's call for the inspectors to be given more time. The Prime Minister, who had a private meeting with the Pope in which they set out their conflicting views on the impending war, will try to keep most MPs on his side by announcing what he will call his "last push for peace". The political stakes will be raised yet higher this morning when one of the most popular members of the Cabinet, Clare Short, sets out the terms on which she is prepared to support a military strike against Iraq.

In an interview for GMTV's Sunday programme, the International Development Secretary revealed that "most of my family and most of the people I know" took part in last weekend's huge anti-war demonstration. But she went on: "There are some people who say 'no force at any price' and I understand that emotionally, but I can't claim to be a responsible member of the UK government if we're willing to see the UN endlessly humiliated and the people of Iraq endlessly suffer." Mr Blair is hoping that for as long as the "UN route" to a possible war is adhered to, he can avoid a split in his own Cabinet and the consequent risk of Parliamentary defeat. This month, 120 MPs, 84 of them Labour. signed a Commons motions opposingwar unless a series of conditions had been met. Commons business managers now have the task of writing a "substantive motion" on which MPs will vote on Wednesday. Downing Street yesterday released a detailed list of the illegal weapons which Iraq is still suspected of concealing from UN inspectors, including 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents and other materials for producing deadly toxins such as VX nerve gas and anthrax. Comment: The fact that Saddam may have chemical agents (sold to him by the US among others) is not the issue, many other "rougue states" who possibly pose a "real" threat have fully developed WMD destruction (like Israel) and Bush is doing nothing about it. The truth, as we continue to say is that Bush's war is a desperate attempt to maintain global economic predominance of the US, and he is willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent lives including his own civilians and ignite a fire that may destroy us all.

February 22, 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!

Weapons of mass deception. Anyone look familiar? The man on the left, shaking Saddam Hussein's hand with a big smile, is none other than current US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This video grab from Iraqi television shows their meeting in 1984 when Rumsfeld was sent by Ronald Reagan as an envoy to re-open US-Iraq diplomatic relations, and to remove Iraq from their list of 'Countries that sponsor terrorism.' This occurred in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam was using chemical weapons, as reported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and the US was arming both sides of the conflict. Huge US military and intelligence support flowed to Iraq from that point on, with direct combat operations by US forces against Iranian shipping and oil platforms.

As Britain and the US gear up to attack Iraq on the most flimsy of pretexts, the reality of the highly successful destruction Iraq's weapons programme by UNSCOM between 1991 and 1998 is being largely ignored. The fact that UNSCOM was infiltrated by US and UK intelligence agencies, utilising UNSCOM's access in Iraq to gather target information for futher military strikes, is also being largely ignored, despite the fact that it was widely reported in early 1999. The fact that Iraq finally refused to comply with UNSCOM because of this infiltration is being completely ignored. The fact that UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler withdrew the inspectors for their own safety as the US and UK unilaterally attacked Iraq in December 1998, with no UN mandate, is being totally ignored. Indeed, British and American newspapers have been literally re-writing history, stating that the inspectors were 'kicked out' of Iraq by the Ba'ath government. The history of Iraq's recalcitrance over the inspection process is well documented, but Iraq remains the most comprehensively disarmed country, in relative terms, in the world. UNSCOM was a huge success.

Following September 11th, rationales have constantly shifted. Having spent twelve years demanding that Iraq comply with weapons inspectors before any sanctions can be lifted, Iraq finally capitulated under a new threat of force. Literally, within hours of their announcement the US declared that it would not accept their offer. "Our policy is regime change, with our without inspectors," said Whitehouse spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Barely a single newspaper called this stand into question. And the question they should have asked was blatantly simple: why have sanctions been enforced against Iraq for twelve years, killing up to 1.5 million people, if weapons inspections were never what the US actually wanted? For the same reason, I suspect, that few papers ever paid attention to the statement made in late 1991 by Robert Gates, former special assistant to Bush Sr. "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime." Any serious researchers of this subject know the facts only too well. The US wants a new strong man in Iraq, one who will do their bidding, as Saddam used to with the customary gusto and brutality of many US clients, to be "...a son of a bitch, but OUR son of a bitch..." as a CIA member once testified to Congress.

The US claims that they have intelligence that proves Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction. But they won't show it to us. They won't even show it to the new inspections body UNMOVIC. This has caught Iraq in a classic 'logic trap.' If UNMOVIC find something, Iraq will be bombed. If they don't find something, the US will claim that the inpsection process doesn't work, so they will be bombed. Back in the days of UNSCOM, when they found 11,000 fully armed chemical shells, they simply piled them up and destroyed them. Now when UNMOVIC find 12 empty shells in a dusty old box that Iraq failed to account for, suddenly it's the trigger to go to war.

Yet from one day to the next we are told war is not inevitable, then that war is inevitable, that we are patient and will allow the inspection process to work, that we are impatient for the inspection process to work, that UNMOVIC has found no 'smoking gun,' that they have found a 'smoking gun', that we are going to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of our former ally, that we are going to install a new leader but leave the political and police system intact, that this is about weapons of mass destruction, that this is about fighting terrorism, that this is about regime change, that this is about democracy. And the faces of media pundits and politicians blur into one, and all the while the troop build up continues, and all the while the public opposition to it grows to a vast majority. As I write this 84% of the British public is opposed to war, or more accururately, an attack.

This onslaught of media propaganda has been unrelenting, and it is a testament to the good sense and intelligence of the British and American people that they, for the most part, see through it all, even though no-one has yet asked: exactly WHEN did this 'crisis' actually begin? The 'crisis' began on March 13th, 2002 when George W. Bush said of Osama bin Laden at a Whitehouse press conference: "He's a person who's now been marginalized...I just don't spend that much time on him...I truly am not that concerned about him." What concerned Bush now? "I am deeply concerned about Iraq." On April 6th, Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Myers, speaking at a Department of Defence press conference, followed that with: "The goal has never been to get bin Laden." Surely, wasn't the whole point of the Afghanistan war to get bin Laden and those who supported him?

From that point on the clamour of the government/media alliance began to build for a new assault on Iraq.

In moves that have drawn favourable comments from Labour supporting papers, Tony Blair was claimed to have 'reigned in' Bush and forced him to go down the UN road to seek a new Security Council Resolution (1441) to enforce a new inspections regime. This claim is astonishing given that Blair has for the past six years been a devoted follower of US policy on Iraq, taking part in the almost daily bombing, as well as the Desert Fox strikes in late 1998 which were not endorsed by the UN whatsoever. Nevertheless, this is where 'we' find ourselves, poised on the brink of killing 10,000 innocent Iraqis in renewed air strikes, a scenario described by the CIA as 'medium case.' Aid agencies are a great deal more pessimistic. With the Iraqi population almost entirely dependent on the central government ration (via the oil-for-food programme) disruptions in supply could be absolutely catastrophic. Estimates of 250,000 - 500,000 deaths and injuries are currently being put forward, whilst US television features a military spokesman cheerfully describing a 'Shock and Awe' strategy designed specifically to terrorise and murder the population by destroying what is left of their hospitals and water supply. And the reality behind the new hawkish stance of the US is not widely reported, nor are the astonishing efforts made by the US in the past to actually OBSTRUCT weapons inspections to provide pretexts for further attacks. And the actual goals of the US and their selection of likely candidates to lead a post-attack Iraq seem to have escaped the attention of the majority of the mass media. It's a good thing for 'us' then, that good journalists and good newspapers, though few are far between, still exist.

The following articles provide a much needed reality check to the current manufactured 'crisis,' and serve to underline UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix's statement that, whilst there are still outstanding questions about Iraq's co-operation, "...I have seen nothing to justify a war..."

Foes of War Have Trouble Getting TV Ads

Ben and Jerry want you.

"Take it from a couple of old ice cream guys," Jerry Greenfield says in a recent TV ad arguing against war in Iraq. "Demonstrate. Act." On the screen below Greenfield and his partner Ben Cohen, a disclaimer makes clear that their former ice cream company and Unilever, the conglomerate that bought it from the hippie capitalists three years ago, aren't involved in the campaign. The ad is one of six made recently for a coalition of peace groups including Cohen and Greenfield's, TrueMajority. Others appearing in the ads are a retired rear admiral, a Methodist bishop, and entertainers including Susan Sarandon and Mos Def.

But the ads have been rejected by the major TV networks, and had a mixed reception among local cable operators. Network representatives generally cite standing policies against running advocacy ads. "CNN does not take advocacy ads related to regions in conflict," said spokesman Jim Weiss. Cohen and Greenfield say their message would counter the air time devoted to Bush administration pronouncements about the likely need for war. "We're not able to get fair coverage editorially," Cohen said. "If we can't get it editorially, then we'll have to buy time to get our message across. Now even if you buy time, they're refusing to let us get our message across."

Weiss said Cohen appeared recently on the network's "TalkBack Live" program "to discuss his group and their mission. So while we don't accept their ad or their advertising dollars, we did allow their voice to be heard." After CNN, which is owned by AOL-Time Warner, rejected TrueMajority's request to buy national ad time, a Time Warner local cable system in New York agreed to run them, but then pulled two of the four spots, said Duane Peterson, a longtime associate of Cohen and Greenfield.

A Time Warner cable spokesman, who declined to be identified, said he believed only one of the ads had been rejected, before it ran, for reasons of taste. The ads, which show still photographs and video of war casualties, were deemed too graphic, Cohen said. An allied group, MoveOn.org, last month made its own anti-war ad, a remake of the famous "Daisy" commercial that aired during the 1964 presidential campaign and sought to paint Republican nominee Barry Goldwater as an extremist likely to lead the country into nuclear war. The ad depicted a girl plucking petals from a daisy along with a missile launch countdown and a nuclear mushroom cloud. TrueMajority's other efforts to get their message out include print ads and a campaign to send e-mails to members of Congress. Cohen also said opponents of a war in Iraq are wearing blue ribbons, the United Nations' color. QFS member comments: "The mainstream media has closed ranks on a complete lock out on ANY anti-war messages. It is hard to believe that the greedy bastards are turning down revenue. I guess that Bush and Co. have the threat of FCC retaliation hanging over their broadcast licenses."

A monstrous attack on democratic rights - US government mounts conspiracy frame-up of Palestinian activists The indictment and arrest February 20 of University of South Florida (USF) Professor Sami Amin Al-Arian and three other men on terrorist conspiracy charges is an outrageous attempt to railroad individuals to prison because of their political opposition to the murderous policies of the Israeli government and Washington’s complicity in the repression of the Palestinian people. In addition to the four men arrested in Florida and Chicago, four others living in the Middle East were indicted. Among those charged is Abd All Aziz Awda, a resident of Gaza and a founder of Islamic Jihad. Abd All Aziz Awda is a member of the Palestine National Council. In the guise of the so-called “war on terrorism,” the Bush administration is employing state repression to intimidate and silence political speech and expression that is expressly protected under the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It is seeking to criminalize political opposition to the policies of the US government and its ally, Israel. In so doing, it is utilizing sweeping and unconstitutional powers of police surveillance sanctioned by the USA Patriot Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In a case concocted entirely on the basis of guilt by association, the government has employed methods that 18 months ago would have been thrown out of court as violations of constitutional protections. The arrest of Sami Amin Al-Arian and his three co-defendants marks a major escalation in the Bush administration’s attack on basic democratic rights.Al-Arian, who has steadfastly denied any involvement in terrorism, told reporters as he was being led away in handcuffs, “It’s all about politics.” His attorney, Nicholas Matassini, said, “He’s a political prisoner right now as we speak.” He described the indictment as “a work of fiction” and added that his client, who has diabetes, had launched a hunger and medicine strike to protest his arrest.The 50-count indictment handed down Thursday makes it clear that the government was engaged in spying on legal activities carried out by Al-Arian and the others for at least 15 years without finding anything to justify an arrest. It has decided to act now for two central reasons.

First, the arrest and prosecution of Al-Arian and his codefendants are being carried out at the behest of the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The indictment, which alleges that the four provided support for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization, is designed to silence all supporters of the Palestinian cause. The arrests in Florida and Chicago came in the midst of a bloody crackdown by Israeli military forces against the 3.5 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. In a rampage of death and destruction, the Israeli Defense Forces killed 35 Palestinians in the past week and wounded scores more. In Gaza, they erected barriers to internally divide the impoverished territory to make it easier to suppress the population.

While railing against “terrorism” and invoking alleged Iraqi violations of UN weapons inspections procedures as grounds for war, the Bush administration has solidarized itself completely with Israel’s state terror against the Palestinian population, and ignored the Sharon regime’s ongoing violation of UN resolutions demanding an end to the Israeli occupation. Never has there been a US administration so intimately tied to the Israeli right. Two of the most influential figures in the Pentagon—and key architects of the impending war against Iraq—are Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board, and Douglas Feith, the Defense Department’s Undersecretary of Policy. Together in 1996 they wrote an advisory document for incoming Likud Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, urging an end to the Oslo negotiations with the Palestinians. Feith went further, calling for the reoccupation of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, noting that “the price in blood would be high,” but worth it. While Netanyahu failed to take the advice, Sharon seems to be embarked on just such a project.

[...]Significantly, the indictment against Al-Arian and his codefendants includes a paragraph that, while noting the existence of the occupied territories, goes on to declare, “All reference in this indictment to Israel includes Israel and the Occupied Territories.” This is not merely a matter of semantics or legal brevity (not otherwise evident in a 120-page bill of charges). It is a political statement legitimizing Israel’s occupation and its crimes against the Palestinians, while criminalizing any form of resistance to the Zionist state.

Inside Iraq - The Tragedy of a People Betrayed Wherever you go in Iraq's southern city of Basra, there is dust. It rolls down the long roads that are the desert's fingers. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat; it swirls in markets and school playgrounds, consuming children kicking a plastic ball; and it carries, according to Dr Jawad Al-Ali, 'the seeds of our death'...

Dr Al-Ali is a cancer specialist at Basra's hospital and a member of Britain's Royal College of Physicians. He has a neat moustache and a kindly, furrowed face. His starched white coat, like the collar of his shirt, is frayed. "Before the Gulf War, we had only three or four deaths in a month from cancer," he said. "Now it's 30 to 35 patients dying every month, and that's just in my department. That is a 12-fold increase in cancer mortality. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long afterwards. That's almost half the population. "Most of my own family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. We don't know the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to conduct a proper survey, or even test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We strongly suspect depleted uranium, which was used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War right across the southern battlefields. Whatever the cause, it is like Chernobyl here; the genetic effects are new to us. "The mushrooms grow huge, and the fish in what was once a beautiful river are inedible. Even the grapes in my garden have mutated and can't be eaten."

Along the corridor, I met Dr Ginan Ghalib Hassen, a paediatrician. At another time, she might have been described as an effervescent personality; now she, too, has a melancholy expression that does not change; it is the face of Iraq. "This is Ali Raffa Asswadi," she said, stopping to take the hand of a wasted boy I guessed to be about four years old. "He is nine. He has leukaemia. Now we can't treat him. Only some of the drugs are available. We get drugs for two or three weeks, and then they stop when the shipments stop. Unless you continue a course, the treatment is useless. We can't even give blood transfusions, because there are not enough blood bags." Dr Hassen keeps a photo album of the children she is trying to save and those she has been unable to save. "This is Talum Saleh," she said, turning to a photograph of a boy in a blue pullover and with sparkling eyes. "He is five-and-a-half years old. This is a case of Hodgkin's disease. Normally a patient with Hodgkin's can expect to live and the cure can be 95 per cent. But if the drugs are not available, complications set in, and death follows. This boy had a beautiful nature. He died."

I said, "As we were walking, I noticed you stop and put your face to the wall." "Yes, I was emotional ... I am a doctor; I am not supposed to cry, but I cry every day, because this is torture. These children could live; they could live and grow up; and when you see your son and daughter in front of you, dying, what happens to you?" I said, "What do you say to those in the West who deny the connection between depleted uranium and the deformities of these children?" "That is not true. How much proof do they want? There is every relation between congenital malformation and depleted uranium. Before 1991, we saw nothing like this at all. If there is no connection, why have these things not happened before? Most of these children have no family history of cancer. "I have studied what happened in Hiroshima. It is almost exactly the same here; we have an increased percentage of congenital malformation, an increase of malignancy, leukaemia, brain tumours: the same." Under the economic embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council, now in its 14th year, Iraq is denied equipment and expertise to decontaminate its battlefields from the 1991 Gulf War.

Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army physicist responsible for cleaning up Kuwait, told me: "I am like many people in southern Iraq. I have 5,000 times the recommended level of radiation in my body. Most of my team are now dead. "We face an issue to be confronted by people in the West, those with a sense of right and wrong: first, the decision by the US and Britain to use a weapon of mass destruction: depeleted uranium. When a tank fired its shells, each round carried over 4,500g of solid uranium. What happened in the Gulf was a form of nuclear warfare." In 1991, a United Kingdom Atomic Eneregy Authority document reported that if 8 per cent of the depleted uranium fired in the Gulf War was inhaled, it could cause "500,000 potential deaths". In the promised attack on Iraq, the United States will again use depleted uranium, and so will Britain, regardless of its denials. Professor Rokke says he has watched Iraqi officials pleading with American and British officials to ease the embargo, if only to allow decontaminating and cancer assessment equipment to be imported. "They described the deaths and horrific deformities, and they were rebuffed," he said. "It was pathetic." Read more..

Destroying missiles would be to 'sign death warrant', says Iraq. An increasingly cornered Iraq complained yesterday it might be signing its own death warrant if it obeyed a United Nations order to destroy dozens of missiles at the moment the US is poised to lead an invasion. "They want us to destroy them at a time when we are threatened daily," said Owayed Ahmed Ali, the director of the Ibn al-Haithem plant, which produces the al-Samoud missiles, after another visit by UN weapons inspectors. The protest is the most specific reaction yet to the demand by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, that Baghdad start destroying the missiles by Saturday, after they were found to exceed the 93-mile range permitted by existing arms restrictions on Iraq.

With the order coming barely a week after Mr Blix's relatively benign report on 14 February, US diplomats were delighted. Not only does it impose a de facto deadline for Iraqi compliance, it also fits in with the likely timetable for the Bush administration to go to war. Yesterday, President George Bush met Spain's Prime Minister, Jose-Maria Aznar, one of his strongest European supporters, at his ranch in Texas to discuss the new Security Council resolution Britain and the US will introduce tomorrow. The draft is understood to contain no specific deadline. It will state that Iraq has failed to comply with UN resolution 1441 ordering it to disarm. Baghdad thus faces "serious consequences", the diplomatic formulation that authorises the use of force. On Friday, Mr Blix will deliver a new report, this time behind closed doors. The next day is the deadline for Baghdad to start getting rid of its al-Samouds. Shortly after that, and certainly by 14 March, Washington and London are expected to force a showdown vote in the UN.

Whatever the outcome, Mr Bush repeated last week that the US would if necessary lead a "coalition of the willing" against Iraq. An invasion could begin any time, perhaps around 23 March, when moonless conditions will provide maximum advantage for US forces. Some analysts speculate the invasion might be launched sooner, if the administration calculates that further delay will erode international support. As of last night – barring an act of reckless defiance by Saddam Hussein – the odds were stacked against London and Washington securing the required nine Security Council votes to pass the second resolution. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, who is on a visit to East Asia mainly devoted to the stand-off with North Korea, will take time out in Beijing to press for support from China, a veto-holding member of the council. Washington will also use economic and financial sticks and carrots to try and bring waverers on board, as it is doing with Turkey. Comment: It really is gonna be like "shooting fish in a barrel", fish cant shoot back. Seems the US really does want Iraq to disarm fully, makes it all the easier to walk in and take over.

American civilian will take charge of stabilised Iraq The United States intends to take sole control of a post- Saddam Iraq and place a high-level American civilian in charge after the war for which the final arrangements are now virtually completed. Turkey signalled yesterday that it was close to agreeing to the deployment of up to 40,000 American troops on its territory, available for a second front to sweep down on Baghdad from the north.With an attack next month seemingly inevitable, and with few doubts of an American victory, the focus is already beginning to shift to how a new Iraq will be built. And under what seems a final blueprint, officials in Washington are making clear that the country will, for a while at least, be a de facto United States protectorate.

According to The Washington Post yesterday, General Tommy Franks, who as chief of US Central Command will run the war, will stay in Iraq only until the security of the country has been established and the suspected chemical and biological weapons have been found and destroyed. The humanitarian effort, of which the White House will give the first details on Monday, will initially be led by the retired US Army General Jay Garner. But he too will quickly make way for a new civilian administrator, perhaps a former state governor or ambassador, who will superintend the transition to an Iraqi government. In the early post-war period, Iraqi troops will be held in PoW camps for vetting; those who had switched to the American side would be released first and trained to serve in a "post-stabilisation" force that would help in the transition.

America has told about 20 Iraqi expatriate groups that it will not accept the provisional government they had hoped to install. Instead it will run a "de-Baathification'' programme to purge members of President Saddam's party, akin to "de-Nazification" in Germany after the Second World War. But this raises one of a host of unanswered questions – the exact administrative level to which the former regime will be purged. According to current plans, a "large number" of existing officials would be retained. But the most senior officials involved in human rights abuses and programmes to make weapons of mass destruction would be ineligible. Needless to say, the mooted plans have already raised the hackles of the exiled Iraqi opposition, which had presumed that it would be well placed to form the future government. Uncertainty also surrounds the timetable for the transfer of power to a new Iraqi government. American officials have spoken of a two-year transition period but acknowledge that the process might take longer – perhaps years longer.

A third unknown is the role of Turkey in the post-Saddam arrangements, particularly for Kurdish northern Iraq, which Ankara does not want to become the nucleus of a new Kurdish state. Yasar Yakis, the Turkish Foreign Minister, said yesterday there was broad agreement with the US on the conditions for deploying its troops in his country. But he said some military, economic and political aspects had not been settled. Abdullah Gul, the Prime Minister, was also optimistic that a deal could be sealed "in the coming days".

US and Britain pound Iraqi defences in massive escalation of airstrikes. Iraq has been ordered to destroy dozens of missiles which violate UN limits, but the US and Britain are not waiting to see whether Saddam Hussein complies. In recent days, an Independent on Sunday investigation reveals, they have stepped up attacks on missile sites near Basra which could threaten the military build-up in Kuwait and the Gulf. The raids are being carried out by aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq, established by the victors after the first Gulf war. They claim the patrols are being carried out in the name of the UN – especially ironic, given the passionate debate over the need for a second Security Council to authorise war on Iraq.

Some have always disputed whether the "no-fly" zones have UN authority, but now the US and Britain have widened the "rules of engagement" to the point where warplanes are effectively preparing the way for an imminent invasion. Targets have included surface-to-air batteries as well as an anti-ship missile launcher which was considered a threat to the growing concentration of naval vessels in the Gulf. In the past two weeks there have been at least three strikes in the same area on Ababil-100 mobile missile batteries. They are capable of rapidly firing four missiles a distance of nearly 90 miles, each with a single explosive warhead or up to 25 anti-tank "bomblets". From Basra they could easily reach the ground forces building up in northern Kuwait, which has been declared a closed military zone.

Attacks on such battlefield weapons, rare until recently, are part of a semi-secret air campaign, conducted under cover of the no-fly patrols, which has intensified sharply since the beginning of the year. Allied aircraft have gone into action over Iraq almost every day. By the end of this month the number of missions is likely to overtake the 78 flown during the whole of 2002. While the number of attacks and the targets are known, important information is almost always kept back, including the number and type of aircraft deployed, the weapons used and the success or otherwise of each attack: US Central Command communiques routinely say "battle damage assessment is ongoing", and further details are never released. The Iraqis ritually say civilians have been killed; equally ritually, this is denied. What is certain, however, is that no allied aircraft has been shot down in more than a decade of patrols

Significantly, the air attacks have been heavily concentrated in the south of Iraq, with only one having been reported north of Baghdad since the beginning of the year. Millions of leaflets have also been dropped in the south, some warning Iraqis not to repair bomb damage, others giving the frequencies of anti-regime broadcasting stations. The US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, proclaimed last week that there were sufficient forces in the Gulf region for war to be launched at any time. At the weekend, the Pentagon claimed that it had some 200,000 troops in the region, roughly half of them in Kuwait.

Within days there will be five US carrier battle groups in and around the Gulf, as well as the Ark Royal and its task force. The number of strike aircraft, including a third of the Royal Air Force's strength, is climbing to about 500. They will be able to unleash devastating power against Saddam when ordered to do so, but already Iraq's air defences have been significantly eroded by months of military action. Mr Rumsfeld's announcement took military chiefs by surprise, however. Delays in reaching agreement with Turkey have hampered the deployment of some significant elements in the US invasion plan. Britain's Challenger 2 tanks and about half the 42,000 personnel in its combined force are still on the high seas.

Sharp rise in number and type of targets
Until last summer, coalition aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones over Iraq hit back only at missile or artillery batteries that opened fire on them, or loosed AGM-88 anti-radiation missiles at radar units "locking on" to them. But with an invasion looming, the number and type of targets attacked have increased sharply.

* Last September, in a raid given unusual publicity, more than 100 British and US warplanes hit the main Iraqi air command and control centre in the west of the country, which would direct any Scud attacks on Israel.

* Air defence command bunkers along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers south of Baghdad, and the fixed communications that link them to missile and gun positions, have come in for repeated attack.

* Fibre-optic links get the most attention, since they are quickly repaired. The Iraqis are warned through leaflets that repair crews may be targeted.

* While continuing to dismantle Iraq's air defences, coalition aircraft are increasingly attacking battlefield weapons in the far south of Iraq, the likely focus of an invasion. Fixed and mobile surface-to-air missile batteries have been targeted, as well as surface-to-surface missiles threatening US and British land and naval forces.

Hamas vows revenge as Israel shoots protesters Two Palestinians were killed when Israeli soldiers opened fire on a crowd of protesters in the West Bank city of Nablus yesterday, bringing the number of Palestinians killed in one week to 33. The Israeli army said its soldiers opened fire because Palestinians were throwing firebombs and rocks, though Palestinians claimed they only threw stones. The army said one man was shot dead because troops saw him holding something suspicious. Yesterday's violence arose amid an Israeli army offensive against the Islamist militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, where most of this week's deaths have taken place – a bloody backdrop to the first talks between the Israeli government and Palestinian officials in months.

A few metres from buildings left in ruins by the Israeli army, where, Palestinians said, three young civilians were killed, Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, a leader of Hamas's political wing, rejected calls for a ceasefire. "It's impossible to make what they wrongly call a ceasefire – this ceasefire means only surrender, and we prefer to die than surrender." Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat's deputy in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, and a leading candidate to become prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, said yesterday the PA leadership would back a proposed one-year ceasefire. But a ceasefire that does not include Hamas, now the most powerful militant group, will not get far. There is little love lost between it and the PA. Dr Rantisi described the fresh talks between Israel and the PA as "negotiations between Sharon and a few isolated Palestinian figures". He said: "All of Gaza is saying we are with resistance, not negotiation."

Tens of thousands turned up at the funerals that came day after day last week for Hamas militants – eight senior militants died in three days, six of them in a mysterious explosion for which Hamas blamed the Israeli army. At the funerals there was little sign of support for a ceasefire as the organisers chanted: "Sharon prepare the coffins. Revenge is coming soon, in Tel Aviv and Jaffa." The Israeli authorities may say in their defence that, with the PA calling for a ceasefire, Hamas represents the biggest Palestinian obstacle to the peace process. But there have been repeated accusations that the Israeli government is deliberately provoking Hamas, with incursions and killings of its leading militants in Gaza, to stall the peace process.

"If Sharon and his government invade Gaza, they are going to pay a heavy price," warned Dr Rantisi, pointing to the deaths of four soldiers as Hamas set fire to a tank in the Gaza Strip last Saturday – an incident which preceded the Israeli defence minister vowing to attack Hamas. According to Israeli press reports, the army is not planning to invade Gaza but intends to stick to assassinations and incursions. Hamas and PA leaders competed to tour the ruins after the Israeli army enteredGaza City on Wednesday. There is now increasing speculation that Hamas is trying to establish itself as a rival PA leader. But Dr Rantisi has denied that, and yesterday said: "Now is the time for resistance, not authority."

Impeach the Council on Foreign Relations As many of us are undoubtedly aware, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is in control of the shadow government that is actually running our country. Their membership includes many of the elite of American government, financial, and educational institutions. The CFR’s complete control over the domestic and foreign policy of America being unquestionable, this organization needs to be confronted with the spectacular list of failures of their policy since they took over our government. With power comes responsibility. There is sufficient evidence today to proceed with impeachment procedures against this illegal ruling body. This organization should be disbanded, and all of its members charged with treason! Maybe we should propose that the members be brought up before one of their “achievements”, the new International Criminal Court.

The CFR was founded in 1921 as the demise of Woodrow Wilson’s brainchild, the League of Nations, became apparent with the failure of Congress to ratify the treaty. The Rockefeller dynasty and Colonel Mandel House, the power behind Wilson, were the driving force behind the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations. One needs only to study Colonel House’s novel “Phillip Dru, Administrator” to obtain a preview of the foundation this organization was built on, and the plan for the complete takeover of America by a socialist dictatorship. David Rockefeller continues to be involved with the direction of the organization today. Their mandate is to exert control over elected officials and official policy to further their ambitions of global economic and military domination. It now appears that they are very close to realizing this lofty goal. American intervention into the Second World War was crafted by this organization with the express purpose of creating their new International organizations; the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank. Through these agencies, the CFR exerts their power and labor to fulfill their nefarious Global conquest. One of the goals stated on their website is to “Identify and nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders”. This goal can be interpreted to mean that the CFR searches out the best and brightest, indoctrinates them in the proscribed doctrine, and then supports their selection to important positions in government, media and educational institutions. By this method, the CFR is guaranteed the loyalty of future leaders to perform their required duties to further the private aims of the CFR.

Recently, I read the novel “Three Wise Men”. I must tell you that these three men did not appear to be very wise to me. In fact, their entire careers were complete disasters for our country. They stumbled through one bad decision after another beginning with the end of World War II, and continuing through the Vietnam conflict. At least this is what appears to have happened. The alternate view that they were actually working towards the goal of the destruction of America is a distinct possibility. Of course, all three were members in good standing of the CFR. After absorbing this narrative and many others, I have grown increasingly concerned about the viability of our past and current government representatives. It appears that small, select groups of individuals from the “Eastern Establishment”, most graduates of Ivy League institutions and select private societies including Skull and Bones of Yale University, have held the reins of our government for the entire last century! It is not important which political party is in office, a quick perusal of administration staffs produce a proliferation of CFR members in the highest positions in both Democratic and Republican parties. Every president in recent history has been a member in good standing. America deserves better leadership than this. Our government has been purchased by the International Bankers of Wall Street, and the CFR is their chosen method of executing their commands. When I hear that the panderer and king of corruption Bill Clinton is addressing the Council on some new Globalist scheme, as he has quite frequently recently, this is more proof that we should not depend on this group of people to run our affairs! For many years, the CFR had operated incognito, avoiding contact with the press, and attempted to suppress knowledge of their activities. Over the last century, loyal members of Congress have attempted many times to rid our government of this evil. Every attempt has failed. Now, they are so secure in their position, that influential leaders proudly proclaim their membership without fear of reprisal. I discovered recently that one of the first copies of their periodical, Foreign Affairs, signed by Vladimir Lenin, is on proud display in their hallway. Why would the infamous Soviet leader Lenin be hailed as a great member of this organization? Is it possible that the CFR is a proponent of the proliferation of Communism? I believe this to be true.

The CFR controlled media carefully prepared the public to perceive this organization as a benevolent group of patriarchs who selflessly devote their lives and fortunes to serve the government and have the best interests of America in mind at all times. Currently, active members are common guests on the cable news networks, portrayed as experts in governmental affairs. This is an understatement. The members of the CFR are the designers of the policy of Washington, and the CIA is their private police force. The CFR publication Foreign Affairs is a precursor to future American Foreign policy. I have been reading this periodical for years. It is unbelievable how often our government enacts the policies shortly after their dissemination in their journal. Careful examination of every disaster America has been involved in over the last century is sufficient proof to build the case against these Globalists that exert their power illegally and immorally. You will find their imprints on every single national disaster, normally to the profit of this elite insider group. A closer examination of the hidden goals will show that their achievements are not in the best interest of the America public. On the contrary, their obvious aims include the subjugation of America to a Global government controlled by the International bankers and Globalists. An example of their most influential membership is Henry Kissinger, the international criminal who is afraid to travel overseas out of fear that he will be arrested and charged with crimes against Humanity.

The Bush administration reads like a CFR all stars ballot. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and the list continue through every senior member of the staff running our government. The current administration is the crowning achievement of this organization. They now have more control over our government than they have ever had. The results are evident. The entire world is boiling over with the threat of war. We are just weeks away from a possible World War III. The CFR is creating worldwide chaos, just as they have planned for decades. Does anyone really believe that this group of criminals is concerned with the best interests of the America as they proudly proclaim in their literature? The rest of the world is painfully aware of the path to disaster the CFR is leading us towards; only our own citizens remain blissfully unaware of the great dangers facing the world today carefully put into place by the CFR. The American people need to wake up, throw these people out of office by implementing impeachment procedures, and close down the CFR for the last time before it is too late! We do not need marches for peace; we need marches declaring our desire to root out this deep-seated corruption. Then peace will follow, and America can once again take its rightful place on the world stage secure in the knowledge that we are truly the land of the free and the home of the brave.

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.