[imra] Daily digest – Volume: 2 Issue: 1381 (12 messages)

imra Mon May 1 00:26:07 2006 Volume 2 : Issue 1381

In this issue of the imra daily Digest:

Excerpts: Egypt: rigged elections?
Political unrest in Egypt 28 April 2006
Poll: 51% Not pleased Olmert
76% wrong for Peretz to be DM
Column One: Israel’s new war
Chinese-Saudi Cooperation: Oil but also Missiles
Poll puzzle: Why are 85% satisfied how they voted when
51% Not pleased Olmert 76% wrong for Peretz to be DM?
Excerpts: Arab-Muslim support?Militant Islam 29 April 2006
Israel and Nuclear Suppliers
Group discuss nuclear exports control
Has the Saudi Kingdom Reformed? [Not really]
DSP Poll # 26 The Palestinian Government
– International Funding
CABINET COMMUNIQUE
ISRAELI GOVERNMENT DECISION TO DIVIDE ARIEL BLOC
Excerpts: Debate on nuclear issues in Terhan
Russia’s energy threat to Europe. 30 April 2006

———————————————————————-

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts: Egypt: rigged elections?
Political unrest in Egypt 28 April 2006

Excerpts: Egypt: rigged elections?Political unrest in Egypt 28 April 2006

+++JORDAN TIMES 28-29April ’06:
“Egypt judges lock horns with regime”
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
“confrontation between … the Egyptian government and reformist judges
who openly called for a change of regime”
“the judges have become a symbol for the drive for reform in Egypt”

“thousands of police deployed” … “a return to the policies of oppression”
——————————————————————————————————————
EXCERPTS:
CAIRO (AFP): The confrontation stepped up a notch 27 April between the
Egyptian government and reformist judges, who openly called for a change of
regime and saw their supporters arrested and beaten by police.
After the hearing of two judges who had accused the judiciary of helping to
rig elections … their syndicate …vowed to keep up the pressure on
President Hosni Mubarak.
… the judges called for “democracy through free elections which allow a
real change of regime.”
They also called for “the abolition of all exception laws, including the
state of emergency, and for the freedom to form political parties without
any restrictions.”
…f the judges…have become a symbol of the drive for reform in Egypt and
had already been waging an aggressive campaign to demand more independence
from the executive.
Thousands of police had been deployed across Cairo 27 Aprilahead of the
hearing by a disciplinary board against Mahmoud Mekki and Hisham Al
Bastawissi, two of the most outspoken reformists in the judges’ syndicate.
A group of a few hundred activists camped outside the court to support the
two judges were assaulted by police. Some of them were beaten with sticks
and an undetermined number arrested.
“Judges are our voice against dictatorship,” …. ….
Activists were snatched off the street by police even before they reached
the block which houses a number of courts and the syndicates for the
country’s journalists, judges and lawyers, witnesses told AFP.
. . . Only two years ago, street protests in Cairo were almost
unimaginable, but Mubarak had loosened his iron grip on the state amid
pressure from Washington to allow greater political freedom in Egypt.
Judges, intellectuals, rights groups and protestors argued Thursday that the
regime was reverting to its strong-arm tactics to muzzle dissident voices.
“If the demands of the judges were justified and didn’t reflect those of the
nation, they wouldn’t have worried the government so much and such a police
blockade would not have been imposed around the judges’ meeting, as if they
were terrorists,” Alexandria judge Ashraf Al Barudi told AFP.
“This display of force is a return to the policies of oppression and a
police state,” said political commentator Mohammad Sayed Said, who was among
a group of intellectuals supporting the judges … .
“But all this will not succeed in reimposing a culture of fear. The people
have already defeated it and they are ready to pay with their blood for
democratic change,” he told AFP.
The opposition Muslim Brotherhood,…. said 21 of its members were detained
at Alexandria station as they prepared to go to Cairo to support the judges.
. . .

+++THE DAILY STAR (Lebanon) 28 April ’06:
“The unshakeable shadow of Egypt’s Emergency Law” By Maria Golia

QUOTE FROM TEXT:
“When a population is ruled by force instead of reason and consensus,
its keepers have cause to grow uneasy”
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
EXCERPTS:
…Egypt’s 25-year-old Emergency Law … would be extended two years and
then replaced by a package of anti-terrorism laws. Two years in Egyptian
time translates roughly into never, and the promised legislation, it is
feared, will only make permanent what was previously considered temporary.
“The president is stalling,” says Hisham Qassem, publisher of the
independent daily Masri al-Yom. “There is no real commitment to political
reform.”
The Emergency Law forbids public assembly, curtails media freedom and
enables arbitrary detentions that are often prolonged and harsh. .. .Echoing
popular wisdom, Kefaya activist George Ishaq says, “The Emergency Law is not
[to protect] the people, but the regime.” …anti terrorism legislation
…”a new look for an old law.”
… The suspension of due process has eroded the fabric of society and the
civil rights on which it is based…. criticism of the Emergency Law
…roused Mubarak to declare that “Only Islamists demand abolishment of this
law. But I will never let chaos prevail!”
… Thanks to the Emergency Law, the actual number of Egyptians held
without legal counsel for indefinite periods … is estimated in the tens of
thousands; … .
…Given the recent extension and the gist of the proposed replacement laws,
the trend is toward greater state control. This defensive style of
government has affected people’s ability to act in incalculable ways, and
mistrust between government and the people is so rife, it’s hard to say who
doubts the other more. The real problem, however, comes… when fear and
conformism replace self-confidence and debate. “Breaking the culture of
fear,” says Ishaq, is a Kefaya priority.
One of the first words you learn in Cairo is mamnu, or “forbidden.” … .The
air of restrictiveness is enhanced by religious rulings … Not everyone
takes the fatwas seriously, but between political and religious injunctions,
average Egyptian must wonder if anything worth doing is actually allowed.
. . .Last year, an (Mubarak’s)NDP spokesman said that Egypt’s
anti-terrorism laws would be “Western style,” … This was probably meant
as reassurance that the laws would be fair and democratic. … Egypt …
remains caught up in a vicious cycle. When a population is ruled by force
instead of reason and consensus, its keepers have cause to grow uneasy and,
therefore, an excuse to act more oppressively still.

Sue Lerner – Associate – IMRA

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Poll: 51% Not pleased Olmert
76% wrong for Peretz to be DM

Poll: 51% Not pleased Olmert 76% wrong for Peretz to be DM
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date:28 April 2006

Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 adult Israelis (including
Arab Israelis) carried out by Dahaf for Yediot Ahronot the week of 28 April
2006 (as Olmert coalition government still in formation).

Are you satisfied with the makeup that is developing for the government?
Yes 39% No 55%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Ehud Olmert during the process of
the formation of the government?
Yes 37% No 51%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Amir Peretz during the process of
the formation of the government?
Yes 30% No 63%

Is the good of the State one of the considerations of the people handling
the [coalition] negotiations?
Considerably yes 28% A little or not at all 69%

Is the appointment of Amir Peretz as minister of defense a correct move?
Yes 21% No 76%

Are you worried about the appointment of Amir Peretz as defense minister?
Yes 56% No 44%

How do you feel today about how you voted in the elections?
Satisfied 85% No satisfied 14%

Is it proper for the government to include 27 ministers?
Yes 20% No 76%

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Column One: Israel’s new war

Column One: Israel’s new war
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 28, 2006
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961242103&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The nature of the war being waged against Israel changed, perhaps
irreversibly, this week. Processes that have been developing for more than
four years came together this week and brought us to a very different
military-political reality than that which we have known until now.

The face of the enemy has changed. If in the past it was possible to say
that the war being waged against Israel was unique and distinct from the
global jihad, after the events of the past week, it is no longer possible to
credibly make such a claim. Four events that occurred this week – the
attacks in the Sinai; the release of Osama bin Laden’s audiotape; the
release of Abu Musab Zarqawi’s videotape; and the arrest of Hamas terrorists
by Jordan – all proved clearly that today it is impossible to separate the
wars. The new situation has critical consequences for the character of the
campaign that the IDF must fight to defend Israel and for the nature of the
policies that the incoming government of Israel must adopt and advance.

The two attacks in the Sinai were noteworthy for several reasons. First,
they were very different from one another. The first, which targeted
tourists in Dahab, was the familiar attack against a soft target that we
have become used to seeing in the Sinai over the past year and a half. The
attack against the Multinational Force Observers was more unique since it
only has one past precedent.

In an article published last October in the journal MERIA, Reuven Paz
explained that the al-Qaida strategist Abu Musab al-Suri supported the first
type of attack. His follower, Abu Muhammad Hilali, wrote last September that
in waging the jihad against the Egyptian regime there is no point in
attacking foreign forces or Egyptian forces because such attacks will lead
nowhere. He encouraged terrorists to attack soft targets like tourists and
foreign non-governmental organizations on the one hand, and strategic
targets like the Egyptian gas pipeline to Israel on the other. In both
cases, such attacks would achieve political objectives. Opposing Hilali’s
view is Zarqawi’s strategy. As one would expect from al-Qaida’s commander in
Iraq, Zarqawi upholds attacks on foreign forces.

The foregoing analysis is not proof that two separate branches of al-Qaida
conducted the attacks. But the combination of approaches this week does lend
credence to the assessment that al-Qaida is now paying a great deal of
attention to Israel’s neighborhood. And this is a highly significant
development.

Until recently, Israel, like Jordan and Egypt, did not particularly interest
al-Qaida. When bin Laden’s deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and his military
commander Saif al-Adel merged their terror organization, the Egyptian
Islamic Jihad, with al-Qaida, they adopted bin Laden’s approach which
dictated suspending their previous war to overthrow the Egyptian regime and
concentrating on attacking America and its allies. In the same manner, when
the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi joined al-Qaida, he was compelled
to put his wish to overthrow the Hashemite regime to the side. Israel was
not on the agenda.

But today everything has changed. Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, is under
the gun. Bin Laden himself made this clear in his tape this week. By placing
Hamas under his protection, bin Laden made three moves at once. First, he
announced that the Palestinians are no longer independent actors. Second, he
defined the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority as a part of the liberated
Islamic lands where al-Qaida can feel at home. Third, he hitched a ride on
the Palestinian issue, which is more popular in the Islamic world than the
Iraq war, where al-Qaida is apparently on the road to defeat.

For his part, Zarqawi already announced his plan to go back to his old war
and work to topple the Hashemites (and destroy Israel) last November, after
he commanded the Amman hotel suicide bombings. Back then Zarqawi announced
that Jordan was but a stop on the road to the conquest of Jerusalem.

In his video this week, Zarqawi emphasized that the destruction of Israel
through the conquest of Jerusalem is one of his major goals. Both he and bin
Laden made clear that from their perspectives, the war against the US and
the war against Israel are the same war.

On the level of strategic theory, bin Laden and Zarqawi both expressed
al-Qaida’s long-term strategy that Zawahiri laid out last year to Jordanian
journalist Fuad Hussein. Zawahiri explained then that there are seven stages
to the jihad before the establishment of the global caliphate. According to
Zawahiri, the global jihad began in 2000 and will end in 2020. Today we are
in the third stage, which includes the toppling of the regimes in Jordan,
Syria and Egypt and the targeting of Israel for destruction.

While al-Qaida today is setting its sights on Israel and its neighbors, the
arrests of Hamas terrorists this week in Jordan show that for their part,
the Palestinians are working to advance the global jihad. The Hamas attempt
to carry out attacks in Jordan points to a change in Hamas’s
self-perception. They have gone from being local terrorists to being members
of the Islamist axis, which is led by Iran and includes Syria, al-Qaida and
Hizbullah.

A week after Zarqawi carried out the attacks in Amman last November, Iranian
Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki met with the heads of Hizbullah, Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP and DFLP-GC in Beirut. At the end of the summit,
Ahmed Jibril declared, “We all confirmed that what is going on in occupied
Palestine is organically connected to what is going on in Iraq, Syria, Iran,
and Lebanon.”

A week later, Hizbullah launched its largest Katyusha rocket attack on
northern Israel since the IDF withdrew from south Lebanon in May 2000. Two
weeks later, Islamic Jihad carried out the suicide bombing outside the
shopping mall in Netanya. Shortly thereafter, Zarqawi’s al-Qaida operatives
launched another barrage of Katyushas on northern Israel from Lebanon.
Similarly, on January 19, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted a
terror summit in Damascus attended by the same cast of characters. The same
day, Islamic Jihad carried out a suicide bombing in the old bus station in
Tel Aviv. And on April 18, the day before last week’s suicide bombing in the
old bus station in Tel Aviv, Ahmadinejad presided over yet another terror
summit in Teheran with the same participants. And, again, shortly after the
summit, al-Qaida struck in the Sinai.

Zawahiri’s seven stages of jihad go hand in hand with a 60-page text written
by Saif al-Adel sometime after the US invasion of Iraq. Adel deposited his
manuscript with the same Jordanian journalist last year. Adel, who has been
operating from Iran since the battle of Tora Bora in November 2001, is
reportedly Zarqawi’s commander in Iraq and al-Qaida’s senior liaison with
the Iranian regime.

In his manuscript he laid out al-Qaida’s intentions for the third stage of
the jihad. He explained that the organization needed new bases and was
looking for a failed state or states to settle in. Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon
and Gaza were all identified as possible options.

As the American author and al-Qaida investigator Richard Miniter puts it,
“US forces together with the Kenyans and the Ethiopians have pretty much
prevented al-Qaida from basing in Somalia or Darfur. That left only Lebanon
with all its problems with its various political factions, overlords and the
UN. But then suddenly, like manna from Heaven, Israel simply gave them the
greatest gift al-Qaida ever received when Ariel Sharon decided to give them
Gaza.”

Israel, he explains, provided al-Qaida with the best base it has ever had.
Not only is Gaza located in a strategically vital area – between the sea,
Egypt and Israel. It is also fairly immune from attack since the Kadima
government will be unwilling to reconquer the area.

Moreover, as was the case with Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Gamaa Islamiyya
terrorists who merged with al-Qaida in the 1990s, the Palestinians today
constitute an ideal population for al-Qaida. They already support jihad.
They have vast experience in fighting. And if it only took Hamas two weeks
in office to get all the other terror groups – from Fatah to the Popular
Resistance Committees to the Popular Front – to pledge allegiance to it last
week, Hamas’s co-optation by al-Qaida shouldn’t be very difficult.

Al-Qaida today is building its presence in Gaza, Judea and Samaria
gradually. It drafts Palestinian terrorists to its ranks and provides them
with ideological indoctrination and military training. In November, for
instance, a terror recruiter in Jordan who had drafted two terrorists from
the Nablus area to al-Qaida’s ranks and instructed them to recruit others,
informed them that he intended to send a military trainer from Gaza to train
them. The two, who were arrested in December, had planned to carry out a
double suicide bombing in Jerusalem.

Last May, the first terror cell in Gaza announced its association with
al-Qaida. When Ra’anan Gissin, then prime minister Ariel Sharon’s spokesman,
was asked to comment on the development by a foreign reporter, he presented
the government’s position on the issue as follows: “There is some evidence
of links between militants in Gaza and al-Qaida. but for us, local terrorist
groups are just as dangerous.”

On the face of it, Gissin’s arrogance seems appropriate. After all, what do
we care who sends the bombers into our cafes and buses? But things don’t
work that way.

As the attacks in Egypt, the arrests in Jordan and the bin Laden and Zarqawi
messages this week all indicated, we find ourselves today in a world war.
The Palestinians are no longer the ones waging the war against us. The
Islamist axis now wages the war against us through the Palestinians. The
center of gravity, like the campaign rationale of the enemy, has moved away.
Today, the decision-makers who determine the character and timing of the
terror offensives are not sitting in Gaza and or Judea and Samaria. They are
sitting in Teheran, Waziristan, Damascus, Beirut, Amman and Fallujah. The
considerations that guide those that order the trigger pulled are not local
considerations, but regional considerations at best and considerations
wholly cut off from local events at worst.

This new state of affairs demands a change in the way all of Israel’s
security arms understand and fight this war. The entire process of
intelligence gathering for the purpose of uncovering and preventing planned
terror attacks needs to be reconsidered.

A reconfiguration of political and diplomatic strategies is also required.
Talk of a separation barrier and final borders, not to mention the
abandonment of Judea and Samaria to Hamas sound hallucinatory when standing
against us are Zarqawi who specializes in chemical and biological warfare;
bin Laden who specializes in blowing up airplanes; and Iran that threatens a
nuclear Holocaust.

Who can cause Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz, Tzipi Livni and Yuli Tamir to take
the steps required to protect Israel from the reality exposed by the events
of this past week?

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Chinese-Saudi Cooperation: Oil but also Missiles

Chinese-Saudi Cooperation: Oil but also Missiles
By Simon Henderson April 21, 2006
PolicyWatch #1095 The Washington Institute for Near East Policy � 1828 L
Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036
http://washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2460

On April 22, two days after a reportedly unproductive meeting with President
George W. Bush in Washington, President Hu Jintao of China will arrive in
Saudi Arabia. Relations between the two countries are an increasingly
important part of world diplomacy. In energy, China is the leading customer
of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter. On the military front,
the kingdom bought now-obsolete ballistic missiles with a 1,500-mile range
from China in the 1980s; the Saudis are reportedly interested in replacing
them with more modern Chinese-designed missiles, perhaps with Pakistani
nuclear warheads.

Unlike his American visit, Hu’s trip to the kingdom will unambiguously be
given the status of a state visit. It is especially significant because King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia visited China as recently as January this year, the
first visit by a Saudi monarch since diplomatic relations were established
in 1990 and Abdullah’s first trip outside the Middle East since becoming
monarch last August. During the January meeting, five agreements covering
economic cooperation trade and double taxation as well as an energy pact
were signed. Energy is expected to be central to the latest talks, though a
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman noted it was “not the only domain” of
cooperation.

Surging Oil Demand

Chinese oil demand has been rising at an astonishing rate-year-on-year
increases have recently averaged more than one million barrels per day,
about 40 percent of the world’s increased demand-and has been a major
influence on the record high international prices for oil. Although an
important producer in its own right, China has been a net importer of
petroleum since 1996. In 2004, it overtook Japan to become the world’s
second largest consumer of oil after the United States.

Analysts predict that China’s share of world oil consumption could double to
14 percent over the next decade. (Currently, the United States consumes 25
percent of the world’s oil production.) Small wonder that Saudi Arabia, as
the world’s largest oil exporter, wants to nurture China as a customer,
especially because Asian markets are closer to the Persian Gulf than are
Europe or the United States. Saudi Arabia currently supplies China with
about 450,000 barrels per day.

Washington has watched the trend of Chinese oil demand with growing concern.
Besides seeking to strengthen links with Saudi Arabia, Chinese companies
have acquired oil concessions in Canada, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Sudan, Indonesia, Iraq, and Iran. Last year, an attempt to buy the American
oil company Unocal, which has exploration rights overseas, was blocked by
congressional opposition. (The company was bought by Chevron for $17.3
billion even though the China National Offshore Oil Corporation had offered
at least $1 billion more.) Chinese energy interests in Sudan and Iran are
assumed to be factors in Beijing’s refusal to vote in the UN Security
Council for sanctions over Sudan’s actions in Darfur and against the Iranian
nuclear program.

Schadenfreude?

Washington can derive some comfort from apparent hiccups in Chinese-Saudi
relationship. No energy deals were signed during King Abdullah’s January
visit to China. Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that
agreements on projects would have to be signed by the two countries’ oil
companies. Industry experts say that differences on shouldering the
financial risk are complicating the joint venture modernization of a
refinery in Quanzhou, which is being expanded to a capacity of 240,000
barrels per day, and a proposed 200,000 barrels per day refinery at Qingdao.
In China, retail prices for petroleum products are tightly regulated by the
government; Beijing reportedly does not want to share the financial risk
with the Saudi side. Additionally, the Saudis were apparently upset in
January that King Abdullah was welcomed by the Chinese foreign minister
rather than President Hu himself. It will be interesting to note whether
King Abdullah is at the airport on April 22 when Hu arrives.

Nuclear Worries

A major concern for Washington is that Riyadh is thought to be considering
creating a deterrent against Iran by acquiring from Pakistan both
Chinese-designed missiles and dual-key Pakistani nuclear warheads. Under
such a dual-key system, Pakistanis would have the key that controls the
warheads while Saudis would have the key that controls the missiles on which
the warheads sit. Such a stratagem, used by the United States and Germany
during the Cold War, does not breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and perhaps evades Chinese international obligations against the transfer of
ballistic missiles, but would seriously undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts to
block Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program. Saudi Arabia’s current
arsenal of Chinese CSS-2 missiles, capable of reaching both Tel Aviv and
Tehran, were originally designed to carry nuclear warheads, but Riyadh
maintains they carry only high explosive. King Abdullah visited Pakistan in
February, on his way back from China. And Crown Prince Sultan, Abdullah’s
heir apparent as well as Saudi defense minister, was in Pakistan earlier in
April. On Sultan’s previous visit in 1999, he went to Pakistan’s
controversial and unsafeguarded Kahuta uranium enrichment and missile
production center, where he was shown round by the then director, the now
disgraced nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan. That excursion by Sultan prompted
a formal U.S. diplomatic protest to Riyadh.

Reports from the Bush-Hu meeting suggest that China has a firm view of its
own interests and, despite appreciating that its relationship with
Washington is very important, Beijing has little willingness to compromise
even at the cost of allowing problems to mount. Since 2001, Saudi Arabia’s
determination to see its national security interests more independently of
the United States has also become clear. For months, Riyadh has been
signaling its disagreements with Washington over policy in Iraq, Iran, and
the Palestinian Authority. It could well judge that the likely American
wrath resulting from acquiring nuclear-armed missiles with the connivance of
China and Pakistan is bearable.

U.S. Policy

Apart from continuing to remind Riyadh and Beijing of the need to maintain a
common international front against the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran,
Washington’s diplomatic options appear to be few. Despite differences on
commercial details (and irritating Saudi support for China’s Muslim
minority), Beijing and Riyadh seem determined to develop a close political
relationship. Competition for oil supplies between the United States and
China seems set to rise, a concern that should give impetus to President
Bush’s aim, announced in his 2006 State of the Union address, to halt the
country’s “addiction” to oil. The lack of progress in the Bush-Hu talks
suggests a lack of diplomatic preparation. The flurry of recent
Saudi-Chinese and Saudi-Pakistani meetings could mean that deals to America’s
detriment are close to being finalized.
====
Simon Henderson is the London-based Baker senior fellow of the Washington
Institute and author, with Patrick Clawson, of the 2005 Policy Focus
Reducing Vulnerability to Middle East Energy Shocks: A Key Element in
Strengthening U.S. Energy Security.

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Poll puzzle: Why are 85% satisfied how they voted when
51% Not pleased Olmert 76% wrong for Peretz to be DM?

Poll puzzle: Why are 85% satisfied how they voted when 51% Not pleased
Olmert 76% wrong for Peretz to be DM?
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date:29 April 2006

The Dahaf poll represented below found that while 85% of respondents were
satisfied with how they voted yet were considerably less happy about how
things are being handled.

A few observations are in order:

1. 85% are “satisfied” how they voted – but only 63% of qualified voters
actually voted. Even if one takes into account the high estimate that 10%
of the people listed as qualified voters actually live overseas, that comes
to 70% of qualified voters residing in Israel voted. So we have a results
that 15% of the people who are satisfied how they voted are actually
satisfied that they didn’t vote.

2. Of the 3,186,738 who did vote, 690,901 voted for Kadima (15.2%)

Are the 85% “satisfied” that they voted, did not vote, voted for Kadima or
voted against Kadima or what?

Or, alternatively, how many of those same 85% of the people who said that
they were satisfied how they voted and voted for Kadima and Labor (combined
total 25.6%) or for other parties aren’t actually jumping with joy about
what they did but, as a matter of pride, won’t admit to a pollster that they
are starting to regret how they voted?

Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 adult Israelis (including
Arab Israelis) carried out by Dahaf for Yediot Ahronot the week of 28 April
2006 (as Olmert coalition government still in formation).

Are you satisfied with the makeup that is developing for the government?
Yes 39% No 55%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Ehud Olmert during the process of
the formation of the government?
Yes 37% No 51%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Amir Peretz during the process of
the formation of the government?
Yes 30% No 63%

Is the good of the State one of the considerations of the people handling
the [coalition] negotiations?
Considerably yes 28% A little or not at all 69%

Is the appointment of Amir Peretz as minister of defense a correct move?
Yes 21% No 76%

Are you worried about the appointment of Amir Peretz as defense minister?
Yes 56% No 44%

How do you feel today about how you voted in the elections?
Satisfied 85% No satisfied 14%

Is it proper for the government to include 27 ministers?
Yes 20% No 76%

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts: Arab-Muslim support?Militant Islam 29 April 2006

Excerpts: Arab-Muslim support?Militant Islam 29 April 2006

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 29 April ’06:”Editorial: Funding for Palestine”
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
“funds …sent have amounted to almost nothing”
“Arabs and Muslim governments …insufficient giving”
“World Bank to take over for paying Palestinian saleries is a dimunition
of Palestinian sovreignty”

A couple of months ago … Hamas boldly predicted that it would find the
money elsewhere. … whatever funds may have been sent have amounted to
almost nothing. The Palestinian state is now in precisely the crisis that
President Mahmoud Abbas predicted. Some 165,000 Palestinian
government-employees have not been paid salaries for weeks and have to beg
and borrow to survive.
the Palestinian Authority is the largest employer in the West Bank and
Gaza – cannot pay their bills …The economy is in dire straits.
Doubtless there will be many Arabs, Muslims and friends of the Palestinians
incandescent with rage at the notion that the Americans and Europeans should
be able to “blackmail” the Hamas government. But far more appalling is that
the Palestinian Authority should have become so totally dependent on Western
aid. …The lesson that the Palestinians need to take from this disaster is
…They cannot allow themselves to ever again slide into a state of
neocolonial economic dependency on the US and EU. It is bad politics and it
is bad economics. …Arabs and Muslim governments are also complicit in this
disaster. Their insufficient giving is what has forced the Palestinians into
near absolute dependence on Western aid. Moral support is all very well, but
it does not pay salaries or feed mouths.
….The French president’s proposal for the World Bank to take over
responsibility for paying Palestinian salaries is a diminution of
Palestinian sovereignty … .
The onus is on Arab and Muslim governments. …. Palestinians… will not
easily forgive a lack of Arab and Muslim action at this desperate time.

+++THE DAILY STAR (Lebanon) 29 April ’06:With God on their side, Islamists
don’t often compromise” by David Ignatius, Daily Star staff

QUOTE FROM TEXT:
“For a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of
compromise is
anathema”

” The same blockage is evident in other conflicts with Muslim groups”

“The West has placed its hopes on maturation of radical Islamic groups …
there is little evidence to support
this hope.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

EXCERPTS:

It’s a truism that all conflicts end eventually. But how do you resolve a
confrontation with an adversary that appears unable or unwilling to
negotiate a settlement? That’s a common problem that runs through the West’s
battles with militant Islam.
The most pressing instance is Iran’s drive to become a nuclear power. …
it wasn’t really a negotiation at all. “The EU talked, and the Iranians
responded, but they never came back with counterproposals because they could
not agree on anything.”
French analysts believe the Iranians displayed a similar refusal to
negotiate during their long and bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. The
exhausted Iraqis made efforts to seek a negotiated peace, but the Iranians
rejected their feelers. …t there was never a formal peace treaty and the
Iranians dragged their feet even on the exchange of prisoners.
The latest example of Iran’s diplo-phobia was a statement this week by
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissing the U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq … .
… For a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of
compromise is anathema. Great issues of war and peace will be resolved by
God’s will, not by human negotiators. Better to lose than to bargain with
the devil. Better to suffer physical hardship than humiliation.
This same blockage is evident in other conflicts with Muslim groups. Al-
Qaeda doesn’t seek negotiations or a political settlement, nor should the
West imagine it could reach one with a group that demands that America and
its allies withdraw altogether from the Muslim world. The closest Osama bin
Laden has come to a political demarche was his January 19, 2006, offer of “a
long-term truce based on fair conditions,” which weren’t specified. His
deeper message was that Al-Qaeda would wait it out – waging a long war of
attrition … adversaries would eventually grow tired and capitulate. … .
The West has placed its hopes on political maturation of radical Muslim
groups, figuring that as they assume responsibility, they will grow
accustomed to the compromises that are essential to political life. But so
far, there is little evidence to support this hope. The Hamas government
appears to have nothing it wants to negotiate with Israel. Indeed, it still
refuses to recognize formally the existence of its adversary. In Lebanon,
Hizbullah has agreed to little compromises since it joined the Lebanese
government, but not big ones.
A word that recurs in radical Muslim proclamations is “dignity” …
unyielding Yasser Arafat remained popular among Palestinians, despite his
failure to deliver concrete benefits. He was a symbol of pride and
resistance. Hamas, too, gains support because of its rigid steadfastness,
The Muslim demand for respect isn’t something that can be negotiated … .

Sue Lerner – Associate – IMRA

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Israel and Nuclear Suppliers
Group discuss nuclear exports control

Israel and Nuclear Suppliers Group discuss nuclear exports control
(Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s Office)

Representatives of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) visited Israel today
(Thursday, April 27, 2006) and discussed issues of nuclear export controls,
a continuation to a previous meeting that took place on March 15, 2005.

The NSG delegation was headed by its chairman, Ambassador Roald Naess of
Norway.

The NSG representatives met with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and ministry
officials, and also held discussions with officials of the Ministry of
Industry, Trade, and Labor and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission.

The Israeli officials presented the country’s policy and activities related
to nuclear non-proliferation and export controls, while the NSG
representatives briefed them on NSG decisions, current activities, and
discussions. Ideas on ways to enhance the ongoing dialogue between Israel
and the NSG were also discussed.

Minister Livni told the delegation that Israel shares the objectives and
priorities of the NSG and is a reliable partner in confronting nuclear
proliferation. She expressed the hope that the dialogue would soon be
translated into a stronger partnership that facilitates these common
efforts.

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Has the Saudi Kingdom Reformed? [Not really]

Has the Saudi Kingdom Reformed?
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/930

On February 14, 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with King
Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman al-Saud on board the USS Quincy, anchored in the
Great Bitter Lake along the Suez Canal in Egypt. The summit cemented a
lengthy and, in recent years, often fractious relationship. Over the
subsequent six decades, U.S.-Saudi relations have been multifaceted and
complex, and often tense. In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks and the
revelations that fifteen out of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals,
both Washington’s ties with Riyadh and the kingdom’s support for radical
Islam have come under increased scrutiny. On December 1, 2005, Patrick
Clawson, senior editor at the Middle East Quarterly and deputy director for
research at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, convened a
roundtable to discuss the current state of U.S.-Saudi relations. Joining him
were Thomas Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute; Ali
Alyami, founder of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi
Arabia; Simon Henderson, a Washington Institute senior fellow and
London-based specialist in Saudi politics; and Amr Hamzawy, a senior
associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Are U.S.-Saudi Relations Solid?

Middle East Quarterly: How solid is the U.S.-Saudi relationship, and what
interests do the two countries have in common?

Thomas Lippman: The relationship is solid in a bilateral sense in which you
have two governments that have found various issues on which they can work
together and come to an agreement. It is not and should not be the kind of
relationship that we have had in the past in Saudi Arabia, one essentially
of the U.S. as tutor and Saudi Arabia as student. Saudi Arabia is a more
mature country now. The damage that was done by 9-11 has largely been
repaired in the government-to-government relationship; the relationship
between the American people and the Saudi people has suffered what may be
permanent damage.

Ali Alyami: The Saudi and U.S. relationship has not been a solid
relationship. It has been premised on an artificial basis, not on shared
values. It’s a relationship based on a family that represents the
government, a government that represses democratic society. The relationship
has been based on the wrong issues. The Saudi government-or should I say the
ruling family-today, more than at any time in the past, represents perhaps
the single biggest danger in the Middle East.

MEQ: Does the U.S. government share your viewpoint?

Alyami: Some in it agree with me; others express the same views as does Tom
Lippman.

Simon Henderson: It’s a strong relationship but it has suffered because of
9-11. To an extent, it’s been repaired since then, but it has changed.
Before 9-11, it was based on a strategic security relationship with a great
understanding that this was mutually beneficial to both sides. It’s still
based on oil in the past four years, but the military security relationship
has declined, as has the sense of a mutual understanding.

Amr Hamzawy: I basically agree with Simon Henderson but would add that there
are areas of convergence and divergence in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. This
became clearer after 9-11. What we are really seeing now in Saudi-U.S.
relations is the crystallization of some areas where interests and
perceptions intersect and others where they do not. The Israeli-Palestinian
issue and oil are clear cases of convergence. Perceptions, interests,
rhetoric, political reform-even the framework of political reform as
understood in Washington as compared to Riyadh-are clear areas of
divergence. Despite these areas of divergence, the relationship remains very
pragmatic. It will hardly lead to open conflict. So, tensions exist but not
conflicts.

MEQ: Several people identified 9-11 as extremely important in shaping the
relationship. How effectively do you think the Saudi government is
countering those in the kingdom who would finance such Islamist terrorism
overseas?

Lippman: There is no doubt that King Abdullah and his closest advisers
realize that Islamist or jihadist violence is inimical to their interests.
This is affirmed by the appointment of Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul
Aziz, the most outspoken proponent of all-out war against the violent
extremists, to direct the National Security Council. Commitment to
eradicating extremism is not the same as being fully effective, though,
either at home or internationally. There is still much work to be done.
Senior Bush administration officials have repeatedly testified before
Congress on how the Saudis can be more effective on issues such as control
of finance.

Henderson: But the Saudi government is more than King Abdullah and his
closest advisors. While the king brought his closest advisors with him when
he formally assumed the throne in August 2005, he shares leadership with
other senior princes. There is no consensus on who is in this most
influential group, but certainly Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and
Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz are among them. Other senior
royal family members also have influence. Just as Abdullah never had full
authority while still crown prince and acting head of state, he has not
consolidated full control today. When talking about Saudi Arabia, deciding
who controls the levers of power is always a problem.

Alyami: Too many Western officials and commentators say that the Saudi
government is an ally in the fight against terrorism. Do not forget that the
Saudi regime and the terrorists share many goals. In Iraq, neither the Saudi
government nor Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi want democracy. They
jointly fear Iranian influence. They oppose stability in Iraq. Riyadh does
not want a thriving, oil-producing Iraq on its border. Tom Lippman said that
the Saudi government is fighting terrorism; yes, it fights terrorism inside
its borders because domestic terrorism threatens the royal family. But
outside the kingdom is another matter.

MEQ: What are the Saudi government’s attitudes towards those in Saudi Arabia
who fund Islamist terrorists groups such as those that struck at the World
Trade Center and the London transportation system?

Alyami: The Saudi government attitude is permissive to the people and
institutions such as Muslim youth organizations that supported these
terrorists. Since the dynasty’s founding in 1744, Wahhabi extremists have
supported the Saud family. The Saudi royal family has no legitimacy beyond
the support of these extremists. The Saudi royal family is neither
democratic nor interested in sharing power. Terrorism can threaten the House
of Saud, but it can also serve its interests. I am from Saudi Arabia, and I
know the system. I am a victim of this brutal system. If there is not
complete transformation of Saudi Arabia-not only politics but also culture,
religion, and education-then Islamic extremists will bring the United States
down. I agree with President Bush: we must confront the ideology. The Saudis
will indeed fight the terrorism inside Saudi Arabia but, I repeat, outside
Saudi Arabia is another story.

Henderson: The Saudis have become more effective in countering those inside
the kingdom who finance Islamist terrorism abroad. Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser testified to this issue in November
2005.[1] Despite the improved cooperation, he did imply there was much more
that the Saudis could do.

Who Controls Saudi Arabia?

Hamzawy: I agree with part of what Ali Alyami said. The Saudi establishment
considers the Islamist splinter groups, which are scattered across Saudi
Arabia, to be a security threat. They are beginning to see Islamism as a
political threat as well. The need to combat terrorism has motivated all
recent reform, including holding municipal elections.

I disagree with Ali that the Saudi establishment wishes to radicalize the
region. Instability in Iraq undermines Saudi national interests. The Saudi
royal family knows that it is hard to control radicalization once it takes
root. The 1990s’ radicalism in Algeria and Egypt that swept the region
scared the family.

How effective has the Saudi government been in tackling Islamism at home?
Two of its strategies are effective and one less so. Prince Naif has
implemented a strategy of securitization. I went to Saudi Arabia in June
2005 and found the number of policemen on the street striking. A
militarization of daily life has taken place, and it is proving to be an
effective strategy. Over the past two years, Saudi security services have
caught and arrested terrorists.

The Saudi establishment has also been effective at outreach to the outer
edges of the Islamist spectrum. They have won back, not members of splinter
groups, but some of their sympathizers. They have regained control over some
segments of the Islamist spectrum.

Less effective has been the Saudi royal family’s efforts to use religious
discourse to combat radical Islamists. The Saudi royal family has not won
the cooperation of the Wahhabi establishment. A core group of the Wahhabi
establishment may be receptive to the royal family’s message, but the broad
base of the religious establishment is ambivalent when it comes to combating
the discourse of Islamism in public.

Alyami: It is important to judge people by what they do as opposed to what
they say. The Saudi royal family, especially Prince Naif, worked hard to
dismiss a reformist minister of education and to replace him with Abdullah
bin Salih Obeid, the former head of the World Muslim League.[2] Obeid is
among the most hard-line Wahhabis in the country. And he runs the education
system in Saudi Arabia today! How can they be confronting these extremists
when they place one of the most reactionary men in charge of educational
reform?

Given a choice between religious extremists and reformers, the Saudi royal
family will imprison the reformers and give amnesty to the extremists.
Abdullah has done this three times in the last two years. He put Matruk
al-Faleh, Turki al-Hammad, Ali al-Domani, and hundreds of other reformers in
prison, stopped them from leaving the country, or cut off their media
access. The government, then, gave amnesty to people incarcerated for
inciting murder or conspiracy to murder. Anybody who says the Saudi royal
family is stupid is himself stupid. The Saudi leaders are clever; they are
desert foxes. What they do and what they say are very different things.

Lippman: To some extent I agree. It is always possible to pick out issues
such as the appointment of Obeid as minister of education. From the time of
King Faisal, who ruled from 1964 to 1975, it has always been three steps
forward and 2.8 or 3.2 steps back. A statesman like Ghazi al-Gosaibi serves
as minister of labor, and every day he kicks open doors for women and others
who were previously disenfranchised from working. Saudi Arabia is not a
static society. Domestic tendencies and trends are felt in different ways.
While there is no system in place for such trends to be reflected in the
ballot box, society is changing in other ways. There are too many educated
women coming into the work force and into society now for it to remain
static. Saudi Arabia now is certainly different from what it was when I
first visited it thirty years ago.

Henderson: Surely, Tom, we cannot confuse openings for women and the
appointment of a certifiable Wahhabi education minister three years after
9-11. Especially when almost all analysts and officials agree that the
obscurantist nature of the Saudi education system contributed to the
attacks.

Lippman: You are absolutely correct about the negative impact of the
education appointment, especially since the ministry now controls both
girls’ and boys’ education.

Hamzawy: Simon Henderson is correct that there are different trends within
the royal family. The religious establishment is a key player and is
wealthy. It cannot be controlled, even by the royal family. The religious
establishment controls three vital spheres of Saudi society: education,
preaching, and the judiciary. It is not a monolith, though. Within the
religious establishment, there are different tendencies. A core group is
receptive to the wishes of the king. Another group has been less receptive.
This group was associated throughout the 1980s and 1990s with the so-called
Sahwa Islamiya (Islamic Awakening), which still adheres to an Islamist
discourse, even if they were less militant than Al-Qaeda.

There are two general groups of reformers on the Saudi scene, and both are
relatively small. The first are the so-called liberals such as Matruk
al-Faleh, Ali al-Domani, as well as some university professors, and civil
society, human rights, and women activists. The second are the liberal or
moderate Islamists. Again, these groups are not monolithic. There are
degrees of convergence and divergence within the reform camp.

Another force is small but a threat to national security: the splinter
groups of Islamists operating across the kingdom.

The power balance among these groups is the best way to gauge how effective
the government is in terms of ideology and reform.

MEQ: How does this play out with regard to education?

Hamzawy: While Wahhabism is the defining reality of Saudi Arabia, it is
important to look for gray zones. The question is whether there are moderate
trends within the Wahhabi establishment and whether these can lead to
reform. There is not always forward progress.

There has been less moderation in the last year. Between 2001 and 2003,
there was greater moderation within the educational system and universities.
There were fewer attempts to ban professors and fewer restrictions than
there are now. In the last year, and especially the last few months, there
has been a shift back to less moderation.

MEQ: Why?

Hamzawy: I asked this same question of Saudi intellectuals in June and July
2005 when I was in the kingdom. They enunciated two basic reasons. One is
that the Bush administration is not pressing the Saudi royal family enough,
and the second is that the royal family went through a period of turbulence
after 9-11. For perhaps two years, it was willing to do a bit more than its
normal inclination. As the pressure abated, it shifted back to less
moderation in the education and preaching spheres.

MEQ: Is King Abdullah a reformer?

Lippman: There is a tendency in the United States to think of King Abdullah
as a reformer who, as crown prince, was chomping at the bit to implement
liberalizing change in Saudi Arabia. I never believed that. He is some 80
years old. He’s been part of the tiny ruling elite of Saudi Arabia all his
life. He is not bursting out of the gate to make major changes in the Saudi
power structure.

Alyami: Abdullah is no reformer. Abdullah was marginalized throughout his
life by his father the king, by the Sudairi full-brothers, and by prior
kings, including the late King Fahd, with whom he shared the same mother. He
became crown prince only because King Fahd felt badly for him. The royal
family agreed to this because it assumed Abdullah would die before Fahd. God
made a liar out of them, for Fahd died before Abdullah. The royal family did
not want Abdullah as king but he threatened them with the National Guard.

There is no accountability in Saudi Arabia. There is no transparency.
Anybody can pay to kill another person. There is the hawala [religious
financial] system, which the Saudis use quite a bit, that leaves no paper
trail. The judicial system is broken and needs urgently to be changed. The
Saudi people are fed up. Power lies in the hands of Abdullah, Sultan, Naif,
Majid, Khalid bin Faisal bin Abdul Aziz [governor of Asir province], perhaps
Mohammed bin Fahd bin Abdul Aziz [governor of the Eastern Province], and a
few others here and there.

King Abdullah has not implemented a single recommendation suggested by the
national dialogues [high-profile conferences he organized to gather
suggestions from a wide range of commoners]. He takes orders from those
around him. He is one absolute monarch out of many absolutes. This is the
reality of Saudi Arabia.

MEQ: What about the religious establishment?

Alyami: Amr Hamzawy is right that reform is in retreat. The House of Saud is
the real establishment; the religious institution is only as powerful as the
House of Saud allows it to be. The Saudi government plays the religious
people against each other, and it also plays the religious establishment
against liberals. If the Saudi royal family wanted to muzzle the religious
establishment, it could. It has used the mufti to issue fatwas [religious
rulings] against [Libyan leader Mu’ammar] Qadhafi and against [former Iraqi
dictator] Saddam Hussein.

The royal family can silence people but does not silence the clergy because
the alternative is liberalization, which is not in its interest. It feels
safer with all the problems and threats of the religious establishment than
with democratization, for democratizing means sharing power and becoming
accountable.

MEQ: And terrorism?

Alyami: The hatred the religious establishment preaches against Christians,
Jews, Shi’ite Muslims, and all non-Wahhabi Muslims is huge. Without reform,
there will be no end to the hate in Saudi mosques, and terrorism will
continue.

MEQ: Washington has praised reform efforts in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait.
What is Riyadh’s attitude toward its neighbors’ reforms? How do Saudis see
U.S. policy to promote democratic reform in the Middle East?

Hamzawy: The Saudi situation is far more complicated than its neighbors’.
Saudi Arabia is a [Persian] Gulf superpower. Other [Persian] Gulf countries
depend on Saudi Arabia.

Throughout recent years, the Saudi government minimized reforms through
various strategies. As Simon Henderson said, it uses oil. It also uses the
fear that democratization could lead to the kingdom’s takeover by jihadists.
More recently, the Saudis have also exploited Western and primarily U.S.
fears of the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein to urge Washington to
consider other democracy promotion projects more carefully.

Accordingly, the U.S. government might consider reaching out directly to
civil society institutions, to groups promoting democratic change, and to
the Saudi people themselves.

Henderson: The Americans should encourage civil society and advocate
democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia. Washington should also be tougher with
regards to human rights abuses. The kingdom’s record is appalling; innocent
people are thrown in jail and tortured.

Saudi Foreign Policy

MEQ: Turning to foreign affairs: how helpful is Saudi influence to
Washington on regional issues such as stabilizing Iraq, pressing Syria to
end its interference in Lebanon, promoting Israeli-Arab peace, and
responding to the Iranian nuclear challenge? Are these issues on which the
U.S. and Saudi governments can work together?

Henderson: A schizophrenia exists in Saudi foreign policy. Anyone who
listens to Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal would think U.S.-Saudi interests
converge. But look at the history of Saudi foreign policy during the 1980s
and 1990s: despite being a close ally of the United States, the kingdom
exported its firebrands to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Islamists
almost triumphed in Algeria not because the Saudi government was encouraging
Islamist government directly but because Saudi interests promoted the
Islamists. There is a strong Islamist element to Saudi foreign policy that
often goes unrecognized.

MEQ: But for a long time during the Cold War, wasn’t the U.S.-Saudi alliance
based on common interests against the Soviet Union and communism? The U.S.
government worked with the Saudis in the 1950s and 1960s against Nasserism;
there was bilateral cooperation in the 1980s in Afghanistan.

Henderson: U.S. and Saudi interests converged in Afghanistan. They did not
in Bosnia.

MEQ: Those interests converged for three decades of the Cold War.

Henderson: They did not converge in Algeria, Bosnia, or Chechnya.

MEQ: All those are post-Cold War examples.

Henderson: Washington did not necessarily recognize post-Cold War that
U.S.-Saudi interests had diverged. The Saudis may not have a long-term
interest in a stable Iraq. They will not, of course, say this publicly.

MEQ: What about Saudi policy toward Syria and the Arab-Israeli peace
process?

Henderson: Abdullah has a sense of kinship with the Assads. Saudi
involvement in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations was more a way of placating
Washington. The Saudis are politically correct enough not to speak publicly
against Arab-Israeli peace; they go along with the peace process. They get
brownie points in Washington for meeting Jewish groups, for pushing the
Palestinians in certain directions, funding Palestinian peace diplomacy, and
things like this.

Hamzawy: Simon over-Orientalizes Saudi Arabia. Sometimes he suggests it’s
religion, other times kinship. I disagree. Yes, Wahhabi Islam is a defining
factor for the Saudi royal family and the Saudi establishment. In the 1960s,
a power struggle took place between Nasserism and Saudi traditionalism. This
was not a power struggle over the soul of the Arab world; it was a struggle
over who would be the region’s power center at a time of shifting regional
and international alliances. The Saudis often used religion to counter other
ideologies, always, however, based on clear political calculations. They
used religion in Afghanistan, with the blessing of Washington, I might add.
In the post-Cold War era, the Saudis used religion to promote what they
perceive as being Saudi national interests. At the end of the day, what is
structuring the reality of Saudi foreign policy is the preservation of the
Saudi royal family’s power. It’s not religion, or kinship, or ideology. It’s
simply preservation of power. That is the story of Saudi Middle East policy.

Lippman: Absolutely correct, and the historical record supports that
assessment. Look at some of the most critical external decisions Saudi
Arabia has made over the past forty or fifty years: self-preservation is the
first rule of the House of Saud. Likewise, the civil war in Yemen back in
the 1960s was about preservation, not religion. In OPEC [the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries], the Saudis cooperated with the most radical
Arab regimes with which they had nothing in common politically or
spiritually. The same rationale impelled them to make the mistake of
allowing 500,000 Americans to enter the country for Operation Desert Shield
[in 1990]. Abdullah’s 2002 peace initiative on Israel was pragmatic and a
sign of a generally non-ideological foreign policy.

MEQ: What does this mean about the issues and concerns to the United States
in regional politics?

Hamzawy: Just as Tom Lippman said, I see pragmatism as key; preserving Saudi
royal family power leads to convergence on regional issues. But I disagree
with Simon Henderson concerning Iraq: the Saudi royal family has an interest
in a stable Iraq but not necessarily a democratic Iraq. It is not against
Iraqi democracy, but it will not invest much to help that flourish. It has a
prescription to stabilize Iraq, which is to integrate, not exclude the Sunni
Arabs. Do not divide the country. That is pragmatism. The Saudi royal family
agrees with Cairo, with Damascus, more or less, and also somewhat with
Washington.

MEQ: And the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Hamzawy: The Abdullah plan was a pragmatic effort to gain momentum and
establish Saudi Arabia at the forefront of regional leaders. Abdullah
intended to push Egypt and Jordan back a little and portray Saudi Arabia as
an influential regional power. The Saudis would love to see the Palestinian
issue solved because it is exploited by radicals and militants. A solution
to it rids the Saudis, in terms of ideology and discourse, of a central
factor to bin Ladenism. Saudi foreign policy is designed to preserve power
and minimize threats. It has very little to do with religion and hardly
anything to do with exporting Wahhabism.

Alyami: The House of Saud’s only agenda is to stay in power. It will do
whatever it takes: kill, murder, incarcerate, destroy. The Saudis have no
interest in stabilizing Iraq. I disagree with the idea that it is
indifferent to a democratic Iraq. The Saudis hate two things: Shi’ite
empowerment and a democracy on their border. They will do whatever it takes
to ensure neither happens.

The Saudi government would like to see the United States stay in Iraq for
sixty years. In part, it does not want Washington even to consider invading
another Arab country, so getting the U.S. nose rubbed in the mud suits its
purposes. Also, a U.S. occupation in Iraq can be just as useful a symbol if
the U.S. military gets bogged down in the country.

In Syria, the Saudis have mixed interests. Because the ‘Alawites who control
Syria are an offshoot of Shi’ism, they fear the Assad regime’s outreach to
Iran and the Shi’ite government in Iraq. On the other hand, the Saudis fear
the alternatives to the Assad dynasty, and fear that chaos in Syria may
undercut Lebanon.

Abdullah’s Arab-Israeli peace plan was tactically wise. He knew that the
Israelis could not accept it because it called for Israel to return all land
occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem. The Saudi royal family wants
sway over East Jerusalem to add to [their patronage of] Mecca and Medina.
Then they will be custodian of three holy places instead of two and will
increase their stature accordingly. The Saudi government has no interest in
seeing Palestinian-Israeli peace, especially if that results in a democratic
Palestine. The Saudis are the greatest financial patrons of Hamas and of
Al-Aqsa Brigades and other groups. If Israel and the Arabs make peace and
democratization proceeds, the Saudi royal family will lose its power.

What really bothers me about all these discussions is that the Saudi people
are never considered. We talk about the women in Saudi Arabia today as if we
are talking about women’s situations 500, 600 years ago, and then people say
there are openings for women, there are openings for religious
minorities-but it’s still a country ruled by four or five old men who still
do not recognize half of their society as human beings.

Henderson: I always regarded Abdullah’s peace plan as a Saudi public
relations attempt to deflect attention from Saudi Arabia’s indirect role in
9-11.

The Oil Factor

MEQ: How important is oil to the bilateral U.S.-Saudi relationship?

Lippman: I’m a contrarian on this. Oil is not very relevant to bilateral
relations. Even if there were a jihadist revolution tomorrow .

Alyami: I say, it’s all about Saudi oil.

Lippman: The record shows that the United States boycotts oil producers.
They do not cut off America. Take, for instance, Libya and Iran .

MEQ: Saddam’s Iraq, too, right?

Lippman: Yes. But, that was because of United Nations’ sanctions. And the
United States bought the oil anyway. I believe that oil has no country of
origin. There is only one global oil market. If the United States stopped
buying the three million barrels a day that it buys from Saudi Arabia, and
instead purchased that amount somewhere else, then the Saudis would sell the
same three million barrels to the Chinese, South Africans, Japanese, or the
Argentineans. As long as Saudi Arabia is not in the forefront of rebels
trying to drive the prices up (the way Mu’ammar Qadhafi or even that old
U.S. friend, the shah of Iran, did in the old days), there should be no
problem. Washington should take the Saudis at their word, just as Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman did on his recent trip there.

Alyami: From day one, oil has been the basis, directly or indirectly, of the
U.S.-Saudi relationship. Oil is important in Saudi relations with Japan and
Europe, too, as both of them import a lot of Saudi oil. If their economies
fall, the Saudi economy will follow. Therefore, oil becomes a key issue
here. Tom is right that the U.S. does not import so much oil from the Saudis
right now, but the situation will change in ten or fifteen years as China
consumes more energy than the United States. The Chinese have few reserves,
and they will try to buy as much as they can from the Gulf region. That
said, the United States will never let the Chinese or anyone else get
control of oil production in the Middle East.

Henderson: I disagree with Tom Lippman’s remarks. Oil is the basis of the
relationship and is absolutely vital to it. So, preservation of the present
Saudi regime is in Washington’s best interests because when other major oil
exporters’ governments fail, the history is that their oil production and
exports are drastically reduced. Iran and Iraq are cases in point.

MEQ: And Qadhafi?

Henderson: Yes, and Qadhafi, too. He didn’t actually fall, but Washington
gave him a hard time.

MEQ: Yes, oil production in Libya has fallen for so long that the country
now hopes that by 2010 it can return production to where it was when he came
to power in 1969.

Henderson: Of course, Saudi Arabia, because of its huge reserves and huge
production, has a crucial role, one that Riyadh has been happy to undertake
for many years: to be the swing producer. Many in Washington consider it
vital that Saudi Arabia continue to perform that role in the future. Such
concerns limit Washington’s freedom of action on a whole series of concerns
about Saudi Arabia.

MEQ: Thank you for these most interesting observations. In sum, while there
remains disagreement on many, I heard a consensus that Washington should
encourage the kingdom’s civil society organizations and democratic
reformers. That would be quite a change, indeed, from U.S. policy in decades
past.

[1] Daniel L. Glaser, deputy assistant secretary Office of Terrorist
Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury, testimony
before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Nov. 8, 2005.
[2] The World Muslim League is a Saudi-sponsored organization founded in
1962 to fund mosques, publishing houses, cultural centers, schools, and
other Islamic institutions.

To subscribe to the MEF News list, go to
http://www.meforum.org/subscribe.php

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: DSP Poll # 26 The Palestinian Government
– International Funding

Results of Opinion Poll # 26
Birzeit University – Development Studies Programme
Date of Publication: 29/04/2006

The Palestinian Government
International Funding

Dates of fieldwork: 19/4/2006
Sample Size: 630 Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza
Number of Sampling Localities: 43
Margin of error: + 4%

Highlights

� 63% support a National Unity Government, while 24% support the
continuation of a Hamas-led government.

� There is a decline in the percentage of voters willing to vote for
Hamas from 50% to 44%. The Fateh vote continues at 34%.

� 53% say that they are satisfied with the outcome of the latest PLC
elections, compared with 59% (20 days ago).

� 41% believe that the Hamas win will positively impact internal
conditions, compared with 59% (20 days ago).

� There is a drop in the evaluation of President Abbas from 54% to
43%; and for Prime Minister Haniyyeh from 64% to 57%.

� 32% evaluate the performance of the Hamas-led Government as “good.”

� 30% believe that the current government is handling the issue of
international funding in an appropriate manner.

� 29% think that Hamas should recognize Israel and continue to
receive funding from international sources as done previously, while 64%
disagree.

* For further information or queries, contact team coordinator Dr.
Nader Said or Polling coordinator Ayman Abdul Majeed at the listed address
or through our website: http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp.

* Many thanks go to our field researchers, and the International
Republican Institute (IRI) for their support.

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: CABINET COMMUNIQUE

CABINET COMMUNIQUE
(Communicated by the Cabinet Secretariat)
At the weekly Cabinet meeting today (Sunday), 30.4.06:

1. In continuation of its previous decisions, the Cabinet views the
continued construction of the security fence ( http://tinyurl.com/czaco )
as important vis-�-vis a measure that has proven its efficiency in
protecting the State of Israel and its citizens and that prevents negative
influences that terrorist attacks are liable to have on the diplomatic
process while reducing, by as much as possible, the effects on Palestinians’
lives in keeping with High Court of Justice rulings.

Therefore, the Cabinet decided:

* To approve the continued construction of the security fence in order to
prevent terrorist attacks, in keeping with the route changes that were
presented today;

* The sections of fence that are built as a result of this decision, like
those sections of that have been built up to now, are a temporary security
measure for the prevention of terrorist attacks and do not express a
diplomatic – or any other kind of – border;

* During the detailed planning, every effort will be made to reduce, by as
much as possible, disturbances that are liable to be caused to Palestinians’
lives as a result of the construction of the fence;

* Local changes in the route, or construction, of the fence that are
required as a result of overall planning or security needs, or as a result
of the need to reduce disturbances to Palestinians’ lives, will be submitted
for approval to the Defense Minister and the Prime Minister;

* The approval of those sections of the fence route that are still
undergoing legal review (in northern Samaria and northeast of Maaleh Adumim)
will be subject to legal approval.

2. The Cabinet discussed the issue of security responsibility for the
‘Jerusalem envelope’ and for the seam zone.

3. Pursuant to its authority under the 1977 Airports Authority Law, the
Cabinet decided to approve the contacts between the Airports Authority and
Swissport International Ltd; see http://tinyurl.com/ojah4 for details.

4. The Cabinet appointed Israeli Ambassador to Austria Dan Eshbal as
Non-Resident Ambassador to Slovenia.

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: ISRAELI GOVERNMENT DECISION TO DIVIDE ARIEL BLOC

Press release
Sunday, April 30, 2006

SECURITY WALL UPDATE: ISRAELI GOVERNMENT DECISION TO DIVIDE ARIEL BLOC
Regional Mayor Bentzi Lieberman: “Decision to divide the towns will choke
them and
prevent normal daily life, in a move towards ’67 borders”

Today’s Israeli government decision to divide the communities within the
Ariel bloc is absurd, said community heads in the Shomron area. They said
that the division of the area into two thin areas is proof that the idea of
promoting ‘blocs of settlement’ is merely lip service and that it is really
a step in the direction of the retreat plan to ’67 borders and the desire to
hide behind walls and fences, in a false sense of security that strengthens
the self-confidence of the palestinian arabs and their terrorist efforts.

For a visit to the areas at hand or interviews with the elected officials
such as Mayor Bentzi Lieberman and Members of the Knesset, please contact
Ruthie Lieberman at jaffestrategies@gmail.com.

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts: Debate on nuclear issues in Terhan
Russia’s energy threat to Europe. 30 April 2006

Excerpts: Debate on nuclear issues in Terhan Russia’s energy threat to
Europe. 30 April 2006:

+++THE DAILY STAR (Lebanon) 28 April ’06:”The way to beat Iran’s
confrontationists” By Karim Sadjadpour,International Crisis Group
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
“a longstanding debate on the nuclear issue rages in Tehran … country’s
(three) ruling elites divided”

(1) ” ‘ the West needs Iran more than we need them’ ” (2) ” ‘you can’t
live in isolation’ ” (3) ” ‘cost of nuclear intransigence … greater than
its benefits’ “

“will require … American-led diplomacy, starting from the premise that
Iran’s leadership is neither monolithic nor impossibly intransigent”
—————————————————————————-
—————————————————————————-
—————————————————————————-
——–
EXCERPTS:
As the international community wrestles with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a
longstanding debate on the nuclear issue rages in Tehran, and Western
policymakers and analysts should not ignore it.
Though Iranian officials publicly project a unified mindset, in reality the
country’s ruling elites are divided into three broad categories: those
whofavorpursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle at all costs; those who wish to
pursue it without sacrificing diplomatic interestss; and those who argue for
a suspension of activities to build trust and allow for a full fuel cycle
down the road. Understanding and exploiting these differences should be a
key component of any diplomatic approach.
The first group…romanticize the defiance of the revolution’s early days.
… argue that Iran should withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), unequivocally pursue its nuclear ambitions… .They advocate
measures such as withholding oil exports and cutting diplomatic ties with
countries that side against Iran, confident that “the West needs Iran more
than we need them.”
The second group,…argues that Iran is “bound by national duty” to pursue
its “inalienable” right to enrich uranium, but … favors working within an
international framework. … “a country’s survival depends on its political
and diplomatic ties: you can’t live in isolation.”
The third, more conciliatory group is arguably the most reflective of
popular sentiment, but is also currently the least influential in the
circles of power. Believing the costs of nuclear intransigence to be greater
than its benefits, they claim Iran should freeze its enrichment activities
to build confidence and assuage international concerns. As reformist leader
Mustafa Tajzadeh told me, “We have far more pressing concerns facing our
country than a lack of uranium enrichment.” This group has consistently
backed direct talks with the United States, convinced that the Europeans are
incapable of providing the political, economic and security dividends Iran
seeks.
Steering the Iranian nuclear ship is supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
whose 17-year track record suggests a leader who wants neither confrontation
nor accommodation with the West. Yet decisions in Iran are made by consensus
rather than decree, and at the moment Khamenei appears more influenced by
confrontationist voices around him who argue – with some plausibility – that
nothing short of regime change will satisfy the U.S., and that retreating on
the nuclear question would only display weakness and invite further
pressure. Believing a clash with the U.S. inevitable, Tehran’s hard-liners
want it to occur on their terms, when oil prices are high and the U.S. is
bogged down in Iraq.
For the West to effectively counter Tehran’s confrontationists, it must
simultaneously strengthen its pragmatists. While the West should make clear
that a bellicose Iranian policy will not reap rewards, it should also
indicate that a more conciliatory stance would trigger reciprocal steps.
Timing is key: offering incentives prematurely, without modified Iranian
behavior, may well validate the confrontationists’ hard-line approach;
refusing to offer genuine incentives will undermine the pragmatists’ appeal.
After months of silence, Iranian moderates are beginning to make their
voices heard. Khatami has criticized his successor’s disregard for
diplomacy, as has former lead nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani. The
country’s largest reform party recently urged the government to voluntarily
suspend all nuclear fuel cycle work. This suggests pressure is having some
effect, but it will only go so far. If and when greater momentum and a
larger consensus builds in Tehran for a nuclear compromise, it will be time
for the West to clarify that a moderate Iranian approach would beget a
moderated Western response, particularly from the U.S.
A broader diplomatic accommodation – Iran forsaking domestic uranium
enrichment and modifying its objectionable domestic and regional behavior in
exchange for improved bilateral relations, security assurances, and a
gradual lifting of sanctions – is the preferred option. A smaller bargain
would be acknowledging Iran’s eventual right, after several years of a total
freeze, to operate a small-scale uranium enrichment facility under an
intrusive inspections regime, making clear that no move to weapons would
ever be tolerated. In both instances the logic is similar: to strengthen the
hand of Iranians who are pressing for a more accommodating foreign and
nuclear policy, they need to have a realistic and appealing alternative to
point to.
With oil prices soaring and Iraq in chaos, the policies being contemplated
to enforce zero enrichment for zero incentives, which not even moderate
forces in Iran can accept, hold little promise. Three decades of extensive
U.S. economic sanctions have done little to positively influence Iranian
behavior; there is little indication to believe additional European Union
sanctions would do the trick. Military strikes against Iran’s nuclear
facilities would be of dubious efficacy and would have catastrophic
consequences for regional peace and security. And despite widespread popular
discontent and promises of U.S. funding, hopes for a popular uprising are
very slim.
A nuclear-armed Iran is not a fait accompli. But to prevent more dangerous
scenarios from emerging will require the U.S. to come to terms with a
reality that European, Russian, and Iranian officials privately admit: if a
nuclear Iran is to be avoided, the answer lies not in European economic
overtures or a Russian-led technical solution, but American-led diplomacy,
starting from the premise that Iran’s leadership is neither monolithic nor
impossibly intransigent.

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 30 April ’06:”EDITORIAL: Russia’s Oil Plans”
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
“Russia would look to channeling its … production to energy-hungry
China as well as to Japan”
“Russia’s … renationalized … Gazprom … supplies a quarter of
Europe’s gas”
“Today its strength rests most strongly on its ability to supply
energy”
—————————————————————————-
—————————————————————————-
————————————
EXCERPTS:

According to President Vladimir Putin, Russia is growing impatient with
European concerns about the reliability of the oil and gas which Europe buys
from Moscow. If protests and worries continue, Putin warned last week,
Russia would look to channeling its hydrocarbon production to energy-hungry
China as well as to Japan. A month ago, on a visit to Beijing, he speculated
openly about running an oil pipeline from Siberia to China.
… Western European countries are hardly likely to be reassured by a threat
to divert energy production eastward.
Further European alarm has been caused by the predatory ambitions of Russia’
s state-owned energy companies, most particularly the renationalized
commercial behemoth Gazprom, which currently supplies a quarter of Europe’s
gas. Gazprom is looking to buy European energy companies and, with high
energy prices swelling its income, its pockets are deep. The negative
reaction to this eventuality on the part of European politicians last week
caused Putin to remark caustically: “When [European] companies come to us,
it’s called investment and globalization, but when we go there, it’s called
expansion by Russian companies.”
I… Moscow is now enjoying the position of a commercial power in which it
finds itself thanks to its energy production. …
Today its strength rests most strongly upon its ability to supply energy. It
is no longer a prime magnet for international investment. … How wisely
Moscow uses its newfound power and, indeed, how it uses the rising tide of
foreign exchange flowing into its once almost bankrupt treasury are crucial
both for Russia itself and its neighbors …

Sue Lerner – Associate – IMRA

——————————

From: imra-owner@imra.org.il
Subject: IMRA Subscription Info

——————————————–
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

For free regular subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For free daily digest subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe-digest@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For a copy of all reports distributed for a given day please send a
message to:

monday@imra.org.il tuesday@imra.org.il wednesday@imra.org.il
thursday@imra.org.il friday@imra.org.il
saturday@imra.org.il sunday@imra.org.il
——————————————–

——————————

End of [imra] Daily digest – Volume: 2 Issue: 1381 (12 messages)
**********

[UrukNet] – [Daily Information from Occupied Iraq] – [newsletter 29 April 2006 – part two]

 

  uruknet.info
  اوروكنت.إنفو
:: information from occupied iraq
:: informazione dall’iraq occupato

Killing the Sunnis!!
an iraqi tear

…The extreme Shiite minister of interior Bayan Jabr Soulagh who used to deny the sectarian crimes are being committing while the Iraqis know that he himself was and still commanding the sectarian attacks achieving the Iranian agenda in Iraq. Till now more that 244 Omers were assassinated in Baghdad. They were kidnapped or arrested by the police; then their tortured and shot dead bodies were found. The Iraqis are accusing the Iranians or those Iraqis who were trained in Iran an! d our proof is the Iranians used to torture the prisoners of war in the same way and most of them were killed in the front of the war in the same “technique” of killing. (…) Who could protect our sons, lives and homes? Nobody, the answer I will hear. Americans are allowing such crimes to hide their lies and fail in Iraq…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22947


GI Special 4D29 – The Grunts In The Bush Rebelled – April 29, 2006
Thomas F. Barton

…SIR! NO SIR! deals with the origins and growth of the GI anti-war movement and how it became a crucial aspect of that time that, along with much else, has been totally erased from the popular memory. In fact, the current slaughter in Iraq was made possible only because the current crop of American voters are so profoundly ignorant of their own recent history. It is a deliberately manufactured ignorance, of course, a house of c! ards built of established lies, but nevertheless it is the main prop holding up the current, blood-splattered junta and the main engine driving the ongoing insanity…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22958


Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Saturday, 29 April 2006
Translated and/or compiled by Muhammad Abu Nasr, member, editorial board, the Free Arab Voice.

In a dispatch posted at 5:15pm Makkah time Saturday afternoon, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that Iraqi Resistance forces fired three 82mm mortar rounds into the US military headquarters located near the al-Hadithah Dam, about 300km northwest of Baghdad. The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam reported eyewitnesses in the city as saying that plumes of smoke rose! over the American camp following the Resistance barrage…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22957


“False Flagg” op called Rosetta Stone of 9/11
Jerry Mazza, Online Journal Contributing Writer

You know. A false flag op is when a nation attacks itself but makes it appear that an enemy has committed the attack. This way it stirs its more or less peace-loving people into going to war with the demonized “enemy.” It’s false flag ops 1.1. And Flagg is not a misspelling of flag but the name of a former FBI agent, Warren Flagg who (along with a former federal prosecutor) helped direct the New England investigation of ! the Sept. 11 attacks. Flagg was nice enough in a Newsday.com piece by Michael Dorman to mention that “one bag found in Boston contained far more than what the commission report cited, including the names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections.” Gee, what luck! How wonderfully thoughtful of the hijackers to leave what Flagg termed this “Rosetta stone” behind so everything could be figured out so quickly and with such ease…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22954


DAILY WAR NEWS FOR SATURDAY, April 29, 2006
Today in Iraq

Two US soldiers killed and three other injured this morning when a person wearing a belt of explosive devices blew himself near US check point in Ramadi in Iraq (…) U.S. Army soldier died Saturday when a roadside bomb hit his convoy near Baghdad, the military said. The attack occurred southwest of the capital at about 4 p.m. Roadside bomb targeting Iraqi police patrol explodes in Ghazaliyah in west Baghdad, killing one policeman and wounding two. Three ! dead bodies discovered by Iraqi security forces in the east of the capital. Three Iraqi policemen wounded when explosive device blows up in Saadoun Street, central Baghdad. Two Iraqi army soldiers killed and six wounded when “insurgents” open fire on their convoy in Suwera…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22956


Death Made In America
Wondering if your conscience is still anesthetized

Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD

…Due to the use of massive amount of uranium munitions used by the US forces in the initial bombing and subsequently, massive amount of congenital deformities occur all over Afghanistan. The rate of various cancers has gone up significantly. Leukemia and esophageal cancers are very high among children. According to doctors at maternity and children hospitals in Kabul, the rate of various congeni! tal deformities have increased by many folds since the US invasion. In fact, the magnitude of man made isotopes was established by the Uranium Medical Research Center after their investigators made to trips to Afghanistan and collected urine and soil samples. They established that the rate of man made isotopes was gone up 2000 times in some subjects located near the bombed areas. Since uranium used in the weapons have a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the US forces ensured that generations of Afghans suffer from cancers and deformities…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22953


One Excellent Reason Not to Join the Military: You May be Ordered to Kill Civilians
Paul Rockwell, CommonDreams.org

When Marine Sergeant Jimmy Massey enlisted in the Marines, he never expected that he would be ordered to kill civilians. He enlisted in good faith, and he trusted his Commander-in-Chief to tell the truth, to follow the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law. He was even ready to risk his life for his country in the event that the United States faced a real or imminent attack. In January 2003, Jimmy ! was deployed to Iraq. During the initial invasion he was involved in a number of “checkpoint killings,” the kind of atrocities that occur over and over today without fanfare or scandal…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22951


Video
Iraqi Sunnis flee Baghdad for tent city in Fallujah

Ihlas News Agency

Baghdad’s Sunni population has begun fleeing the capital due to violent ethnic clashes in recent months. Nearly 25,000 Iraqi Sunnis have left their homes and migrated to Fallujah’s Saklaviye district, where the Red Crescent has built a refugee camp for them…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22950


U.S., Iranian officials met in Iraq – report
Reuters

U.S. and Iranian officials held talks on Iraq in Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region “a while ago”, Iraq’s Al-Sharqiya television quoted President Jalal Talabani as saying on Saturday. U.S., Iranian and Iraqi officials could not confirm the report. According to Sharqiya, Talabani told Iraqi and Arab writers during a spring cultural festival that the talks took place in the lakeside mountain resort of Dukan and that discussions were “dedicated to the Iraqi issue”..! .

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22949


Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Friday, 28 April 2006
Translated and/or compiled by Muhammad Abu Nasr, member, editorial board, the Free Arab Voice.

…Saddam Husayn, still the legal President of Iraq, on Friday marked his 69th birthday like the state of Iraq itself, as a prisoner of the occupation. In a statement on the occasion, the Arab Socialist Baath Party noted that Iraq had become the most difficult conundrum ever faced by America during its colonialist history. In many respects the role of President! Saddam Husayn mirrors the role of Iraq. Like the country he is confined to a US prison, but he remains defiant and unbowed. In session after session of the American-staged “trial” the Iraqi President has stood firm against the illegal occupation and its mock “trial” as well as against the charges trumped up by a “court” whose sole “legal” authority is derived from the temporary presence of an alien army of occupation…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22944


www.uruknet.info: a site gathering daily information concerning occupied Iraq: news, analysis, documents and texts of iraqi resistance available in Italian and English.

uruknetgif


 

You receive this newsletter because you subscribed it. If you think it was an abuse, or simply if you don’t want to receive it any more,
click here to unsubscribe from the newsletter.

Bloglines – A Critique of the Complete Official Version of the South Tower Hit

Bloglines user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent this item to you.

Humint Events Online
The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist “Pearl Harbor” event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries. This weblog will explore the incredibly strange events of 9/11/01, and other issues of US government responsibility.

A Critique of the Complete Official Version of the South Tower Hit

By Spooked

Everyone knows a hijacked jet slammed into the south tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, resulting in a spectacular fireball.

We ALL saw it on TV, right?

But what if the airplane never existed? What if the story of a hijacked airplane was a giant hoax, used as a linch-pin to sell the official 9/11 story?

What follows is a multi-point presentation of the complete South WTC tower attack– and a critique of this story.

I think that there is no doubt that the official story of this central event of 9/11 simply doesn’t hold up to serious scrutiny.

O.S. = official story (in some cases the official story has not been fleshed out completely, and in these instances, I try to make the best case for the official story).

O.S. 1) Terrorists hijacked a 767 and a hijacker pilot on a suicide mission took over controls of the plane.

Critique: It is unclear how this was accomplished given the hijackers were only armed with knives, boxcutters, and possibly pepper spray and fake bombs. In particular, it is unclear how the hijackers got the pilots out of their seats without ground control being alerted of a hijacking. It seems unlikely the pilots would give up their seats without a struggle, and the pilots were large armed services veterans. It is not clear how the hijackers took the cockpit by surprise, given that at least two of the 9/11 hijackings had fights/struggles in the passenger compartment as the hijackers tried to move to the cockpit.

O.S. 2) The hijacker pilot navigated to New York City and approached the WTC complex from Southern manhattan at a speed between 500 and 600 mph. The plane was seen approaching Manhattan by several video cameras.

Critique: Given that the hijacker pilot had never flown a large jet before, this feat seems highly unlikely– particularly given the extreme speed, which was at the operational limit for the aircraft. Near sea level, such a speed could even damage the plane. It is hard to imagine someone who had never flown this type of craft before steering and descending the plane effectively at this speed. For an unknown reason, some shots show the plane approaching directly from the south, while other videos show the plane coming from the southwest. Different videos show different rates of descent. It is hard to understand how one plane could take markedly different approach paths, unless one or more videos were faked.

O.S. 3) The hijacker pilot needed to make a last second course alteration, and so banked the plane to the left for the last few hundred feet of approach. This event was captured by a few video cameras.

Critique: One video (“Park Foreman”) shows the plane making an extremely rapid and smooth roll to the left (though oddly the plane’s course does not obviously change). Given the extreme speed, this maneuver is not trivial, and it seems to occur too fast and smoothly for a huge jet being flown by a first-time pilot. Moreover, for a suicide pilot in the last incredible intense seconds of a massive and long-anticipated attack, it is hard to believe that the pilot wouldn’t OVER-compensate, and jerk the plane even farther to the left, as opposed to the seemingly controlled piloting that is observed in the videos. Remember again, officially the plane was flying at near maximum speed, making any maneuver very tricky. Interestingly though, this apparent last-second course-correction would tend to rule out remote control guidance of the plane, since guidance systems should have made the plane come in straight on target. The idea that someone was using a joystick from a remote location to control the plane would seem to have some technical problems. However, if the plane were a computer-generated image (CGI), this last-second maneuver would be no problem to add to the video, and would basically add extra drama to the imagery.

O.S. 4) The plane smashed into the south WTC tower full speed, and this event was captured by multiple video cameras. The plane hit the building almost perfectly straight on, such that both wings and wing-mounted engines impacted at about the same time.

Critique: Four of the 29 known videos of the second plane showed the plane directly impact the building, and all four showed the plane enter the building smoothly, without slowing, without any part breaking off. This will be discussed more below. However, there are other odd things about the second hit videos: 1) the plane enters the building at slightly different places in different videos, and 2) the timing of the fireball appearance after the plane goes in is different between different videos. Although live video shots of this event were shown on TV, there are serious anomalies/oddities in the initial presentation of this event. More the suspiciousness of this “live” footage here and here and here.

O.S. 5) Because the plane was banked when it hit, the plane impacted 7 different floors (see Figure 1). The fuselage impacted two different floors and the 150 foot long wings struck several more floors. Specifically, the port wing struck across two floors while the starboard wing struck across four floors.
Figure 1:

Critique: One HAS to wonder why the plane doesn’t really line up with the hole very well. How can the engines get in when there are columns blocking it? Moreover, the plane should have made a BIGGER hole in the wall than its profile, not a smaller hole, if it truly smashed through the wall without anything breaking off. Next, take a good look at that large chunk of wall laying right in the bottom of the center hole where the fuselage is supposed to have entered. The only possible explanation is that the plane pushed aside this large section of wall as it went in, much like a kitty-door folds up as the kitty walks through, and that after the plane “passed” through, the folded section of wall broke off and fell down to the bottom of the hole. However, this explanation strains credulity. A plane that smashes through the wall full-speed, if we even assume that is possible, is not going to fold up a broken-off section of wall and leave it right next to the entry hole. This large section of steel columns should be pushed farther inside, particularly considering that according to the videos, the tail of the plane passed into the building without breaking off, and the tail should have caught on this chunk of columns and carried it inwards.

O.S. 6) The plane went into the building, smashing though multiple thick steel columns of the outer wall, without slowing, showing signs of break-up, or any immediate explosion. The extreme mass and speed of the plane was no match for the outer columns, and they gave way to the plane.

Critique:Watch the flash video of the plane entering the building. Does this look real? Does a real plane behave this way? I have no problem with the fact of the fuselage entering, but the lack of immediate explosion, lack of crumpling and lack of deceleration defy belief. Remember, this impact was centered at the 80th floor of a 110 story building. The outer walls were supporting much of the weight of the 30 floors above, and these outer walls were constructed of 13/16 inch steel columns. Then there were also the multiple floor slabs that dissect that plane’s path. Floor slabs include heavy steel spandrels where the floor meets the outer wall, 3 inch concrete and steel support trusses. Moreover, the 160 foot plane impacted at least one extremely strong core column after penetrating only 30 feet into the building. If not the outer columns and floor slabs, this impact should have slowed the plane– but according to the videos, it didn’t! Of course, a digital plane can pass easily through steel and concrete without slowing.

O.S. 7) The wings of the plane, on video, were seen to smoothly pass into the building (see Figures 2 and 3), also here; post-impact photos of the entry hole showed several columns near the central hole were sliced through. Less clear is what happened to the thinner, outer sections of the wings; they did not seem to sever columns but still damaged them. The outer sections of wings must have disintegrated upon impacting these distant columns, with some sections of wings breaking through, and some sections shredding upon impact. Little to no fuel was kept in the outer sections of wings and so no significant fuel was spilled to spark an immediate explosion.
Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Critique: there is no good explanation for what happened to the wings; their behavior defies physics. The behaviour of the wings is discussed here and here. I think wings on a real plane would have broken off and exploded upon impacting the steel columns of the outer wall. Wings are semi-hollow segmented constructs of aluminum, they are not stronger than steel. Wings frequently break off in other plane crashes. In a slow speed impact, is there any doubt that a thick steel column would rip apart a wing? At high speed, this would only have happened QUICKER. Of course, digital wings can easily pass through steel columns. In reality, the wing-like damage to the outer columns must have been mimicked by precision pre-planted explosives.

O.S. 8) The fuselage of the plane, once inside, impacted a core column of the WTC tower (see Figure 4). This column was substantially larger than the outer wall columns. This column was only aout 30 feet in from the outer wall. There is no data on what happened to this column. We can hypothesize that this column, and the one to the north of it (in line with the plane’s path) were minimally damaged by the plane due to their massive strength. Since the plane did not slow upon impact, the plane must have shredded around this column and the one north of it, causing almost complete destruction of the fuselage. Momentum carried the rest of the plane, including the huge tail structure, full-speed into the building as the fuselage shredded against the columns.
Figure 4:

Critique: the lower superstructure of the fuselage that supported much of the weight of the plane and held it together, was a continuous rigid structure . Impact of the fuselage superstructure on a massive core column should have slowed the plane significantly, since the force of the impact would have been transmitted through the plane’s framework. The core columns were massive, thick steel entities and would not be expected to be severed by a impact with a light-weight aluminum plane. If we assume there was a plane, the only explanation is that the plane broke up after impacting the core column, since the plane officially disintegrated AFTER entering the building. But if this is the case, then why didn’t the plane slow? We can see in the video that the tail of the plane smoothly passed into the building following the same initial course of the plane. The idea that the huge 30 foot tail of the 767 passed into the building at full-speed and without deviation in its angle SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER the plane impacted a core column defies common sense. Overall, in the larger sense, we have a huge problem with what officially happened. The 160 foot long plane enters the 208 foot wide building, seemingly indestructible as it passes completely into the building. Yet somehow, in the last 48 feet, the plane disintegrates. This simply defies physics. On the other hand, a computer image of a plane, would certainly be able to pass into the building in the manner seen in the 9/11 videos.

O.S. 9) The starboard wing was torn off from the plane by the corner core column (Figure 4) and was also shredded by the various floor slabs it impacted.

Critique: Again we have the problem with the wing entering the building seemingly in an indestructible fashion, then getting sliced into pieces and spilling fuel.

O.S. 10) Much of the plane’s fuel was coincidentally carried in the starboard wing, such that when this wing was torn and shredded, the fuel spilled out with a large amount of momentum.

Critique: if the fuel tanks were as full as is always claimed in the official story, it seems highly unlikely that little to no fuel would be in the port wing.

O.S. 11) A few sections of the fuselage and starboard wing had enough momentum to break all the way through the building. The fuel exited the northeast corner of the building with this debris in a large mass about the size of the fuselage, but this mass quickly erupted into a massive fireball (Figure 5).
Figure 5:

Critique: this large object that initially appears out the north face of the south tower is very odd. It is large enough to be the fuselage, yet a fuselage should not explode massively and essentially evaporate as this object does. The flash movies on this page show this odd phenomenon in good detail. If this object that bursts out of the corner is not the fuselage, what is it? And what causes the object to explode the way it does?

O.S. 12) In particular, a section of the starboard wing that traversed the 83rd floor had a large amount of fuel and scraped across the east wall of the tower, starting the east wall fireball (Figure 5, panel 2).

Critique: the explosive pimples that appear on the side of the building at floor 83 are odd. The only official explanation can be that they are generated by a shredded portion of the starboard wing. Even if we assume a shredded section of wing exploded against the wall, it is hard to believe so much fuel was carried in this thin outer section of wing. Further, the explosions occur outwards from the wall but also travel along the wall. It is hard to imagine how a section of wing can hit against the inside wall, start an explosion, but keep traveling, hit against the wall again, start another explosion, and hit against the wall AGAIN, and start another explosion. Watch the video. How can one section of wing do this?

O.S. 13) The port wing of the plane carried little fuel and was completely destroyed by the core columns and thus did not produce significant damage, explosion or fire on the west side of the building.

Critique: a true oddity is that where the rest of the plane impacted the core, there were few if any fires reported or seen in pictures and videos . Further, in contrast to the North tower hit, I could not find reports of fuel going down the elevator shafts in the South tower. How can this be? The bulk of the plane clearly impacted the core structure (Figure 4), and officially a great deal of fuel should have been in the port wing and fuselage.

O.S. 14) Damage to the core columns from the fuselage, plus fires started by the remaining plane fuel, significantly weakened the tower structural columns at the point of impact, causing the top 30 floors of the building to tip.

Critique: the top 30 floors clearly started to tip, as seen in several videos. (No, I don’t think these videos were faked; I think only the plane image was manipulated). If we assume a plane attack, there is no reason to think the core columns that supported much of the weight of the building were damaged. If core columns were damaged by a plane, the plane should have broken through the other side of the building, since not even core columns could stop it. If we assume significant numbers of core columns WERE damaged by a plane, the building should have started tipping immediately after the crash. But ultimately, the idea that jet fuel-induced hydrocarbon fires could weaken the massive thick steel core columns enough on just one side to cause the whole top of the building to topple, simply doesn’t hold up. The outer columns of the building were not even particularly damaged on the side where the top started to tip (to the east).

15) The tipping upper tower reached the point of no return, and the top 30 floors of the tower broke off and fell down, starting a global collapse of the complete tower.

It is not clear how the top 30 floors of the tower, which were undamaged, disintegrated in a matter of two seconds. Also not clear is why black jets of smoke were seen shooting out of the upper 30 floors as the top of the tower started to tilt. In the absence of demolition, there is no explanation for what caused the tipping top of the tower to stop falling over on its side and instead to disintegrate.

16) The collapse of the towers released so much energy that the black boxes of the plane were destroyed (officially).

The idea that both black boxes were completely destroyed (as well as the black boxes from the North tower plane) is hard to believe, given the strength of the boxes and that human remains were found in the rubble. Unofficially, it was reported the black boxes WERE found but were kept secret for some unknown reason. My interpretation is that there were never any black boxes to find, because no plane ever struck the tower!

Okay, perhaps you’re onto something– but what about all those videos and photographs of the plane? There are indeed a lot of videos, perhaps even TOO many. I have found 29 different videos that capture the 2nd plane before it hit the WTC. These show the plane for varying lengths of time, for less than a second to almost ten seconds in one case. 29 videos of such an extremely transient event that could only be seen from very select angles seems like a lot to me. A careful scrutiny of the videos reveals a number of abnormalities, most strikingly the fact that different videos show different approach paths for the plane (as indicated above). The more one analyzes these videos, the more one should be struck with their obvious peculiarities in many different regards. I have discussed the large number of videos in more depth here. Overall, the background story is far too hazy on all these videos for us to have confidence in their veracity. The photos that exist of the putative second plane before it hit the tower are also similarly odd. Some of the photos are simply laughable fakes. Other photos show the plane coming in too low for where it impacted. Other photos have oddities, such as the famous Carmen Taylor photo of the plane right before it hit, which shows a plane with a clearly abnormal bulge under the starboard wing root. Many of the anomalies of the second plane images are covered in this fine article by Marcus Icke. The bottom line is that I believe all plane images in photos and videos were added in using computer graphics and computer animation.

But what about all the eye-witnesses?
In fact, some witnesses said they saw a plane, some eye-witnesses said there were missiles being shot at the building (this is even written in police reports and a CNN reporter says people told him missiles were being shot at the building) and some eye-witnesses saw the building explode but saw no plane at all (also here ). Some people may have seen a plane that flew by after the North tower was hit and before the second building exploded. The bottom line is that the original eye-witness testimony is conflicted, and eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway. Moreover, the TV images of the second plane have been so embedded in people’s minds by now we can’t take seriously anyone who might currently come forward and say they were an eye-witness to the plane. In the absence of reliable eye-witness evidence, the physical evidence must rule.

An Alternative Theory
So what did happen at the south WTC tower on 9/11? I think the story of a hijacked 767 hitting the tower is a carefully orchestrated media hoax. I do not know what happened to UA175. But the point is that the official story of this flight hitting the South tower makes little sense. My best guess is that teams of photographers and videographers in on the plot were in carefully pre-positioned places waiting for the second tower to explode. See this article for more on the generation of the plane images. I think that the power down of the top half of the South tower described by Scott Forbes was when the explosives and incendiaries were planted. Interestingly, if we assume there was no plane, and the South tower attack was all done with bombs, it gives a entirely different perspective from which to view the collapse of the South tower.

Summary: we have been lied to about this central event of 9/11. It is a perfect example of the “big lie” technique, where the lie is so enormous, no one can believe it actually is a lie. But viewed from a distance, it makes perfect sense that a televised hoax, using media outlets such as CNN, was the perfect vehicle for selling the whole story of Arab terrorists hijacking planes and attacking the US (not unlike a modernized version of Orson Well’s “Martian Invasion” radio hoax). Afterall, there had to be some reason why US Army psy-ops personnel were working at CNN. And it has long been known that the US media is heavily infiltrated by the CIA.

How much do you truly trust the US news media?

Moreover, do you enjoy being LIED to about something so enormous?

[911TruthAction] Digest Number 1259

There are 25 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. The Main Reason Why Democrats Must Take Back Both Houses
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net
2. Re: Political Prisoner to be Committed to Mental Hospital
From: “janet phelan” jcphelan10@yahoo.com
3. Fw: US Financial Aid to Israel: Billions
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
4. Mossad chief Meir Dagan in Washington lays it out “This is what we k
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
5. Fw: [frameup] Pittsburgh control tower was evacuated on 9/11 21 minu
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
6. Fw: [frameup] Flight 93 was definately shot down
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
7. What You Won’t See in Flight 93, the Film – tvnl news
From: “reggie501” reggie501@optonline.net
8. Fw: all 3 church burners were jews
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
9. new evidence: Columbine HS massacre a Zionist black op, to foster th
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
10. BUSH IS FLYING OUR FLAG WRONG
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net
11. Fw: Be careful about (Mossad) Porn -=- Letter to Eric Hufschmid abou
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
12. Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not let I
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
13. Depopulating the earth by warfare, starvation and disease
From: “jewish_from_brooklyn” jewish_from_brooklyn@yahoo.com
14. Earthbuilders Newspaper:Invitation to Launching and to Globally Refo
From: “wale oyewumi” walemankind@justice.com
15. Flight 93 being shot down does not establish 9-11 as a false-flag co
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
16. Listen to Neil Young’s “Let’s Impeach the President”
From: “James Patton” james_patton@yahoo.com
17. FW: Death Made In America
From: “James Patton” james_patton@yahoo.com
18. Re: Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not l
From: “Scott Peden” scotpeden@cruzio.com
19. Re: Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not l
From: “Naveed” flanker12k@yahoo.com
20. SEND THIS OUT
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net
21. Senator Robert Byrd to President Bush: We Can Impeach You ! Addre
From: “ranger116@webtv.net” ranger116@webtv.net
22. A Day in the Life: 4/30/6
From: “President, USA Exile Govt.” prez@usa-exile.org
23. Re: Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not l
From: “Eva Walker” cowgirl269704@msn.com
24. Justice Served?
From: “janet phelan” jcphelan10@yahoo.com
25. Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 1
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:23am(PDT)
Subject: The Main Reason Why Democrats Must Take Back Both Houses

This letter is from our friend Mary,Please pass as she has ask ,all of us to do.
bugs
From: XMJMac@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:06 PM
Subject: The Main Reason Why Democrats Must Take Back Both Houses

To My Fellow Democrats,

As I have stated previously, we stand a good chance of winning back control of both the House and the Senate. But, we cannot let only politics guide us; we must use the morality that lies in each of us to be the power that energizes us to say to Bush “Enough is enough!”

Many of you do know that the Iraq War or as I call it the “Bush War” in Iraq is my main focus. We cannot tolerate the mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis who did nothing to us to warrant our illegal action against their country. I say “their country” since they have the right to self determination. Yes, we can guide them, but we need a moral leader and not a liar that guides them towards any freedom.

We must be the moral force that stops Bush at all costs. Our country cannot tolerate him being in office after we do take control congress. We must and I cannot stress this strong enough impeach both Bush and Cheney.

Just the other day, I faxed some pretty raw pictures to Bush at the White House showing him some pretty graphic photos of limbless and burnt soldiers. Not that he actually gives a damn. It sickened me beyond belief that Bush did this to them. I have forwarded that faxed letter to Bush onto many including the media. Should you wish to take a look at these graphic photos, please go to this link Limbless and Burnt Soldiers Again; I want to warn you that these photos are very graphic. Please notice the smug smile given by Bush in many of these photos.

Tonight, someone sent me the following video feed WWJD? I have seen this feed before, but thought it necessary to pass on to all of you to remind you why Bush and Cheney must be removed from office when we do take power.

Did these innocent children deserve this? If anything, Bush and Cheney should be brought up on war crimes charges.

It has been reported where this war will cost us over $800 billion dollars. Just imagine what social programs could have been funded with that money. Every day we are spending $200 million dollars for this Bush War of lies.

To quote Dwight D. Eisenhower, he once stated: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

In closing as I go over the debate logs between Gore and Bush back in 2000, every thing that Gore said should a Bush administration take hold of this country has proven correct. Notice that I did not say governed. I feel we all should be wearing buttons that state, “Gore was right!”

Democratically Yours,

Mary!

PS: I am asking that all of you do pass this on since Bush and Cheney must be stopped

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 2
From: “janet phelan” jcphelan10@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:40am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Political Prisoner to be Committed to Mental Hospital

You are absolutely right.

If there are any lawyers reading this who still have guts and will step up to the plate, if there is anyone reading this email who will call into a radio talk show, if there is anyone reading this email who will contact his/her elected representatives, if there is anyone reading this email who lives in NYC and will organize a demonstration in front of the courthouse, then possibly Susan Lindauer has a chance.

Otherwise, we will all probably get exactly what we deserve.

We will be sitting in front of our computer terminals, posting “to the choir,” when the covered trucks roll up in front of our own homes.

Janet Phelan

cherishedheart2005 <cherishedheart2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
—Without organized resistance what is being prepared for this poor
unfortunate soul will be the future of each and every individual who
is a lover of truth and justice. These creeps in the White House need
to receive justice for the abhorrent crimes that they perpetuate
against the American people.

In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, janet phelan <jcphelan10@…>
wrote:
>
>
> http://cosmicpenguin.com/Lindauer/
>
> Susan Lindauer — Held Political Prisoner
> to Cover Up U.S. Genocide in Iraq
>
> In March 2001 Susan Lindauer carried a message from the Iraqi
> government to her cousin, the White House Chief of Staff,
requesting the
> return of weapons inspectors. This strongly indicated that Iraq had
no WMD,
> so the U.S. government was aware of this at that point in time, if
not before.
> But Bush and Cheney nevertheless attacked and invaded Iraq using
WMD as a pretext, murdered as many as 500,000 people, and spread
radioactive
> poison over the entire country, which will murder millions
> more. Now they are holding Lindauer in prison on false claims
> of insanity, and are about to commit and forcibly drug her,
> to prevent her from ever being able to tell her story.
>
>
>
>
> ———————————
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for
just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>

SPONSORED LINKS
United state citizenship United state grant United state coin United state army United state government grant United state patent

———————————
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group “911TruthAction” on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

———————————

———————————
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 3
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:45am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: US Financial Aid to Israel: Billions

US Financial largesse to Israel 1949-2004 as reported by the US
Embassy to Israel (there are billions more that are not listed here
including “spare” equipment transfers, tax deduction for assistance to
Israel etc but even this sanitized report is eye-opening)

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 4
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:46am(PDT)
Subject: Mossad chief Meir Dagan in Washington lays it out “This is what we k

Impatient Mossad warns
of ‘monster in the making’
‘This is what we know and this is what
we’ll do if you continue to do nothing’

——————————————————————————–
Posted: April 30, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

� 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

If the visit to Washington last week by the head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, was not enough to communicate Israel’s growing impatience with the international community’s failure to deal with Tehran’s unchecked development of nuclear technology and bellicose threats to wipe the Jewish state “off the map,” Ehud Olmert, prime minister designate, made it clear yesterday by denouncing Iran’s president as a “psychopath” and comparing him to Hitler.

Meir Dagan

Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in Washington last week in preparation for a visit to the U.S. by Olmert on May 23, held secret meetings with U.S. officials to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, reports the London Times. While details of the meetings were not revealed, it is believed Dagan met with his counterparts at the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Council.

“Dagan is not given to small talk and niceties,” said an Israeli intelligence source, who believes Dagan’s message to Washington policy makers was simple and blunt: “This is what we know and this is what we’ll do if you continue to do nothing.”

The revelation of the briefing comes in the wake of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) admission of alarming “gaps” in its knowledge of Iran’s centrifuge program to enrich uranium and the level of involvement of Iran’s military. Many intelligence experts believe Iran is operating a parallel nuclear program where military applications are secretly under development. Mossad reportedly claims to have evidence of enrichment sites in Iran hidden to IAEA inspectors “which can short-cut their timetable in the race for their first bomb.”

“When I read the recent reports regarding Iran, I saw a monster in the making,” said Dr. Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament’s foreign and defense committee.

Steinitz, who oversees Mossad’s activities in Iran, fears Iran’s first nuclear bomb is just one year away. “There is only one option that is worse than military action against Iran and that is to sit and do nothing,” he said.

Publically, at least, the Bush administration is still talking diplomacy and economic sanctions to achieve a “peaceful solution” following last week’s IAEA report documenting Iran’s non-compliance.

The U.S., Britain, France and Germany will face off this week against a resistant China and Russia over a resolution from the U.N. Security Council mandating Iran suspend its uranium enrichment. Given President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scornful dismissal of resolutions from the U.N., something stronger, like sanctions could follow.

Russia and China, however, may scuttle any U.N. efforts to stop Iran. China just announced a $100 billion energy deal with Iran, with Beijing’s ambassador declaring, “No country can prevent the deal.” If the U.N. fails to act, the U.S. will seek Iran’s economic isolation at the July G8 summit in St. Petersburg.

But given the fast pace at which many intelligence experts believe Iran’s nuclear program is advancing, July is a long time off, especially for the Israelis who, as WorldNetDaily has reported, are already being targeted by Iran’s missiles and rockets stationed in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah surrogates.

“If we do not see any progress on the political or economic track that convinces the Iranians to back down, one of the parties will use the military option,” a senior Israeli source said in Washington last week. Dragging out the negotiations indefinitely is not an option.

“Ahmadinejad speaks today like Hitler before taking power,” Olmert said. “So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind � with an anti-Semite. God forbid that this man ever gets his hands on nuclear weapons, to carry out his threats.”

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 5
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:58am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: [frameup] Pittsburgh control tower was evacuated on 9/11 21 minu

From: “qwstnevrytng” <qwstnevrytng@yahoo.com>
To: <frameup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 6:49 AM
Subject: [frameup] Pittsburgh control tower was evacuated on 9/11 21 minutes before crash

Pittsburgh control tower was evacuated on 9/11 21 minutes before crash

Dear friends,

I received an email recently alerting me to a most intriguing article
written in Pittsburgh’s main newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, on
Sept. 23, 2001. The article (with pertinent sections copied below)
states clearly that the Pittsburgh International Airport control tower was
ordered to be evacuated at 9:49 on 9/11, 21 minutes before United
flight 93 crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside. What possibly could have
been the reasoning for evacuating the control tower when an air crisis
was going on?!!! This is the control tower that could have told us
definitively what happened to flight 93. Could this have been a way to keep
the air traffic controllers from seeing that flight 93 was pursued by
US military craft and shot down? There is considerable evidence to
support this theory (see below).

http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20010923city0923p5.asp
Local officials rethink recently made plans to deal with terrorism
Sunday, September 23, 2001
By Jan Ackerman, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

(Excerpted from full article)

…. It is clear from 911 tapes that local officials had less than 15
minutes’ warning that the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 was in
Pittsburgh airspace before the plane crashed at 10:06 a.m. in Somerset
County, killing all 44 people aboard.

Full learned about the errant plane at 9:53 a.m. That’s when he got a
call alerting him that the control tower at Pittsburgh International
Airport had been evacuated. Thirteen minutes earlier, he had talked to an
airport official who had no indication of any threat.

Between those two conversations, the Pittsburgh tower had received a
call from the Cleveland air traffic control tower, saying a plane was
heading toward Pittsburgh and refusing to communicate with controllers.
The FAA ordered the Pittsburgh control tower evacuated at 9:49 a.m. ….

Here are some other interesting facts on flight 93 from our 60-page
timeline at http://www.WantToKnow.info/9-11timeline60pg.

9:58 A.M. A man calls 911 from a bathroom on Flight 93, crying, “We’re
being hijacked, we’re being hijacked!” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/01], then
reports that “he heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming
from the plane and we lost contact with him.” [ABC News, 9/11/01, AP,
9/12/01] One minute after the call began, the line goes dead. [Pittsburgh
Channel, 12/6/01] The mentions of smoke and explosions of the recording
of his call are now denied. [The book Among the Heroes, 8/02, p. 264]
The person who took Felt’s call is not allowed to speak to the media.
[Mirror, 9/13/02] If that’s true, why is this important fact only denied
now, when the FBI got a copy of the recording on 9/11, and let the
media report the smoke and explosion story for months?

(Between 10:00-10:06 A.M.) During this time, there apparently are no
calls from Flight 93. The only exception is Richard Makely, who was
listening to the Jeremy Glick open phone line after Glick went to attack the
hijackers. A reporter summarizes Makely explaining that, “The silence
lasted two minutes, then there was screaming. More silence, followed by
more screams. Finally, there was a mechanical sound, followed by
nothing.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/17/01] Near the end of the cockpit
voice recording, loud wind sounds can be heard. [CNN, 4/19/02, The book
Among the Heroes, 8/02, p. 270-271]

(Before 10:06 A.M.) CBS television reports at some point before the
crash that two F-16 fighters are tailing Flight 93. [Independent, 8/13/02]
Shortly after 9/11, a flight controller in New Hampshire ignores a ban
on controllers speaking to the media, and it is reported he claims
“that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93… the F-16 made 360-degree
turns to remain close to the commercial jet.” “He must’ve seen the
whole thing,” the employee said of the F-16 pilot’s view of Flight 93’s
crash. [AP, 9/13/01, Nashua Telegraph, 9/13/01]

10:10 AM: Flight 93 crashes in Pennsylvania. [42 minutes after contact
was lost][CNN, 9/12/02]

Please help to build a better world by spreading the news. Take care
and have a great day.

With best wishes,
Fred

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 6
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:03am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: [frameup] Flight 93 was definately shot down

From: “qwstnevrytng” <qwstnevrytng@yahoo.com>
To: <frameup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 6:54 AM
Subject: [frameup] Flight 93 was definately shot down

LetsRoll911.org has discovered that Flight 93 was definately shot down.

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/flight93shotdown.html

LetsRoll has discovered the name of the pilot as well as all other
pertinent information regarding this incident;
“At precisely 0938 hours, an alarm was sounded at Langely Air Force
Base, and those whom were on call, drinking coffee, were scrambled.
They, the Happy Hooligans, a unit of 3 F-16 aircraft, were ordered to
head toward Pennsylvania. At 0957 they spotted their target; After
confirmation orders were received, A one Major Jim Gibney fired two
sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at
precisely 0958;
He was awarded a medal from the Governor one year later for his heroic
actions. The Happy Hooligans were previously stationed in North Dakota,
and moved to Langley Air Force base some months before 911 occured on a
“Temporary assignment.”
Major Jim Gibney did as he was ordered and did nothing criminal. He was
merely following orders, of which he had no choice. Please do not
harrass this man or bother him for doing what his CO & ultimately George
Bush, ordered him to do. Major Jim Gibney has no reason to feel guilty
nor regret following orders. The fault lies with his superiors, and a
one, certain President George Bush who planned and engineered 911.
Please do not heap any kind of abuse onto this man, a crack fighter
pilot, one of the best in our nation, for doing what he was trained and
ordered to do. He is a good man, honest and full of Integrity as well as
unlimited discipline. He is a patriot, and was lied to and deceived.
He had no way to know that this plane wasn’t a ‘hostile.’ Nor could he
have. The fault lies with his superiors, and President George ‘Dubya’
Bush.
Flight 93 has now been forever solved by truth, and honest reporting and
investigating, from letsroll911.org!
Major Jim Gibney, please do not read this as anything but the truth that
the world deserves to know as true history. You played a part, but it
was your superiors who deceived both you and everyone else regarding
Flight 93. I didn’t relish printing your name, as your innocent of any
evil doing. yet it’s history, and truth, and the world deserves to know.
And your safer now that this truth is out there, than if it was not.
But the world would appreciatte an honest reply and statement from you
on this issue, but only when your able and ready.
The source of this information Mr. Gibney was very careful to point out
your high quality of charachter and lack of malice or malfeasance in
these issues. Your integrity is no way harmed by these revelations, as
you were ignorant of the total picture of what was happening that day,
and following orders as you were trained to do in an emergency.
I apologize for having to print your name, but felt it neccessary for
both the truth to come forward, and your own safety.
Major Jim Gibney…”Lets Roll”
Time to let the truth out and the perps hang. If this means a coup then
so be it. As long as the coup is meant to restore the constitution which
was shredded like toilet paper on a bums ass by George W. Bush.
“Lets Roll Major Jim!”
Sincerely,
Phil Jayhan
Discuss this a the LetsRoll911.org Forums – Click Here
Back to the Home Page | LetsRoll911.org Forums
Copyright ?MMIV
Disclaimer – We are saddened by the losses of 9-11, and regardless of
who is responsible, we would like to extend our deepest apologies and
sympathies to the family members and friends of those killed or injured.
This site or material within does not mean any harm to those family
members. Sincerely, The Staff at LetsRoll911.org

Plain Text Attachment [ Download File | Save to my Yahoo! Briefcase ]

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/flight93shotdown.html

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 7
From: “reggie501” reggie501@optonline.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:07am(PDT)
Subject: What You Won’t See in Flight 93, the Film – tvnl news

9/11 News : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#911

· What You Won’t See in Flight 93, the Film – The President and the
Secretary of Defense, the two top officials in the chain of command
responsible for defense the country were out of commission. Dick
Cheney, the vice president, who under the constitution has no
authority to issue orders, was running the country from the White
House bunker. The FAA and the military were nowhere.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 8
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:18am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: all 3 church burners were jews

According to the Christian Science Monitor, over 1,000
churches have been burned in a 4-year period of time.

You have three Jewish students that are alleged to
have burned down nine churches, and the citizens of
Alabama are thirsty for justice. The only thing that
stands between the three arsonists, and a 45 year jail
sentence, is a wave of public opinion. Nathan Moseley,
DeBusk, and Cloyd will flee to Israel if they get
bail.

—– Original Message —–
From: “qwstnevrytng” <qwstnevrytng@yahoo.com>
To: <frameup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: [frameup] all 3 church burners were jews

all 3 church burners were jews

Noted Holocaust Icon Going To Birmingham

Posted Mar 21, 2006 07:00 AM PST
Category: CURRENT EVENTS

The church arsons case gets turned into a racially
biased circus.

reader comment:

I doubted at first that the kids were jews, until the
about an hour after they were caught and all media
coverage suddenly disappeared down the memory hole
like nothing happened.

Just like I saw hundreds of stories now, about some
henious crime, that turned out to be committed by jews
and then suddenly disappeared.

The fact that the holohoax seller shows up on campus
is irrefutable proof now that the perpertrators were
indeed jewish.
————————————————————————

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ll_chat&Number=29450233
2

As The Arsonist Trial Draws Closer

You have three Jewish students that are alleged to
have burned down nine churches, and the citizens of
Alabama are thirsty for justice. The only thing that
stands between the three arsonists, and a 45 year jail
sentence, is a wave of public opinion. Nathan Moseley,
DeBusk, and Cloyd will flee to Israel if they get
bail.

8:27 p.m. March 19, 2006

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Three college students accused in a
string of rural Alabama church fires will not seek
release on bond on the federal charges, their
attorneys said.

A federal magistrate judge said Thursday the three men
could be released on $50,000 bond, in cash or
property, with strict conditions. But Matthew Lee
Cloyd, Benjamin Moseley, and Russell DeBusk Jr. also
face state arson charges, and would remain jailed
while a state judge considered setting bond.

Moseley’s attorney, Bill Clark, said his client had no
plans to make the federal bond in recognition of the
seriousness of the church fires and in an effort to
promote healing.

“Ben Moseley is concerned for the members of the
churches involved, the people in those communities and
the injured firefighters,” Clark said Saturday in a
statement. “It is hoped that this decision will help
us move forward with efforts to resolve all of these
matters in a way that will result in reconciliation
and restoration.”

Attorneys for Cloyd and DeBusk confirmed their clients
also would not seek to be released on bond. All three
suspects remained in federal custody at the Shelby
County Jail.

They were arrested March 8 on federal charges of
conspiracy and setting fire to Ashby Baptist Church in
Brierfield, in Bibb County. A federal grand jury will
hear the charges later this month.

The state arrest warrants charge Cloyd, 20, Moseley,
19, and DeBusk, 19, with arson in Bibb County, where
five fires occurred Feb. 3. A second set of fires, on
Feb. 7, destroyed four churches in Pickens, Sumter and
Greene counties.

He threw away Medical School at the University of
Alabama for Satanism and burned 9 or 10 churches.

He went to a summer camp-meeting for Satanism, and
came back with a new religion. The first thing he did
was to convert his best friend who was two years
younger than him. Then he recruited some of the other
students at the local college. He would ask them if
they wanted to go out for the weekend and find some
demons.

He told his friends this was a new religion of peace.
He said you could be a Christian and into Satanism at
the same time. What was his underlying motivation?
Matthew Cloyd said, “Let’s go out this weekend and
defy the very morals of society instilled upon us by
our parents, our relatives and of course Jesus
Christ.”

Some of the locals are screaming, “boys will be boys.
Well, let’s see what this religion of peace led these
young men into. As of now, we have 9 churches burned,
perhaps as many as 30 deer shot, at least 3 cows
killed, and the destruction of the dreams of many
families.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, over 1,000
churches have been burned in a 4-year period of time.

.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 9
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:21am(PDT)
Subject: new evidence: Columbine HS massacre a Zionist black op, to foster th

John Stone, the Sheriff of Jefferson county at the time, believed there were others
involved, but he was constantly blocked by an FBI agent named Dwayne Fuselier. To
make matters worse, Fuselier had two sons in the Trench Coat Mafia, and the FBI
saw no conflict of interest.
———————————————–

TRENCHCOAT MAFIA OF COLUMBINE MASSACRE WERE ALL JEWISH

Summary

Klebold and Harris hand picked their victims. There were three shooters, and
probably four more accomplices, that helped plant bombs, and others students that
knew what was happening. At a minimum, seven of the Trench Coat Mafia, were
involved.

The suspected accomplices failed lie detectors, destroyed computer hard drives, and
had interlocking alibis.

http://truthpackagemachine.blogspot.com/2006/04/columbine-massacre-unravels.
html

Saturday, April 22, 2006

The Columbine Massacre Unravels

Columbine has never made any sense. On a close examination of eyewitnesses, and
events, one can easily see that there were at least seven people involved, and
maybe a third shooter.
Basically, there were 100 bombs found that day, and Klebold and Harris didnt’ bring
them in alone. And the fact that an eyewitness said he saw two cars, with seven
kids, at the school early that morning confirms there were accessories to the
massacre.
John Stone, the Sheriff of Jefferson county at the time, believed there were others
involved, but he was constantly blocked by an FBI agent named Dwayne Fuselier. To
make matters worse, Fuselier had two sons in the Trench Coat Mafia, and the FBI
saw no conflict of interest.
Motive
The standard motive for the massacre is gun control, and that leads back to Zionists.
There was a rash of similar incidences from Australia to the United Kingdom. The
latest revelation is that Fuselier is Jewish, and that fuels the fire that Columbine
was a Zionist black op, to foster the emotional climate needed to push strict gun
control measures forth.
The number one site on Columbine”

http://judicial-inc.biz/columbine_killers.htm

The Columbine Massacre

Between 11:15 and 12:05, They Killed 13 Students and Wounded Another 25

The SWAT Team That Was Afraid To Go In

Klebold Was A Time Bomb

He sung this as he killed kids ….”We hate niggers, spicks … and let’s not forget you
white P.O.S. [pieces of expletive] also. We hate you.”

Klebold’s Background

17-year-old Dylan Klebold’s mother, Susan Yassenoff, was synagogue-going and
shul-trained. She attended Temple Israel. Her father, Leo Yassenoff, was a wealthy
commercial real-estate developer in Columbus, Ohio, and a prominent figure in the
Jewish community, and active at the Temple Israel.

Eric Harris

He shot gunned his fellow students at point-blank range.

Eric Harris’s Background

Eric Harris was from New York – he transferred two yrs before the massacre, to
Colorado. He was under the influence of Luvox, an anti-depressant prescribed to
treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. His friend Seth Tenebaum, who was then a 17
year old senior at Mayo High School in Rochester, Minn. and Sapel Berg, an
18-year-old senior in Plattsburgh, each knew Harris, and his mother, when his
family lived in New York.

Harris was dating a Jewish girl, Sarah Davis – she said “Eric was angry when his
family moved from New York to Colorado” … Harris Jewish background.

Harris Ran A Pro-Jewish Website

“If you recall your history, the Nazis came up with a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish
problem. Well, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I say ‘Kill mankind. No one
should survive.'” Harris, who raved on the Internet about wanting to “rip the arms
off” racists, and Neo Nazis, persecution of Jews ” Harris’s diary said his mother is
Jewish”

Their Plan Included Using Bombs, Followed By An Escape To Israel

The boys had planted 100+ bombs all over the school – in the confusion they planned
to escape, and go to Israel. The sophistication of the bombs led police to believe
they may have received help from Zionist sources, like the JDL.

No Extradition

A journal found in Harris’s bedroom alluded to a plan to escape to Israel, because of
the extradition policy of that nation. Because Israel considers Jews (Sheinbein) to
be automatic citizens, they will not extradite its citizens for trial in their home
nations.

Klebold, Harris, And Spielberg

Someone convinced them that once they were in Israel that Spielberg, or Quentin
Tarantino, would make a movie.

Propane bombs

Pipe bombs
100 + Bombs Found

Klebold and Harris wanted to kill hundreds. They had 48 carbon dioxide bombs, 27
pipe bombs, and 11 1.5-gallon propane containers, as well as 40-plus gallons of
flammable liquid and two duffel bags containing 20-pound liquefied-petroleum gas
tanks.

Each of their cars contained, two 20-pound propane tanks, another 20 gallons of
gas, pipe bombs, clocks and other combustible liquids.

Decoy bombs were tested in a field, and the police detained suspects, but later
released them.

Siegel, Cohen and Smith

The Trench Coat Mafia Was Formed To Protect Jewish Kids

Joe Stair, one of the original members of the Trench Coat Mafia, said the “Trench
Coat Mafia” was organized because a Gay Jewish kid was picked on by Jocks.
Jonathan Greene, Zach Heckler, Kristen Thiebault, Cory Friesen, Nickie Markham,
Sarah Marsh, Benjamin Sargeant and other members of the Trench Coat Mafia, were
mostly Jewish.

Detailed PDF’s 1…2…3…4

One was a registered sex offender.

The group was rumored to be selling drugs in the high school.

List of search warrants issued, and images from that day.

Rachel

Targets Weren’t Random

In the library their targets were a black kid, and a group called ‘Christians for Young
Life’. A few of the trench coat mafia had younger siblings in the library, but they
were untouched.

One girl was shot because she was holding a bible. When kids put 13 crosses on the
Columbine lawn, local Jewish groups had them removed.
Chris Morris
Other Jewish Kids Involved

Chris Morris, another suspect, was arrested. Morris alibi was, that he was at Cory
Friesen’s house, playing video games, that were rented at Video City. Listen to this
audio between Morris and the police.

Students believe there was a third shooter, despite the Cory alibi.

Nathan Dykeman, who received $16,000 for TV interviews, had problems on lie
detector. Dykeman was Klebold’s best friend, and made this audio with him.

Nathan Dykeman

Other Suspects

Brooks Brown, another suspect, was spared and went on to write books on
Columbine. When Harris saw Brown at school, he told him “Go home”.

Police accused Brown of being in on the massacre. Police statement. In an odd move,
Randy Brown, advised by his sister, arranged for a private polygraph

Search warrants were issued on Cory Freisen activities.

Nathan Klein

Evidence Points To Others Involved

A witness said that about 10:40 a.m. Tuesday — 40 minutes before the gunfire
erupted — he saw Klebold’s black BMW carrying four teenagers about a block from
the school. The driver made a U-turn and drove off, followed closely by a second car,
a tan sedan, carrying two more teenagers.

Sheriff John Stone “I’ve never thought it was just two [suspects] because of the
amount of stuff that was brought in. But we don’t have enough to charge anyone.”

Patrick McDuffee gives names
John Stone
The questions remain:

How did so many bombs get in the school? Who were the other four, seen in the car,
with Klebold. Was there a third shooter,as fifty students claim. Who were Klebold’s
accomplices?

46 information on columbine high school shooting
45 columbine high school story

FBI Agent Assigned to the Investigation Had Sons Involved

FBI Agent Dwayne Fuselier had sons involved. His boy helped make a movie, using
Klebold and Harris, about the coming massacre, and the other son, Brian, amazingly
escaped the massacre.

They were members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

Click this ~ Fuselier’s son works with the Bronfman family, and the Jewish Film
Institute. Fuselier stand is Klebold was a confused young Jewish boy, and Harris was
a psychopath.

Dwayne Fuselier, Ph.D.

Scott Fuselier

Denver’s SWAT Team

The SWAT team finally moved in at around 2:30 PM, 2 hours after the shooters
committed suicide. Despite having seen signs in the windows that said victims were
bleeding to death 2 hours earlier, this was the fastest they went into action.

Police were afraid

Parent’s lawsuits contend that police may have shot innocent students. According to
the sheriff’s report, twelve officers fired a total of 141 times at Columbine that day.
Three Denver SWAT veterans fired 105 of those rounds.

These Three Bought The Guns, But There Were Other Suspects

Morris is suspected of helping Harris and Klebold to carry duffel bags filled with
bombs into the school. A teenager was also seen with Harris and Klebold in the
parking lot. Klebold’s black BMW was seen 40 minutes before the shooting began,
driving near the school with four teenagers inside.

Police believe that, while there may have been others with prior knowledge of the
shooting, Harris and Klebold were the only shooters.

Morris Bernstein

A local gun dealer that denies selling any weapons or ammo.

The Cohen Brothers

They wrote a song about Klebold and the massacre

Bowling For Columbine

In this episode, the Jewish community had another Leopold and Loeb on their hands,
but they cleverly arrange for Michael Moore to seize the opportunity and build a
case for gun control.
17 columbine picture and the by
9
Sheriff Refuses To Release Tapes

Klebold and Harris made videos, and kept diaries, describing their plans for the
massacre, and the sheriff refuses to release them, because of a possible
anti-Semitic connections. Both kids were very racist and anti-Christian.

Videos they made.

Summary

Klebold and Harris hand picked their victims. There were three shooters, and
probably four more accomplices, that helped plant bombs, and others students that
knew what was happening. At a minimum, seven of the Trench Coat Mafia, were
involved.

The suspected accomplices failed lie detectors, destroyed computer hard drives, and
had interlocking alibis.

Judicial Index
Romanov Murders
Red Lake Massacre
Port Arthur Massacre
Pearl High School massacre
Kip Kinkel

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 10
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:35am(PDT)
Subject: BUSH IS FLYING OUR FLAG WRONG

BUSH IS FLYING OUR USA FLAG WRONG..
CALL YOUR CONGRESS,DEMAND IT TO BE FLOWN THE CORRECT WAY..PLEASE PASS TO ALL

http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html

BUGS
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 11
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:49am(PDT)
Subject: Fw: Be careful about (Mossad) Porn -=- Letter to Eric Hufschmid abou

we are talking about culturally transmitted practices, not about race — de

———————————

From: “Peter Myers” <myers@cyberone.com.au>

April 30, 2006

(1) Be careful about Porn
(2) Letter to Eric Hufschmid (about Mossad)
(3) Voltaire and Jews (he would never be interviewed on MSM)
(4) Jewish Record Producer Behind Hispanic Anthem
(5) Tariq Aziz asked to give evidence against George Galloway
(6) End Time Values. The Demise of America

(1) Be careful about Porn – by Peter Myers, April 30, 2006

I use a number of email addresses, but principally myers@cyberone.com.au.

The others receive a little bit of spam or porn, but my main address is deluged
by it.

This can hardly be accidental – it’s a punishment for my truth-seeking. An
attempt to hinder my work, by slowing me down. And possibly a trap.

Many of the porn emails – with lurid subject lines – contain links one can click
on to see the sex scene.

Never click on any of them. If you do, a record may be kept of your visiting the
site, and this could be used against you in future – eg to blackmail you, or
besmirch your reputation.

Apart from that, it would reveal your weakness to the sender, who would be
further encouraged.

The sender of many of these porn emails is a woman – or so it seems. Don’t
believe it – that’s just a lure. Instead, see a Mossad operative – a man –
behind the subterfuge.

Some people, deluged by spam and porn, change their email address. I refuse to
do so, and have found ways to beat off the attack. It does not slow me down, or
defeat me in any way. Instead, I get an insight into my emenies’ mindset and
grovelling lowliness.

I have made it a practice never to change a single link on my website, ever
since it went public. That is, anyone who bookmarked one of my pages some years
ago, will find the same link working today. The only exception is pages under
development, which I might mention in these email discussions but which I had
not listed in my official index at
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/download.html

Turning away from porn does not mean becoming puritanical. On the contrary,
Pornography is miles away from Art of the erotic kind. The difference is the
Pornography treats the other merely as an object, a body, whereas Art depicts
the other primarily as a person, a soul.

As an example, I recall cases of seeing a woman who appeared beautiful, but upon
opening her mouth and revealing her mind, any such beauty vanished.

Apart from that, some things are best left to the imagination.

Yesterday, at a garage sale, I heard of a case of some people in this area,
caught growing hydroponic marijuana underground.

The hydroponic kind is the kind being blamed for “schizophrenia” among marijuana
users. That’s because, lacking soil, the roots absorb the many dangerous
chemicals put into the nutrient mix. In contrast, marijuana the herb, the
“weed”, has long been used in Hindu and Islamic societies, moderately, without
reported adverse consequences.

Anyway, these underground growers were caught because their electricity bill had
blown out.

And that reminds me of the Promis computer software – used by all police
agencies – described by Ari Ben-Menashe. He mentions (but not in the extract at
this link) that the software keeps track of changes in electricity and water
use: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/vanunu.html

(2) Letter to Eric Hufschmid – by Peter Myers, April 30, 2006

Eric,

The 2005 edition of Painful Deceptions is quite different from the 2003 edition:
more professional but less personal.

It shows no footage of you, or photo of you, and does not use your voice.

It says that you produced it, but in some places talks of you in the third
person, as “Hufschmid did this” etc; yet I recall cases of the first-person too.

This is a puzzle to me. Perhaps you felt that you had to lower your profile …
for security reasons.

You have now parted ways with some of your earlier associates. This is
understandable to me – you have discovered Zionism – and Mossad – which you seem
not to have done in 2003.

I, on the other hand, was immediately onto Mossad. Within the first week after
911, I noticed Jared Israel, of Emperors’ Clothes, deriding claims of Mossad

involvement, in a discussion forum at Pravda.

Conspiracy analysts are divided in many ways; this is not surprising, since we
are all groping for the truth “through a glass darkly”.

But the biggest divide is between those who “write out” any Israeli/Mossad
involvement, and those who “write it in”.

The former find themselves hitting the “glass wall” – the one they don’t know is
there until they hit it.

Those who “write out” the Israel tie want to blame Bush, Cheney, the Christian
Right etc. They would have a large number of people involved in a 911 conspiracy
and cover-up – scam as you call it.

I on the other hand think the number of true conspirators small. That’s a
necessity for safety reasons. There would be a lot of other people who would be
used by them – dupes, some possibly done away with after their unwitting
service.

Mossad’s taste for using other agencies to do its dirty work was described by a
former Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky:

How Mossad Got America to Bomb Libya & Fight Iraq
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ostrovsky.html.

Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, says its motto is “By way of deception, thou
shalt do war”.

Mossad, he says, provoked America’s air strike on Libya in 1986 by making it
appear that terrorist orders were being transmitted from the Libyan government
to its embassies around the world. But the messages originated in Israel and
were re-transmitted by a special communication device – a “Trojan horse” –
Mossad had placed inside Libya.

Mossad next moved against Saddam, drawing the United States to make war against
him.

Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Shin Bet agent, similarly showed how Mossad used
unsuspecting Palestinians to assassinate its enemies:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/vanunu.html

One can see Mossad’s mindset. It likes such solutions because they are elegant.

Even so, there is more to US history than Mossad. Those who talk of a “British”
or “Illuminati” or “Luciferian” conspiracy (Larouche, Webster Tarpley, Henry
Makow, Barry Chamish, et. al.) are partly right too, in the sense that there at
least three major conspiracies or factions:

1. “British” (which includes the US)
2. Zionist
3. Socialism of the Trotskyist or H. G. Wells kind – the Internationalist kind,
not Stalin’s.

I have written up the relationship among the three at:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/british-conspiracy.html

E. J. Dillon wrote in his book on the Peace Conference of Versailles that it was
dominated by the Anglo-Saxon powers, and that they in turn were dominated by
their Jewish members:

‘Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the
Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential
exponents. … a considerable number of Delegates believed that the real
influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic’ (The Peace Conference,
Hutchinson & Co.,
London, 1919, p. 422).

More at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/stalin.html

Then, after the next World War, there was another plan for World Government –
the Baruch Plan, authored by David Lilienthal and Bernard Baruch (both Jewish),
and put to Stalin in 1946 by the American Government:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/baruch-plan.html

Stalin himself was murdered in 1953, within two months of the “Doctors Plot”.
The murderers were in two factions: a Russian one (led by Khruschev), and a
Jewish one (Beria, Kaganovich):
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/death-of-stalin.html

It is difficult to unravel 911 without getting into wider conspiracy analysis,
such as my website is devoted to: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/

On the other hand, “generalists” like me need the different kinds of
“specialists”, such as yourself.

I have two DVDs of Confronting the Evidence (2005). One has Painful Deceptions
(2005), and the other does not – even though the cardboard cover says that it is
included.

(3) Voltaire and Jews

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:12:53 +0500 From: “Eric Walberg” <eric@albatros.uz>

I’ve just been discovering Voltaire. What an incredible philosopher. Sooo
contemporary. I’d love to reader more of what he says about Jews but have no
access here. Do you have something in your library or can you add something?
Many thanks if either is the case.

Eric

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/13dicta.htm
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm “The Jewish nation dares to display
an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters;
always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always
barbarous — cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.”

— Voltaire, (1694-1778), one of the greatest French eighteenth century writers,
from Essai sur le Moeurs

Ironically, notes Jacob Katz, “Voltaire did more than any other single man to
shape the rationalist trend that moved European society toward improving the
status of the Jew.” [KATZ, From, p. 34] Still historically remembered (according
to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994) “as a crusader against tyranny and
bigotry,” Voltaire turned repeatedly and angrily against Jews who he believed to
epitomize such “tyranny and bigotry.” Jews, he complained, “are … the greatest
scoundrels who have ever sullied the face of the globe … They are, all of
them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and
Germans are born with blond hair. I would not in the least be surprised if these
people would not some day become deadly to the human race … You [Jews] have
surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct, and in barbarism.
You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.” [GOULD, p. 91] On another
occasion Voltaire charged that “the Jew does not belong to any place except that
place which he makes money; would he not just as easily betray the King on
behalf of the Emperor as he would the Emperor for the King?” [KATZ, J, Fro, p.
44]

Thirty of 118 of Voltaire’s essays in his Dictionary of Philosophy address Jews,
usually disparagingly. Voltaire calls Jews “our masters and our enemies … whom
we detest … the most abominable people in the world.” [PRAGER, p. 128

****** and this tantalizing bit from Nietzsche:

“Jews chose voluntarily and with a profound talent for self-preservation the
side of all those instincts that makes for decadence, not as if mastered by
them, but as if detecting in them a power by which the world could be defied.
The Jews are the very opposite of decadents … they have put themselves at the
head of all decadent movements.” — Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900) [AGUS, p.
295]

AND this from Fichte:

“I see no other means of protecting ourselves against them,” wrote Fichte,
“[other] than by conquering their Promised Land and sending them all there”
(Lewis, 111-112). Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin declared that Jews were “one
exploiting sect, one people of leeches, one single devouring parasite closely
and intimately bound together not only across national boundaries, but also
across all divergences of political opinion … [Jews have] that mercantile
passion which constitutes one of the principle traits of their national
character” (Lewis, 113).

and among Soviet emigres:

in interviews (at a Harvard archive) with 329 refugees from the Soviet Union in
the early 1950s: “A detailed examination of the background information of those
who registered hostile attitudes to Jews reveals that they were of various age,
national, educational, and status groups, and that they left the USSR at
different periods” (Korey, 11). The top six “anti-Semitic” assertions by this
diverse group of people included assertions that

(1) Jews occupy a privileged and favored position in Soviet society. 2) Jews are
business- and money-minded. 3) Jews are clannish and help each other. 4) Jews
are aggressive and ‘pushy.’ 5) Jews are sly, calculating, and manipulative, and
know how to ‘use a situation.’ 6) Jews are deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled,
insolent, and impudent (Korey, 5).

[critics of Jews] represented a bewildering range of opinion and personality
types” (Lindemann, 13). And why is this “uncomfortable [for Jews] to recognize?”
Because, by even a child’s exercise of logic and common sense, the common
denominator of all such disparate people can only be the enduring truths about
Jews as each observer experienced them in varying historical and cultural
circumstances.

Lewis, Bernard. Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and
Prejudice. Norton, New York, 1986. Lindemann, Albert. Esau’s Tears: Modern
Antisemitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Korey,
William. The Soviet Cage: Anti-Semitism in Russia. Village Press, New York, 1973

(4) Jewish Record Producer Behind Hispanic Anthem

Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:40:49 +0100 From: Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>

Briton behind anthem that enraged Bush

Tony Allen-Mills, The Sunday Times (London), April 30, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2158064,00.html

A BRITISH record producer who started his career as a tea-boy in a London studio
has emerged as the man behind a Spanish-language version of The Star-Spangled
Banner, America’s national anthem, that has upset President George W Bush. Adam
Kidron, 46, released Nuestro Himno – Our Anthem – on Friday as a gesture of
support for Hispanic immigrants. He has outraged rightwingers who complain that
the Spanish version’s new lyrics are confrontational, and that immigrants do not
make enough effort to learn English. America’s 40m Latinos have declared
tomorrow a day of protest to back demands for improved citizenship rights for
11m Hispanic illegal immigrants. As the country braced itself for the shutdown
of schools, restaurants and building sites, Bush declared at a White House press
conference: “I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English.” Other
right-wingers have complained that the new version is disrespectful to American
patriotism and divisively belligerent in tone. One of the Spanish lines – sung
by a Latin star named Pitbull – translates as: “My people keep fighting/ It’s
time to break the chains.”

Kidron was unrepentant yesterday. As chief executive of Urban Box Office, which
specialises in Latin music, he works closely with immigrant musicians. His idea
for a revised national anthem came when a Republican congressman declared on
television that illegal immigrants ought to be kicked out. Kidron said he was
“disgusted” by America’s lack of generosity towards workers whose cheap labour
is regarded by many as crucial to the US economy. He looked around for a record
that would be “a song of pride for Latinos” and hit on the idea of Latin
musicians reinterpreting The Star- Spangled Banner. “I suppose I had a faint
idea that if you do something a bit different, someone always complains,” he
said. “But it just seemed really cool to do something that was artful, emotional
and, to some extent, patriotic.” Instead, Kidron’s New York office was flooded
with hate mail complaining that he was demeaning the national anthem and
discouraging immigrants from embracing American culture. As the US television
networks scrambled to book him for interviews he said: “I’m afraid we may be
stoking prejudice. We don’t seem to be much of a cultural bridge.”

Kidron built a successful career in London in the 1980s producing artists such
as Ian Dury and the Blockheads, Neneh Cherry and Aztec Camera. He arrived in
America in the 1990s and has developed Urban Box Office as a specialist
entertainment company focused on Latin markets. Among the artists featured on
Nuestro Himno are Gloria Trevi, a Mexican pop diva, Ivy Queen, a Puerto Rican
star, and Wyclef Jean, representing the Haitian immigrant community. Kidron said
he was appalled by the argument that Hispanic immigrants should leave their past
behind in order to become Americans. “Look at how many Americans parade their
Irish roots on St Patrick’s Day,” he said. “And go down to Little Italy in New
York. When you hear people speaking Italian in those restaurants, you think, oh
good, it’s authentic, the food must be good. Yet it seems to be a qualification
for Hispanic immigrants that they mustn’t carry the flag of the country they
were born in and they mustn’t sing in their own language because it proves they
are not assimilating.” He described Bush’s remarks as “ridiculous”.

(5) Tariq Aziz asked to give evidence against George Galloway

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:32:30 EDT From: Ichee@aol.com

Galloway inquiry wants Saddam deputy to testify

From Daniel McGrory and Ali Hamdani in Baghdad

The Times April 29, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2156507,00.html

BRITISH diplomats in Baghdad have asked Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s former deputy prime
minister, to help an investigation into allegations that George Galloway was
given cash by Saddam Hussein under the Oil-for-Food programme.

The diplomats made the secret approach through Mr Aziz’s lawyer this week on
behalf of Parliament’s so-called “sleaze buster”. The lawyer, Badie Izzat Arief,
claimed that they offered to try and secure Mr Aziz immunity from prosecution on
any charges arising from the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Embassy officials want to meet Mr Aziz, 70, in the US-run detention centre where
he is held with other top members of Saddam’s regime to put a series of
questions from Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Sir Philip is investigating claims that the MP for Bethnal Green & Bow took
money under the UN Oil-for-Food programme – a charge that Mr Galloway
strenuously denies and about which he has already successfully sued and won
damages from one national newspaper.

Mr Arief told The Times that his client has been interrogated 312 times by the
CIA and UN investigators since his arrest in April 2003, but this was the first
British approach.”We were surprised to hear from the British, but let’s see what
they want,” Mr Arief said.

“The main question I believe is whether money was paid by anyone in Iraq to Mr
Galloway’s charity, the Mariam Appeal.”

He said that US officials had asked his client more than 100 detailed questions
about Western politicians alleged to have received money from Saddam, but none
about Mr Galloway.

“The CIA haven’t asked about Mr Galloway. They are obsessed with Jacques Chirac.
Mr Aziz told them: â*~I find it strange you want revenge on Chirac. He is the
respected President of France, so I regard the question as insulting.’ “

Mr Aziz, who also served as Saddam’s Foreign Minister, spent a Christmas holiday
with Mr Galloway, in Baghdad, in 1999. Mr Galloway described him as “an eminent
diplomat and intellectual person”.

In the same interview Mr Arief said that Mr Aziz, who surrendered to US forces
soon after the 2003 invasion and has never been charged, is suffering from
deteriorating health.

He revealed how Saddam’s former right-hand man now lives in a small cell in what
was a Republican Guard barracks, now part of Camp Cropper, the huge US base near
Baghdad airport.

The urbane, English-speaking envoy with a passion for handstitched suits now
shuffles about in a tatty tracksuit and flip-flops in his 6ft by 5ft cell, with
just a narrow bed, a hardback chair and a small cupboard for furniture.

“He is a shrunken figure,” Mr Arief said. “He can’t walk unaided, doesn’t eat
properly and isn’t taking care of himself. The Americans are keeping him in the
hope of browbeating him into testifying against Saddam. As a matter of
conscience, he won’t,” Mr Arief said.

George Galloway said last night that it was “very significant” that Britain had
approached Mr Aziz to seek information about him before next week’s local
elections, in which his Respect Party is expected to take seats from Labour. Mr
Galloway said: “I could question the propriety of visiting a political prisoner
who has had heart attacks and strokes and who is being systematically denied
family visits, medical visits and legal visits.”

He added: “But I have every confidence that Mr Aziz will have told them that
there is no truth whatsoever in these persistent allegations.”

(6) End Time Values. The Demise of America

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:05:22 +0100 From: Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>

End Time Values. The Demise of America

Stojgniev O’Donnell,
Pravda.Ru, 27.04.2006 http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/79605-0

Russian Christians now admit that the concept of human rights and liberties as
advocated by America and the West has no application in contemporary Russia.
That country is drowning in vices directly linked to the West’s concept of
inherent rights and liberties: abortion; homosexuality; dissolution of
traditional marriage; pornography; slavery, prostitution, and exploitation of
the oppressed, etc. The Russian Orthodox now understand that such American
“values” are, in fact, vices which harm every human society as a collective.
Such American “rights” have not brought happiness. They represent the deviance
of the cult of the individual. From my Third World perspective, I am amazed that
some Americans continue to argue that America’s virtue is that it protects such
“rights” (=vices).

I focus here on similarities between America and the Soviet Union, two rival
systems which have collapsed. Both systems boasted some admirable ideals. There
was a period of several decades in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century when America offered immigrants numerous opportunities, which many
citizens took advantage of. The Soviet record is more spotted. It took me some
time to understand the Soviets’ rabid anti-religiousness. Why did the Soviets
work so tirelessly to destroy traditional Russian culture, much of which is, in
fact, oriented towards biblical Christian socialism? It came, of course, from
the desire of Jews, the major component of Soviet communism, to take revenge
upon Christian Slavs. A natural reaction, one might apologize, of history’s
formerly powerless against the powerful. But might Soviet communism have
“worked” without the Jews? Probably not, because so much of Soviet communism was
based upon radical, indiscriminate violence (against Christians and others),
something from which no good ever comes: a lesson to any Muslim listening. (Ends
never justify means). The Soviet Union fell apart, such that Ole Soviet King
Cole Putin, despite his many talents, has been unable to put it back together
again.

We are now witnessing the demise of America. For decades, America successfully
marketed its “values” throughout the world (accompanied often by hefty cash
subsidies for corrupt, subservient regimes). The aims of the American ideology
were no less ambitious than those of Soviet communism, and the Americans were
victorious over the Soviets, for a couple of years anyway.

But after the collapse of the Soyuz, the shallowness of American values became
evident throughout the world. It turns out now that American-style Brown’n’Root
democracy does not, in fact, suit Iraq, a land long plagued by European
colonialism and internal division. It is now clear that America never intended
to export its American-style democracy to totalitarian regimes in Israel, Egypt,
or Saudi Arabia. American democracy is a sham, all double-talk, just like the
Soviets’ spin on the fraternal brotherhood of nations.

Democracy for several generations now has not existed in America. The large
corporations continue to increase their power, irregardless of the red or blue
façade of the regime. The moral pedigree of a Clinton is as nasty as that of a
Bush. As identified by a recent controversial study ignored by the American
media, it is, indeed, a cabal of pro-Israeli groups which controls America’s
purse-strings and foreign policy.

America is dying. I assure those Americans who still feel secure about a regular
pay check, their job perks, vacations, company cars and cell phones, annual
bonuses, benefits, government entitlements, U.S. dollar-based investments and
accounts, etc etc., that their lifestyle is crumbling. There is no longer any
right or logic in America’s prosperity. What gives Americans the right to
consume the bulk of the world’s energy resources? By what right does an American
drive a hummer while much of the rest of the world walks, rides bicycles, and
commutes by public transportation? No longer can America’s traditional rights be
excused. Those rights are mostly derived from a narrow, archaic Anglo-Saxon
tradition: the “right” to carry (and use/abuse) firearms and the “right” to
exploit land and natural resources for personal benefit. The American Middle
Class has outlived its period of historical relevance and soon will be replaced,
by Hispanics, India’s Indians, and Chinese. Those groups have no qualms about
bearing and rearing children.

It is the twenty-first century. America is rat-infested history. America will
fall, overrun by fatwah-inspired Muslims; wild, dispossessed, self-identified
Apache or Aztec guerillas; looting, reparations-deluded African-Americans;
indignant Eskimos; flaming cross-dressers and advocates of every sort of
politically correct nonsense. History doesn’t last forever, and anyway, America
had a couple of good centuries before it turned to cr*p.


Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html I
use the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or
transmit them to you. If my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring
me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with “unsubscribe” in the
subject line; allow 1 day.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 12
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:56am(PDT)
Subject: Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not let I

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/8351.htm

April 27, 2006

Should Israel Live with the Iranian Bomb?
By Edward Bernard Glick

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”

Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, as well. But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes from a nuclear Iran and to close its ears to Iran’s calls for its destruction?

In October 2005 the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the Earth.” In April 2006 he called Israel a “fake regime” that “cannot logically continue to live.” Since he apparently favors a second Holocaust, even as he denies that the first one occurred, Iran’s development and deployment of nuclear weapons would jeopardize the very existence of Israel.

Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister and first minister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Jewish state has possessed a nuclear arsenal for 40 years. In a 1999 paper prepared for the Air War College, U. S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labels it the “Third Temple’s Holy of Holies” and he argued that with it Israel has been able to deter its enemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb in the Basement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.” But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the sanity to be deterred.

Another argument one hears is that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can’t Israel live with an Iranian one? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not living with an Iranian bomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? that any nuclear exchange between the two countries may well extinguish the Jewish state.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what’s needed and what works. As soon as it is clear that further nonmilitary pressures upon Iran are useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and command and control centers as well, because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.

An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers. the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the “war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century” postmodernists in academia and elsewhere.

Much of the criticism will be phony, however. In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the group, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that the Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests the leadership of the Arab world?”

When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn’t say so in class, he answered: “We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed.”

At the news conference at which he announced Israel’s destruction of the Iraqi reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all the condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal.” He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region.”

Does Israel’s present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, have the courage to emulate his predecessor? Do the Israel Defense Forces have the pluck to do to Iran today what they did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? And are the Israeli political and military establishments willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if they conclude that conventional weapons won’t do the job?

If Olmert gives the order, and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs of Persia will be gone and the Middle East will be a much less dangerous place. But let no one think that my Saudi students or Israel’s other foes will publicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 13
From: “jewish_from_brooklyn” jewish_from_brooklyn@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:15am(PDT)
Subject: Depopulating the earth by warfare, starvation and disease

Daryl Bradford Smith Interviews Dr. Lorraine Day.

Dr. Day is a leading authority on the origins of HIV and treating AIDS patients
and she is considered an expert medical witness in a court of law.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS ENTIRE INTERVIEW AND SHARE IT WITH OTHERS.

http://tinyurl.com/m9dyt

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Lorraine-Day-AIDS-
Horowitz.html

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 14
From: “wale oyewumi” walemankind@justice.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:21am(PDT)
Subject: Earthbuilders Newspaper:Invitation to Launching and to Globally Refo

Dear All,

Earth Builders Publishing Company,Lagos,Nigeria, humbly
and appealingly require your presence at the official
launching of Earthbuilders,an emerging daily in Nigeria
given to the happiness of all superior mortals,the
well-being and unity of humanity.

Earthbuilders objectives include:

.To localize global events and globalize local
happenings;
.To analyse events in strict terms of earthlings’
survival and global justice;
.To inspire the spirit of kindness in mortals for the
greatness of the human race;
.To advance man’s foremost values and unify the
seemingly divergent purposes and manifestations of
creation;
.To promote good in the world and offer oportunity of
publicity to mortals and organisations dedicated to
global good.

Intellectual contributions shall be from all and
circulation throughout the world.Please,be there to
motvate our fine vision with your
words,money,prayers,ideational involvement and other
convenient means of assistance that the human race may
regularly remain renewed in reformation-hope.

Also,you are invited as regular writers and columnists
if you passionately subscribe to the above
objectives.Full publication begins by 1st July,2006.

Launching Information

Date: Saturday,10th June,2006.

Venue: Ijeshatedo Community Hall,
156,Ijesha Road,
Itire,Surulere,
Lagos,
Nigeria.

Time:12pm to 5pm.

Call {234}08053568345 for details.

“We are the opening verse of the chapter of endless
possibilities.”
…..Kipplings.

Yours faithfully,
Publisher and Founding Editor,
Mankind Olawale Oyewumi.

_________________________________________________
FindLaw – Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 15
From: “Dick Eastman” olfriend@nwinfo.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:49am(PDT)
Subject: Flight 93 being shot down does not establish 9-11 as a false-flag co

Flight 93 being shot down does not establish 9-11 as a false-flag conspiracy — the Pentagon evidence does that.

http://www.bedoper.com/eastman

Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

http://www.bedoper.com/eastman/small_plane/index.html

http://judicial-inc.biz/Dov_zakheim.htm

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 16
From: “James Patton” james_patton@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:17am(PDT)
Subject: Listen to Neil Young’s “Let’s Impeach the President”

Listen to Neil Young’s “Let’s Impeach the President” here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/9726

Lets impeach the president for lying
And leading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door
He’s the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
And bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war
Let’s impeach the president for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones
What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our governments protection
Or was someone just not home that day?
Lets impeach the president
For hijacking our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into colors
And still leaving black people neglected
Thank god hes racking down on steroids
Since he sold his old baseball team
Theres lot of people looking at big trouble
But of course the president is clean
Thank God

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/9726

Reasons to Impeach include:
* Violating provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony;
* Violating provisions of the Geneva Convention by authorizing torture;
* Holding American citizens without due process;
* Manipulating intelligence and lying to Congress in order to initiate an illegal war against Iraq,
resulting in loss of life and diminished security; and
* Leaking classified information and exposing a covert operative —
Valerie Plame — as means of silencing his critics.

When you read that list how does your stomach not turn?
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01141_revolutionary_thinking_state_legislatures_push_impeachment.html

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!
Impeach him in the streets!
http://www.freewayblogger.com/impeachment_project2.htm

Sign the Petition – Support the Impeachment of Bush
http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=381

Chorus to Impeach Bush Grows!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2092455,00.html

Articles of Impeachment
http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=articles

Bush Impeachment – The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060422_bush_impeachment___t.htm

Illinois was first, California was second; will YOUR state be third
and what are you doing to make it so?
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01141_revolutionary_thinking_state_legislatures_push_impeachment.html

Support the Impeachment of Bush
http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=381

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!
Impeach him in the Streets!
http://www.freewayblogger.com/impeachment_project2.htm

Sign the Petition to Impeach!
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

Be Patriotic – Impeach Bush!
http://www.impeachbush.tv/

Impeach Bush Now!
http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/

Uphold the Constitution – Impeach Bush!
http://www.thefourreasons.org/

Chorus to Impeach Bush Grows!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2092455,00.html

Zogby Poll: IMPEACH!
http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

Activists to Impeach Bush
http://impeachbush.meetup.com/

A United Coalition for the Impeachment of Bush
http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com/

Impeachment from Below: Legislators Lobby Congress to Impeach!
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0423-26.htm

Boston Legal James Spader’s Closing Arguments – Many reasons to Impeach!
Worth watching…
http://www.boston-legal.org/19-stickit/BL-2×19-Stick-It-ClosingArguments.asx

Impeach Bush – It’s time to remove him
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/01/keillor/index_np.html

HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANOURS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION include:
– ILLEGAL WIRE TAPPING
– TORTURE
– HOLDING PEOPLE WITHOUT CHARGE OR TRIAL
– MANIPULATING INTELLIGENCE TO LAUNCH AGGRESSIVE, ILLEGAL WAR
– LEAKING CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECRETS

and I’m sure this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg!

IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!

IMPEACH these neo-crazies before they launch yet another nuclear war!
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8853

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 17
From: “James Patton” james_patton@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:27am(PDT)
Subject: FW: Death Made In America

FW: Death Made In America

Depleted Uranium: Wondering if your conscience is still anesthetized

Warning: Frightening and Disturbing Photo Essay

http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/8124727.html

Today’s Newswire:
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/2006/04/29/

MARC PARENT
CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/14409
http://www.dailykos.com/user/ccnwon

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 18
From: “Scott Peden” scotpeden@cruzio.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:27am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not l

And should the rest of the middle east live with Israel having the bomb?

—–Original Message—–
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Dick Eastman
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:52 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: [911TruthAction] Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute
deterrent” — so why not let Iran have nuclear energy?

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/8351.htm
April 27, 2006
Should Israel Live with the Iranian Bomb?
By Edward Bernard Glick

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live with
a nuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”

Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, as well.
But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes from a nuclear
Iran and to close its ears to Iran’s calls for its destruction?

In October 2005 the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the
“Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the Earth.” In April 2006 he
called Israel a “fake regime” that “cannot logically continue to live.”
Since he apparently favors a second Holocaust, even as he denies that the
first one occurred, Iran’s development and deployment of nuclear weapons
would jeopardize the very existence of Israel.

Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister and first
minister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the
Israeli Old Guard, the Jewish state has possessed a nuclear arsenal for 40
years. In a 1999 paper prepared for the Air War College, U. S. Army
Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labels it the “Third Temple’s Holy of
Holies” and he argued that with it Israel has been able to deter its
enemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb in the
Basement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.” But the
truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the
sanity to be deterred.

Another argument one hears is that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear
bomb, why can’t Israel live with an Iranian one? The answer is that no
Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not living with an Iranian
bomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? that any nuclear
exchange between the two countries may well extinguish the Jewish state.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do
preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what’s needed and
what works. As soon as it is clear that further nonmilitary pressures upon
Iran are useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first
and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclear weaponry,
but its delivery systems and command and control centers as well, because it
is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and
eulogized.

An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the
anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers. the
United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the
Quakers, and the “war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century”
postmodernists in academia and elsewhere.

Much of the criticism will be phony, however. In 1981, when Israel destroyed
Saddam Hussein’s French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of
Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple
University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my
office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I
close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader
of the group, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that the
Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi
would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests
the leadership of the Arab world?”

When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn’t say so in class, he
answered: “We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the
Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we
would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed.”

At the news conference at which he announced Israel’s destruction of the
Iraqi reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all the
condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has
nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it
is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal.”
He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region.”

Does Israel’s present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, have the courage to
emulate his predecessor? Do the Israel Defense Forces have the pluck to do
to Iran today what they did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? And are the
Israeli political and military establishments willing to use tactical
nuclear weapons if they conclude that conventional weapons won’t do the job?

If Olmert gives the order, and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs of
Persia will be gone and the Middle East will be a much less dangerous place.
But let no one think that my Saudi students or Israel’s other foes will
publicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.

SPONSORED LINKS
United state coin
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+coin&w1=United+state+coin&amp;
w2=United+state+government+grant&w3=United+state+flag&w4=United+state+milita
ry&w5=Trademark+united+state&w6=United+state+patent&c=6&s=161&.sig=xeZ45dcHX
KyhVZ5EbpeMEg>
United state government grant
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+government+grant&w1=United
+state+coin&w2=United+state+government+grant&w3=United+state+flag&w4=United+
state+military&w5=Trademark+united+state&w6=United+state+patent&c=6&s=161&.s
ig=O-wzYeAQyFa_P1%20>
United state flag
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+flag&w1=United+state+coin&amp;
w2=United+state+government+grant&w3=United+state+flag&w4=United+state+milita
ry&w5=Trademark+united+state&w6=United+state+patent&c=6&s=161&.sig=FyVhY9JuW
4L5OuItIZgH7A>
United state military
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+military&w1=United+state+c
oin&w2=United+state+government+grant&w3=United+state+flag&w4=United+state+mi
litary&w5=Trademark+united+state&w6=United+state+patent&c=6&s=161&.sig=pK8mF
R0Mge9ioZBJ19VzOw%20>
Trademark united state
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Trademark+united+state&w1=United+state+
coin&w2=United+state+government+grant&w3=United+state+flag&w4=United+state+m
ilitary&w5=Trademark+united+state&w6=United+state+patent&c=6&s=161&.sig=NtMs
WGVY4y-Ivazt77p3p%20>
United state patent
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+patent&w1=United+state+coi
n&w2=United+state+government+grant&w3=United+state+flag&w4=United+state+mili
tary&w5=Trademark+united+state&w6=United+state+patent&c=6&s=161&.sig=n6SuvF8
BPE864dn9yiB2dw>

_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group ” 911TruthAction
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction&gt; ” on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/&gt; .

_____

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 19
From: “Naveed” flanker12k@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:39am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not l

this glick fellow seems to have so convienently forgotten the CIAs own estimates for Iran acquiring the NOOKULAR weapons technology they are bout 5 to 10 years away(Valerie Plame anyone?) ……..brilliant piece by the fact of ommission…..

Iran has a far more dangerous weapon than any nookular device, the oil bourse!
I heard it got delayed in opening but the fact is the Iranian government has started selling oil in euros instead of dollars……….. anyone have anything on that?

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
– Notebook, 1904

http://www.fightthenwo.org/

—– Original Message —-
From: Dick Eastman <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 10:52:29 AM
Subject: [911TruthAction] Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not let Iran have nuclear energy?

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/8351.htm

April 27, 2006

Should Israel Live with the Iranian Bomb?
By Edward Bernard Glick

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”

Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, as well. But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes from a nuclear Iran and to close its ears to Iran’s calls for its destruction?

In October 2005 the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the Earth.” In April 2006 he called Israel a “fake regime” that “cannot logically continue to live.” Since he apparently favors a second Holocaust, even as he denies that the first one occurred, Iran’s development and deployment of nuclear weapons would jeopardize the very existence of Israel.

Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister and first minister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Jewish state has possessed a nuclear arsenal for 40 years. In a 1999 paper prepared for the Air War College, U. S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labels it the “Third Temple’s Holy of Holies” and he argued that with it Israel has been able to deter its enemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb in the Basement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.” But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the sanity to be deterred.

Another argument one hears is that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can’t Israel live with an Iranian one? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not living with an Iranian bomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? that any nuclear exchange between the two countries may well extinguish the Jewish state.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what’s needed and what works. As soon as it is clear that further nonmilitary pressures upon Iran are useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and command and control centers as well, because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.

An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers. the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the “war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century” postmodernists in academia and elsewhere.

Much of the criticism will be phony, however. In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the group, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that the Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests the leadership of the Arab world?”

When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn’t say so in class, he answered: “We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed.”

At the news conference at which he announced Israel’s destruction of the Iraqi reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all the condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal.” He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region.”

Does Israel’s present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, have the courage to emulate his predecessor? Do the Israel Defense Forces have the pluck to do to Iran today what they did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? And are the Israeli political and military establishments willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if they conclude that conventional weapons won’t do the job?

If Olmert gives the order, and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs of Persia will be gone and the Middle East will be a much less dangerous place. But let no one think that my Saudi students or Israel’s other foes will publicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.

SPONSORED LINKS United state coin United state government grant United state flag
United state military Trademark united state United state patent

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group “911TruthAction” on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 20
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:40am(PDT)
Subject: SEND THIS OUT

Subject(s): Bush, G.W., Bush: Reasons to Dump, Congress, Impeachment, Parliamentary Procedure, State Go April 29, 2006

Bush Impeachment First Follow up – People go Rushing for a Copy of Jefferson’s Manual
Does the idea of a State Legislature initiating Impeachment Proceedings make sense?
by Steven Leser

vernment

http://www.opednews.com

Steven Leser

When you scoop the rest of the press on an item like this, the story takes on a life of its own. I cannot possibly respond to all the emails I received on the subject (my apologies) and I have received threats, condemnations, congratulations, atta-boys as well as all sorts of questions about how this happened and whether or not something like this is appropriate or can ‘fly’. It is to the latter that I will devote some time in this Op-Ed.

First, this action by the Illinois legislature and now that of California and Vermont caught a lot of people off guard. How can a state legislature do this? It seems so out of line to most people. But to Thomas Jefferson and the framers, it was right in line with their way of thinking about the power of a state legislature. Most people forget the important role that state legislatures play in selecting the President and how much additional power was initially given to state legislatures. Before Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution was modified by the seventeenth amendment in 1913, the state legislatures themselves selected the US Senators for each state. The people of each state had no direct right to vote for their senators. The people still have no direct vote for President. Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” The Twelfth amendment then goes on to describe how those electors go about their business to elect a President and Vice President.

Now that we see that it is not all that unusual for a state legislature to impact the office of the President, what might happen if one of these state legislatures votes to submit recommendations for impeachment to the House of Representatives? My guess is that the Speaker of the House would go running to the House Parliamentarian for guidance. The House Parliamentarian is not a member of congress per se but is an individual appointed by the Speaker of the House to guide the house on all issues regarding House Rules and Parliamentary procedure. This is one of the many places where this gets interesting. The current House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, is fairly new, having been appointed only 11 months ago. The Previous House Parliamentarian, Charles Johnson, served over ten years and was widely regarded by members on both sides of the aisle as non partisan and an expert on the rules and procedures of the House. Mr. Sullivan is likely to be called on shortly to render one of the most important judgments on the rules of the House in the last 100 or so years. How will he make his decision? It is likely to be guided by a number of documents and precedents. Every two years, the new congress adopts a set of rules, this 109th congress being no different. The rules for this congress can be viewed at http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/109th.pdf . One will note that the Final Rule of this US House of Representatives, Rule Twenty Eight, General Provisions is as follows:
RULE XXVIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The provisions of law that constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the previous Congress shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable, and the rules of parliamentary practice comprised by Jefferson�s Manual shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House.
Also of probable note to Mr. Sullivan will be “Parliamentary Reference Sources: House of Representatives” – by Thomas Carr, http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rl30787.pdf Updated March 16, 2004 which has as its Summary:
House procedures are not based solely on the chamber�s rules. The foundations of House parliamentary procedure also include constitutional mandates, rules of parliamentary practice set forth in Jefferson�s Manual, published precedents, rulemaking statutes, committee rules, “memorandums of understanding” regarding committee jurisdiction, the rules of each party�s caucus or conference, and informal practices. Parliamentary reference sources provide information about how and when these foundations of House procedures govern different parliamentary situations.
———————————-
Where all of this will take Mr. Sullivan is anyone’s guess, but I see nothing yet in the House Rules which would prevent a legislature’s impeachment resolution from being accepted as a proposed bill in the House. Stay tuned for more articles from me on the Bush Impeachment situation as it progresses.

Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Support the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Steven Leser is a freelance journalist specializing in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. His coverage of the Ohio Presidential Recount in 2004 was distinguished by interviews with Carlo Loparo, spokesperson for the Ohio Secretary of State, along with Supervisors of Elections of several Ohio counties. Similar efforts on other topics to get first hand information from sources separate Mr. Leser from many of his contemporaries. Mr Leser was the journalist who broke the story of the Bush Impeachment Resolution being drafted in the Illinois Senate. The story was printed right here on OpEdNews.com

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

No comments | Post A Comment

Comments: Ex

——————————————————————————–

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 21
From: “ranger116@webtv.net” ranger116@webtv.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:16am(PDT)
Subject: Senator Robert Byrd to President Bush: We Can Impeach You ! Addre

Senator Robert Byrd to President Bush: We Can Impeach You !

Address:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/27/194049.shtml

In a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Senator Robert Byrd,
pledged to put President Bush on trial in the Senate if the House
impeaches him.

Addressing the president in absentia, Sen. Byrd began by warning that

“Congress retains all its original powers under the Constitution”

“You better read that again in the Constitution,”
Byrd said, declaring that the Senate’s powers include “serving as a
court of impeachment.

“You better believe it, Mr. President,” Byrd continued.
“The Senate can send you home. You better believe that.”

Senator Byrd then added: “If the House impeaches you, the Senate
will try you.
The Senate, don’t forget it, serves as a court of impeachment and
has an equal say with the House on legislation.”
Over at Democrats.com, where a transcript of Byrd’s remarks turned
up, the outburst was greeted enthusiastically.

Reacting to the West Virginia Democrat’s impeachment threat, one poster
declared, “Man, I like the sound of that . . . you’ve got to like
whatever gumption some of these guys found while they were on their
congressional break.”

“““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Anti-War Protest NYC – Photos
Address:http://www.rense.com/general70/nyc.htm

“““““““““““““““““““““““““““

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 22
From: “President, USA Exile Govt.” prez@usa-exile.org
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:58am(PDT)
Subject: A Day in the Life: 4/30/6

GOVERNMENT OF THE USA IN EXILE
Free Americans Reaching Out
to Amerika’s Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free
��������
Via <prez@usa-exile.org>

April 30, 2006

Leftist Leaders Reject U.S. Trade
Plan

Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba form economic/political alliance
Sunday, April 30, 2006 Posted: 0907 GMT (1707 HKT)

HAVANA, Cuba (AP) — Bolivia’s new left-leaning president signed a pact
with Cuba and Venezuela on Saturday that rejects U.S.-backed free trade
and promises a socialist version of regional commerce and cooperation.

With Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez seated nearby,
President Evo Morales signed an updated version of the so-called
Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, adding Bolivia as a third
member.

“In Cuba and Venezuela we find unconditional solidarity,” Morales said.
“They are the best allies for changing Bolivia.”

The document signed included the same language of the political
declaration signed last year by Castro and Chavez. That pact contained
much leftist rhetoric and few specifics, but was followed by closer
economic ties and boosted trade between the two vehemently anti-U.S.
governments.

After Bolivia was joined in the earlier agreement on Saturday, the
three presidents signed a second document with more concrete proposals.

Cuba promised to send Bolivia doctors to provide medical care to poor
people, and teachers to conduct literacy campaigns. Venezuela will send
gasoline to the Andean nation and set up a $100 million (�80 million)
fund for development programs and a $30 million (�24 million) fund for
other social projects.

Cuba and Venezuela also agreed to buy all of Bolivia’s soybeans,
recently left without markets after Colombia signed a free trade pact
with the United States.

Dressed in his typical olive green uniform, Castro, who turns 80 in
August, said sharing the spotlight with two younger, like-minded
leaders “makes me the happiest man in the world.”

Afterward, the three presidents were greeted by tens of thousands of
cheering people gathered in the broad Plaza of the Revolution to
celebrate the signing.

The agreement is “a clever mixture of politics and economics, weighted
toward the politics,” said Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Institute
for International Economics, a Washington think tank.

Venezuela-Cuba trade is expected to reach more than $3.5 billion (�2.9
billion) this year — about 40 percent higher than in 2005.

The deal signed between Chavez and Castro has Venezuela — the world’s
fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier to the United States —
selling 90,000 barrels a day of crude to the communist-run island at
international market prices, but in exchange for agricultural products
and other services instead of cash.

The addition of Bolivia will beef up the grouping’s economic potential
with the Andean nation’s vast natural gas reserves.

Morales, a union leader who was swept to power on a leftist platform
and has railed against American economic and drug policies, vowed
during his campaign to be “the nightmare of the U.S. government.”

He, like Chavez, has tried to maintain a vibrant private sector while
claiming an ever-larger state role in managing the economy. He has also
toned down his rhetoric since taking office in January.

The Cuba-Venezuela deal — known by its Spanish acronym ALBA, also the
word for dawn — provided a framework for the leaders to blast
Washington’s efforts to expand its free trade with Latin American
countries.

The U.S.-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas hemispheric trade pact
stalled last year, but Washington since has signed nine free-trade
agreements with Latin American countries.

The three presidents called the FTAA a U.S. effort to “annex” Latin
America. Chavez and Morales have warned they could pull their countries
from the Andean Community economic bloc if members Colombia, Peru and
Ecuador go through with trade pacts with the United States.

Colombia and Peru have reached such agreements with Washington.
Negotiations between the United States and Ecuador were suspended after
nearly two weeks of street protests in March by indigenous groups in
Ecuador opposed to such a pact.

“According to any reasonable definition of the term, this is not a
trade agreement,” Michael Shifter, a political analyst with the
Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, said of last year’s ALBA deal.
“It’s an attempt to pose a real counterweight to the U.S. role and
agenda in Latin America.”

Shifter predicted few other Latin America nations would join ALBA,
instead preferring trade agreements with the United States.

But he said Chavez is likely eyeing Peru as a potential ALBA member if
nationalist Ollanta Humala prevails in a presidential runoff expected
for May 28 or June 4. Humala was the front-runner in the April
election.

Their leaders’ embrace of the socialist-tinged ALBA has rattled
Bolivian and Venezuelan business leaders.

“The government should reach out more to the business sector and create
a common agenda, figure out what markets interest us, where there are
possibilities and separate the ideological and political from trade and
economy,” said Gary Rodriguez, general manager of the Bolivian Foreign
Trade Institute.

Cuba ranks 88 among countries that Bolivia exports to, shipping just
$5,291 (�4,220) in goods to the Caribbean nation last year, according
to the institute. Venezuela is Bolivia’s fifth most important export
market, accounting for $167 million (�133.2 million) of its $2.7
billion (�2.15 billion) in exports.

========================================================================
=================================================================

———-

Administration�s Nuclear Saber Rattling on
Iran Threatens Global Security
Statement by Dr. Kurt Gottfried, Chairman,
Union of Concerned Scientists

April 30, 2006

ucsusa.org

Statement by Dr. Kurt Gottfried, Chairman, Union of Concerned
Scientists, and Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University�

“Recent reports suggest that the Bush administration is considering
using nuclear weapons against Iran. The very fact that nuclear weapon
use is being discussed as an option�against a state that does not have
nuclear weapons and does not represent a direct or imminent threat to
the United States�illustrates the extent to which the Bush
administration has changed U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

“The Bush administration has explicitly rejected the basic precept that
the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons should be to deter the use of
nuclear weapons. It has assigned a new, and provocative, mission to
U.S. nuclear weapons: to dissuade or prevent other countries from
undertaking military programs that could threaten U.S. interests in the
future. A ‘preventive’ nuclear attack on Iran would fall into this
category. It has also blurred the line between nuclear and conventional
weapons by declaring that nuclear weapons can be used as part of
military operations.

“This nuclear policy increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons will
be used, and ultimately decreases U.S. as well as international
security. Instead, the United States should commit itself to strengthen
the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons that has developed over
the past 60 years.

“Plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran also fail to recognize the
immediate dangers inherent in the use of nuclear weapons. The
administration is reportedly considering using the B61-11 nuclear
‘bunker buster’ against an underground facility near Natanz, Iran. The
use of such a weapon would create massive clouds of radioactive fallout
that could spread far from the site of the attack, including to other
nations. Even if used in remote, lightly populated areas, the number of
casualties could range up to more than a hundred thousand, depending on
the weapon yield and weather conditions.

“Threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran provides the strongest
of incentives for nuclear proliferation, since it would send the
message that the only way for a country to deter nuclear attack is to
acquire its own nuclear arsenal. The administration cannot have its
cake and eat it, too�it cannot have a viable nuclear non-proliferation
policy while continually expanding the roles for its own nuclear
weapons.”

Press Contacts:

ERIC YOUNG Press Secretary 202-331-5439� eyoung@ucsusa.org

EMILY ROBINSON Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5427�
erobinson@ucsusa.org

RICH HAYES Media Director 202-331-5437� rhayes@ucsusa.org

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
http://www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to
the original CRG article must be indicated. The author’s copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print
or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@yahoo.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must
request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research’s News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

� Copyright , ucsusa.org, 2006

The url address of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=20060430&articleId=2351

========================================================================
==============================================

———-

IAEA
Finds No Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

By Juan Cole
April 30, 2006
Information Clearing House

In its April 28 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency
mentioned the UNSC mandate to Iran of last February:

� re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related
and reprocessing activities,
including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;

� reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy
water;

� ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;

� pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Additional
Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;

� implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director
General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal
requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and
include such access to individuals, documentation relating to
procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and
research and development as the Agency may request in support of its
ongoing investigations.

Despite not being fully in compliance with these demands, Iran
maintains that it is in fact fulfilling its obligations under the
Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

The IAEA found no smoking gun.

Here is its conclusion, which others will not quote for you at such
length:

‘ 33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is
accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to
the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in
Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency�s knowledge with respect to
the scope and content of Iran�s centrifuge programme. Because of this,
and other gaps in the Agency�s knowledge, including the role of the
military in Iran�s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make
progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of
undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about
all aspects of Iran�s nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge
continue to be a matter of concern. ‘

This ambiguity is being twisted by the Bush administration to make it
seem as though Iran has done something illegal. The report can be read
to say that there is no evidence that Iran is doing anything illegal.

In fact, under the NPT, countries do have the right to do the sort of
experiments Iran is doing. Most of the complaints are not about
substance but about something else.

Iran’s president pledged to continue to cooperate with UN isnspectors.

More about Iran later. For now see the next item, where an Iraqi VP
says all hell would break loose in Iraq if the US attacked Iran.

Juan Cole
———-

� is Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Visit his
website http://www.juancole.com

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
http://www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to
the original CRG article must be indicated. The author’s copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print
or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@yahoo.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must
request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research’s News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

� Copyright Juan Cole, Information Clearing House, 2006

The url address of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=COL20060430&articleId=2347

========================================================================
================================================

From: janet phelan <jcphelan10@yahoo.com>
Date: April 29, 2006 8:10:08 PM EST
To: The_Bush_Dictatorship@yahoogroups.com,
The_Power_Hour_II@yahoogroups.com, TruthShallPrevail@yahoogroups.com,
ctrl@yahoogroups.com, DavidIcke@yahoogroups.com,
FreedomsForum@yahoogroups.com, catapultthepropaganda@yahoogroups.com,
wethepeople_united@yahoogroups.com, 911truthaction@yahoogroups.com,
TheCrest@yahoogroups.com, unclesamsucks@yahoogroups.com,
newworldordercorner@yahoogroups.com, call4investigation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [911TruthAction] Political Prisoner to be Committed to Mental
Hospital
Reply-To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com

http://cosmicpenguin.com/Lindauer/

Susan Lindauer — Held Political Prisoner
to Cover Up U.S. Genocide in Iraq

In March 2001 Susan Lindauer carried a message from the Iraqi
government to her cousin, the White House Chief of Staff, requesting the
return of weapons inspectors. This strongly indicated that Iraq had no
WMD,
so the U.S. government was aware of this at that point in time, if not
before.

But Bush and Cheney nevertheless attacked and invaded Iraq using WMD as
a pretext,
murdered as many as 500,000 people, and spread radioactive poison over
the entire country,
which will murder millions more. Now they are holding Lindauer in
prison on false claims
of insanity, and are about to commit and forcibly drug her,
to prevent her from ever being able to tell her story.

========================================================================
================================================================

From: Henri the Celt <henrithecelt@gci.net>
Date: April 28, 2006 6:22:21 PM EST
Subject: Fw: Guernsey Island: Money As A Vehicle Of Exchange…Not
Parasitism


Guernsey Island: Money as a Vehicle of
Exchange… Not Parasitism

Guernsey’s monetary experiment�
From: feenyite1@yahoo.com���
by Louis Even

Guernsey is a small island located in the English Channel. An
Anglo-Norman population. This island is located closer to the French
coast than to the English one.
At the close of the Napoleonic wars, the island, like several
countries, was in pitiful condition, both pydically and financially.

No money

Sea walls, roads, markets were needed.There was no manpower shortage.
but there was no money to pay for these works.
The money used by the people on the island was the money from England,
the pound sterling. But, like after any war, the financiers were
calling back the money advanced to finance the slaughter, and the
pounds sterling were very scarce everywhere.
The island had an autonomous government, �the States of Guernsey.� So
it had the rights inherent in all sovereign government, among other
rights, that of regulating the volume of money incirculation in the
country. But, no more ethan any other country, the States of Guernsey
had thought of exercising this sovereign prerogative.

An intelligent governor

The island was especially in need of a new market house, and a
committee was set up to take care of it. The committee went to see the
governor to explain the situation to him:
�We need a new market, but we have no money to build it.�
�With what material are you going to build a market?� asked the
governor.
�With stone and wood.�
�Do you have it in the island?�
�Certainly, and in plenty.�
�Do you have workers?�
�Yes again. But it is money that is lacking.�
�Could not your parliament issue money?� asked the governor.

A new idea!

This idea had never occurred to the committeemen, who had never
analysed the money question. They knew where to get money when there
was some: but they never wondered where money begins or can begin.
The method of taxing when there was money was quite familiar. But the
method of injecting the money that is lacking, and of taxing only
after, was something new to our administrators.

Issues of national currency

An estimate of the cost was prepared and the States printed the money
required, which was paid to those who either worked on the project or
furnished materials for it. (Notice! The true definition of money is
work…)
As the new currency was paid out into circulation among the people,
exchanges were being expedited. The wage-earners went to the
shopkeepers, the shopkeepers went to the producers, the producers
bought enough to increase their production.
The currency was accepted everywhere. The government took measures
against inflation by decreeing that money would be withdrawn by taxes,
so it does not accumulate. And, in fact, the money was retired on
schedule by taxes. But, as the increasing activity required a
corresponding volume of money, other issues were brought out by the
government for other works.
On October 12, 1822, the new Market house was completed and opened. Not
a penny of public debt on this public enterprise.

The bankers intervene

At the time of the original issue, there was no bank upon the island.
This explain, without doubt, why there was no opposition to the issue
of State money.
But ten years after the first issue, the island had become so
prosperous, thanks to the activity allowed by a sufficient volume of
money, that the banks of England had an eye on this island.
English bankers set up branches in the island and brought the
population around to orthodox rules. �It was unsound,� they said, �to
let the government finance its enterprises without getting into debt.�
(!!!!!)
The bankers did everything to stop further issues to introduce the
system of interest-bearing loans to the government and to withdraw from
the island the State money that had been paid out into circulation.
There was some resistance, but the bankers won their point, with their
usual methods, and on October 9, 1836, the States of Guernsey had
abdicated their sovereign prerogative over the control of the volume of
money. From then on, the amount of the national currency decreased
gradually, and was replaced by money issued by private bankers in the
form of loans getting the island into debt.
Nevertheless, there is still about 40,000 pounds sterling ($200,000) of
national currency outstanding at this date in the island. (According to
Gertrude M. Coogan in Money Creators, published in 1935.)

Why a financial problem?

As we can see, with natural resources, workers, and a bit of common
sense, there is no financial problem.
But when shrewd exploiters want to regulate economic activities
according to their power and their profit, there there financial
problem arises.
Of course, minds in search of arguments to justify the present regime
will say that Guernsey was only an insignificant small island; that the
control of the volume of money by the representatives of the people is
good for a small country, but not for a big country.
All right. Take note of what these gentlemen object to you today. Next
week, these same gentlemen will tell you that the mone problem cannot
be solved properly in a small territory or a province, but must be
brought to a federal or even an international level!
It was not Social Credit yet in Guernsey from 1820 to 1836. No doubt
that the development of that time and that place would not have allowed
to go as far as to give a dividend to consumers. But it was already a
non-debt-bearing national currency, issued in accordance with the
possibilities in front of the needs.
The issues of national currency by the States of Guernsey caused
neither inflation nor idleness. They created activity and prosperity.
But these issues did not make any slaves, and that is why the bankers
intervened.

������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������ Louis Even

This article was� published in the January-February, 2004 issue of
�Michael�.

========================================================================
=================================================================

———-

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

By Dr. Thomas R. Olmsted
April 30, 2006

Scholars for 9/11 Truth website

I am an ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in
New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad. It troubled me a great
deal that we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence. I
considered various ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept
11th happened. Astute observers noticed right away that there were no
Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that
�crashed� on that day.

A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by
a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy
list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs
on the list. It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime
made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to
make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a
manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even
before Sep 11th, that airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an
accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me that
five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
(AFIP), does a miraculous job and identified nearly all the bodies on
November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon
and 64 were �passengers� on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the
list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to
tell �victims� bodies from �hijacker� bodies. In fact, from the
beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in
news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the
difference, and that makes it so.

Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want
to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of
kicking Osama/Saddam�s butt (weren�t these originally two different
people?). It seemed simple to me… produce the names of all the bodies
identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of
passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to
the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting
ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Sadaam had done
the deed. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi
civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me
that they weren�t a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea
why they choose now to release it.

No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people
not listed by American Airline sneaked in. I have seen no explanation
for these extras. I did give American the opportunity to �revise� their
original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert
Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only
�passenger� body that they were not able to identify is the toddler,
Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of
those identified.

The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug
about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these
unfortunates together. Stay tuned for part two to take a much closer
look of the cast of characters on this ill-fated flight.

To see full-size images of autopsy lists and FOIA request please visit:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
http://www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to
the original CRG article must be indicated. The author’s copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print
or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@yahoo.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must
request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research’s News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

� Copyright Thomas R. Olmsted, Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, 2006

The url address of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=OLM20060430&articleId=2350

========================================================================
==============================================

Turkish Armed Forces Strike PKK Camps in N. Iraq

By National News Desk, Istanbul
Published: Saturday, April 29, 2006

zaman.com

The Turkish armed forces have launched their first military operation
along the Iraqi border where Turkish troops have concentrated for days.

The Northern Iraqi cities of Amedi and Zaho, sheltering Kurdish
Workers’ Party (PKK) militants, were hit with mortar attacks in
�Operation Crescent.�

First reports say that locations where militants were lodged in the
regions of Geliye, Pisaxa, Pirbela, Sheshdara, Sheranish and Elanish
were demolished.

The “Burgundy Beret” units performed a recognizance mission in the
area a while ago as part of the Special Forces Command.

Troop deployment to the region from different parts of the country
continues.

Along with the transfer of commandos, heavy construction equipment is
also being brought to the border for use during a possible cross-border
operation.

The Iranian military extended their operation 10 kilometers to
maintain security along the border.

A security cordon has been established to ensure the safety of troops
that check not only Mt. Cudi, but other passages and routes for safety.

There is also top-level security present en route to the Border Gate
Habur-2.

In another development, Kurdish militias (Peshmergas) under the
leadership of Massoud Barzani tightened security measures along the
Northern Iraqi border.

On Thursday, a statement from Barzani called attention to a plea for
cessation of external intervention in Iraq’s domestic affairs. The need
for agreement between officials from both Turkey and North Iraq was
stressed.

Mehmet Gunes, a truck driver, said something interesting while on
routine transit through the Border Gate Habur. “We are well accustomed
to seeing such things. It�s the media that magnifies what we consider
normal, I think.” Gunes also said that the truck drivers are not having
any problem transiting border gates for the moment.

There is not any unusual military activity going on here against North
Iraq, said Gunes, and some residents here are still unaware of the
recent developments.

The Operation Crescent, a cross-border operation, is remarkable for
one other thing: the exclusion of village guards from the operation.

========================================================================
================================================
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 23
From: “Eva Walker” cowgirl269704@msn.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:33pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so why not l

United States has the largest nuclear arsenals so why is it wanting to
attack Iran?What no other country can have it to protect itself?Only the
US can protect itself.Iran never threatened to attack any country with
it if they do have them like the Russians did in the early 60s by moving
their arsenals to Cuba.
From: “Scott Peden” <scotpeden@cruzio.com> Reply-To:
911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com To: <911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute
deterrent” — so why not let Iran have nuclear energy? Date: Sun, 30 Apr
2006 10:27:35 -0700
And should the rest of the middle east live with Israel having the bomb?
—–Original Message—– From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eastman Sent:
Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:52 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject:
[911TruthAction] Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — so
why not let Iran have nuclear energy?
http://web. israelinsider .com/Views/8351.htm
April 27, 2006
Should Israel Live with the Iranian Bomb? By Edward Bernard Glick Thomas
Friedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live with a
nuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”
Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, as
well. But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes from
a nuclear Iran and to close its ears to
Iran’s calls for its destruction? In October 2005 the Iranian president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off
the face of the Earth.” In April 2006 he called Israel a “fake regime”
that “cannot logically continue to live.” Since he apparently favors a
second Holocaust, even as he denies that the first one occurred, Iran’s
development and deployment of nuclear weapons would jeopardize the very
existence of Israel. Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime
minister and first minister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the last
surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Jewish state has
possessed a nuclear arsenal for 40 years. In a 1999 paper prepared for
the Air War College, U. S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labels
it the “Third Temple’s Holy of Holies” and he argued that with it Israel
has been able to deter its
enemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb in
the Basement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.”
But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom
and the sanity to be deterred. Another argument one hears is that if
Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can’t Israel live with
an Iranian one? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to
eradicate Iran. Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not living
with an Iranian bomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? that
any nuclear exchange between the two countries may well extinguish the
Jewish state. Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for
whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do
what’s needed and what works. As soon as it is clear that further
nonmilitary pressures upon Iran
are useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first
and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclear
weaponry, but its delivery systems and command and control centers as
well, because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned,
than dead and eulogized. An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned
by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the
anti-Americans, the appeasers. the United States, the European Union,
the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the
“war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century” postmodernists
in academia and elsewhere. Much of the criticism will be phony, however.
In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s French-built Osirak
reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my
Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel
roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to
tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door.
Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the
group, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that the
Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi
would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he
contests the leadership of the Arab world?” When I asked him why he and
his compatriots didn’t say so in class, he answered: “We were afraid to.
At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil
Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been
ordered home to be imprisoned or killed.” At the news conference at
which he announced Israel’s destruction of the Iraqi reactor, Prime
Minister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all the
condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel
has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now,
before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at
our disposal.” He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclear
weapons in the region.” Does Israel’s present prime minister, Ehud
Olmert, have the courage to emulate his predecessor? Do the Israel
Defense Forces have the pluck to do to Iran today what they did to Iraq
a quarter of a century ago? And are the Israeli political and military
establishments willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if they conclude
that conventional weapons won’t do the job? If Olmert gives the order,
and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs of Persia will be gone and the
Middle East will be a much less dangerous place. But let no one think
that my Saudi students or Israel’s other
foes will publicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.
SPONSORED LINKS
United state army
United state military
Trademark united state
United state coin
United state citizenship
United state grant
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group ” 911TruthAction ” on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service .
Test your trivia skills! Play MSN World Tour today!

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 24
From: “janet phelan” jcphelan10@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:39pm(PDT)
Subject: Justice Served?

The Civil Harassment Restraining Orders against Tim White and against Attorney J. David Horspool come to hearing on May 2. The Denver Sheriffs were unable to serve White with the papers, so the TRO is not in effect, even though it was issued by Judge Tillman.

I now have Horspool stone cold on perjury.

The perjured item deals with his declaration in court against me in June of 2002. Among other perjured statements, he declared under penalty of perjury that I had made a report to the Osteopathic Board concerning a Dr. David Mitzner.

I thought that was probably a good idea, and filed the report SIX MONTHS LATER. The certified letter from the State Osteopathic Board is now filed with Santa Monica Court. This and other perjured declarations made by Horspool are being addressed in a complaint to the State Bar. The sum effect of his perjuries are deadly serious; because of his declarations, I was effectively restrained from saving the life of someone who almost died “on his watch.”

Horspool stated in his letter to Joe Ludi, which Tim White posted on the yahoo groups, that I had made death threats to him (Horspool). In his response to my filing for a RO against him, Horspool included emails from me, presumably as evidence. The emails are sometimes informative (“I will be interviewed on the radio tonite,” etc.) and sometimes beseeching him to obey the December 18, 2001 court order to distribute funds from my inheritance to me.

But not one single threat.

Incidentally, Horspool has requested of the Court to make me pay his court costs in this matter, thus further attempting to damage my already challenged economic base.

This is an extremely serious matter. Because of what happened in this “civil” court case, a wonderful, bright and vulnerable woman ended up dead. Horspool did the “legal” work.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/120799.php
“The War Comes Home”

Rock on in the free world,

Janet C. Phelan

Horspool stated in his letter to Joe

———————————
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message 25
From: “Bugs” brawny@twlakes.net
Date: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:36pm(PDT)
Subject: Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey
more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power
to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his
interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations,
affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about
immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory
officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded
research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can
bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense
of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The
Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and
to the president a duty ”to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ”execute” a
law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the
right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he
is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on
presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush’s domestic spying program, in which he
ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal
specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the
constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his
right to ignore vast swaths of laws — many of which he says infringe on power
he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the
executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush’s theory about his own powers
goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role
of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied
the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his
legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever
more governmental power into the White House.

”There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very
carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at
the expense of the other branches of government,” Cooper said. ”This is
really big, very expansive, and very significant.”

For the first five years of Bush’s presidency, his legal claims attracted
little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush
drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that
he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice
Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush’s challenges to the laws he
has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about
Bush’s position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They
said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ”been used for
several administrations” and that ”the president will faithfully execute the
law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.”

But the words ”in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution” are
the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate
interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority
to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill,
giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed
every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation’s sponsors to
signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush
quietly files ”signing statements” — official documents in which a president
lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to
follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal
register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the
Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes
including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in
order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to
more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

”He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are
there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those
compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the
public knowing what has happened,” said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of
Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

Military link
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass — including the torture ban —
involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war,
to make rules for captured enemies, and ”to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces.” But, citing his role as commander
in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate
the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has
passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US
military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded
Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did
not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in
chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before
diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret
operation, such as the ”black sites” where suspected terrorists are secretly
imprisoned.

Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using
intelligence that was not ”lawfully collected,” including any information on
Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections
against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush’s warrantless
domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the
program’s existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as
commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the
military.

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq
came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for
military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore
them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their
commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But
Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration’s
lawyers.

Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on
the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva
Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban
such contractors from performing ”security, intelligence, law enforcement,
and criminal justice functions.” Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the
requirements.

The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But
Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ”shall refrain” from
investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the
Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by
Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq.
The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US
official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any
information to Congress without permission from the administration.

Oversight questioned
Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give
information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice
Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using
special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the
Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos
outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11
other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security
clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could
withhold all the information sought by Congress.

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland
Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about
vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at
airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with
visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right
to withhold the information and alter the reports.

On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating
”whistle-blower” job protections for federal employees that would stop any
attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about
possible government wrongdoing.

When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it
strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of
Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees
were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety
issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada
— a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and
Democrats from Nevada opposed.

When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring
that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections.

Bush’s statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy
specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the
possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws
that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program,
for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took
office.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in
executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ”the whole idea that there
is a rule of law,” because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks
are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

”Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of
the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that
he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already
on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional,” Golove
said.

Defying Supreme Court
Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive
branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme
Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such
arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of
Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade
Commission from political interference.

Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution
lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by
Congress might say.

In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent
statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational
research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ”without the
approval” of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute’s
director would be ”subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary
of education.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action
programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court
upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong
objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as
unconstitutional.

Yet despite the court’s rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine
times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among
recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out
the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ”in a manner consistent
with” the Constitution’s guarantee of ”equal protection” to all — which
some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action
provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites.

Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in
defiance of the Supreme Court’s precedents, he threatens to ”overturn the
existing structures of constitutional law.”

A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to
challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ”disappear.”

Common practice in ’80s
Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are
not unprecedented.

Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a
large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision
they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say,
presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any
concerns about it.

But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President
Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements.
The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that
signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president.

When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute’s
legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to
mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in
a signing statement might increase a president’s influence over future court
rulings.

Under Meese’s direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named
Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to
light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court.

In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president’s
attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ”the last word on questions of
interpretation.” He suggested that Reagan’s legal team should ”concentrate on
points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to
conflict with those of Congress.”

Reagan’s successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232
statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws
over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio
professor.

Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of
conflict between the president and Congress.

Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president — including
the current one — has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission
from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made
clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do
things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional
committees such a role.

Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto
instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill,
giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as
any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In
just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record
for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to
stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

”What we haven’t seen until this administration is the sheer number of
objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House,”
said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history.
”That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any
previous administration.”

Exaggerated fears?
Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush’s signing
statements are overblown. Bush’s signing statements, they say, should be seen as
little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are
dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives.

Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws
does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them.

Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that
Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ”withhold
information” in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring
the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in
foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its
website.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw
the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said
the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the
president is interpreting it.

”Nobody reads them,” said Goldsmith. ”They have no significance. Nothing
in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements
merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting
the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is
that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations.”

But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush’s
first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one
key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new
laws.

Lower-level officials will follow the president’s instructions even when his
understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting
policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said.

”Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn’t
look like the legislation,” he said.

And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the
administration is violating laws — or merely preserving the right to do so.

Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is
almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the
disclosure of Bush’s domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm
about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.

In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush’s contention that he
could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill’s principal
sponsors in the Senate — John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia,
and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina — all publicly rebuked the president.

”We believe the president understands Congress’s intent in passing, by very
large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees,” McCain
and Warner said in a joint statement. ”The Congress declined when asked by
administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions
included in our legislation.”

Added Graham: ”I do not believe that any political figure in the country
has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have
adopted or treaties that we have ratified.”

And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush’s contention that he
could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats
lodged complaints.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to ”cherry-pick the laws he decides
he wants to follow.”

And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of
Michigan — the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary
committees, respectively — sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law.

”Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee
of additional reporting and oversight,” they wrote. ”The administration
cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such
oversight. . . . Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound
by it.”

Lack of court review
Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on
Bush’s claims, legal specialists said.

The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush’s assertions, especially in
the secret realm of national security matters.

”There can’t be judicial review if nobody knows about it,” said Neil
Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the
Clinton administration. ”And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid
having their constitutional theories rebuked.”

Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too
far. But Bush’s fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown
limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their
party.

”The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they’re
not taking action because they don’t want to appear to be too critical of
the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are
all Republicans,” said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor.
”Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are
controlled by the same party.”

Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ”Bush has essentially
said that ‘We’re the executive branch and we’re going to carry this law out as
we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.’ “

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the
American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ”to
exercise some self-restraint.” But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of
his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

”This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own
constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the
country a democracy,” Fein said. ”There is no way for an independent judiciary
to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn’t doing it, either. So this
is moving us toward an unlimited executive power.”

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

_http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challen
ges_hundreds_of_laws/_
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)

American-politics… The e-group.

Archived Messages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American-politics/messages

Configure your subscription (get daily digest or individual emails):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American-politics/

If you see abuse and/or spam or anything else inappropriate, please contact yahoo abuse, or me at problems@billykess.com and one of us will look into it. NO SPAM, NO SLANDER, NO P0RN… common sense guidelines, please.

E-group founded by Billy Kess
http://www.billykess.com/

With special thanks to Proudliberal, macs_bac, Cricket, BUGS, EldridgeBeaver, fesman, Taximnjim, rtboot, and the many others who contribute and participate to make this a decent and active group. Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

————————————————————————
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

————————————————————————