Move On dot Org

The Democrat's Trojan Horse to control dissent

"Uncovered: (not quite) the whole truth about the Iraq war" - a film that doesn't even mention OIL as a motivation for the invasion

The Democratic Party wants Regime Rotation (dump Bush but keep Homeland Security and the War on Terror), not Regime Change


"Move On, a group that would support self immolation if the right Democrat asked them to."
Sam Smith
MARCH 27, 2009

from - April 2, 2008

MoveOn Pressure Democrats on Iraq? Dream on!
Source: The Guardian (UK), March 26, 2008

Two leading anti-war journalists are challenging MoveOn, one "of the most prominent anti-war voices," to turn its activism against Democratic Party presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Jeremy Scahill and Naomi Klein write, "We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders. ... While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it." But why would MoveOn pressure the Democrats when getting them elected is their number one priority? Blaming the Iraq war on the Republicans and avoiding criticism of Democrats has been MoveOn's strategy for years. MoveOn is now raising and spending millions of dollars to elect Barack Obama, but has made it clear it will support Clinton if she is the nominee. Furthermore, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes of Hildebrand Tewes Consulting simultaneously run MoveOn's anti-war coalition, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), while also employed by Obama as two of his top campaign officials. Tom Matzzie, previously the top lobbyist for MoveOn and AAEI, is trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the Campaign to Defend America, a new organization run by him and MoveOn's founder Wes Boyd to attack John McCain. Simply put, MoveOn refuses to pressure the Democrats because they are the Democrats.

update: In November 2004, Move On sent an alert to their multi-million member email list urging them to support a real investigation of the 2004 Stolen Election (a sign of independence from the Democratic Party) - however, this concern about stolen elections did not last long, and MoveOn did not do anything substantive to communicate that Bush and Cheney did not actually win the election.


The MoveOn phenomenon is essentially the Democratic Party's effort to expose enough scandal to replace Bush in November while keeping the most important policies (the War on Terror, Homeland Security) intact, albeit with a more palatable image. This may seem to be an excessively harsh conclusion to many who have put their faith in this organization, but the evidence to justify this accusation is considerable. Please take the time to read through this well-documented material and then contemplate what strategies would be needed to dump Bush as well as the policies of empire. Move On does not talk about how 9/11 was allowed to happened (and assisted) to provide the pretext.for the seizure of the Middle East oil fields and to impose the Homeland Security police state.


Links on this page:

Uncovered: (not quite) the Whole Truth about the Iraq War

CTSG - MoveOn's website programmers

Regime Rotation versus Regime Change

The Center for American Progress (co-sponsor of Uncovered) the "liberal, progressive" support for the war on terror

Move On and Impeachment - they want Congress to "censure" Bush (which is meaningless) not impeach Bush - MoveOn was founded to recommend that Congress "Censure" Clinton for lying about Monica and "MoveOn," so they want the same punishment for Clinton's lies about sex and Bush's lies about Iraq

Move On's Bush in 30 Seconds campaign - screens out 9/11 issue, apologizes to Republican Party for comparisons of Bush to the Nazis

Move On's Misleader.Org misleads on 9/11, Iraq and Homeland Security

List of interviewees in Move On's UNCOVERED film - A mix of genuine dissent and CIA duplicity

MoveOn in Thirty Seconds

MoveOn's film "Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq war" ignores the issues of oil, Peak Oil, war crimes, the plight of the Iraqi civilians and US troops, the PNAC plan for global conquest (which originated in the 1990s), and Bush's complicity in 9/11. The film urges peace activists to support the war on terror and is a curious mix of authentic dissent and CIA disinformation.

MoveOn also urges us to ask Congress to "censure" Bush for lying, which is a great way to undermine the grassroots initiatives for impeachment. Censure is not meaningful from a legal perspective - impeachment would have consequences. Plus, this is the same remedy that this group wanted for Clinton's lies about Monica, which suggests that MoveOn thinks that lying about adultery and deception used to start wars deserve the same punishment.

MoveOn is a great way to soak up activist money and energy with zero accountability. Their website does not reveal any phone numbers or physical addresses for this group. The flood of money sent to them is not translated into any grassroots organizing efforts, funding of investigative journalism or similar efforts that would have tangible results. Sending emails to Congress is pretty low on the list of effective tactics.

MoveOn will not touch the reason for the Iraq war - the fact that we are near, if not at, the peak of global oil production. Nor will MoveOn touch the issues of Bush's complicity with September 11 -- they still falsely claim that it was a surprise attack even though there is zero evidence for that and it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the kindest interpretation is that the Bush regime let the attacks happen. (It is more likely, but harder to prove, that the "attacks" were entirely a Bush administration staged event, with supporting roles from various foreign "intelligence" services - Britain, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia).

MoveOn is funded in large part by the multi-billionaire George Soros, who recently helped topple a government in the path of an oil pipeline that the US wants to control. See for details.



Late in 2003, the internet organization Move On and the Center for American Progress released the film "Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq war" with a simultaneous showing at more than 2,600 locations across the country. This film is a systematic deconstruction of many of the lies that were used to sell the Iraq war, using interviews with Administration whistleblowers, intelligence insiders, politicians and other officials. The film will probably be extremely effective in re-mobilizing the energy of the peace movement that had enormous demonstrations against the war into energy to supporting the Democratic presidential campaign.

Move On, however, is a curious paradox. The group is becoming very influential at mobilizing dissent. Move On is piggybacking on widespread disgust with Bush while seeking to carefully circumscribe the range of acceptable debate. It is also a sophisticated effort to ensure that this dissent does not probe too deep into the current realities of the Homeland Security States of America.

"Uncovered" did a great job in deconstructing some of the false claims by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. However, it also disseminated a number of other lies and blatant omissions.

This movie claims to be "the whole truth" about the Iraq war, but does not mention O I L as a motivation for the war. This raises some serious questions about the film's true purpose, especially since has a number of CIA agents who have tactical disagreements with Bush's approach but still support more wars for empire and oil domination. Perhaps "The internecine fight between the Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals over Bush's management of the War that Will Not End in Our Lifetime" would be a better title for the film. It is not the "the whole truth" about the Iraq war but instead has CIA agents staging "limited hang outs" (fessing up to small crimes to avoid the deeper scandals) that carefully avoids any of the core reasons for the war.

The best disinformation is mostly correct, since that makes the lies more palatable. This "anti-war" film which urges peace activists to support the "war on terror" is a phony opposition to the war.

The ONLY mention of O I L in "Uncovered"

DONALD RUMSFELD So the money’s going to come from Iraqi oil revenue as everyone has said. They think it’s going to be something like 2 billion dollars this year, they think it might be something like 15, 12 next year. They think it might be something like 18 to 20 plus the next, 19?
RUMSFELD -the next year.
GEORGE W. BUSH I will soon submit to Congress a request for 87 billion dollars.


The only other location in the film's transcript where the letters "o i l" are found together is:

JOE WILSON What you’re doing when you expose a CIA officer, of any name, you’re basically taking their entire career and flushing it down the toilet.

Moved on From the Struggle

by Anthony Arnove

March 20, 2009

On MARCH 2, the liberal organization for mobilizing opposition to the Bush administration through the Internet--sent an e-mail to its membership that declared the U.S. war on Iraq effectively over:

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm sure you've heard about President Obama's plan to finally bring an end to the disastrous war in Iraq. It will bring most of our troops home by August of next year--and by the end of 2011 there won't be any more troops left in Iraq. This is a major turning point in the fight to end the war.

We wanted to take a moment to reflect on the work that you've done over the last six, dark thank you, sincerely, for all you have done...

This war is coming to an end in part because of the work you did.

While the letter acknowledges that "our troops aren't home yet. Hundreds of thousands of them are still in harm's way, and will continue to be for longer than any of us would like," it says the bottom line is that "now there's a date certain for them to come home."

Reading this, I was reminded of the final line of Ernest Hemingway's novel The Sun Also Rises: "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

But MoveOn is not alone. Much of the antiwar movement has folded its tents. The Iraq war has more or less dropped out of popular consciousness altogether. And the media report less and less about the ongoing problems there.

So it's no surprise that the fine print of President Barack Obama's plan in Iraq has gone largely unexamined.

Rather than pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months, as most Obama voters understood his campaign pledge, the redeployment of forces from Iraq will proceed over a 19-month period and will be back-loaded to take place after December 2009. As the New York Times reported:

The plan would maintain relatively high troop levels through Iraq's parliamentary elections, to be held in December, before beginning in earnest to meet the August 2010 target for removing combat forces, the officials said. Even after August 2010, as many as 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq would remain, including some combat units reassigned as "Advisory Training Brigades" or "Advisory Assistance Brigades," the administration and Pentagon officials said.

Obama's plan says nothing about the private contractors and mercenaries that are an essential part of the occupation of Iraq, and whose numbers may even be increased to cover functions previously provided by active-duty troops. And it will leave in place the world's largest foreign embassy, as well as the largest CIA foreign station, in Baghdad.

Obama calls the troops who will stay in Iraq through the end of 2011 "residual forces" and non-combat troops, but this is just doublespeak. Combat troops are simply being renamed non-combat troops through a verbal sleight of hand, but will certainly be able to use lethal force and will find themselves in combat situations.

And in accepting the logic of the Bush administration for not withdrawing the troops immediately--that they are needed to fight al-Qaeda, engage in "counter-insurgency operations," and continue the "war on terror"--Obama has opened the door to keeping them in Iraq beyond 2011.

Indeed, in his speech about the Iraq "withdrawal" plan at the end of February, Obama retroactively endorsed the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq in the first place, as the Wall Street Journal gleefully noted.

We know that Iraq will remain under occupation until at least the end of 2011, but there is very good reason to believe that between now and then, the Iraqi government, which owes its survival to Washington, will cut a deal to allow U.S. forces to remain longer. Such an agreement would also likely give the U.S. long-term access to military bases and access to Iraqi air space.

The fact remains that Iraq is a fulcrum of geopolitics and a vital front for U.S. military strategy in the Middle East. Washington's goals for Iraq and the region may be less ambitious than when the Bush administration launched its 2003 invasion, but no one is reversing the fundamental policies driving U.S. policy: the goal of controlling the region's vast energy resources and being the hegemonic foreign power there.

MoveOn should be letting its members know this--and urging far more than to "keep watching Washington" to be sure they do bring the troops home. But to do this, the group would have to take on the Obama administration more forcefully on Iraq--and on the occupation of Afghanistan, which is intimately related.

Obama has said all along that he sees Afghanistan as the "central front" in the "war on terror," and that he would commit more troops to the war there. But Justin Ruben, MoveOn's new executive director, told Nation correspondent Ari Melber that the organization did not intend to oppose Obama's plan to send more troops to Afghanistan.

The message being sent to the antiwar movement is: It's over. We can "move on." Leave it to the generals to wind it down. But if we do that, we will find ourselves without the forces we need to challenge Obama and Congress.

The year 2011 is already too late to end the occupation of Iraq, which should never have started in the first place. And shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is not ending the war.

Without an antiwar movement that is loud, active, in the streets and raising its own independent demands beyond the limits set by the Democratic Party, U.S. troops will not be coming home.

The empire has not folded up its tent, and neither should we.

Note: Peak Oil and 9/11 complicity are also not in the "Uncovered" film. And the Christisons promoted the false "no plane crash" meme a few years after their critique of the Uncovered film.
December 13 / 14, 2003
Chickenhearts at Notre Dame
The Pervasive Fear of Talking About the Israeli Connection

[Uncovered] does a superb job in demonstrating how administration leaders from Bush to Cheney to Powell to Rumsfeld to Rice used the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as the main pretext to generate popular support in the U.S. for the war. The film is a high-quality production that everyone should see.
But--this piece of art is subtitled The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, and it by no means lives up to that billing. The reason is that the Israeli connection is nowhere mentioned. Once again, the subject is taboo.

Although the war was sold to Congress and the public on the basis of the WMD issue, many of us believed for months before the war that the actual reasons the Bush administration invaded Iraq were the U.S. drive for global domination, oil--and Israel.


published in Dissident Voice
Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
by Bill Christison August 14, 2006
ex CIA agent says most important evidence is the allegedly too small hole at the Pentagon and the demolition claims, urges readers to watch Loose Change, ignores the CIA's "plane into building" exercise during 9/11, the military war games and the suppressed warnings. has a good review of this strategy.


What is uncovered in "Uncovered"

The most amazing fact about Uncovered is that it did not even hint at OIL as a factor in the war. There was no mention of the economic battle between petro-dollars and petro-euros (Iraq had started selling its oil in Euros, which threatened to undermine the dollar). In the long run, the worst omission is the failure to discuss the fact that we are near, if not at, the peak of global oil production, since that is the reason the US has not designed an "exit strategy" -- the occupation (and eventual replacement by a puppet regime) will continue for the remaining decades of the Petroleum Era.

While a one hour film is obvious inadequate to discuss all of the aspects of a very complex issue, to avoid any mention of OIL as a motivation for the war raises serious questions about Move On and their allies (and their funders' political goals).

An obvious lie from the Bush regime that should have been included was the May 2003 claim that the war was over. Bush was flown to an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to be photographed in front of a banner stating "Mission Accomplished." This is probably the most ridiculous visual from the regime that could be pilloried as blatant propaganda.

Uncovered did not include any discussion of US war crimes against civilians and the military murder of journalists, nor did it discuss the Pentagon's use of uranium tipped weapons (euphemistically called "depleted uranium"), which will cause disease and death for generations to come. Dropping uranium weapons is a form of genocide (the Genocide convention prohibits "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group," and uranium weapons used in the 1991 Gulf War have already caused substantial numbers of severe birth defects among Iraqi children). US strategies against civilians resemble Israeli "collective punishment" waged against the Palestinian population - and it is well documented that the American and Israeli militaries are strategizing together to perfect the new occupation.


by Victor Rothman (vicrothman@

Robert Greenwald's new video, Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War, offers two types of insights. The first set of insights are related to what the video presents. The second set of insights are more important: what the video neglects to present despite its title of being the whole truth about the Iraq War. As we hope to show below, this video leaves most of the Iraq War story untold. Its highly selective history of the conflict is hardly an accident because Greenwald and the experts he interviewed need a version which suits their political objectives. They want to draw millions with anti-war views off the streets and couches, into the voting booth to vote against George Bush, and in support of the in-house, in the Beltway critics of the Bush-Cheney administration, especially if they come back to power through a Democratic president. ....

The video consists almost entirely of interviews with retired officials from the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department. The video itself was sponsored and is being widely circulated by, an organization created in the late 1990s to rally support for President Clinton when he was being impeached for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Recently the organization has been adopted by two billionaires, George Soros and Peter Lewis, both of whom recently donated $ 5 million each to it. With this enormous cash infusion the video, in combination with television ads, is being used as an organizing tool to build support for any Democratic candidate running against George Bush in the 2004 presidential election.
In the video, the intelligence veterans are sharply critical of the justifications given by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and Wolfowitz for the current US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The experts' outlook could be described as critical patriotism, with the video featuring several references to a Mark Twain quote of supporting your country all the time, but only its government when it is correct. By implication, then, their critique of the Bush administration is therefore an endorsement of the policies of Bush II's predecessors, in particular Bush I and Clinton, their former employers. In both cases the policies and practices of the previous administrations toward Iraq go unmentioned and uncriticized in the video, as does each expert's own rap sheet on Iraq during the same period.
Instead, their criticisms are entirely focused on the Bush administration and spoken with great technical authority. In reality, though, little of what the experts say is truly new. In fact, in the half year leading up to the US attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003, their points were previously made by many journalists, scholars, and activists through the anti-war media. The rebuttal of all the official arguments for the war, which these retired officials only made in mid and late 2003, during the occupation phase of the Iraq War, were widely distributed through the Internet, alternative press, and a few articles in mainstream publications during the last half of 2002 and early months of 2003. ....

After one hour, the viewer is left with a mystery: why did the entire US government, including both houses of Congress, and the corporate media, enthusiastically line up behind some extraordinarily foolish invasions and occupation plans and the summarily refuted arguments used to justify them. ....

Conclusion: When these eight omissions are pieced together, it is clear why George Soros and friends want to so extensively support and promote the wide distribution of Robert Greenwald's Iraq war video. Soros, Greenwald, and their kindred spirits among liberal financiers know that the Iraq War is a fiasco and could entirely undermine US imperialist initiatives through out the world. They want "preemptive intervention" to make sure that the anti-Iraq war movement does not revive under left-wing, anti-imperialist leadership in response to the escalation of both the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi resistance. More to the point, through and this video, Soros and Lewis want to make sure that the those critical of the war and sympathetic with the anti-war movement stay firmly wedded to electoral politics and the soft, feel good multilateral militarism of the Democratic Party -- despite its despicable record on Iraq and the greater Middle East. ....


Lies in Uncovered

The most blatant lie perpetuated in Uncovered is that peace activists should support the war on terror (as opposed to the supposedly separate invasion of Iraq). This is a very curious position for a "peace" organization to advocate, because (1) the "war on terror" is based on the false claim that 9/11 was a surprise attack and (2) the "terror" war and the invasion of Iraq are part of the same global domination strategy. See for more on this connection.

Canadian journalist and media commentator Barrie Zwicker, whose film The Great Deception is the single best documentary on 9/11, made these comments on April 21, 2003 at premier showing of "Aftermath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11," San Francisco, CA -


My offering is that 9/11 was what the anarchist Bakunin called "the propaganda of the act." That it was "Reichstag Fire 2001." That it was the greatest deception of its kind ever foisted. And that's saying something, in light of the long and totally-neglected history of this kind of war-triggering deception perpetrated by powerful special interests to sway public opinion in favour of deadly agendas that almost always result in serious grief for just about everyone.
My offering is that 9/11 was arranged to jump start the so-called war on terrorism, which in turn is the cover and heat exchanger for hot wars, these being the toxic tip of the machinery for world domination. At the levers is a clique of neocons that has hijacked this country's foreign policy at the behest largely and to the benefit mainly of Big Arms and Big Oil, with the rest of the worst at the top, giving the thumbs-up and boarding the gravy train.

Obviously, Move On wants the peace movement to "Move On" from allegations that Bush let 9/11 happen, or worse, was complicit in the attacks.

Move On claims that the Bush administration decision to invade Iraq was made after 9/11. In reality, the Bush administration made up its mind to seize Iraq before they stole the White House. "Rebuilding Ameirca's Defenses," a September 2000 report from the Project for a New American Century -- essentially the blueprint for the current wars -- stated that the US should attack Iraq and occupy the Middle East, even if Saddam Hussein was deposed.

Iraq is a critical part of the PNAC plan for world conquest, and the main question now is which country will be the next target. Will it be Iran or North Korea (the other member of the so-called "Axis of Evil"), Syria (perhaps the preferred target of Israel), or Saudi Arabia (the only country that still has spare capacity to increase daily oil extraction rates, which have become more critical as a resource now that the world has arrived at Peak Oil, Iraqi oil production is a shambles and the hoped for Saudi-sized oil riches of Central Asia now seem to have been exaggerated by about 80%).

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. ...
In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces or simply asserting political influence abroad, particularly in times of crisis, will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland or the territory of our allies is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a miniscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence.
-- Project for a New American Century, September 2000


The PNAC report, which was signed by many of the top officials of the Bush regime, also made this bold prediction exactly a year before 9/11:

"The process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." - PNAC, September 2000

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who serves in the Carter, Reagan and Bush (the First) administrations, wrote a book in 1997 titled "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives"that stated that the US should control the world, and to do that would require controlling Eurasia. This goal would give the US control over most of the world's energy reserves, and it predicted that the US would be engaged in war precisely where we have embarked on World War. However, he knew that this task would not be universally popular, as shown by this conclusion:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." - Brzezinski, 1997

Brzezinski still has considerable influence in both imperial political parties, and his book is one of many pieces of evidence that the establishment has planned the takeover of the Middle East oil fields for a long time. 9/11 merely provided the political pretext and the psychological shock to permit these invasions to take place.

Uncovered echoed the tired, false official claims that 9/11 was a surprise attack. While Move On's "" division has published a report that shows that the Bush administration did have some prior knowledge of the "attack," that report still doesn't go beyond the "incompetence" theory of 9/11. They don't dare hint that the Bush regime let 9/11 happen to gain the pretext to seize Middle East oil fields. Discussion of whether Bush's assistants were lying when they claimed that they couldn't have envisioned a plane-into-building scenario are a distraction from deeper, more compelling evidence of complicity, especially since the CIA and National Reconnaissance Office were practicing a plane-into-building emergency exercise in Virginia on the morning of 9/11.


A much better film about US / Iraq relations
Hidden Wars of Desert Storm -- official site for the film

Acclaimed by the NY Times as an "uncommonly sober, well-researched film", "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm" investigates the origins of the Gulf War, explains the US Gov.'s specific motives in going at war in 1991 and exposes the mechanisms of war-profiteering that seem destined to shape US foreign policies time after time. The doc also covers the Pentagon's use of radioactive ammunitions in the Gulf and their impact on both the local populations and allied forces.
Find out today why this incredible, award-winning documentary has been shown and acclaimed in well over 30 countries including all of Europe but has been forcefully shuned by all the US mainstream media. Featuring exclusive interviews of Norman Schwarzkopf, Ramsey Clark, Denis Haliday and Scott Ritter as well as unseen before war footage and documents. Narrated by John Hurt. (60 minutes) $19.95 + s&h


Carol / Trevelyan Strategy Group (CTSG)

If you place an on-line order for a copy of Uncovered at the official website, your order will be processed by, a website run by the consulting firm Carol / Trevelyan Strategy Group. CTSG is a Democratic party affiliated consulting firm that has dozens of computer programmers who craft websites for MoveOn and a number of other moderate opposition groups.

Dan Carol, one of the firm's principals, wrote a column with the strange title of "Kumbaya, Dammit." This title supposedly shows that liberals who want to harmonize together for world peace are also angry enough to be politically effective. (The oilempire webmaster thinks that this is one of the worst titles for any article, ever.) These columns were published in the Eugene Weekly (CTSG has offices in Washington, San Francisco and Eugene, Oregon). They are written in a style to be very "hip" yet generally shy away from specifics of the crisis of empire versus democracy that we face as a society and as a species. (the marketing of "cool" as a distraction from investigative journalism).

Carol's December 4, 2003 column shows the severe limitations of official Democratic party dissent. Titled "Bush's X-Files," it purports to discuss Bush's big scandals but carefully avoided discussing the details. Three examples:

There's seldom a presidential campaign where the hint of scandal is not in the air. Next year is no exception. But how often do these scandals actually affect the outcome of the election? In truth, not that often.
Look at recent history: Iran-Contra had no affect on George Bush the Elder's 1988 victory; nor did the Whitewater mess hurt Clinton in 1992 or 1996.
As for Watergate? The June 1972 Watergate break-in brought down Nixon — but that was in 1974 after he was elected. It wasn't a defining issue at all in the 1972 presidential race against McGovern.


In reality, Iran-Contra had no impact on Bush the First's 1988 election because the Democrats chose to let Bush get away with the crimes. The Democrats chose an investigatory committee that was overwhelmingly in favor of Bush's illegal terror war on Nicaragua, and refused to discuss the more outrageous aspects of the scandal -- the CIA's drug running to pay for the Contra war, the plans for domestic internment camps if there were massive protests to a US invasion of Nicaragua, and the 1980 "October Surprise" deal between Bush and the Iranian government to DELAY the release of the US hostages until after the Reagan / Carter election. In the case of the contra cocaine scandal, the only time this was asked as a question during the Iran-Contra hearings was by a audience member who yelled at Oliver North "Ask him about the cocaine!" (The police arrested him, and he served more time in jail than North ever did.) The interment camps and martial law was touched on by Rep. Jack Brooks, who was muzzled by the committee chair Senator Inouye (the transcript is at

If the Democrats had dared to discuss any of these aspects of the scandal, Reagan would have been impeached and George W. Bush would not have ever become a public figure.

As for "Whitewater" not impeding Clinton's elections, the awful truth is that there were too many Republicans tied up in that scandal for Clinton to be selectively prosecuted. Whitewater was often a code word for the deeper scandal of the cocaine smuggling through Mena, Arkansas during the 1980s Contra war, a scandal that was ultimately directed by then Vice President George H.W. Bush. Some analysts charge that Clinton's complicity in that scandal (providing political cover) was used by the elite as a form of blackmail during his Presidency, ensuring that he would follow orders from the financial interests who run the country (GOD: Guns, Oil and Drugs).

Carol continues with a discussion of the touch-screen vote machine scandal, and urges

See for the full scoop — and tell all your friends who vote by computer next year to save (or get) a hard copy.

As discussed at - saving a "hard copy" print out of your vote would only present the illusion of honesty in the vote counting. If every voter were given a receipt for their vote, this would not solve anything other than the poor image these machines are getting, since the receipts would not be counted to determine the elections! A much better piece of advice would be to urge citizens to demand the rejection of these phony machines altogether, since if paper trails (whether as receipts or collected by election officials) are still needed to ensure accurate outcomes, then the obvious solution would be to merely use pen and paper and count the ballots by hand, and not use the touch screen machines at all.

The most duplicitous aspect of the column is the focus on 9/11.

This is a toughie. There's a lot of smoke over whether President Bush was warned in his Daily Intelligence Briefing about the hijackings in July, 2001. At this writing, several congressional investigations and commissions are hard at work on this matter and may prove that the president could have done more to stop 9/11 from happening. Is this sin of omission on 9/11 as big a deal as Bush's many sins of commission by hyping us into the current mess in Baghdad? While an important historical matter, I seriously doubt that the election will swing on what the president did before 9/11 (after all, Bush folks can just say that Clinton let Osama run wild on his watch). The election will be a referendum, however, on what Bush has done since 9/11 to make the world a safer place.

It's surprising, perhaps, that a consulting firm intimately tied to the Democratic Party political establishment that has dozens of employees would get this so wrong. At the time of that writing, there is only ONE commission that is supposedly investigating 9/11 -- and that entity is a 21st century update of the "Warren Commission" that covered up the coup d'etat against President Kennedy. See for details.

The claim that maybe Bush could have "done more" to stop 9/11 is like saying that the Nazis could have "done more" to stop the Reichstag Fire if they had had better policing ... Gov. Kean's focus on investigating 9/11 as an "intelligence failure" is part of the cover-up, and he has already floated the concept of setting up a new domestic spy agency to further accelerate the surveillance society as the "solution" to ensure there is not a repeat of 9/11. September 11 was not an intelligence failure, it was an intelligence crime!


On a slightly more positive note, CTSG is promoting something called the Apollo Alliance, an effort to unite unions and environmental groups to advocate for renewable energy as an employment strategy and environmental benefit. This is certainly a good thing (oilempire is published on a computer that is largely fed with renewable solar electricity) but the advocacy for this effort is a strange mix of "youth culture" hip-ness and naivete about the magnitude of the energy crisis.
Fortunately, there's a new project called The Apollo Alliance that's baking up a tasty new recipe for clean energy, national security and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Imagine spending serious money — like George Bush does for tax cut trillions and Halliburton handouts — on an ambitious 10-year, $300 billion effort for sustainable jobs, cleaner manufacturing, youth and urban apprenticeships and smarter transportation. The program pays for itself with jobs and greater energy independence in U.S. exports. Revitalizes the U.S. manufacturing base. Creates three million jobs. Heals labor vs. environmental grouchiness over Arctic drilling. Fuels the hopeful, can-do spirit that put America on the moon. And maybe even inspires the right kind of patriotism.
So what's not to like? In polls, the Apollo initiative is testing off the charts with Joe Six-Pack voters — the voting block we need to win crucial Rust Belt states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan in 2004. On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidates are offering dueling Apollo-type policy plans. Across the country, high-tech and environmental leaders like the Sierra Club's Carl Pope are also joining 17 major unions in saying yes to the Apollo approach.

The literature from "Apollo" suggests that solar and wind will lead the country to "energy independence." While this rhetoric is laudable, the math behind it gets an F.

This initiative would do very little to gain us "freedom from imported oil."

Spending billions on solar panels and wind mills would reduce, somewhat, our burning of domestic coal and natural gas (the latter is running out faster than petroleum). It would do very little to reduce our consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel. It is unlikely that we will ever have solar powered airplanes, aircraft carriers and Safeway food delivery trucks. (The "hydrogen economy" answer for this is a joke - hydrogen is not a source of energy, merely a carrier of it - and would require truly massive investments in solar panels to replace not only most of the entire grid, but a doubled effort on top of that to build the solar panels to generate all the hydrogen and then an entire new energy / transportation infrastructure to replace what's been built in the last century, all at a time when depleting petroleum and natural gas will limit the ability of our society to do these things.)

The preferred candidate of the MoveOn crowd, Howard Dean, had a position paper that recommends 20% renewable energy by the year 2020. However, by that date, oil extraction outside the Islamic world will largely be over, natural gas in North America will be on the way out, and there will be nearly two billion more people clamoring for food grown with intensive energy inputs. In other words, the scale of the needed mobilization dwarfs even these proposals. It is likely that the 20% by 2020 goal was based on rhetoric sloganeering that had nice alliteration (20/20/20), not any detailed examination of energy issues. How can this canned advertising public relations be sufficient to transform the "Titanic" into a renewable energy society that will survive and thrive past the era of oil?

Solar, wind, biomass and other technologies could only make the US achieve "energy independence" if Americans were to radically reduce energy consumption. These steps would include

Peak oil will radically change human civilization. Ignoring it as an issue -- until the panic sets in -- means that careful planing to cope with the crises and to use some of the oil as a "bridge" toward a more local, lower energy sustainable society is less likely.


Online Journal editorial

Thursday, February 12, 2004
In whose interests is MoveOn working? 

As this year's Super Bowl approached and CBS still refused to run MoveOn's "Child's Pay" commercial, MoveOn came up with the wimpy idea for a one-minute viewer boycott during the game's half-time, as a way of punishing CBS for its censorship, rather than calling for a boycott of the whole game.
After all, said a MoveOn supporter, people would be more likely to go along with a one-minute boycott than a boycott of the whole game. Translated that means a football game is more important than a tiny step toward letting the corporations know we are going to fight back.
Oh yeah, that worked so well that if anyone turned off Super Bowl for the prescribed minute, CBS didn't notice. Instead, the talk was all about Janet Jackson and an exposed breast.
To compound its fuzzy thinking, MoveOn is now back to where it started, when it called for censuring Bill Clinton and moving on. This time, it is calling for Congress to censure George W. Bush.
Where in the constitution is the provision for censuring a president -- elected or unelected?
Under the constitution, each house of Congress has the right to make its own rules regarding members' behavior, which means the houses can censure members for inappropriate or unethical conduct; even go so far as to expel a member.
Congress, though, has no constitutional right to censure a president -- an argument we made when MoveOn was calling for the censure of Clinton. The only constitutional provision for dealing with a president alleged to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is by impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.
There is more than enough to draw a bill of impeachment against Bush, given that the evidence suggests he either was complicit in or had foreknowledge of Sept. 11, 2001; that he blatantly lied to the American people, Congress and the world in order to wage an illegal war on Iraq; that he bribed nations into becoming part of his Iraq war's "coalition of the willing;" that he or his subordinate illegally told some six reporters that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative; that he has been complicit in keeping from the American people who was involved with Dick Cheney in drawing up a national energy policy; that he has bankrupted the country with his tax cuts and "wars;" that he may have covered up a criminal record that goes beyond one DUI, two pranks while in college and the killing of an endangered species bird; and that he may have deserted the Texas Air National Guard.
After being handed the presidency by the US Supreme Court, Bush has violated the oath he took to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by taking unto himself powers the constitution does not give a president; by violating the separation of church and state; by signing the USA PATRIOT Act and creating the Department of Homeland Security, thusly curbing the people's rights of free speech and assembly, and their rights to privacy; by setting up First Amendment Zones into which peaceful protesters and peace advocates are herded so he doesn't have to see or hear them. Moreover, his bogus "war on terror" has made us less secure, not more.
Why then is MoveOn calling for, as they say in spookville, a limited hangout: censure? Yet, the gullible keep pouring their money into MoveOn at the expense of the real journalists who are working to get back the country. Is feel good all that matters?
Yes, MoveOn has gotten some excellent issue commercials on television. Since the presidential election isn't until November, might it have been premature in airing them now or does it plan to keep extracting money from its followers to keep the commercials on the air?
The pie is only so big, so more money for MoveOn means less money for journalists laboring to shed light on the truth.
It is hard these days to separate the good guys from the bad, so one must keep in mind hidden agendas.


Regime Rotation

MoveOn is a core part of the Democratic party wing of the establishment to co-opt and muzzle dissent, an effort to support the CIA's fight with the Bush administration to ensure that dissent stays limited enough to ensure "regime rotation" instead of "regime change" in November.

Regime Rotation consists of unseating Bush but replacing him with another President who will continue the empire's global domination efforts, although with more tact, better speeches and a few token distractions for domestic and international opinion increasingly opposed to the Bush regime's outrages.

Regime Rotation exposes the war on Iraq as a deception, but not the September 11 "Reichstag Fire." Regime rotation recommends that 9/11 be seen as a result of incompetence and / or lack of coordination by the intelligence agencies (which only need more billions and less restrictions to ensure it won't happen again), even though there is an enormous amount of evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job."

Regime Rotation wants to keep the occupation of Iraq going. The three main opposition candidates - Clark, Dean and Kerry - all support keeping troops in the oil fields, although they state that the invasion was a mistake. A Democratic victory in November would allow Bush and the Project for a New American Century "neo-conservatives" to have done the dirty work getting the oil wars going (and "homeland security" to be installed for addressing domestic dissent as the economy continues to unravel), and allow the "Good Cop" of a Democrat to continue the war with less domestic opposition, UN blessing and European money and soldiers. These oil wars are the United States's response to Peak Oil, and will continue as long as the oil lasts (Cheney calls it the war that will not end in our lifetime) or until the US is willing to undertake a massive reduction of energy consumption and investment of resources into a more locally based, renewable energy society.


"we are witnessing a sequential war to control the largest reserves on a planet that is running out of oil."
- Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil"
July 1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW) -- Let's just suppose for a moment that George W. Bush was removed from the White House. Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rove too. What would that leave us with? It would leave us stuck in hugely expensive, Vietnam-like guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would leave us with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and Total Information Awareness snooping into every detail of our lives. It would leave us with a government in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution. It would leave us with a massive cover-up of US complicity in the attacks of 9/11 that, if fully admitted, would show not intelligence "failures" but intelligence crimes, approved and ordered by the most powerful people in the country. It would leave us with a government that now has the power to compel mass vaccinations on pain of imprisonment or fine, and with no legal ability to sue the vaccine makers who killed our friends or our children. It would leave us with two and half million unemployed; the largest budget deficits in history; more than $3.3 trillion missing from the Department of Defense; and state and local governments broke to the point of having to cut back essential services like sewers, police, and fire. It would leave us with a federal government that had hit the debt ceiling and was unable to borrow any more money. And we would still be facing a looming natural gas crisis of unimagined proportions, and living on a planet that is slowly realizing that it is running out of oil with no "Plan B". Our airports however, would be very safe, and shares of Halliburton, Lockheed and DynCorp would be paying excellent dividends.
This is not good management.
Leaving all of these issues unaddressed is not good management either.
And this is why, as I will demonstrate in this article, the decision has already been made by corporate and financial powers to remove George W. Bush, whether he wants to leave or not, and whether he steals the next election or not. Before you start cheering, ask yourself three questions: "If there is someone or something that can decide that Bush will not return, nor remain for long, what is it? And if that thing is powerful enough to remove Bush, was it not also powerful enough to have put him there in the first place? And if that is the case, then isn't that what's really responsible for the state of things? George W. Bush is just a hired CEO who is about to be removed by the "Board of Directors". Who are they? Are they going to choose his replacement? Are you going to help them?
What can change this Board of Directors and the way the "Corporation" protects its interests? These are the only issues that matter.
So now the honest question about the 2004 Presidential campaign is, "What do you really want out of it?" Do you want the illusion that everything is a little better while it really gets worse? Or are you ready yet to roll up your sleeves and make some very unpleasant but necessary fixes?
The greatest test of the 2004 presidential election campaign is not with the candidates. It is with the people. There are strong signs that presidential election issues on the Democratic side are already being manipulated by corporate and financial interests. And some naïve and well-intentioned (and some not-so-naïve and not-so-well intentioned) activists are already playing right into the Board's hands. There are many disturbing signs that the only choice offered to the American people will be no choice at all. Under the psychological rationale, "This is the way it has to be done", campaign debates will likely address only half-truths and fail to come to grips with - or even acknowledge - the most important issues that I just described. In fact, only the least important issues will likely be addressed in campaign 2004 at the usual expense of future generations who are rapidly realizing that they are about to become the victims of the biggest Holocaust in mankind's history. The final platforms for Election 2004 will likely be manifestos of madness unless we dictate differently.
Some on the Democratic side are already positioning themselves to co-opt and control what happened on 9/11 into a softer, less disturbing "Better this than nothing" strategy. This attitude, that the only thing that matters is finding an electable Democrat, is nothing more than a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has everyone suddenly forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen: first by using software and political machinery to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters, then by open interference at polling places, and finally by an absolutely illegal Supreme Court decision? Do these people believe that such a crime, absolutely successful the first time, will never be attempted again?
And has everyone also forgotten that in the 2002 midterm elections the proprietary voting software, in many cases owned by those affiliated with the Republican Party or - as in the case of Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - the candidates themselves, has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be immune from public inspection. (Hagel won by a lopsided 83% majority). Throughout the United States in 2002 there was abundant evidence that the so-called "solution" to hanging chads did nothing more than enshrine the ability to steal elections with immunity and also much less fuss afterwards? Who in their right mind would trust such a system? Why have none of the candidates mentioned it?
And, if all else fails, we can have more Wellstone plane crashes. It has worked with three Democratic Senate candidates in key races over the last thirty years. Maybe that's why no one in Congress is talking about the election process. Plane crashes are part of that process too.
Unless people find the will to address scandals, lies, and betrayals of trust that, by their very existence, reveal that the system itself is corrupt and that the people controlling it - both in government, and in America's corporations and financial institutions -- are criminals, there is no chance to make anything better, only an absolute certainty that things will get worse. ....

Unless people find the will to address scandals, lies, and betrayals of trust that, by their very existence, reveal that the system itself is corrupt and that the people controlling it - both in government, and in America's corporations and financial institutions -- are criminals, there is no chance to make anything better, only an absolute certainty that things will get worse. ....
There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.


The Center for American Progress

This group, which co-sponsored the "Uncovered" film, is a Democratic party think tank in Washington, DC. Its website - - shows carefully nuanced support for the "War on Terror," the Homeland Security" scare system, and other pillars of the new world war.
"In a world of unprecedented threats, the Center for American Progress encourages policies that protect the American people and further our national interests.  We promote the need for a strong, smart military and believe that America must safeguard its homeland, fight terrorism and take on threats that know no borders.  And we believe that America’s interests are advanced when we strengthen alliances and work with multilateral institutions that support the rule of law."

In other words, we want to continue the "War on Terror" but we would prefer it if we could get Europe to help shoulder the burden for troops and the cost of occupying the Mideast oil fields.

CAP "senior fellow"  P.J. Crowley, a Clinton administration military official, wrote a January 6, 2004 article titled "Code Orange" that accepted most of the core paradigms used by the Bush administration's psychological terror campaign against the American public. It does have some limited criticisms of Bush's "Homeland Security" program, claiming that we're not spending enough on it, that we are not yet screening every visitor to the country, and does not even hint at any possibilities that even some of the "Terror" alerts could be an effort to dominate the public consciousness, especially in an election year.

Comparing this column at and Orange Code Terror Alert based on Fabricated Intelligence by Michel Chossudovsky at is like reading about parallel universes. Considering the long history of deception and staged terror to panic populations into supporting war, any legitimate investigation would include the volume of evidence that suggests that these tactics are at the core of the 9/11 story.

CAP's December 16, 2003 page about the "Status of al-Qaeda" completely supports the official Bush administration view There is not any mention of how al-Qaeda's predecessor was established by the CIA and Pakistani intelligence, and that the US has worked with al-Qaeda for many years, including in Kosovo during the war in former Yugoslavia. See for more on that. Michel Chossudovsky states that al-Qaeda is essentially an "intelligence asset," an organization that performs certain useful tasks despite not being pro-American.

CAP endorses the Homeland Security surveillance system that is photographing and fingerprinting foreign arrivals at US airports, and their complaints about the program focus on the incompleteness of the effort. While they have some civil liberties concerns about this, they don't make the most obvious comment that this policy is a step toward a totalitarian surveillance society where "biometric" screening will be needed for travel.

"Only the first phase of US VISIT has been implemented, leaving substantial vulnerabilities at our borders"
Introduction of US VISIT Program
January 7, 2004

CAP's views on civil liberties are schizophrenic - the "war on terror" is the root cause of the decimation of domestic liberties underway since 9/11 (and before that excuse was perpetrated). Undoing this assault is unlikely to happen without a full exposure of the deepest, ugliest truths of 9/11 complicity.

"The Bush administration has done an impressive job of showing the world what we’re against, but has been far less adept at showing the world what we’re for. Protecting and defending America’s security cannot be just about fighting evil or killing our enemies. It must also be about protecting and defending fundamental rights."
Standing Up for Human Rights
December 10, 2003

Their manifesto Progressivism in 2004: Transcending the Liberal-Conservative Divide by John Halpin, January 5, 2004 gives "progressive" a bad name. They suggest that "progressives" support the "war on terror" -- and therefore, support the Bush administration view that 9/11 was actually a surprise attack, even though there is not any credible evidence to justify that theory.

"Progressives do not cede ground on patriotism or protecting the American people. In this sense, we view the fight against terrorism much as we did those against Nazism, fascism and totalitarianism – American battles that are not the monopoly of any particular ideology or political party. Progressive leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy fought to make the world safe for democracy, and progressives are there today to defend America against on-going terrorist threats."

It's probably too much to ask CAP to discuss how President Kennedy tried to stop the war machine during his final year in office (after the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly erupted into full scale nuclear war) and was murdered by the military and CIA. The Democratic Party has been a shadow organization ever since, and now seems destined for permanent minority status.


Move On vs. Impeachment

Move On was founded by wealthy Silicon Valley Democrats as a Clinton support group during his impeachment in 1998. Move On meant "Censure and Move On," urging an end to the Republican's impeachment campaign for the President's lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate, so he was allowed to serve out his second term.

This approach -- to impeach on the less serious charges and ignore the more serious crimes -- was used in both Clinton's impeachment and the threatened impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974. Clinton's crimes included much deeper issues than Monica - his involvement as Governor in the Iran-Contra scandal (helping to coverup the CIA's use of the Mena, Arkansas airport to smuggle cocaine to fund the contra war) would have been a much more important prosecution. And Nixon was slated to be impeached for lying, burglary and obstruction in the Watergate scandal, but an Impeachment resolution for his illegal bombing of Cambodia was not voted on favorably by the House Judiciary Committee. In other words, Nixon, if he hadn't resigned to avoid impeachment, would have been impeached forWatergate but not for mass murder.

In scandal after scandal, this is how the American empire has managed the crises -- the "limited hang out" (fessing up to a small crime to avoid looking at the deeper crimes). See for several articles that address "Limited Hang Outs" in the context of 9/11.


Move On seems to be uninterested in efforts to support the impeachment of the Bush administration, even though their two million email contacts could be very effective at elevated the concept of (and reasons for) impeachment if they dared to discuss it. This hesitation parallels the reluctance of the Democratic party to support efforts to impeach Reagan (in 1987 for Iran-Contra) and Bush the First (in 1991 for preparing the Iraq war without Congressional approval). In those cases, the late Representative Henry Gonzalez (D-TX) filed impeachment resolutions but could not find a single co-sponsor. Why are the Democrats so allergic to impeachment? Is it because they fear the covert power of the military / intelligence complex?

In February 2004, MoveOn announced a new campaign urging Congress to "Censure" Bush. This watered down campaign is very instructive about the means being used to limit dissent.

Censuring Bush is meaningless. Impeachment has legal consequence.

MoveOn is using its wealth to undermine the grassroots campaigns for Impeachment.

"Censure and MoveOn" was the original campaign from this group, in support of Clinton (who was to be impeached for lying about Monica - which was NOT the big crime that he did). Apparently, MoveOn thinks that Bush should receive the same reprimand from Congress that they wanted for Clinton for lying about sex.

MoveOn's sabotage of the grassroots impeachment efforts (at the time that the Berkeley, CA City Council was considering a vote to urge impeachment) fits with their overall strategy to expose scandal to replace Bush with Bush-lite (Kerry?) but not to actually interfere too much with what the empire is doing. This is a reason why the world's 28th richest person (George Soros) has adopted MoveOn as a pet cause - if they dared to challenge the reasons for the war (anything beyond "Bush Lied") they wouldn't get Soros money. If they addressed any of the issues about Bush's 9/11 complicity, Peak Oil, war crimes in Iraq, etc. - they would have a tremendous impact toward making a better society, but it is unlikely that they would dare to do this.

If MoveOn really thinks that Bush doesn't deserve impeachment for the WMD lies (let alone the bigger lies of 9/11), then they should campaign to remove the process of impeachment from the Constitution.

The "Censure" campaign notes that the new inquiry established by Bush to determine the truth of the "WMD" scandal is bogus but they don't dare say that the National Commission on the Terror Attacks (9/11) is also bogus. Even Fortune magazine has published an article (copied from a conspiracy internet site without acknowledgement) that the 9/11 commission is chaired by a business partner of Osama's brother in law.



What Clinton should have been impeached for

Barry and the Boys, a book by former NBC journalist Daniel Hopsicker, is an authoritative account of this chapter in American history. Highest recommendations. It chronicles Barry Seal's career in the CIA from the 1960s (recruited by David Ferrie, a participant in the assassination of JFK), to his smuggling of large amounts of cocaine (through the Mena, Arkansas airport) that helped fund the "Contra" war of the 1980s.

Barry Seal's attorney - Richard Ben-Veniste - is now a Democratic commissioner on the official 9/11 investigation. Ben-Veniste was a Democratic congressional staffer during the Clinton impeachment scandal, where he helped keep that investigation focused on Monica and not on Mena.

This article was originally written for publication in the Washington Post. After clearing the legal department for inaccurate statements and scheduled for press, Washington Post Managing Editor Bob Kaiser killed the article without explanation. This story is an investigative report into events that haunt the activities of three presidents: Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. ...

The Crimes of Mena
by Sally Denton and Roger Morris
July 1995

Barry Seal -- gunrunner, drug trafficker, and covert C.I.A. operative extraordinaire -- is hardly a familiar name in American politics. But nine years after he was murdered in a hail of bullets by Medellin cartel hit men outside a Salvation Army shelter in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, he has come back to haunt the reputations of three American presidents.
Seal's legacy includes more than 2,000 newly discovered documents that now verify and quantify much of what previously had been only suspicion, conjecture, and legend. The documents confirm that from 1981 to his brutal death in 1986, Barry Seal carried on one of the most lucrative, extensive, and brazen operations in the history of the international drug trade, and that he did it with the evident complicity, if not collusion, of elements of the United States government, apparently with the acquiescence of Ronald Reagan's administration, impunity from any subsequent exposure by George Bush's administration, and under the usually acute political nose of then Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.
Don't stop at Waco, Asa By Mara Leveritt September 03, 1999
(about former Republican congressman Asa Hutchinson's involvement in Mena - he is now a top official in the Homeland Security)
A selective passion for truth
By Mara Leveritt Feb. 12, 1999
Last week I suggested that, rather than probing ad nauseum the president's lies about his extra-marital alliance(s), Washington could do us a favor by turning its investigative lights onto a question with some genuine national significance, to wit:
Precisely what was the relationship between various branches of the government, particularly the CIA, and this country's super-cocaine kingpins, such as Arkansas's own Barry Seal, during the 1980s?

The column did not exactly provoke a stampede to pick up the gauntlet. As I had outlined, there are powerful, bipartisan reasons why the questions about Seal have languished.
Republicans don't want to touch them for fear of where the answers might lead. The trail already points to the offices of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
Likewise, Democrats are not keen on kicking up a lot of dirt about Barry Seal, a major cocaine smuggler who, for reasons that remain a mystery, was allowed to base his multi-million-dollar operation in Arkansas, under the very eye of the Arkansas State Police, for four years while Bill Clinton was governor.
What did happen after that column appeared was that a reader called to remind me of the role played in the Seal saga by our own Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, the House manager who has been lately so aggressive in his prosecution of Clinton in the Senate.
Having listened to Hutchinson expound repeatedly on his desire only to get at "the truth" of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, I am struck (as was my caller) by how remarkably unaggressive he was -- in fact, how surprisingly hands-off he was -- back in the 1980s when, as the U.S. attorney for western Arkansas, Hutchinson had the chance to prosecute Seal, the smuggler.
We now know that during the time that Seal headquartered his operation at Mena he was being watched by U.S. Customs officials, as well as by agents for the DEA, the FBI, and the IRS. Former IRS agent William Duncan has testified that Hutchinson, who was among the first to know of Seal's arrival in Arkansas, called a meeting in early 1983, at which Duncan was assigned to investigate Seal's suspected money laundering. Duncan did, and he tried to have members of Seal's gang indicted.
But when the IRS investigator asked Hutchinson to subpoena 20 witnesses who were prepared to testify about the alleged drug-trafficking at Mena, Hutchinson balked. Only three of the 20 were called, and of those, two later complained that they had not been allowed to present their evidence to the federal grand jury. The grand jury never indicted Seal or anyone else involved with him at Mena.
In 1991, five years after Seal was murdered, Duncan testified about his experience. "Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the investigation in and around the Mena airport of money laundering was covered up by the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas," he was asked. "It was covered up," he said.
Since then, I have spoken with Paul Whitmore, a former Chief of Criminal Investigation for the IRS, who was Duncan's superior. He oversaw the Seal investigation and concurs with Duncan's assessment that presentation of Duncan's evidence was blocked by Hutchinson's office.
At the time, and to this day, however, Hutchinson has cast himself as an anti-drug crusader. In light of that, I wrote to him after his election to Congress. I explained that I have had a Freedom of Information request pertaining to Barry Seal before the FBI for several years -- a request that the FBI has acknowledged should have been filled a long time ago. In light of that, I asked Hutchinson if he would intercede on my behalf to get the records released.
I was curious as to how hard Hutchinson would work to bring to light public records about a politically sensitive investigation in which he had played a significant part. As it turned out, he was not helpful at all. He replied that he had contacted the FBI concerning my request and that when he heard back from the agency he would "be back in touch" with me. That was more than a year ago. He has not been "back in touch."
By contrast, Rep. Vic Snyder, to whom I placed the same request, has been diligent in his support of my appeal. It seems to matter to Snyder that the Justice Department can flaunt a federal law, delaying by years, if it wants, the release of public information. The agency still hasn't budged on the Seal records, but Snyder's push for their release distinguishes him in this otherwise dark affair.
As for Hutchinson… I hope that some day he is held to account, as he would hold Clinton to account, for certain events of the past -- events that even this self-proclaimed seeker of truth might prefer would never come to light.
Copyright ©1998 Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc.

Move On's Bush in 30 Seconds campaign
screens out 9/11 issue, apologizes to Republican Party for comparisons of Bush to the Nazis

A number of 9/11 truth activists submitted entries to "Bush in 30 seconds" regarding September 11th (a topic that MoveOn does not want to discuss). The Republicans haven't picked up on this, but if they did, it's likely that MoveOn would also apologize for suggesting that Bush was complicit in 9/11.


Subject: [911truthalliance] Instant Messaging 9/11 ad
I've put archived copies of my favorite Bush in 30 Seconds ads, including "Instant Messaging 9/11" and "Deep Throat", on my blog at:
In case you haven't seen these ads, be warned that the files are fairly large (~ 5 MB), and may take several minutes to load, depending on your connection speed.

Bush In 30 Seconds sponsored a contest, in which members were asked to submit video ads on the topic of George W. Bush, 30 seconds in duration, to be aired during the coming election season. They received three times as many ads as they expected, many of them high quality, and the ads themselves became an underground internet sensation as friends traded ad URLS. Along with other members, I ranked on dozens of ads; these are the ones that I liked best.One thing that surprised me was how many of the ads were downright FUNNY. I find that interesting, because today's commercial politics generally is about fear; I had to turn off the radio last Sunday rather than listen to the Democratic candidates try and outdo each other in the fear department ("I will keep you safe!" "No, you won't, I will keep you safe!" ad nauseum). I loved these ads because they provide an antidote to fear:

Bush Knew , by Global Free Press - rap with a message that hits home.
Instant Messaging 9-11, by anonymous.c., TN - the facts are true, and the footage harrowing.


Move On Backs Down


The Bush-Hitler Ads Removed by MoveOn
see the ads for yourself
(MoveOn should have apologized that the ads were of poor quality, and offer to make higher quality versions that introduce the issues of the Bush dynasty funding Hitler, the parallels between the Reichstag Fire and 9/11, Homeland Security, the Guantanamo concentration camp and other similarities).


Script 1:
IMAGES ON SCREEN: Nazi Flags In A Parade
AUDIO: Hitler (Speaking In German)
IMAGES ON SCREEN: German Troops Marching
IMAGES ON SCREEN: Hitler In Car In Parade
IMAGES ON SCREEN: German Troops Marching
IMAGES ON SCREEN: German Artillery Firing
IMAGES ON SCREEN: German Planes Dropping Bombs
IMAGES ON SCREEN: German Tanks Firing
IMAGES ON SCREEN: German Tanks Rolling Down Street
IMAGES ON SCREEN: Hitler With Hand Raised
IMAGES ON SCREEN: President Bush With Hand Raised At Inauguration

Script 2:
IMAGES ON SCREEN: Pictures Of Hitler
AUDIO: Hitler (Speaking In German)
TEXT ON SCREEN: We have taken new measures to protect our homeland,
IMAGES ON SCREEN: Pictures Of Hitler
AUDIO: Hitler (Speaking In German)
TEXT ON SCREEN: I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator,
IMAGES ON SCREEN: Pictures Of Hitler
AUDIO: Hitler (Speaking In German)
TEXT ON SCREEN: God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them,
IMAGES ON SCREEN: Pictures of President Bush
AUDIO: Hitler (Speaking In German)
TEXT ON SCREEN: and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.
BACKGROUND AUDIO: Cheering German Crowd
January 6, 2004
RNC Plays the Hitler Card
MoveOn Shouldn't Apologize for Those Ads

You can tell that the Republican Party is more worried than it lets on about the upcoming November election. Today's shrill attack on the organization, which the Republican National Committee is accusing--incorrectly and dishonestly--of endorsing two sample political ads which draw comparisons between Hitler and George Bush, demonstrates how much the Bush brain trust fears this remarkably successful populist internet-based organization.
The two ads were actually among some 1000 that were submitted as part of a contest established by MoveOn to come up with strong ads for the 2004 Democratic campaign. They, along with over 1000 others, were submitted to Move.On for consideration. The organization put them all on its website and allowed members to vote for the best. A group of 15 30-second submissions which received the most votes were then posted as finalists.
Neither of the controversial Hitler/Bush ads made that cut, but the RNC went ahead and issued press releases, as well as sending RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie rushing over to Fox TV, to denounce MoveOn for presumably insulting Bush and American Jews.
MoveOn's Eli Pariser has responded to this GOP assault explaining that clearly the organization never endorsed those ads, and that its membership obviously rejected them. Further, he says MoveOn "regrets the appearance" of the two ads on the MoveOn website, where they were briefly available for viewing along with all the other submissions initially (they've been removed now). Interestingly, now that those ads have been pulled by MoveOn, the only place the scripts can be read is on the RNC website (
But Pariser shouldn't be so quick to express his regrets. The truth is that the two ads are pretty darned good. The first shows Hitler in a parade and speaking, followed by scenes of German troops attacking, planes bombing, tanks firing, and victorious troops goose-stepping into occupied territory, as a voiceover says "A nation warped by lies--lies fuel fear--fear fuels aggression--invasion--occupation." As the scene fades from Hitler giving a raised arm salute to Bush with his hand raised at his inauguration, the voiceover says, "What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003."
And the truth: The Bush administration deliberately stoked public fears after 9/11--just as the Nazi's used the Reichstag Fire--to win support for an illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq, an act of aggression which, at the Nuremberg Trials, was specifically determined to be a war crime. The ad might have added that the "shock and awe" terror campaign that was the centerpiece of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was also by definition a war crime, since its target was the Iraqi public.
As for the second controversial ad, it features first a picture of Hitler, speaking in German, with a voiceover translating the lines as "We have taken new measures to protect our homeland - I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Then, as Hitler continues to speak, the voiceover says, "God told me to strike Al-Qaeda, and I struck him." As the picture morphs into George Bush, the voiceover continues, "and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." With a picture of cheering Germans in the background, the voiceover concludes, "Sound familiar?"
And the truth here? President Bush did in fact publicly claim divine instruction to have been behind his decisions to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq--a rather scary example, if he is being sincere, of the very kind of megalomania that characterized Hitler.
Were these two ads unfair to either Bush or to the memory of the Holocaust? Hardly.
They were legitimate warnings that the American public is being manipulated by demagoguery, jingoism and the worst kind of lies.
Are they saying that Bush is Hitler? Only to the most simplistic or willfully unimaginative of viewers--that is to say the RNC poobahs. What they are saying is that the same technique used by Hitler and his National Socialist brownshirts to whip up nationalist fervor in Germany in the early and mid 1930s is being employed today by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, and to the same end--to get the American public to acquiesce in surrendering its democratic rights, to accept one-party rule, and to agree to a national policy of permanent war in the name of American global hegemony.
Obviously the MoveOn crowd was repelled by the bluntness of the two ads, and rejected them, but Pariser needn't apologize for inspiring their creation.
Both, in their way, are sadly prophetic.
Pariser and MoveOn should be proud that they were produced, happy that the RNC is helping to circulate them, and encouraged that the Republicans are making such a fuss about the whole thing.
Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. A collection of Lindorff's stories can be found here:


from David Orr:

Of course MoveOn would show the world how big a weenie they are by running away from an ad that they undeniably had on their website, and then criticizing the RNC for criticizing them for it. This is the kind of whining that many Democrats are known for, and it doesn't surprise me a bit that they would try to weasel out of taking responsibility for something that they should be proud of.
It was one of the few things I've seen from MoveOn that really impressed me, and now they are disavowing it. If they didn't like it they should not have put it on their website.


FAIR  Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting     112 W. 27th Street   New York, NY 10001
When Are Nazi Comparisons Deplorable?
For Fox News, only when Republicans are the target
January 16, 2004

It should be noted that however hyperbolic, comparisons to Hitler and fascism are not unknown in the American political debate. Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women's rights advocates "femi-Nazis," and references to "Hitlery Clinton" are a staple of right-wing talk radio. Republican power-broker Grover Norquist on NPR (10/2/03) compared inheritance taxes to the Holocaust.
Closer to home for Fox News, on the very same day that Gibson, Hannity and O'Reilly were talking about the Hitler/Bush comparison as evidence of the left's extremism, a column ran in the New York Post that described Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean as a follower of Josef Goebbels, referred to him as "Herr Howie," accused him of "looking for his Leni Riefenstahl," called his supporters "the Internet Gestapo" and compared them to "Hitler's brownshirts."
The New York Post, like Fox News Channel, is part of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's conservative media empire. And this piece wasn't just put up on thePost's website as part of a contest--it was written by a right-wing commentator who frequently appears in the Post's pages, Ralph Peters, and selected for the op-ed page by the Post's own editors. So it's more than a little embarrassing that these blatant Nazi comparisons were being made in the Post while the paper's corporate sibling was denouncing such comparisons as a sign of derangement.


Our international network of more than 2,000,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today.
MoveOn "Frequently Asked Questions"


This incident is proof that being a "member" of a group like Move On confers zero rights to participate in the organization's decision making, even if one makes a donation and is called a "member" in outreach material. Many organizations like this present the illusion of participation in decision making, but on core issues of what the organization stands for they do not permit members to determine anything.

MoveOn doesn't have "members" - merely people on their email list. It appears that they have never held a "membership" meeting, nor do they allow "members" to have any say in organizational decision making.

Their website does not reveal a phone number or physical address to get in touch with them.

They have had electronic on-line polling which purports to allow for feedback, but this is the most insecure form of electronic "voting" and lacks any accountability or credibility (there is no way for outsiders to guarantee its accuracy).

One activist who has tried to deal with Move On from a professional perspective says that trying to contact MoveOn is like sending messages to extraterrestrials - you send them lots of messages, but you never get any replies.


One of the best references on the decline of non-profits is


"Environmentalism in the 21st Century: Where did we go wrong?"

REVIEW - Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century by Mark Dowie.

Dowie is an award-winning journalist with a penchant for radical inquiry. He has tackled the American environmental movement out of frustration, believing that it should have accomplished much more than it has. Why environmentalism has failed to live up to its potential occupies much of Dowie's rigorous analysis. .....

The problem with mainstream environmental groups stems from their decisions in the 1980s to focus energies on power plays in Washington, D.C., instead of reaching out to state and community organizations. Had the focus remained on "reaching out to state, local and regional organizations," he writes, "the American environmental movement today would be much stronger and more consequential than it is. An explosive critical mass of national activism could have been formed. Instead, a relatively harmless and effete new club appeared."


This criticism applies to the Move On organization and the constellation of liberal appendages of the Democratic Party that it is closely affiliated. Undoing the Bush / Cheney coup and restraining the empire is going to take much more spine than these groups seem capable of showing.

Move On is similar to a number of national environmental groups that have lost the energy to protect the environment.

They pretend to be the leaders of their respective movements.

They are dependent on contributions from very wealthy people and foundations who are not interested in deeper social change efforts.

Few of these groups have any accountability to their "members" (the Sierra Club is the only large environmental group in the US that pretends to have internal democracy - but that process is rarely allowed to make fundamental decisions for the group by its management).

These national groups seem to be more expert at vacuuming up lots of energy and money from concerned citizens than actually making social change. The list of environmental and social losses that are marketed as victories by liberal non-profits could fill an encyclopedia.

MoveOn and the national environmental groups are essentially divisions of the Democratic party that have strict ideological limits in what they are willing to criticize. MoveOn condemns Bush's war on Iraq but doesn't campaign to end the occupation, since all of the Democratic candidates for President (except Kucinich and Sharpton) want to keep the occupation going. Similarly, the national environmental groups have made criticism of Bush's plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska a national crisis, and successfully got Congress to block the proposal (the "ANWR" issue also raised lots of money in direct mail campaigns for these groups). However, the 1998 decision by the Clinton-Gore administration to open an equally large, equally pristine area just west of ANWR to oil extraction was barely protested by these groups, and almost never mentioned since it was a Democrat who despoiled the environment. (The area is called the National Petroleum Reserve, not a Wildlife Refuge - but it is also along the North Slope, with caribou and other wildlife and is part of the same ecosystem as ANWR. Perhaps Republican oil drilling is bad and Democratic oil drilling is good?)

These groups do deals that fundamentally undermine their own goals. MoveOn's advocacy for Dean shows they aren't really serious about peace. Their promotion of the "war on terror" suggests a deeper goal of controlling anti-war sentiment on behalf of their major donors (George Soros, an investor in the notorious Carlyle Group, along with the Bush and bin Laden families).


Move On misleads on 9/11, Iraq and Homeland Security

The "Daily Misleader" is a news service sponsored by Move On. Much of their material is moderately useful, but on the core issues of the world war they have shied away from the disturbing details.


This profile of warnings that 9/11 was imminent is a great understatement. About a dozen countries provided very specific warnings that it was about to happen. Massive insider trading on Wall Street (which is monitored by the CIA) sought to profit on the disaster in the days before the attack. Wargames were done before and during 9/11 to practice for the attacks. The US told several foreign allies in the months before 9/11 that it would attack Afghanistan in the fall. Move On's profile of "Bush Knew" is so watered down as to be suspect.

December 16, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
White House Admits Pre-9/11 Warnings; Bush Still Denies It
At his press conference yesterday, President Bush was asked about charges that he had received warnings prior to the September 11th attacks that a terrorist incident was imminent. He answered that even asking such a question was "an absurd insinuation."1 It was the same sentiment expressed by Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who said in May of 2002 that "[no one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane."2
The problem for the president and the administration is that the White House has previously admitted that the president had personally received such specific warnings. As ABC News reported in May of 2002, "White House officials acknowledge that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the September 11th attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes."3 As Condoleezza Rice said at a hastily called press conference to spin these revelations, the President specifically received an "analytic report" on August 6th, 2001 at his Crawford mansion that "talked about Osama bin Laden's methods of operation" and "mentioned hijacking."4 According to Reuters, that report was congruent with "intelligence since 1998 that said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes."5.
While the administration claims that the president's pre-9/11 warning was actually "not a warning," the threat was specific enough for Attorney General John Ashcroft to stop flying commercial airlines. While no warning was issued for the general public after Bush's personal intelligence warning, Ashcroft was flying exclusively by leased jet instead of commercial airlines because of an official "threat assessment by the FBI."6
1. President Bush Holds Press Conference, 12/15/2003.
2. "Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings", CBS News, 05/17/2002.
3. "Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry", ABC News, 05/16/2002.
4. National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing, 05/16/2002.
5. Reuters, 7/24/03.
6. "Ashcroft Flying High", CBS News, 07/26/2001.

The Kean commission has much more serious problems than access over this particular document. The commission is only trying to investigate the "intelligence failure" of 9/11, even though there is much more evidence documenting complicity. It is another "Warren Commission" which covered up the coup d'etat against President Kennedy -- although this newer version has many more skeptics monitoring the situation, and the skeptics have very powerful communication technologies (the Internet) to share their analyses and documentation with the entire world.

If 9/11 was indeed an "inside job," then a Presidential briefing about the risks of an al-Qaeda attack might be a false report generated to provide a cover story in case the official story (it was a surprise attack perpetrated because they are evil and hate democracy) falls flat with too many people. In this scenario, the briefing papers still promote the claim that Arab terrorists guided the planes into the buildings by themselves, despite the fact that it would have been nearly impossible for flight school drop outs to have accomplished this (especially ensuring that Flight 77 would hit the mostly empty, under reconstruction section of the Pentagon). Imagine a hypothetical briefing for Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson on the eve of Kennedy's fatal trip to Dallas that would have warned about the potential threat posed by Lee Harvey Oswald -- even though it would have been physically impossible for Oswald to have shot the president. It is likely that the "hijackers" were also "patsies."

November 17, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
Administration Grants Restricted Access to President's Intelligence Briefing
Nearly one year after its creation, the 9/11 Independent Commission announced an agreement with the Bush administration Wednesday about access to the Presidential Daily Briefing.1
President Bush, who originally opposed the formation of an independent commission, said at the ceremony signing it into law that the investigation should, "carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the fact [sic], wherever they lead."2 But last month, frustrated by the lack of response by the administration in key areas, Republican Chairman Tom Kean warned the White House that the commission may subpoena the documents it wanted, indicating that no document can be "beyond [the commission's] reach."3
Two days later, the President offered a milder statement of support for the commission's access, saying, "I do want to be helpful to Chairman Kean and [Vice Chairman] Lee Hamilton."4
But the deal struck this week allows the White House to edit the documents before they are released to the commission representatives, and limits the number of commission members who have access to the report.
The specifics of the agreement were not released publicly, but two Democrats on the panel objected to its limitations. Former Congressman, Timothy Roemer, pointed out, "Our members may see only two or three paragraphs out of a nine-page report."5 And former Senator Max Cleland has described the agreement as unconscionable.
The White House had refused for months to grant access to the Presidential Daily Briefing, or PDB, citing security concerns. The commission is required to present its final report on May 27, 2004, which the law states should be "a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks."6
1. "9/11 Panel Reaches Deal On Access To Papers," Washington Post, 11/13/03, p. A01.
2. Presidential Bill Signing, 11/27/02.
3. "9/11 Commission Could Subpoena Oval Office Files," New York Times, 10/26/03.
4. Presidential Press Conference, 10/28/03.
5. "Deal on 9/11 Briefings Lets White House Edit Papers," New York Times, 11/14/03.
6. PL 107-306.

October 27, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
Prominent Republican Challenges President Bush's Vow to "Uncover Every Detail" of September 11th Attacks
Frustrated by Bush officials withholding key documents requested by the bipartisan Commission investigating the September 11th attack, 9-11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean, the former Republican Governor of New Jersey, is challenging President Bush's vow to "uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September 11th."1 Kean said yesterday, "Any document that has to do with this investigation cannot be beyond our reach."2
When he signed the legislation establishing the commission, Bush said, "[the] investigation should carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the facts, wherever they lead."3 But several members of the 9-11 Commission, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed concern over the level of cooperation they are receiving from several executive branch agencies.
The commission issued its first subpoena last week to the Federal Aviation Administration, five months after it initially requested documents relating to all tracking of the hijacked airliners on 9-11. Commission staff learned in subsequent interviews of additional information that had not been provided, after being told that document production was complete.4 According to Kean, more subpoenas may be necessary.
Several commission members said the delays could result in the panel not completing its work by the required date of May 27, 2004. The May deadline is the 18-month limit for the panel, a compromise struck after the White House had requested a time limit of a year for the commission.5
The 9-11 Commission's frustration represents the latest example of the Bush Administration's penchant for secrecy, which is drawing criticism from liberals and conservatives. Notes Larry Klayman, chairman of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch: "This Administration is the most secretive of our lifetime, even more secretive than the Nixon Administration. They don't believe the American people or Congress have any right to information."6
Note: will release a special report later this week detailing a full chronology of the Bush Administration's extended pattern of secrecy.
1. Presidential Statement, 12/16/02.
2. "9/11 Commission Could Subpoena Oval Office Files," New York Times, 10/26/03.
3. Signing Ceremony, 11/27/02.
4. "Statement by the 9-11 Commission," 10/15/03.
5. "An OK, Then Reversal, on 9/11 Panel," New York Newsday, 10/11/02, p. A50.
6. "Bush Expands Government Secrecy, Arouses Critics," Reuters, 9/3/02.

As explained elsewhere on this page, the Bush regime stated its intention to invade Iraq in the Project for a New American Century September 2000 report, before they stole the White House.

October 6, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
Bush's Decision to Invade Iraq Happened Days after September 11th, Despite His Assertions to the Contrary
President Bush's decision to attack Saddam Hussein was made within days after the September 11th suicide hijackings, even though Bush claimed on the eve of his invasion "the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war."1
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has acknowledged that in the first weekend after September 11th "the disagreement was whether [invading Iraq] should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first."2
Privately, the President began making it known in March 2002 that the decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. In an unscheduled appearance with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Republican and Democratic Senators, Bush cursed Saddam and vowed, "We're taking him out." Weeks later, Vice President Dick Cheney said to a Senate Republican policy lunch that the question of attacking Iraq was not if, but when.3
The strategy of seeking United Nations approval for the invasion was hatched during an August dinner with Secretary of State Colin Powell at which "the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how."4 Publicly, though, the President continued to mislead the American public, saying the U. N. resolution "does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."5
1. Presidential Speech, 3/17/03.
2. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Vanity Fair's Sam Tannenhaus, 5/9/03.
3. "'We're Taking Him Out'",, 5/5/02.
4. "How It Came To War; When Did Bush Decide That He Had To Fight Saddam?", New Yorker, 3/31/03.
5. Presidential Speech, 10/7/02.


A peace group criticizing Bush for not spending enough on the police state. It's a strange world that we live in. While it is true that rank and file cops, firefighters and hospital workers are screwed by the Bush regime, the money to pay for their equipment and better wages could easily be found by cancelling the police state surveillance systems being cemented into place.

"Homeland Security" is a euphemism for fascism, and the term dates to the last couple years of the Clinton administration. It is the inevitable "coming home" for the CIA's dirty tricks around the world. A half century of coups, political destablization, terror campaigns, drug running and contempt for democracies that choose not to give their profits to the United States has now metastasized into a domestic version of creeping martial law. This is the key issue for the 2004 presidential campaign, one that nearly all of the candidates do not dare talk about. (Kucinich is the only contender who touches this subject.)

October 2, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
The President's Promises on Homeland Security are Long on Talk, Short on Money
The Bush Administration apparently is willing to shortchange the police, firefighters and emergency personnel who would be the first to arrive on the scene of a terrorist attack on American soil.
An independent task force headed by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman concluded that the $4.2 billion appropriation signed by the President on Wednesday1may be "only one-third of what is required to adequately provide for America's emergency responders." 2
After September 11th the President promised to take "every possible measure" to guarantee the security of the homeland, but now Bush's Homeland Security officials are mocking the concerns of the Rudman task force. "I think the [task force] would like to install gold-plated telephones,"3 said one official.
At the same time the Bush Administration wants to spend $6,000 apiece for 600 overpriced hand-held radios and satellite phones in Iraq.4
1. "Bush Signs Homeland Security Bill", New York Times, 10/1/03.
2. "Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared," Council on Foreign Relations, June 2003.
3. Meet the Press, 6/29/03.
4. "GOP Finding Iraq War Request a Tough Sell", Washington Post, 10/1/03, p. A14; "Here and There: A Comparison of the Bush Administration's Iraq Reconstruction Package," Center for American Progress.

List of interviewees in Move On's UNCOVERED film
A mix of genuine dissent and duplicity

David Albright

Robert Baer

Baer's recent book "Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude" is part of the campaign to blame Saudi Arabia for 9/11, thereby providing justification for the forthcoming US seizure of the Saudi oil fields, the only reserves larger than Iraq's. While it is obvious that the Saudis were involved in 9/11, they don't have the power to get the US Air Force to "stand down" the normal air defenses. See for details on the "blame Saudi Arabia" campaign, the reports that several of the "hijackers" were actually identity thefts, and how US control over Saudi oil is part of the empire's plan to control all of the oil as the world passed the peak of global production. See also for details on how the US helped create "Islamic terrorists" as part of its plan to entrap the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and for articles on the pattern of phony "terrorists" created by intelligence services to terrorize populations to support fascism and oppression.

CIA's Robert Baer Spins Official Legend of 9-11

EDITOR'S NOTE: Is 'al-Qaeda' an Egyptian-CIA hybrid? Is the Danny Pearl story more disinformation? And what have the likes of CIA operatives Bob Baer, Vincent Cannistraro, and Milt Bearden truly up to all those years?)

Saudis, Pakistanis, Israelis, and Neocons:
Stacking The Patsies of 9/11  


Who exactly is Robert Baer? In the months after 9/11, Baer first emerged on the public radar scope as a "former" CIA official involved in counter-terrorism.
After publishing his widely acclaimed book, 'See No Evil,' Baer established himself as the mainstream media's "go-to" guy when making the case for pre-9/11 complacency and opportunistic blindness.
But his contributions to our understanding of 9/11 didn't end there.
In addition to focusing attention on Saudi Arabia and the dominating influence of the neo-conservatives on foreign policy, Baer has personally insinuated himself into the Daniel Pearl story.
On September 30, 2002, Richard Sale of UPI reported:

"Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was investigating the man who allegedly planned the Sept. 11 airplane hijackings and attacks on New York and Washington when he was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan, according to two Central Intelligence Agency officials...
...'I was working with Pearl,' said [Bob] Baer, who had written a book about his time as a CIA official and has acted as a consultant and source for numerous media outlets. 'We had a joint project. [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed was the story he was working on, not Richard Reid [a.k.a. the shoe bomber].' "

Was Baer being truthful, or rather was he disseminating a blatant slice of disinformation?
You be the judge.
In Baer's latest widely acclaimed book, 'Sleeping With The Devil' - published after the September 30, 2002 UPI article - Baer blatantly contradicts himself, as evidenced on p.199:

"I have no way of knowing whether Pearl went to Karachi and asked about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Wall Street Journal says no, that he was working on the shoe-bomber case."

No way of knowing? What about that "joint project" with Pearl?
According to Baer's UPI version, back in 1997, Baer learned of efforts by the government of Qatar to shield Khalid Shaikh Mohammed from FBI apprehension.
Khalid, at the time, was wanted for his alleged role in the aborted 1995 Bojinka plot. Yet when none of his former colleagues in counter-terrorism would follow up on Baer's leads, according to UPI, "Baer said he was frustrated and called Pearl..." telling him that "he had a hot story on terrorism..."
However, in Baer's book version, it was Pearl who had first initiated contact after hearing of Baer's leads from other sources:

"In 1998, when I was living in France, I got a call from a young Wall Street Journal reporter named Danny Pearl."

As for that "joint project" alluded to in the UPI article, here is how Baer sums up the course of their interaction in his book:

"We met in Geneva...I told him about KSM [Khalid] and Qatar. He listened, took notes, and promised to follow up on it one day. We saw each other from time to time in Washington. He would bring up the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed story, but neither of us had anything new to add."

And here is the version that Baer offered to UPI, describing the aftermath of his very first telephone contact with Pearl:

"Baer said to his annoyance, Pearl did not begin to work on the story. Nothing was done until the day of the Sept. 11 attacks when Pearl called to talk to Baer."

Thus are we faced with two alternate realities.
In the quantum reality offered in Baer's book, Daniel Pearl is the dogged investigator who tracks down Baer for his story on Khalid, following it up on subsequent meetings with further queries of Baer, though neither has "anything new to add."
Yet in the quantum reality offered to UPI, it is Baer who tracks down Pearl, and who subsequently becomes annoyed with Pearl's presumed disinterest in Baer's revelation - that is, until September 11, 2001.
In Baer's book, three days after September 11, Pearl called Baer after sending him an email the day before. What follows is Baer's account of their very last conversation:

"I reminded him about our talks on KSM [Khalid] and Qatar. 'Worth thinking about,' [Pearl] replied."

Thus, in Baer's book version, that fateful phone call signals the end of their interaction, consequently leaving Baer with "no way of knowing" whether or not Pearl had picked up the ball and hustled on over to Karachi to flesh out Baer's initial lead on Khalid.
Meanwhile, over in the UPI parallel universe, that post-9/11 phone call marks the beginning of their "joint project":

"Baer said he gave Pearl all the old information he had and new information he had since obtained -- for example, that there are files on [Khalid] in the Qatari Embassy in London.

Baer said he and Pearl then 'began to work together' -- in other words, Pearl would get info and check it out with Baer and Baer would feed Pearl what he was getting. It was 'a joint project,' said Baer. Baer was giving direction, but Pearl's contacts were not confined to Baer."
Simply based on the foregoing, one might reasonably conclude that Baer is either a quantum leaper or a bona fide fibber.
But even if Baer's credibility is undermined by all this, what's the big deal?
Isn't Baer, after all, just a retired CIA guy far out of the loop, trolling the media circuit as an "independent" critic?
Or is he, rather, a key operative among an insular (though by no means rogue) counter-terror clique involved in the formation and presentation of the Official 9/11 Legend and its off-shoots?
At the time of Baer's UPI revelation, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had only been known to the public for less than four months - dating from the time in June 2002 when he was first introduced as the "official" 9/11 mastermind.
Prior to that date, scarcely any details at all were offered to the public concerning Khalid - other than a generic "wanted" listing for his alleged role in the 1995 Bojinka plot.
And, perhaps, a very brief, general reference to Khalid as an expert in the hijacking of planes in Baer's first book. Yet if we are to believe Baer's post-June 2002 account, Khalid was the object of intense concern to both Baer and Pearl - neither of whom had ever gone on record as evincing any substantive interest in Khalid at any time prior to Baer's September 30 UPI account.
More curiously, by June 2002, with Khalid now making the headlines as the brains behind 9/11 - and coming more than four months after Pearl's own widely publicized kidnapping - Baer was continuing to do the media circuit, promoting his earlier book along with his version of the 9/11 Complacency Theory, yet still no word on his purported "joint project" with Pearl on the newly unveiled 9/11 mastermind.
Rather, Baer waited until three weeks after the well-publicized apprehension of Khalid's alleged co-plotter, Ramzi Binalshibh, and only then broached the news of his "joint project" with Pearl, tying this in with the latest bombshell that Khalid had also likely killed Daniel Pearl. Curious timing, that.
Who, exactly, is Robert Baer - and, more to the point, why should this question matter?
Baer - along with the likes of Vincent Cannistraro and Milt Bearden - is among the select few who have managed to "dirty" their hands with past CIA involvement with the Afghani mujahedin.
Terror, drugs, arms-smuggling,and the Byzantine workings of Mideast geopolitics - Baer has personally seen it all.
In Baer's chronicle of the past CIA/Bin Laden/Muslim Brotherhood nexus, there is really nothing particularly sinister in the fact that the CIA had originally fostered and funded a network that would later go on to unveil itself as America's foremost enemy.
Baer characterizes it all as blowback.
But perhaps Baer manages to provide us a crucial - though probably unintended - insight as to how we may characterize all that purported blowback.
In Baer's oft-repeated account of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's escape from Qatar, he reveals that Khalid had managed to slip away with another member of his al-Qaida cell - a man by the name of Shawqui Islambuli, whose brother happens to be the man who had assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is indeed an artful pairing - for these two men serve, on a symbolic level, as the operative bookends of the Official 9/11 Legend.
At the tail end, of course, stands Khalid as the 9/11 mastermind.
At the front end stands the Egyptian fundamentalist clique whose 1981 move against Sadat would coincide with its recruitment by Baer's CIA colleagues into the Afghan effort.
One member of that Egyptian clique, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, would go on to become a CIA asset, and, after his acquittal in relation to the Sadat killing, would then be cleared to enter the United States in 1990 by way of a CIA-approved visa.
Setting up shop in a Brooklyn mosque, the men in Abdel-Rahman's circle - Sayyid Nosair, Ramzi Yousef, etc. - would go on to be implicated in the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, the plot to destroy New York City landmarks, and, most importantly, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
If the early shoots of what would eventually evolve into "al-Qaida" look suspiciously like an Egyptian-CIA hybrid, that is probably due to the fact that - from the vantage point of 1993 - a suspicious number of Egyptian CIA assets (and/or FBI informants) were popping up all over the map.
For one, a former Egyptian military officer (and FBI informant) named Emad Salem had managed to "infiltrate" former CIA asset Abdel-Rahman's New York circle, giving his FBI handlers the "heads-up" on the plot to take down the Twin Towers in '93.
Meanwhile, another former Egyptian military officer (and subsequent FBI informant) by the name of Ali Mohamed would train Abdel-Rahman's men in the arts of bomb-making, formation of operative cells, and all the sophisticated military tactics Ali had gleaned from his three-year stint as a U.S. sergeant with the Special Forces at Fort Bragg. Ali had first entered the United States on a CIA-sponsored visa in 1981, in order to serve his first four-month stint with the Green Berets at Fort Bragg - incidentally, the same year in which Ali had reportedly joined the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood implicated in the Sadat assassination.
After being honorably discharged from service at Fort Bragg in 1989, Ali's resume would include the training of Abdel-Rahman's men, an ongoing stint as an FBI informant (carrying on even after the 1993 WTC bombing), the authorship of al-Qaida's training manuals, along with the training of bin Laden's personal security detail and the refinement of al-Qaida's military tactics.
Publicly outed for the first time in 1995 as the trainer of the 1993 New York landmarks suspects, Ali would remain free to carry on his busy globe-trotting itinerary for three more years before being lured out of his cozy Sacramento digs in the aftermath of the 1998 Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.
Duly subpoenaed and then "secretly" indicted, Ali would go on to plead guilty, implicate his fellow conspirators, and then forever fade from public view (and scrutiny).
With just the foregoing facts in mind, it doesn't take a forensic expert to connect the dots and draw certain conclusions as to the likely paternity of what would later become known as "al-Qaida."
From the vantage point of 1993, where were those suspicious dots connecting this close-knit terrorist network to Saddam Hussein?
Or the Pakistani ISI? Or the Saudis? Or the Israelis?
After 1995, however, there would be new dots to connect up, with new links subsequently forming in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, along with new al-Qaida cells springing up in London, Hamburg, and across the globe - and, in lockstep with the times, new investigative cliques forming across the US, UK, and the EU.
Yet from that crucial, embryonic time period of 1981-1993, we can venture a reasonable guess as to which entity was most involved in coddling, handling, clearing, and funding this insular grouping of Egyptian-born radicals, from out of which would grow the full blossom of al-Qaida.
And so we must ask what the likes of Bob Baer, Vincent Cannistraro, and Milt Bearden were truly up to in those years.
But that, perhaps, is a tale for another day.

For further reading on the Legend of 9/11, please read Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11

* Chaim Kupferberg is a freelance researcher, writer and frequent CRG contributor.
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at . The active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the author's copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: editor .
© Copyright C Kupferberg 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.
Stacking The Patsies of 9/11
by Chaim Kupferberg 20 December 2003
The URL of this article is:

Milt Bearden

from the film:
"Preemptive war by its very nature is something that is entirely new to the United States of America and to what we call the Western Alliance. You go back through history and at the Peace of Westfalia in 1648 a group of nations that had just killed most of each other off decided that isn’t quite the way to do it and they came up with a set of laws that we’ve all lived with fairly well since then which doesn’t much allow for preemptive war."


This is utter bullshit that whitewashes history. Bush is horrible, but not that far out of the pattern of US history.

Nicaragua was invaded multiple times in the 19th and 20th centuries. During the 1980s, the CIA funded a vicious terrorist army that brutalized that country, killing tens of thousands and destroying their economy. Many of these "contras" were former members of the hated National Guard of the Somoza dictatorship (loyally supported by the US for a half century). The contra war was one of many US covert operations that was funded in part by drug money (cocaine). Perhaps CIA really stands for Cocaine Importation Agency.

Grenada was attacked without even the pretense of justification by Reagan in 1983, immediately after the US base in Lebanon was attacked by a suicide bomber (this distracted public attention to the US intervention in Lebanon).

Lebanon.was invaded in 1958 and 1983, although both interventions were short-lived and only in part of the country

Chile's democratically elected government was overthrown by the CIA on September 11, 1973 and replaced by a fascist, neo-Nazi military dictatorship.

Vietnam was pre-emptively attacked. That nation never attacked the US, even though the US claimed that it did so during the phony "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
The US invasion of Cambodia in May 1970 was a pre-emptive attack and occupation of a country that did not attack us (in addition, Nixon illegally and secretly bombed that country during 1969).
Iran's government was overthrown in 1953 by a US / British conspiracy, toppling a government that sought to nationalize Iranian oil resources. The Shah, a dictatorial absolute monarch, ruled Iran with extreme brutality until his overthrow in 1978. If the US and Britain had allowed the Iranian people to control their own oil in 1953, radical Islam would probably not have arisen in Iran as a reaction to Western intervention. No Ayatollah Khomeini. No Hostage Crisis. A much more stable and peaceful Middle East.

Iraq (twice). While Iraq did attack Kuwait in 1990 (thus providing the justification for the US's 1991 attack on Iraq), the US did give Saddam Hussein the green light a week before his seizure of Kuwait. This provided the US with a good excuse for a major war at the time that the military budget was increasingly difficult to justify (since the Berlin Wall had fallen and the Soviet Union was unraveling, about to disintegrate). Kuwait was accused of having engaged in "slant drilling" into Iraq's oil fields (using US technology) and overproducing its OPEC quotas (which lowered world oil prices at a time when Iraq's economy was devastated by the 1980 - 1988 Iran/ Iraq war, a war that the US encouraged Saddam to start out of revenge for the Iranian revolution and subsequent Embassy hostage crisis).

Cuba (1898, several attempts since Castro)

World War I. None of the nations the US fought during the "war to end all wars" ever attacked the United States of America.

Russia (after Bolshevik revolution)


The list of countries attacked using proxy forces supplied by the US or by military intelligence dictatorships funded in part by the US is huge - Angola, Iran, Palestine, Guatemala, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, etc.
How many sovereign native nations in "America" were subjected to military occupations by the US?

Rand Beers

Rand Beers and Move On support the "War on Terror"

from the film:
"It is fair to say that the Iraq war was a diversion from the war on terrorism. It certainly meant that people weren’t paying as much attention to Afghanistan as they should have and the resources that might have gone to Afghanistan ended up being focused more on Iraq."


Rand Beers was on Bush's National Security Council until he quit in 2003 and became the foreign policy spokesperson for the Kerry Presidential Campaign. Journalist Michael Ruppert calls this the handing of the torch from the Bush administration to his intended replacement, who is Bush's blood brother in the Skull and Bones secret society.
If Senator Kerry is the nominee, as the leadership of the Democratic Party apparently wanted, then the 2004 Presidential contest would be between the liberal and conservative wings of Skull and Bones! See for details.
from THE PERFECT STORM - Part II by Michael Ruppert

As resignations of outraged civil servants are stacking up on both sides of the Atlantic like freshly cut firewood, the Bush administration was also seriously hurt by the resignation of the top Bush National Security Council official in charge of terrorism, Rand Beers. A March 19 UPI story, while repeating the Bush administration position that Beers' resignation was not because of administration deceit and vanishing credibility, left no doubt that Beers, widely respected in Washington, was just plain fed up and possibly sensing a sinking ship.
from Beyond Bush II, by Michael Ruppert

A key sign that Kerry might be the anointed one came for me when George W. Bush's chief counter-terrorism adviser Rand Beers resigned in a dramatic moment last June, in protest over Bush's handling of the war on terror and his headlong rush into Iraq. Beers immediately became Kerry's senior foreign policy advisor, as Kerry continued to state that he would improve on and expand the war on terror. Beers' protestations concealed what I considered to be a much more sinister objective, the placement of a key, hands-on operative to manage a smooth transition of power and a continuation of secret policy. Beers, who had served in national security roles for three Republican administrations, was the man who had replaced Lt. Col. Oliver North after North was fired in 1987 during the Iran-Contra scandal.
Although Beers is not listed as a [Council on Foreign Relations] member he was a key contributor, and acknowledged in a 1996 CFR report "Making Intelligence Smarter" produced by a CFR panel headed by AIG Chairman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. Narconews publisher Al Giordano refers to Beers as a "CFR type". One thing is certain, Rand Beers committed perjury right after 9/11 by testifying before Congress that Colombian and Ecuadorian rebels had links to Al Qaeda. He got caught and had to go back and amend his testimony and retract the statement. Sound familiar? Giordano caught that and actually published Beers' retraction under oath at
September 10, 2002
Narco News '02
Beers "Corrects" Falsehood Under Oath in Dyncorp Case

I made the following statement: "It is believed that FARC terrorists have received training at Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan." I wish to strike this sentence.

Narco News Commentary: Under oath and "the penalties and pains of perjury" last November, Assistant Secretary of State Rand Beers made a blatantly false statement, toying with the emotions of American citizens after the aerial attacks of September 11th to try to justify, of all things, aerial herbicide attacks on Ecuadoran peasant farmers near the Colombia border.
Now he swears under oath that his outrageous and shocking statement was false.
Thus, a high official of the U.S. government had to admit in court that he had committed perjury; lied under oath to the same court.
Narco News has obtained a copy of the State Department fixer's "correction" filed in the court case by Ecuadoran farmers against Dyncorp, the company contracted to attack them.
Here, we publish it, as we did Beers' deposition, in full. ...
Who Are the Terrorists?
DynCorp's Paul V. Lombardi in Federal Court
Narco News '02
DynCorp Charged with Terrorism
Lawsuit Unites U.S. Workers & Ecuador Farmers vs. Fumigation
Part I of a Series
By Al Giordano
A class-action lawsuit filed in Washington, DC, on behalf of 10,000 farmers in Ecuador and the AFL-CIO allied International Labor Rights Fund has DynCorp CEO Paul V. Lombardi running scared and lashing back with intimidation tactics.
Lombardi's DynCorp, one of the top 20 federal contractors, has already sprayed toxic herbicides over 14 percent of the entire land mass of the nation of Colombia, purportedly to eliminate coca crops.
Although DynCorp's taxpayer-sponsored biological warfare has not made a dent in the cocaine trade, it has caused more than 1,100 documented cases of illness among citizens, destroyed untold acres of food crops, displaced tens of thousands of peasant farmers, and harmed the fragile Amazon ecosystem, all in the name of the "war on drugs."
DynCorp has also been exposed for contracting mercenary soldiers-of-fortune for the covert activities of the US-imposed "Plan Colombia."

Bill Christison
Kathleen McGrath Christison

"Israel" is not mentioned in "Uncovered."
December 13 / 14, 2003
Chickenhearts at Notre Dame
The Pervasive Fear of Talking About the Israeli Connection

... (The tribulations of the peace movement over the Israeli connection and how to deal with it are treated in considerable detail in several chapters of the new book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.) In this case, the two of us were asked to participate as interviewees in the film and videoUncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, recently released by and The Center for American Progress in association with Artists United. We agreed to do so and were interviewed for over an hour. But only one of us actually appears in the final video, and only for a few seconds. We assume that most of the footage of us ended up on the cutting room floor because we had discussed at length the Israeli connection in the U.S. war against Iraq.
Through interviews with several dozen people interspersed with film clips of senior officials doing their dirty work, the video gives a fascinating account--guaranteed to hold your attention--of the lies and distortions used by the Bush administration to mislead the nation into the war. It does a superb job in demonstrating how administration leaders from Bush to Cheney to Powell to Rumsfeld to Rice used the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as the main pretext to generate popular support in the U.S. for the war. The film is a high-quality production that everyone should see.
But--this piece of art is subtitled The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, and it by no means lives up to that billing. The reason is that the Israeli connection is nowhere mentioned. Once again, the subject is taboo.

Although the war was sold to Congress and the public on the basis of the WMD issue, many of us believed for months before the war that the actual reasons the Bush administration invaded Iraq were the U.S. drive for global domination, oil--and Israel. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and neocons in the administration, some of whom quite clearly have displayed loyalties toward Likud governments in Israel, have strongly supported war with Iraq at least since the mid-1990s, and their reasons for doing so have included the strengthening of Israel's hegemony in the Middle East. A video that claims to present the entire truth about the Iraq war should at least include some discussion of the relationship of Israel to that war. Even if one disagrees with the judgment that key U.S. supporters of Israel's Likud government played a significant role in getting the U.S. into this war, the evidence is massive that most people in most Arab nationsbelieve Israel to be one of the reasons the U.S. initiated the war. That alone should be reason enough to have included some discussion of the issue in this video.
Some might argue that constraints of length (the video is 56 minutes long) required that the producers deal only with the most important issues, and that anything related to Israel was of less importance. This is merely a convenient rationalization. As on many other occasions, it is too easy to sweep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under the carpet in order to achieve greater apparent unity in the peace movement. Both right-wing Americans and right-wing Israelis may believe that the fate of the Palestinians is not the most important issue facing their governments' policies in the Middle East today. But in fact it is. Palestinians will not go the way of Native Americans. Nor will they ever disappear into other Arab lands. They are simply too numerous, and their numbers are growing. Their cause is too important to other Arabs and Muslims, most of whom care deeply about Palestinian oppression at Israel's hands. ...

Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit.
Kathleen Christison also worked in the CIA, retiring in 1979. Since then she has been mainly preoccupied by the issue of Palestine. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

David Corn

David Corn, Washington editor for The Nation, has a record over the years that shows sophisticated efforts to cover up scandals while appearing to be a dissident journalist. He was one of the main attack dogs used to discredit Oliver Stone's excellent film JFK (anyone who still says that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK is either dumb, uninformed, afraid, or a liar). His biography of CIA dirty trickster Ted Shackley did not discuss serious allegations that Shackley was involved in heroin trafficking during the Vietnam war. Corn attacked journalist Gary Webb in 1996 when he published a series in the San Jose Mercury News about the CIA cocaine smuggling to fund the contras. In 2002, Corn led the attack on the 9/11 skeptics movement, helping to muzzle the burgeoning effort to investigate the obvious lies in the official stories of 9/11 (Corn never provided any countering facts - it was merely a sophisticated smear campaign that intimidated numerous "alternative" papers and peace groups from supporting the independent investigations). Later in 2002, Corn attacked the large peace rallies for being "too leftist" but never offered any practical solutions or did anything to organize less leftist rallies -- but after helping suppress some of the dissent about Bush's "Achilles' heel" (9/11) perhaps Corn had accomplished his true goal.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that some fairly conservative, establishment foundations contribute to The Nation. Why would establishment wealth give to publications that want to make social change that challenges the power and priviledge of the establishment? Is the establishment really interested in funding efforts that reduce their powers (a fraction of the establishment is, perhaps)? Or do they give to groups like The Nation, knowing that they will absorb lots of dissenting energy and swallow it up in endless debates, tertiary issues and disinformation ("9/11 really was a surprise attack by evil terrorists. Honest.")

Philip Coyle

John Dean

Patrick Eddington

Chas Freeman

from the film:
Well the war really had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, there was no connection whatsoever between Iraq and the secular regime there and the religious fanatics who perpetrated 9/11.


Some of the religious fanatics who perpetrated 9/11 were not Islamic, but are Christian and Jewish. 9/11 was a joint operation of fundamentalist terrorists and complicity by elements of the military-intelligence complex.


Graham Fuller

Mel Goodman

from the film
The Bush administration made up its mind to go to war on September the 11th 2001. From that time on you were dealing with rationalization and justification for the war, you weren’t dealing with real causes for the war or real reasons for the war. There was never a clear and present danger, there was never an imminent threat.


As discussed above, the Bush administration decided to go to war before stealing the White House.

John Brady Kiesling

February 27, 2003
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

[ oderint dum metuant: "Let them hate so long as they fear." (A favorite saying of Caligula.). ]

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.


Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear
Paul Krugman
New York Times | Opinion
Friday 7 March 2003

Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials? Has 'oderint dum metuant' really become our motto?" So reads the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat who recently left the Foreign Service in protest against Bush administration policy.
"Oderint dum metuant" translates, roughly, as "let them hate as long as they fear." It was a favorite saying of the emperor Caligula, and may seem over the top as a description of current U.S. policy. But this week's crisis in U.S.-Mexican relations - a crisis that has been almost ignored north of the border - suggests that it is a perfect description of George Bush's attitude toward the world.
Mexico is an enormously important ally, not just because of our common border, but also because of its special role as a showcase for American ideals. For a century and a half Mexico has - often with good reason - seen its powerful neighbor as an exploiter, if not an outright enemy. Since the first Bush administration, however, the United States has made great efforts to treat Mexico as a partner, and Mexico's recent track record of economic stability and democracy is, and should be, a source of pride on both sides of the border.
But Mexico's seat on the U.N. Security Council gives it a vote on the question of Iraq ~W and the threats the Bush administration has made to get that vote are quickly destroying any semblance of good will.
Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn't vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."
Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" - emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."
And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."
These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it's clear that he was. Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." That's Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch's media empire and other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr. Bush's remarks as a threat to do the same to them?
So oderint dum metuant it is. I could talk about the foolishness of such blatant bullying - or about the incredible risks, in a multiethnic, multiracial society, of even hinting that one might encourage a backlash against Hispanics. And yes, I mean Hispanics, not Mexicans: once feelings are running high, do you really think people will politely ask a brown-skinned guy with an accent whether he is a citizen or, if not, which country he comes from?
But my most intense reaction to this story isn't anger over the administration's stupidity and irresponsibility, or even dismay over the casual destruction of hard-won friendships. No, when I read an interview in which the U.S. president sounds for all the world like a B-movie villain - "You have relatives in Texas, yes?" - what I feel, above all, is shame.

Karen Kwiatkowski

Soldier for the Truth
Exposing Bush's talking-points war
by Marc Cooper
Busting the liars:
Karen Kwiatkowski
Advance Praise for ‘An End to Evil’
by Karen Kwiatkowski

Why are we occupying Iraq, bombing the living hell out of Afghanistan, pestering Iran and Syria, genuflecting to Sharon, failing to deal with real threats to our nation while piddling away our resources building an empire nobody wants? How are our grandchildren going to pay for the unrestrained stupidity roaring out of the White House? How can we truly employ constitutional restrictions on centralized federal power? How do we stop the scourge of neo-Jacobinism in America?
A new book just released by Random House contains the answers to these questions and more. It is written by some of the most knowledgeable, wise and influential men in Washington today. The authors have taken valuable time from their days of thinking up phrases like "Axis of Evil" (Iran-Syria-Iraq-no-wait-not-Syria-need-a-non-Islamic-country-what-about-North-Korea) and shaping the oh-so-malleable minds of literally hundreds of National Review readers.
David Frum and Richard Perle have saved us all loads of time. We wanted real solutions for American’s foreign and domestic future, and by golly, they have delivered. I announce to you An End to Evil: Strategies for Victory in the War on Terror!
The Frumster and Richer Perle have produced a book that finally reveals "their blueprint for what could become the Bush administration’s agenda in the war on terrorism." My dear, dear boys! Are you saying that in a fit of electoral excitement, young Dubya has already begun to diverge from your neo-Jacobin empire mongering? Is he beginning to exhibit a certain lack of concentration on cementing the White House-Likud Alliance? I mean, who could have predicted that in an election year?
The book jacket says Frum and Perle have provided a few simple steps to make neo-conservatives, or as my friend Ray McGovern calls them, neo-fascists, very, very happy. And what’s not to like about that?
To make a neo-fascist happy, we need only:
• Support the overthrow of the terrorist mullahs of Iran.
• End the terrorist regime of Syria.
• Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals – maybe enemies.
• Withdraw support from the United Nations if it does not reform.
• Tighten immigration and security at home.
• Radically reorganize the CIA and the FBI.
• Squeeze China, and blockade North Korea to press that member of the axis of evil to abandon its nuclear program.
• Abandon the illusion that a Palestinian state will contribute in any important way to U.S. security.
These little Perles of inanity, these fluffy Frumpisms deserve a closer look. They tell us an enormous amount about misguided American empire and the neo-fascist state we are growing for ourselves like a new Audrey in our little shop of horrors. Feed me, Seymour!
Perhaps the subtitle for the book should have been not "Strategies for Victory" but "Little Shop of Horrors." In case you missed the play and the movie, the story is about a gentle but not very forward-thinking flower-shop attendant named Seymour Krelbourn, and his innocent nurture of a plant that thrives on human blood. Seymour feeds it when it is little, and like the neo-fascist state we are building here at home and the benevolent empire abroad, it feeds on us when it gets bigger. The difference between the horror in the play and the horror growing in Washington is that the man-eating plant has real personality and is hilariously fun. Our budding 21st century experiment with fascism promises to be far less entertaining.
But back to Frum and Perle’s enlightenment. The duo tells us to kill the enemy abroad ASAP, create new enemies just in case, and preemptively destroy the enemy at home. First, we eliminate (assassinate, invade, occupy directly or through puppetry) selected "terrorist" regimes, mainly in the Middle East and surrounds. No, silly, not Israel under Sharon orUzbekistan! For more on this, check out An End of Evil companion piece, Mark Palmer’s rousing adventure tale of how America destroys the 43 (just 43?) evil dictators on the planetonce and for all by the year 2025.
Secondly, Frum and Perle advocate creating new enemies around the world. These naturally include the easy-to-hate House of Saud and France, as well as China and the rest of the world as represented by membership in the United Nations. One might assume that UN member countries and Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands will be exempt from eventual enemy status. Or not.
Thirdly, Frum and Perle have advice for Americus domesticus as well. Speaking only for myself, I am hugely grateful for advice on how to run our country from a Canadian like Frum and a suspected agent of a foreign government like Perle. Their valuable counsel includes more centralized government interference in everyone’s lives, continued erosion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights through enlightened courts and the insatiable state, and special attention to encouraging oncological growth of the state security apparatus. The book jacket says Frum was the "most influential thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of George W. Bush" and Perle is "the intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy." Pay attention, people!
Lastly, in case anyone missed it – world peace and security depends on the prevention of a Palestinian state. Period. In light of the hysterics evident in the promotional materials and the fact that I am already shaking in my boots, my advice is to simply submit to the whole shmiel. Ignore the illogic, suspend your disbelief, do what Perle and Frum say. Resistance is futile! You will adapt to service us.
I hope this book review, written as no doubt many are by relying solely on the book jacket, has been helpful to you. On a serious note, there is a dangerous bit of utilitarian stasis that permeates both the Frum-Perle consummation and the drooling Mark Palmer fantasy. Apparently, the rest of the world conveniently stops while they spasmodically draw sterile and unimaginative stick figures upon a clean slate. This is the fallacy of the Jacobins, old and new. It is the tragedy of the fascists and the central planners. The authors may simply be confused about the nature of both history and human action as a result of their upbringing and education. Perhaps these books are a cry for help from people lacking typical American characteristics of physical and intellectual courage, and love of liberty.
More likely, these books are opportunistic and desperate attempts to capitalize on the already seriously waning interest in neo-conservative prescriptions for America as despicable debt-funded empire. With predictable pedantry, they deliver not a blueprint for victory, butcheap lies and grotesque self-deception.
December 11, 2003
Karen Kwiatkowski is a recently retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley.
Copyright © 2003

Patrick Lang

Dr. David C. MacMichael

David MacMichael was a whistleblower in the CIA during the Reagan/Bush terror wars against Central America.

He is an interviewee in the "Aftermath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11" by Guerrilla News Network, a film that is shorter than Uncovered but probes at deeper issues.

Ray McGovern
No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."
"Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.
"All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)."
Failure and Crime Are Not the Same:
9/11's Limited Hangouts
by Jamey Hecht, PhD

,,, Although it's happening far too slowly, more and more members of the military and the intelligence services are emerging as critics of the Bush administration. In a June 3, 2002 entry on Miami, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern wrote:

According to The Wall Street Journal, the FBI did not tell the White House about Moussaoui until after Sept. 11.
But it is a safe bet that the CIA's Tenet did. Even before learning about Moussaoui, Tenet's President's Daily Brief of Aug. 6 bore the title 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' When analysts working in Tenet's Counterterrorist Center were warned about Moussaoui a few weeks before Sept. 11, it is inconceivable that they would not have told Tenet. He is, by law, 'the principal advisor to the president for intelligence matters related to national security,' and is entitled to 'all intelligence related to the national security, which is collected by any department, agency or other entity of the United States.'
Tenet's people learned about Moussaoui in a back-door message from the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis enlisting the CIA's help in obtaining information on Moussaoui from French intelligence. The French promptly pointed out Moussaoui's affiliations with radical fundamentalist groups and Osama bin Laden. (The French service had been keeping close tabs on the likes of Moussaoui, having foiled a plan by Algerian terrorists to crash an airplane into the Eiffel Tower in 1994.)[29]

This was not news to anybody who had read the Rowley Memo, but it really was newsworthy, because it came from someone closely associated with the Agency. And McGovern has been generous with his political capital on more recent occasions; he spoke at the 9/11/03 second anniversary events in New York, and though he concentrated his fire on the Neocons' Iraq fiasco, the event at which he spoke (the panel, the agenda, the literature in the lobby, the subjects of the other talks, even the date of the event) was entirely focused on 9/11.[30] Even if Mr. McGovern had adjusted his tie and quietly recited the alphabet, there would still be heavy symbolism in the sight of an ex-CIA analyst seated on a dias with Mike Ruppert, John Judge, Kyle Hence, and Cynthia McKinney.[31] The sight of McGovern on the stage was more significant than anything he was at liberty to say.
[emphases added]

Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter was an arms inspector in Iraq during the 1990s, when Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs were destroyed, and his initial efforts toward nuclear weapons were stopped.

Uncovered showed footage of General Colin Powell holding a vial of "simulated" anthrax during his famous, notorious speech to the United Nations before the invasion, insinuating that Iraq still had anthrax and making the unspoken allegation that Iraq was responsible for the October 2001 anthrax attacks on the media and the Democratic leadership of Congress. See for credible articles that document how the anthrax actually was sent from the US military, most likely from the biowar labs at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland -- and that the attacks were timed to ensure passage of the USA PATRIOT act (Uncle Sam's Army Packages of Anthrax Terrorized Representatives Into Obliterating Tolerance).

The largest "weapons of mass destruction" programs in the world are in the United States, but the political / media / military / intelligence / industrial complex assumes that these weapons are legitimate in the hands of the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons on a city (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The US is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, passed over three decades ago. The NPT is a deal between the nuclear "haves" and the nuclear "have nots" - the latter would agree not to develop nuclear weapons if the US and Soviet Union would work toward nuclear disarmament (which has not happened).

The biggest developer of "WMDs" in the Middle East is the country of Israel, which has hydrogen bombs, long range missiles, chemical and biological weapons.

The Rt Honorable Clare Short,1280,-3791613,00.html

Source: Britain Spied on U.N.'s Annan
AP/Guardian -Thursday February 26, 2004 9:46 AM

...Clare Short, who resigned as international development secretary following the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein, said she had read transcripts of Annan's conversations.
...Blair's office and the Foreign Office had no immediate reaction to Short's claims. When asked to clarify her comments, Short repeated her allegation.

"I know, I have seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations. In fact I have had conversations with Kofi in the run-up to war thinking 'Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this and people will see what he and I are saying.''' Asked explicitly whether British spies had been instructed to carry out operations within the United Nations on people such as Kofi Annan, she said: ``Yes, absolutely.''

Stansfield Turner

Turner was President Carter's director of the CIA, replacing George H.W. Bush in 1977. He presided over the firing of several hundred covert operatives involved in countless scandals, who then helped form the Bush for President campaign in the 1980 election. Bush was forced on a reluctant Reagan, and as Vice President had more power over foreign policy than the President (similar to the situation with Cheney and Bush the Second).

The Honorable Henry Waxman

from Blood in the Water: Watergate II by Michael Ruppert

The brick wall against which all of the administration's chess pieces will be crushed was outlined in an unanswered March 17 letter from California Congressman Henry Waxman (D) to President Bush. The record laid out by Waxman also makes it perfectly clear that Secretary of State Colin Powell is as implicated as any member of the Bush administration.
Before presenting Waxman's irrefutable record, it is important to ask one question: Who or what is capable of orchestrating events to remove the Bush presidency and yet leave the US with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, a National Security Strategy calling for pre-emptive attacks on foreign powers, Total Information Awareness, and, above all, Iraqi oil and the proceeds of Afghan heroin sales flowing through US banks? It isn't Henry Waxman, that's for sure.
To view the original letter, please visit:

Thomas E. White

Thomas White, a retired general, was a top executive at the Enron corporation before Bush the Second picked him to be Secretary of the Army. White departed the Bush regime amid clouds of controversy over his role in the Enron scandal.

Michael Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" publication placed an amazing, full page ad about Bush's scandals (Peak Oil, drug money, corruption, civil liberties / fascism and 9/11) in the Washington Post around the time of White's firing. Ruppert states "we are confident that our ad hastened and very likely caused, the April 26 firing of Army Secretary Thomas White."
The Mouse That Roared - 9,000 FTW Subscribers Take on America (and the World)!
May 21, 2003

General White had a brief clip in the beginning of the film where the experts were all introduced but did not actually appear in the body of the film itself. The film did not mention his role in the Enron scandal nor Ruppert's ad on Bush's scandals that may have triggered his firing.


Joe Wilson


for a discussion of the issue of the Bush White House leaking the identity of Ambassador Wilson's wife (she is a CIA agent)

Colonel Mary Ann Wright

Peter Zimmerman




a dirty trick to "set up" the peace movement???
Frustrated with the lack of domestic support, left-leaning website has apparently been reaching beyond American borders to generate cash revenue over the internet!
The provocative international fundraising strategy threatens to embroil the presidential candidacies of General Wesley Clark and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Both men are named on international fundraising websites suggesting donations to
Meanwhile,, which has been running ads critical of the Bush Administration, has named an "International Campaigns Director," the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
It is not clear how much money has been raised -- to date-- from foreign sources, but political websites from London to Portugal to Montreal are directing their citizens to stop the American president George Bush by donating to!
Wesley Clark's official campaign website has been offering a link to "Canada For Clark", which in turn advises Canadians: "Non-Americans can't by law, give money to any particular candidate's campaign. But we can support pro-democracy, progressive American organizations like, which do their best to spread the ugly truth about Bush and publicize the Democratic message. Click here to donate to"
The top traffic referrer to is Clark's Official Campaign Website.
MORE is a noncommercial and volunteer website offered by Corinne Sinclair, a non-US citizen, based in London. Domain registration information indicates the website name servers are owned by, a website hosting service based in Portugal. encourages non-Americans across the global to help Dean win the 2004 election.
A notice on the website explains how to provide funds to, since non-Americans cannot donate directly to the Dean campaign.
Late last week, a Swedish website removed an " Fundraising Appeal," claiming "No Longer Accepts Contributions From Non US Citizens/Permanent Resident Aliens."
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who has been headlining events, is said to have vocalized serious concerns about the website accepting cash from foreign sources, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
"To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, we are not going to take contributions from overseas," Wes Boyd, one of the founders of, explained this weekend.
Boyd refused to disclose how much revenue had already been generated abroad.


last updated: November 24, 2010