Various authors, various aspects: BushKerry Out to Kill Us
1. Kerry will do wars right!
2. McGovern: Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots
3. Bush saves warfare state and elections when White House
blows intelligence triumph to save al Qa'eda from being shut down
4. Jon Rappopot -- "The Small of Liars" Democrat and Republican game
is
exposed.
Crime pattern -- Condoleeza Rice mentions "Pre-election period.
Pre-election
plot. Pre-election threats" no less than 7 times on CNN -- The Kerry
Promise -- etc.
=================================
John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the
war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently"
from President Bush. -- The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the
congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president
to
have." But he told re****ters on a campaign swing through Arizona, "I
would
have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." Kerry
said he would plan for smoother occupations and would not enter war until
he
was sure Americans were sufficiently impressed with the truth of the need
for war that they would accept the costs. Finally he would be more
tactful
with other nations bringing more of them in to share the costs and
causalties, which George W. Bush failed to do. See:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html
Terrorism is their excuse for taking all power -- it is also what they
unleash in mass-murder false-flag black-ops to destroy, frame or
blackmail
to contain resistance.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0809-11.htm
Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots
by Ray McGovern
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Pre-election period.pre-election plot.pre-election threats"
These rolled off National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's lips no less
than seven times yesterday on CNN's Late Edition as she discussed the
likely
timing of a terrorist attack. She stayed on message.
Dr. Rice said the government had actually "picked up discussion" relating
to
"trying to do something in the pre-election period," and added that
information on the threat came from "active multiple sources."
I found myself wondering if those sources are any better than those cited
by
Attorney General John Ashcroft on May 26, when he launched this campaign,
citing "credible intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaeda plans an
attack on the United States" before the November election. Ashcroft's
warning came out of the blue, without the customary involvement of the
directors of the C.I.A. and Department of Homeland Security (although the
latter quickly fell in line).
In sup****t of his warning, Ashcroft cited "an al-Qaeda spokesman," who the
FBI later was embarrassed to admit is "The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades."
Sinister sounding though the name may be, this "group" is thought to
consist
of no more than one person with a fax machine, according to a senior U.S.
intelligence official. That fax is notorious for claiming credit for all
manner of death and destruction.
Are the recent warnings and heightened alerts legitimate or contrived? Is
this yet another case of "intelligence" being conjured up to serve the
political purposes of President Bush and his top advisers? The record of
the
past three years gives rise to the suspicion that this is precisely what
is
afoot.
Running Scared
While Iraq generally has moved off the front page, those paying attention
to
developments there have watched a transition from mayhem to bedlam in
recent
days. Worse still, the U.S. economy is again faltering as the election
draws
near.
Perhaps most worrisome of all from the administration's point of view are
the fresh photos, film footage, and other re****ting of torture in U.S.-run
prisons in Iraq and elsewhere that will surface in the coming weeks. This
round is said to include details of the rape and other abuse of some of
the
Iraqi women and the hundred or so children-some as young as 10 years
old-held in jails like Abu Graib. U.S. Army Sergeant Samuel Provance, who
was stationed there, has blown the whistle on the abuse of children as
well
as other prisoners. He recounted, for example, how interrogators soaked a
16-year-old, covered him in mud, and then used his suffering to break the
youth's father, also a prisoner, during interrogation.
I suspect it is the further revelations of torture that worries the White
House most. Adding to its woes, last week over a hundred lawyers,
including
seven past presidents of the American Bar Association and former FBI
Director William Sessions, issued a statement strongly condemning the
legal
opinions of government attorneys holding that torture might be legally
defensible. The lawyers called for an investigation regarding whether
there
is a connection between those legal opinions and the abuses at Abu Graib
and
elsewhere.
While Bush administration officials have tried to distance themselves from
the opinions and claim that the president did not authorize the torture of
suspected al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, the photographic evidence speaks
for
itself. And neo-conservative William Kristol's bragging Sunday on ABC's
This
Week that this administration's interrogation techniques have been
successful because they are "rougher than what John Kerry would approve
of"
does not help the administration's case.
With each new revelation of torture, the "few-bad-apples" explanation
strains credulity closer to the breaking point. Nor can it be denied that
the abuse took place on this administration's watch. Thus, there are
likely
to be increasing demands that the commander-in-chief-or at least his
defense
secretary-take responsibility. Where is it that the buck is supposed to
stop?
Connecting Dots
What has all this to do with Condoleezza Rice's multiple mention of
"pre-election threats?" Can these two dots be connected? I fear they can.
When John Ashcroft fired the opening shot in this campaign to raise the
specter of a "pre-election" terrorist event, it seemed to me that the
administration might be beginning to prepare the American people to accept
postponement or cancellation of the November election as a reasonable
option.
Tom Ridge's warning in early July that Osama bin Laden is "planning to
disrupt the November elections" added to my concern, as did;
* Word that Ridge has asked the Department of Justice to analyze what
legal steps would be needed to permit postponement of the election;
* The request by the Director of the Election Assistance Commission
for
Ridge to provide "guidelines" for canceling or rescheduling the election
in
the event of a terror attack;
* The matter-of-fact tone of a recent vote on CNN's website: "Should
the
United States postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack?"
That vote seems to have been greeted more by yawns than by any expression
of
outrage.
That the House of Representatives on July 22 passed a resolution by a
419-2
vote denying any agency or individual the authority to postpone a national
election suggests that many in Congress are taking the various trial
balloons and other hints seriously.
The Emperor's New Suit of Clothes
It seems a safe bet that President Bush is not sleeping as soundly as he
did
before the abuse of prisoners came to light. He may feel thoroughly
exposed
in the magic suit of sold him by Ashcroft's tailor/lawyers together with
those working for White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and may wish he
had
paid more attention to the strong cautions of Secretary of State Colin
Powell against playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions on
Prisoners of War.
The president can take little consolation in Gonzales' reassurance that
there is a "reasonable basis in law" that could provide a "solid defense,"
should an independent counsel at some point in the future attempt to
prosecute him under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 for exempting the
Taliban and perhaps others from the protections of the Geneva Conventions,
to which the War Crimes Act is inextricably tied.
Meaning? Meaning that if the president's numbers look no better in October
than they do now, there will be particularly strong personal incentive on
the part of the president, Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney to pull out
all the stops in order to make four more years a sure thing. What seems
increasingly clear is that putting off the election is under active
consideration-a course more likely to be chosen to the extent it achieves
status as just another option.
How Would Americans React?
On Friday I listened to a re****ter asking a tourist in Wa****ngton, DC,
whether he felt inconvenienced by all the blockages and barriers
occasioned
by the heightened alert. While the tourist acknowledged that the various
barriers and inspections made it difficult to get from one place to
another,
he made his overall reaction quite clear: "Safety first! I don't want to
see
another 9/11. Whatever it takes!" I was struck a few hours later as I
tuned
into President Bush speaking at a campaign rally in Michigan: "I will
never
relent in defending America. Whatever it takes."
How prevalent this sentiment has become was brought home to me as Rep.
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) quizzed 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey (a former
Democrat Senator from Nebraska) at a hearing last week on the commission's
sweeping recommendation to centralize foreign and domestic intelligence
under a new National Intelligence Director in the White House. Kerrey grew
quite angry as Kucinich kept insisting on an answer to his question: "How
do
you protect civil liberties amid such a concentration of information and
power?"
Kerrey protested that the terrorists give no priority to civil liberties.
He
went on to say that individual liberties must, in effect, be put on the
back
burner, while priority is given to combating terrorism. Whatever it takes.
Does this not speak volumes? Would Kerrey suggest that Americans act like
the "good Germans" of the 1930s, and acquiesce in draconian steps like
postponement or cancellation of the November election?
These are no small matters. It is high time to think them through.
Ray McGovern (rmcgovern@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) worked as a CIA analyst from the
administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush.
===============
VOTERS STRIKE!
VOTERS STRIKE FOR REAL POLITICAL CHOICE
Vote as if Democrats and Republicans don't exist.
Remember: Voting Republican or Democrat is tantamount to crossing a picket
line!!!
===============
Bush Saves politically useful al Qa'eda from being shut down.
Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, had been cooperating with Pakistani police and
the
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since he was quietly detained in
Lahore on July 12, when the White House, for no immediate reason other
than
gaining electioneering plaudits or to frustrate the debriefing "spilled
the
beans" -- which forced UK police to hurriedly round up 13 al-Qaeda
suspects who are alleged to have been in email communication with Khan.
Five
others who were sought by MI5 re****tedly escaped capture, and there is
some
question that the British had gathered enough evidence to persuade a judge
to keep the 13 detainees in custody, according to published re****ts. --
"The outing of Khan, probably the most im****tant asset the U.S. has ever
had
inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster and a setback to attempts to finish
off
the top leader****p of al-Qaeda," according to Juan Cole, a Middle East
specialist at the University of Michigan, whose Web log (or "blog")
"Informed Comment" is widely read in Wa****ngton. -- See:
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25003
===========
Strong evidence establishes Zionist Neo-cons guilty
of 911 Mass-Murder Black-op
Pentagon crash evidence proves frame-up,
Implicates Pentagon leader****p in inside-job
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/8
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/507
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/71
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/messages/1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/78
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidaritystreet/message/2
-----------------------------------------------
Double standard -- double think -- double trouble -- Kerry/Bush
"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that
I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area.
The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man,
because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will
go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an
Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would
make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750
Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by
raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and
we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do
but we tell others what they shall do."
[Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview with General
Ouze Merham, 1956]
==========
MR. RUSSERT: Israel assassinated Hamas leader Rantisi. Do
you sup****t that assassination?
SEN. KERRY: I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond
to any act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal
organization. It has had years to make up its mind to take part in a
peaceful process. They refuse to. Arafat refuses to. And I sup****t
Israel's efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure.
The moment Hamas says, "We've given up violence, we're prepared to
negotiate," I am absolutely confident they will find an Israel that
is thirsty to have that negotiation.
MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition
and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part
of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the
Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do
you sup****t President Bush?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Completely?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
("Meet the Press," NBC, April 18, 2004,
<http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/>)
================================
Richard Ko****mizu of Japan uncovers Big Business/ Big Finance Perpetrators
in Long-Running Conspiracy
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/meanwhile_j.htm
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/title.htm
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/title2.htm
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/title3.htm
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/doc4.htm
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/doc5.htm
==========================================
THE FOUL SMELL OF THE LIARS
by JON RAPPO****T
www.nomorefakenews.com
AUGUST 8, 2004. The game is exposed. The war is exposed. The fighting and
dying are exposed. The White House is exposed. The Democrats and
Republicans
are exposed.
The LA Times piece, reprinted below, gives a good idea of what democracy
in
Iraq and freedom in Iraq will really mean.
They will mean what IMF and WTO have permitted to a number of nations
around
the world: hold free elections, go with a legislature, but don't try to
mess
with economic rules and with OUTSIDE control of the country.
In other words, everything Bush has been mouthing about bringing democracy
to Iraq is a bald sham. There will be no democracy in any significant
sense.
There was never meant to be a democracy. Bush was lying; Bush is lying;
Bush
will continue to lie.
And Kerry won't make this a campaign issue. He is in the same ballpark as
Bush.
No media outlet in the US will pound on this deception. It will sink like
a
stone. No pundits on the talk shows will raise this issue. It will remain
mostly invisible.
And young men and women will have fought and died in Iraq for a new
freedom
there that was never meant to be.
This war was, on ground level, about control of Iraq.
"Give us your children; we will send them to Iraq to bring an economic
dictator****p to the region."
Imagine an American revolution (1776) that ended with a constitution that
was encircled with complete economic control of the new country by the
British. Would that have been freedom?
This reminds me a bit of the effects of NAFTA in the last ten years: NO
participating nation has benefited in any significant way. Every nation
has
lost. The winners have been several transnational cor****ations, who owe no
allegiance to any nation.
The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's
Economy
by Antonia Juhasz
08/06/04 Los Angeles Times -- Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq
ended
on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge:
Not
only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders"
of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.
These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of
the
now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush
administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American
firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few,
if
any, benefits to the Iraqi people.
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life "from the use of car
horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises."
Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a "centrally
planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.
Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the
end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred
authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a 30-year exile
with
close ties to the CIA and British intelligence. Further, the interim
constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing
Council,
solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most im****tant orders demonstrates the economic imprint
left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1)
privatization
of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign owner****p of Iraqi
businesses; (3) "national treatment" which means no preferences for local
over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all
profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year owner****p licenses. Thus, it
forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while
allowing foreign cor****ations, Halliburton and Bechtel, for example, to
buy
up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home.
They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the
Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any
amount.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by
placing
U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government
ministry,
with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs,
employees and regulations. Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors,
including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if
they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured
party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be
brought to U.S. courts.
Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on cor****ations from a high of 40% to a
flat
15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%. Order No. 12 (renewed on
Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, im****t taxes, licensing
fees
and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an
immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products,
devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to
meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.
Clearly, the Bremer orders fundamentally altered Iraq's existing laws. For
this reason, they are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied
country's
laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (ratified by the United
States)
and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, the
British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Prime Minister Tony Blair
that "major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by
international law."
With few reconstruction projects underway and with Bremer's rules favoring
U.S. cor****ations, there has been little op****tunity for Iraqis to go back
to work, leaving nearly 2 million unemployed 1 1/2 years after the
invasion
and, many believe, greatly fueling the resistance. The Bremer orders are
immoral and illegal and must be repealed to allow Iraqis to govern their
own
economic and political future.
Antonia Juhasz is a project director at the International Forum on
Globalization in San Francisco and a Foreign Policy in Focus scholar.
End of Times article
And you think the people of Iraq will accept this system?
You think they will view this as liberation?
You think they will feel as if the war has freed them to be independent?
You think they will paste a fat smile on their faces and accept their new
home-grown government as a good thing?
Every piece of rebellion from here on out, of course, will be re****ted as
terror attacks by al Qaeda and its allies.
Welcome to real politics. As opposed to the bull**** politics that turns
on
whether Kerry was a hero on his boat in Vietnam and whether Bush really
went
AWOL as a soldier and whether Kerry's wife is a weirdo who'll insult
foreign
dignitaries if she's enscounced in the White House and whether Hillary
wants
Bush to win so she can run in 2008 before she's too old and whether the
people think Kerry or Bush is a stronger leader and whether Bush will get
a
bigger bounce from the Republican convention than Kerry got out of Boston
and whether John Edwards will garner Kerry votes in the south...
================
The Pentagon evidence conclusively establishes Administration 911 guilt --
complict Participation of Rumsfeld,Wolfowtiz, Perle, Cheney in planning
and
executing a mass- murder false-flag frame-up to provoke war on the
innocent
at the expense of the deceived.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
http://www.globalfreepress.com/ewing2001/911/1.shtml
http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon-all.htm
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/063004showofforce.htm
http://www.globalfreepress.com/ewing2001/911/1.shtml
|
