|
|
CaptWalker
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 101
|
 Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:21 pm
|
 |
|
quote:
Originally posted by hitech_46253:
What kind of retarded crap is this?
SATAN boy Jr. has promised to hand this country over to his SATAN father's New World Odor by July of this year. Hence the reason for sending our guys out into a TRAP and bringing in FOREIGN troops to take guns and takeover this country under the GUISE of a UN crackdown on such a rogue nation. Bush goy playing his part of the new Hitler to get the rest of the world against U.S. As we attack Iraq, watch for North Korea to take the South, China to take Taiwan, and a whole host of other dominos to fall to the globalist aims..... This country is TOAST people! PERIOD! And GOOD RIDDANCE!
Your first question perfect describes your diatribe to follow. What kind of stuff have you been smoking? I will ask you a THIRD time... will you be here in a couple weeks (or July since that seems to be an important month for you) to EAT crow when Iraq is liberated, our troops return, and there is no foreign troop takeover? I seriously doubt it. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:13 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CaptWalker:
What kind of stuff have you been smoking?
Again, Captwalker, you know nothing of neuronautics and it shows. Keep drinking and dumbing down, so you can make a good vessel for the "Art of the State."
Sorry to see you go. It was ebjoyable to counter all your Nixonian/Bushian nonsense.
|
| |
|
|
CaptWalker
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 101
|
|
Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:17 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by swamp gas:
It was ebjoyable to counter all your Nixonian/Bushian nonsense.
Just as fun as it was to respond to all your Jones/Carni/Rense silliness! |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:38 pm
|
|
|
Yep, From the brains of people who cheered for that girl getting run over by the Israelis. Enough Said.
PS,
I thought you were exiting this board. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. |
| |
|
|
hitech_46253
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 499
Location: Indianapolis, IN U.S. |
|
Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:36 pm
|
|
|
Thunk! Think! Thunk!
Hello? McFly???
This is the sound you hear when you thump on the 'capt.' HOLLOW head!
Have you not been paying attention boy?
These kids AREN'T coming back!
Bush has already agreed to USE THEM to attack Israel's OTHER enemies! This is a war for ZIONISM not a war for oil. That's the smokescreen and cover. Let's see if we can reach that incredibly THICK skull of yours and others.
It was Daddy Bushie who quoted "New World Odor" 10 years TO THE DAY before 9-11.
It is Jr. who's promised to hand THIS country over to the globalists BY JULY.
The PLAN has always involved destroying the U.S. military. That's why they're talking of bulldozing our kids into MASS GRAVES rather than bringing their bodies home. Not that they'll have much of a home to come BACK to after SATAN boy has his foreign troops TAKE IT.
How many do you think will come back after they fight Iraq?
Iran?
Syria?
Lybia?
North Korea?
CHINA!
Columbia?
Phillipines?
You getting the picture yet GRANITE HEAD?
Go ahead and fall down at this satanist's feet. I'd rather he be tried and HANGED for HIGH TREASON as his father and Klinton should also be.
Your willful ignorance is the best weapon these globalists have. Feel Proud do ya?
Pride goeth before the fall. Die in ignorance if you CHOOSE to.
You go be a good little lemming and make Bush and Cheney rich. I'm staying here to defend the homeland and get me some of those blue helmets!
New US Senate Resolution Targets Iran Next! http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2297.htm
(How many of your kids do you think these bloodthirsy ZIONISTS will leave you?? NONE!)
Bonanza! Bush/Cheney-connected corporations to reap windfall in Iraqi reconstruction projects
The American government is on the verge of awarding construction contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild Iraq once Saddam Hussein is deposed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,911942,00.html
MARTIAL LAW ALMOST HERE!!!
(Prepare for a 'target rich' environment!)
You Will Be a Prisoner Inside Your Own Home.
..Meanwhile, the Government Claims Ownership of Your Children
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5447-2003Feb13.html
All This and the Border Stays Wide Open
Making You a Prisoner in Your Own Home
If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm
Code Red: Americans who leave their homes will be considered terrorists
If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state's anti-terror czar says. http://www.c-n.com/gsbr/story/0,21421,706996,00.html
Red Alert Blues http://www.rense.com/general35/redaer.htm
Red Alert, Stay at Home http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm
What a RED alert will mean in New Jersey http://www.sierratimes.com/03/03/18/arnj031803.htM
SC: National Guard Troops Would Patrol
National Guard troops would begin patrolling specific facilities, including protecting the entrances to state and federal office buildings and courthouses http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/5418154.htm
Homeland Security Department launches Operation Liberty Shield
Worried that war in Iraq could lead to terrorist reprisals at home, the Department of Homeland Security has raised the terror alert one level to orange, or "high," and called for an increase in security measures nationwide. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/attack/main543112.shtml
The Government Claims Ownership of Your Children
Many Anti-Terror Plans Would Stop Parents From Picking Up Children
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5447-2003Feb13.html
|
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:59 pm
|
|
|
Hi-tech,
you know, that's 100% correct. Captwalker will be cheering, as all of the above countries you mentioned are rolled over. This way, gas can stay at $2 per gallon insteasd of $3. Killin' those dirty stickin' AyRab towelheads is worth it. All the troops will hopped up on speed, like the Nazis, to keep pushing the NWO agenda right up to Russia and China's doorstep. Just like playing the game Doom.
Wait!!!!!! Captwalker is getting worried now. China and Russia? Don't they have nukes and outman us? Woops, bullies don't like even matches.
(Sound of pounding chest)
CaptWalker: We'll kick their ass. We have the technology and God on our side. We'll jail 1/2 of America for going against Adolph Bush. Yaaahhhhooooo....Yeeeeehahhhhhh! Ride 'em Cowboy!!!!!!
PS The New World Order quote.add Hilter, Goebbels, Dan Quayle, Gary HArt, and Kissinger to the Cro-Magnons who used the exact phrase. Oh, the dollar bill, Novus Ordo Seclorum
[Edited 1 times, lastly by swamp gas on 03-21-2003] |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:06 pm
|
|
|
I don't think China and Russia having nuclear weapons is going to have any influence on developments, but I think the present shoving of the United States into a war against Iraq does represent a trap that has been set by "globalists" and that the international media are already showing signs of singling out Bush, Blair and company as their next scapegoats.
I don't believe stories of planned foreign military occupations of the United States, though. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:05 pm
|
|
|
Capt Walker's interpretation of French warnings to Iraq against use of chemical weapons as a move foreshadowing "return to the fold" with the US is amazing in its complacency and in its overestimation of the real relevance of Weapons of Mass Distraction.
The French have their own reasons for warning off the Iraqis from use of chemical weapons (which in any case the Iraqis didn't use last time round, as far as I know, when fighting troops from the United States and Europe).
The following extracts from W. Clark's "The Currency War" give a taste of what is actually involved in this 'war'.
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 15% against the euro in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq — or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq — is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran — the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).
Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) — at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can — short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime.
The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy).
In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no "exit strategy" in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive "regime change" if they too move to euros for their oil exports.
The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination of high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists). Some elements of this scenario:
1) US global over-reach in the "war on terrorism" already leading to deficits as far as the eye can see — combined with historically-high US trade deficits — lead to a further run on the dollar. This and the stock market doldrums make the US less attractive to the world's capital.
2) More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with euros. Such a shift in dollar-euro holdings in Latin America and Asia could keep the dollar and euro close to parity.
3) OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide (after concerted buying of euros in the open market) to announce at a future meeting in Vienna that OPEC's oil will be re-denominated in euros, or even a new oil-backed currency of their own. A US attack on Iraq sends oil to $40 per barrel.
4) The Bush Administration's efforts to control the domestic political agenda backfires. Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and warnings of imminent new terrorist attacks precipitate a further stock market slide.
The U.S. economy has acquired several problems, including as our record-high trade account deficit (almost 5% of GDP), $6.3 trillion dollar deficit (55% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget deficits in the hundreds of billions. These are factors that would devalue the currency of any nation under the "old rules." Why is the dollar still strong despite these structural flaws? Well, the elites understand that the strength of the dollar does not merely rest on our economic output per se. The dollar posses two unique advantages relative to all other hard currencies.
The reality is that the strength of the dollar since 1945 rests on being the international reserve currency and thus fiat currency for global oil transactions (ie. "petro-dollar"). The U.S. prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation-states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to some degree Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future). These petro-dollars are then re-cycled from OPEC back into the U.S. via treasury bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc.
Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard (at $35 per ounce) that had been agreed to at the Breton Woods Conference at the end of World War II, the dollar has been a global monetary instrument that the United States, and only the United States, can produce by fiat. The dollar, now a fiat currency, is at a 16-year trade-weighted high despite record US current-account deficits and the status of the US as the leading debtor nation. The US national debt as of April 4 was $6.021 trillion against a gross domestic product (GDP) of $9 trillion.
World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger.
This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.
By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56 percent premium compared with emerging markets. The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win.
The unique geo-political agreement we have with Saudi Arabia has worked to our favor for the past 30 years, as this arrangement has raised the entire asset value of all dollar denominated assets/properties, and allowed the Federal Reserve to create a truly massive debt and credit expansion (or "credit bubble" in the view of some economists
The current structural imbalances in the U.S. economy are sustainable as long as:
1) Nations continue to demand and purchase oil for their energy/survival needs
2) The fiat reserve currency for global oil transactions remains the U.S. dollar (and dollar only)
These underlying factors, along with the "safe harbor" reputation of U.S. investments afforded by the dollar's reserve currency status propelled the U.S. to economic and military hegemony in the post-World War II period. However, the introduction of the euro is a significant new factor, and appears to be the primary threat to U.S. economic hegemony.
From the EU's point of view, it is clear that Europe would prefer to see payments for oil shift from the dollar to the euro. Since oil is such an important commodity in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the euro, it could provide a boost to the global acceptability of the single currency. There is also very strong trade links between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and the Euro-zone, with more than 45 percent of total merchandise imports of OPEC MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone, while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe.
Of major importance to the ultimate success of the euro, in terms of the oil pricing, will be if Europe's two major oil producers — the United Kingdom and Norway — join the single currency. Naturally, the future integration of these two countries into the Euro-zone and Europe will be important considering they are the region's two major oil producers in the North Sea, which is home to the international crude oil benchmark, Brent. This might create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros.
Further, if or when the U.K. adopts the euro currency, that development could provide critical motivation for OPEC to the make the transition to euros. It appears the final two pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition to euros will be based on if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, and when the U.K. adopts the euro. Regarding the later, Tony Blair is lobbying heavily for the U.K. to adopt the euro, and their adoption would seem imminent within this decade. Again, I offer the following information from my astute acquaintance who analyzes these matters very carefully regarding the euro:
The pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where approval this next autumn of adopting the euro also would give momentum to the Danish government's strong desire to follow suit. Polls in Denmark now indicate that the euro would pass with a comfortable margin and Norwegian polls show a growing majority in favor of EU membership. Indeed, with Norway having already integrated most EU economic directives through the EEA partnership and with their strongly appreciated currency, their accession to the euro would not only be effortless, but of great economic benefit.
As go the Swedes, so probably will go the Danes and Norwegians. It's the British who are the real obstacle to building momentum for the euro as international transaction and reserve currency. So long as the United Kingdom remains apart from the euro, reducing exchange rate costs between the euro and the British pound remains their obvious priority. British adoption (a near-given in the long run) would mount significant pressure toward repegging the Brent crude benchmark — which is traded on the International Petroleum Exchange in London — and the Norwegians would certainly have no objection whatsoever that I can think of, whether or not they join the European Union.
Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global dominance of the dollar are already well underway and have only reason to accelerate so far as I can see. An OPEC pricing shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004 — barring political motivations (ie. motivations of OPEC members) or a disorderly collapse of the dollar (ie. prolonged high oil prices due to Iraq war causes Japanese bank collapse) — but appears quite viable to take place before the end of the decade.
How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartel's price controls in a post-Saddam Iraq? First, the newly-installed regime (apparently a U.S. general for the first several months) will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Next, with the U.S. military protecting the oil fields, the Bush junta will undertake the necessary steps to rapidly increase production of Iraq oil, quintupling Iraq's current output — and well beyond OPEC's 2 million barrel per day quota.
Since the Gulf War, Iraq's production has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day.
Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels.
What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.
First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production to maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25 billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year.
The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker. That however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil sector investment can take place
Perhaps the Bush administration's ambitious goal of flooding the oil market with Iraqi crude may work, but I have doubts. Will OPEC simply tolerate quota-busting Iraqi oil production, thus delivering to them a lesson in self-inflicted hara-kiri (suicide)?
Contrarily, OPEC could meet in Vienna and in an act of self-preservation re-denominate the oil currency to the euro. Such a decision by would mark the end of U.S. dollar hegemony, and thus the end of our precarious economic superpower status. Again, I offer the astute analysis of my expert friend regarding the colossal gamble this administration is about to undertake:
One of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles' heel for now and the foreseeable future.
That such a course hasn't been pursued to date bears more relation to the fact that other Westernized, highly developed nations haven't any interest to undergo the great disruptions which would follow — but it could assuredly take place in the event that the consensus view coalesces of the United States as any sort of "rogue" nation. In other words, if the dangers of American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order (or, alternately, if an "every man for himself" crisis as discussed above spirals out of control and forces their hand). The Bush administration and the neo-conservative movement has set out on a multiple-front course to ensure that this cannot take place, in brief by a graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony.
The paradox I've illustrated is that the quixotic course itself may very well bring about the feared outcome that it means to preempt. Lastly, and despite President Bush's attempt to use the threat of applying military force to OPEC producers who may wish to switch to the euro for their oil payments, it appears their belligerent neo conservative policies may paradoxically bring about the dire outcome they hope to prevent — an OPEC currency switch to euros."
|
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:05 am
|
|
|
This elaborates on previous posting. It is off-topic, but I wasn't the one who led the discussion off-topic.
WH
THE PERFECT STORM - Part II
"Shock and Awe" Is "Mocked and Flawed" -- War Plan Stumbles as Bush Tells CNN, "It’s Gonna Take a While to Achieve Our Objective... This Is Just the Beginning of a Tough Fight." -- U.S. Soldiers Captured, Iraqi Resistance Significant and Toughening
U.S. Press/Political Hostility to Bush Administration Intensifies – Major Papers Discussing Criminal Behavior, Impeachment as Focus Intensifies on Forged Niger Uranium Docs – Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld Implicated
Oil Bonanza Fading as Economic Indicators Weaken in an Unstable Environment – Iraqi Oil Deliveries Interrupted – Reality Tramples Market Exuberance
Turk-Kurdish Chaos More Likely
Has the U.S. Been Set Up by Europe, Russia and China?
by Michael C. Ruppert
© Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.
March 24, 2003, 2100 EDT (FTW) – Atlanta, Military, economic, oil, and political storms continue to gather and converge in what may become a Perfect Storm for the Bush Administration and the United States economy.
On the fifth day of a U.S. military campaign rejected by the U.N. Security Council, at least 12 U.S. soldiers have been captured by Iraqi forces near al Nasiriyah even as various foreign news sources are reporting that as many as four to ten of the vaunted M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks have been destroyed in combat. A helicopter aircrew has been captured further north. ABC has reported that coalition casualties are approaching 200. Promises that Iraqi civilians expecting liberation would greet coalition troops with open arms have been unfulfilled as Iraqi resistance stiffens on a daily basis. In a tragic event, an African-American Sergeant of the 101st Air Assault Division staged a grenade attack on tents occupied by his comrades-in-arms, killing one and wounding fourteen. The fallout from this tragedy will have lasting repercussions on the psyches of both U.S. military and civilian populations. Images of an American Black man face down and handcuffed - no matter how serious the offense - will not fade quickly and will further erode an extremely fragile and increasingly volatile domestic landscape. The suspect is Muslim.
Saddam Hussein and his forces are now gaining strength, political cachet, and popular support with each new engagement while coalition forces lose it with every casualty and delay. One of the first questions asked at a somber, live press conference at Central Command headquarters in Qatar on Sunday was, "Has America gotten itself into another Vietnam?" This question came after only three days of ground combat. Around the Arab and Muslim world, Saddam Hussein’s picture is becoming an icon of anti-colonial resistance. Over a thousand years of European and American history, the Arab world has never given in easily to occupying forces; they always prefer one of their own – no matter how distasteful – to an outsider. The Crusades were the earliest lesson for Europe and the Suez crisis of 1956 the most recent.
Consistent with predictions made in FTW, the Turkish government, poised to send several brigades into northern Iraq, is threatening to turn Northern Iraq into absolute chaos. The Kurds who live in the region ethnically blur the borders of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran and their support is critical to U.S. military plans. Having sought an independent homeland for decades, they have been consistently used by the U.S. and western powers for covert operations and destabilization programs and they have always been betrayed later. At the moment FTW gives a 50-50 likelihood that the U.S. will ultimately – and after much protestation for effect – allow the Turkish incursion. That will instantly create a highly unstable and balkanized region. The U.S. has historically both created and preferred "balkanization" to secure commercial control of natural resources and civilian populations with devastating results for anyone living in the region. This could ultimately – if the U.S. invasion is successful - result in Iraq being divided into three or more separately governed regions.
The instability created by such a development would likely spread throughout the Middle East quickly. None of the region’s borders has existed for more than eighty years and all of them were drawn by departing colonial powers. Perceptions in Saudi Arabia of this kind of trend might automatically require U.S. forces to engage in a two-front war if the already unstable Saudi regime begins to fracture and weaken.
To date, this writer has seen no reportage of how the Saudi populace is reacting to a war plan that is stumbling. For approximately six months, FTW has been reporting that Saudi Arabia would likely become unstable with the invasion and that American war planners might be planning for a nearly simultaneous operation to control Saudi oil fields, which contain 25% of all the oil on the planet. But as the efficacy of U.S. military might comes into question, the brass ring of oil becomes ever more elusive and a Saudi occupation becomes a military goal out of reach.
In the meantime, there are increasing signs that the U.S. political and economic elites are laying the groundwork to make the Bush administration, specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Perle and Wolfowitz, sacrificial scapegoats for a failed policy in time to consolidate post 9-11 gains, regroup and move forward. These indications include: written press attacks on the Bush administration by select journalists long known for their loyalty and obedience to financial interests and the CIA; a growing revolt from within the intelligence communities of the U.S. and the U.K. including damaging leaks undermining the credibility of the administration; serious economic consequences closing in on the financial markets; growing signs of pending oil shortages; and indications that the use of forged documents by the Bush and Blair regimes may become the Watergate burglary of the 21st century.
THE WRITTEN PRESS TURN ON BUSH, BIG TIME
While most of the American people rely on television coverage for their worldview, those within the government, politics and the financial markets look to a select group of entrenched print journalists to sniff the winds of political change. Those winds started blowing against George W. Bush and his administration before the war began. In what appears to be intensifying anti-Bush rhetoric, an unprecedented media effort is beginning to cut the legs from under the administration even as it gambles everything on an increasingly elusive military victory.
March 12 – Beginning with a relatively unknown press organization, it was reported at www.informationtimes.com that 35 members of the U.S. Congress, overwhelmingly Democrat, had flatly rejected the U.S. war effort and were calling for a repeal of the February resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq.
March 12 – On the same day, journalistic heavyweight Howard Fineman of NEWSWEEK reported that the "blame game" had already begun for a war that had not. He wrote "But few think it’s going to be easy. And my guess is that team discipline inside the Bush administration is about to be fractured by the collateral damage that already is being caused by a war we have yet to fight. We are embarrassingly alone diplomatically, and State Department underlings (privately) blame Rumsfeld & Co. Inside the Pentagon - but outside of Rumsfeld’s office – I’m told that E-Ring brass have adopted what one source calls a ‘Vietnam mentality,’ a sense of resignation about a policy...they seriously doubt will work...
"This time around is a different story. The closer we get to the event, the less Bush is in control of events..."
March 14 – The Los Angeles Times’ Greg Miller reported that a State Department document was contradicting the Bush administration’s claim that the Iraqi invasion would encourage the spread of democracy.
"A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.
"The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq."
The story specifically singled out Pentagon hawks Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz as objects of criticism by the U.S. intelligence community.
March 15 – The International Herald Tribune reported that top officials of the World Trade Organization had also started turning on Bush by reporting, "...officials said they feared that American moves within the organization and toward a war in Iraq would weaken respect for international rules and lead to serious practical consequences for the world economy and business.
"In the past months the United States has compiled one of the worst records for violating trade rules...
"They said they were worried that all international institutions would suffer a loss of credibility if the one superpower appeared to be choosing which rules to obey and which rules to ignore."
The WTO, globalization, is the heart of the economic power bloc that brought Bush into power.
March 16 – The big guns at The Washington Post begin to open fire. In a lengthy story on the controversial Carlyle Group, a major private investment bank with which both the President and his father have deep financial connections, Greg Schneider made some absolutely stunning statements:
"David M. Rubenstein is exasperated, and he blurts something that a quick look around the room proves is outrageous: "We’re not," he nearly shouts, "that well connected!
"Behind him is a picture of Rubenstein on a plane with then-Gov. George W. Bush. Across the room, a photo of Rubenstein with the President’s father and mother. Next to that, Rubenstein and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elsewhere: Rubenstein and Jimmy Carter. On a bookshelf: Rubenstein and the pope...
"Rubenstein, after all, is founder of the Carlyle Group...
"But the connections have cost Carlyle, in ways that are hard to measure. It has developed a reputation as the CIA of the business world – omnipresent, powerful, a little sinister...
"Last year then-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) even suggested that Carlyle’s and Bush’s ties to the Middle East made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. While her comments were widely dismissed as irresponsible, the publicity highlighted Carlyle’s increasingly notorious reputation. Internet sites with headlines such as "The Axis of Corporate Evil" purport to link Carlyle to everything from Enron to Al Qaeda.
"’We’ve actually replaced the Trilateral Commission’ as the darling of conspiracy theorists, says Rubenstein – who, truth be told, happens to be a member of the Trilateral Commission.
"It didn’t help that as the World trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former President Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day...
"The company has rewarded its faithful with a 36 percent average annual rate of return...
"Times are changing, though. It’s no longer valid to assume that Carlyle’s golden roll of all-stars automatically opens doors in certain parts of the world, says Youssef M. Ibrahim of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. ‘George Bush junior is kind of screwing his father up, slowly but surely, in terms of securing relationships in the region,’ Ibrahim says of the Mideast. The current administration’s support for Israel, its hostility toward Iraq and its rocky dealings with the Saudi royal family have soured business and political relationships alike, he says."
[To view previous FTW stories on the Carlyle group please visit ]http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.html#bush.]
March 16 – On the same day as the Carlyle story, one of The Washington Post’s biggest pundits for several decades, Walter Pincus, fired a serious shot into the administration’s belly. To veterans of the 1996-98 popular nationwide campaign to expose CIA connections to cocaine trafficking, Pincus’ name will be remembered as one of the chief defenders of the CIA. In fact, Pincus has been one of the Post’s primary CIA conduits for more than thirty years. In 1967, he wrote a short feature for the Post titled, "How I Traveled the World on a CIA Stipend."
In a story titled "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms", Pincus described how U.S. "Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from the White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration’s case ‘and what they say is a lack of hard facts,’ one official said.
"The assertions, coming on the eve of a possible decision by President Bush to go to war against Iraq, have raised concerns among some members of the intelligence community about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public..."
Pincus went on to detail how key U.S. Senators like Carl Levin and John Warner were questioning data that had apparently been misrepresented and/or hidden from the U.N.
An ominous note at the end of the story, reminding anyone who read it of Watergate and the demise of the Nixon presidency, added "Staff Writer Bob Woodward contributed to this report."
March 18 – Pincus returned again, in the company of Post Staff Writer Dana Milbank, to place more bricks in the wall that might seal the administration’s fate. The story titled, "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq" opened with the lead, "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that have been challenged – and in some cases disproved – by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports."
The story went on to document misrepresentations by George Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell that made it clear that if George W. Bush was going down his whole administration was going with him. It was now a part of the official Washington record that all three had been guilty of misrepresentations to the press and the American people.
March 20 – Columnist Craig Roberts, writing in the traditionally pro-Republican, conservative Washington Times delivered perhaps the most shocking signal that the power establishment, which should have stopped the war before it started, was moving to set the administration up for a fall.
In a column titled "A Reckless Path", Roberts’ lead paragraph read:
"Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America’s allies."
It got worse from there.
"...On the eve of Mr. Bush’s ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the forged documents that the Bush administration has used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."
Amazingly, Roberts then went on to make a comparison with Adolf Hitler’s faked attacks by SS soldiers dressed as Polish troops in 1939 to justify the invasion of Poland, which started the Second World War.
Roberts closed his column with a dire warning. "Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative."
March 22 – One of The New York Times’ chief experts on intelligence, with close contacts at the CIA, is James Risen. Whenever reading a Risen story it’s a safe bet to assume that it was fed to him directly by CIA headquarters. In a story headlined, "CIA Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports" Risen wrote:
"The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled, several intelligence officials said.
"Analysts at the agency said they had felt pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush administration policies.
"For months, a few C.I.A. analysts have privately expressed concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda.
"As the White House contended that links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda justified military action against Iraq, these analysts complained that reports on Iraq have attracted unusually intense scrutiny from senior policy makers within the Bush administration.
"’A lot of analysts have been upset about the way the Iraq-Al Qaeda case has been handled,’ said one intelligence official familiar with the debate."
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TURN ON BUSH/BLAIR
It has been happening for two months now. Leaks, protests, even overt criticisms from those like former senior CIA analyst Stephen Pelletier, who has revealed that it was Iran rather than Iraq which had killed thousands of Kurds in massive poison gas attacks in the 1980s. More recently we have seen British intelligence personnel leak information to the press showing that Britain’s infamous intelligence dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been plagiarized from outdated information in graduate student papers and that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in illegal wiretapping of U.N. officials in attempts to secure enough votes for a resolution in support of the invasion. One or perhaps two of these events could be explained as the actions of individuals. But the frequency and number of these attacks is suggesting that the intelligence services, which view themselves as permanent and enduring institutions as compared to passing administrations, are slowly pulling structural supports from underneath the Bush and Blair administrations’ platform.
On February 8, Counterpunch published a statement by a group calling itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) which gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a C- grade for providing "context and perspective" on Iraqi weapons and intent. The statement specifically and correctly chided the Bush administration for making the violation of a U.N. resolution a pretext for war pointing out that Israel’s refusal to comply from a U.N. resolution calling for its withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 has never been addressed.
[NOTE: Israel is currently in violation of 64 U.N. resolutions as opposed to Iraq’s 17]
The VIPS statement also vigorously disputed any notion that Iraq posed any immediate threat to the U.S. and quoted CIA reports supporting that position. It also disputed Bush/Powell contentions that Iraq had any previous involvement with terrorist activities. Revealing what may actually be an intention of the Bush administration, VIPS stated, "Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future."
And, striking a chord that is sure to resonate in millions of U.S. military veterans, VIPS observed, "Reminder: The last time we sent troops to the Gulf, over 600,000 of them, one out of three came back ill – many with unexplained disorders of the nervous system. Your Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs recently closed the VA healthcare system to nearly 200,000 eligible veterans by administrative fiat."
Stories from early March in Britain’s The Observer actually produced a copy of a Top Secret NSA memorandum calling on allied intelligence agencies to increase their wiretapping and monitoring of U.N. diplomats who might swing a Security Council vote in favor of the U.S. While reportage on this major breach of international trust and protocol has gone away, the rage felt by many diplomats has not. It was later disclosed that an employee of British intelligence who was outraged by its contents had leaked the memo. However, reading between the lines, this writer suspects that the leak took place with a wink and a nod from higher ups.
By March 14, the activities of VIPS were getting favorable coverage by the Associated Press, a sign that powers controlling both the media and the intelligence services were pushing the agenda. Although varying editions of the story appeared in print, on the AP web site and in different parts of the country, the basic story retained a key lead sentence. "A small group comprised mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq."
Such a statement from intelligence veterans has serious repercussions in a discipline that is noted for never leaking information. That is, unless there is an agenda that intelligence agencies themselves are pursuing. In those cases the CIA plays the media, as one CIA executive once described, "like a Mighty Wurlitzer."
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.
OIL'S NOT WELL
The utterly ridiculous and unjustified drop in oil prices and upsurge in the Dow last week is belied by real data on oil supplies as the Iraqi invasion stumbles. As the war intensifies some real garbage and some occasional gems of truth are coming from the major media.
First, it is a given that while the war is in progress, Iraqi oil exports are virtually non-existent. The port region around Basra – which accounts for well more than half of Iraqi exports -- is virtually shut down. One pipeline running from northern Iraq to the Turkish port of Ceyhan is reported to be intact but there are no reports as to whether oil is actually flowing. It’s not likely. What this means is that it is a safe bet that two million plus barrels per day (Mbpd) have been taken out of world supplies.
In the face of this, BusinessWeek, in the February 24 issue, has engaged in the outrageously dishonest reporting that the Caspian basin may hold 200 billion barrels (Gb) of reserves and that there are some three trillion barrels of proven conventional oil remaining on the planet. Extensive research conducted by FTW has shown that Caspian reserves have been verified by drilling results over the last three years to be only around 40 Gb and are a major disappointment. FTW data was derived through extensive research in oil and gas journals, official government reports and by direct interviews with oil executives who have been in the region.
Planetary reserves of conventional oil are only about one trillion barrels or enough to keep the world supplied for approximately 30 years in an ever tightening and ever more expensive marketplace that threatens economies all over the globe. Motives for the BusinessWeek deception would include providing propaganda cover for the fact that the invasion of Iraq is totally about oil and also give false confidence to investors as financial and equity markets teeter on the brink of collapse.
The Wall Street Journal, however, on March 18, recently engaged in some serious truth telling. In a page-one story titled "Why the U.S. IS Still Hooked On Oil Imports", the Journal reported:
"President Bush says hydrogen power will lead to energy independence... Mr. Bush is almost certain to be proved wrong, at least in the next couple of decades."
After acknowledging that oil price spikes have always led to recessions, the Journal relied on an extensive body of research of the statements of OPEC founder, Saudi Sheikh Zaki Yamani to hit at one of the core motivators for the Iraqi invasion – oil production costs. Not every country or region spends the same amount of money to produce a barrel of oil. And nowhere is oil cheaper to produce than in the Persian Gulf. The Journal quoted Yamani as stating at a 1980s OPEC meeting, "Let’s see how the North Sea can produce oil when prices are at $5 a barrel."
The Journal continued: "At low prices, the Persian Gulf countries have an unbeatable edge. In the mid 1980s it cost them a couple of dollars a barrel to produce oil. It cost about $15 a barrel off the coast of Britain and Norway or in the U.S." That was in the 1980s. Credible estimates of North Sea production costs in dying fields now place the cost per barrel at over $20.
Russia has current estimated production costs of between $19 and $27 a barrel which reveal the key to everything that’s going on now. The world is running out of oil. In order to save a teetering U.S. economy the Bush administration is betting on the rapidly diminishing hope that it can get Iraqi oil back on the markets and available to the U.S. at a price of between $15 and $20 per barrel. If the prices drop to the levels Bush needs, OPEC loses its profits and Russian oil becomes uncompetitive in the market place.
Bush is not going to get his way.
In a major development, it was reported on Saturday that growing unrest in Nigeria, an OPEC member and the world’s sixth largest exporter, had shut down the Chevron Texaco pumping facilities. A story in today’s Economist confirmed earlier reports that both Chevron and French giant TotalFinaElf had not only shut down production but ordered evacuations of all their personnel. These moves take an immediate 330,000 barrels a day out of world supplies and they also hearken back to recent lessons learned in Venezuela after a massive strike shut down Venezuelan production. Refineries and wells don’t operate at the flip of a switch. They require a constant flow of chemicals and products to keep their systems primed. When recovering from a shut down, it often takes a considerable period to reach previous production levels.
While OPEC has announced that it will increase production to offset shortages, its ability to do so is limited to perhaps a 3-5 Mbpd increase. That’s a drop in the bucket in current tight markets and in a world that consumes a billion barrels every twelve days. Iraqi oil fields will require billions of dollars of investment and years to increase Iraqi production to five or eight Mbpd. And that clock will only start ticking once the country is secure and safe, an outcome that is not at all guaranteed at the moment.
In the meantime, according to The Financial Times today, the Mexican government has announced its intent to start selling U.S. dollars on world currency markets. This move could further weaken an already shaky U.S. dollar, especially if other nations, angered at the U.S. invasion of Iraq, follow suit. Since oil is currently purchased in dollars, inevitable future oil price spikes could become doubly painful for the U.S. economy as the dollar loses value.
BUSH'S WATGERATE BURGLARY
"At the Security Council, some are questioning the veracity of any U.S. claim regarding Iraq." – The Boston Globe, March 16, 2003
The first official report that documents prepared on stationery of the governments of Niger and Iraq detailing a planned sale of uranium to Iraq were forged came on March 7. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council that the documents, "were not authentic." The first paper to break the news was London’s Financial Times. The documents, not very clever or convincing, failed to convince the U.N. but were, however, included in British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s now legendary flawed intelligence dossier, which had been presented to Parliament on Sept. 24, 2002.
The Washington Post picked up on the story on March 8 where it reported that, "The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away – including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said."
The Post reported administration officials as giving the somewhat lame excuse, "We fell for it." No one even tried to suggest a motive for someone other than the Bush or Blair regimes to commit the crime.
Not everyone fell for it. As reported in what are now at least a half dozen stories, the CIA was suspicious of the documents and purposely left them out of their own report on Iraqi weapons. That did not, however, prevent George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney from touting them as authentic. The State Department even authoritatively referred to the documents in a December 19, 2002 Fact Sheet titled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council".
By March 13, The Post was back with a story indicating that the FBI was looking into the source of the documents and "the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq."
Huh? Is there some country out there we haven’t heard of that really hates Iraq other than the U.S., Britain or Israel?
The Post story closed by saying, "The CIA, which also had obtained the documents, had questions about ‘whether they were accurate,’ said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq’s program to procure weapons of mass destruction."
This begs the question as to whether CIA Director George Tenet told Bush or Cheney or Powell that the documents were forged. That’s his job above all else: to give the President reliable and trustworthy intelligence.
On March 14, Ken Guggenheim of The Associated Press reported that Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee had called the FBI and asked for an investigation of the documents. Rockefeller’s full name is John D. Rockefeller, IV and he is a direct descendant of the same family that essentially brought the Bush family into power. What is amazing here is not only that someone has requested an investigation of just one of the hundreds of Bush administration inconsistencies and proven lies since 9-11, but that it was a Rockefeller who requested it. That reality has thundered throughout Washington’s power corridors like an earthquake.
FTW placed calls to both FBI headquarters and Rockefeller’s Washington offices asking for comment or further information. An FBI spokesperson told FTW that the Bureau had nothing to say. After hearing what the topic was, a Rockefeller spokesperson promised to call back but did not.
Colin Powell immediately started denying that the State Department had anything to do with creating the forgeries. No one had accused him! And the story picked up "legs" in print media around the world.
By the 15th, CNN had picked up the story on its web site and had added damning observations about the childish, crude and "obvious" nature of the forgeries that "should never have gotten past the CIA." But the CIA had already established a record saying that it never trusted the documents. Asked about the documents on Meet the Press the previous Sunday, Powell simply stated, "It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine."
Not so fine.
Where did the documents come from? Already inconsistent finger pointing, eerily reminiscent of the loose threads pulled on by Woodward and Bernstein in 1972 and 1973 are starting to surface. Powell says he doesn’t know where the documents came from. Britain is remaining silent and the government of Niger has issued a blunt statement indicating that the documents were forged in London and Washington.
My guess is that they were forged inside the National Security Council rather than at the CIA. The CIA would have done a better job. Can you say, "Iran-Contra"?
The most scathing blow to date – and there are sure to be more – came from Congressman Henry Waxman (D, Ca.) who, in a six-page March 17 letter to George Bush, created a locked-down record of Bush’s, Cheney’s, Rumsfeld’s and Powell’s use of the documents, even pointing out that the President had made reference to the documents in his State-of-the-Union address in January by saying, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Waxman noted next that, "a day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a news briefing that Iraq "recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Waxman closed his letter with three chilling questions that may now distance George Tenet from George W. Bush and his cabinet, who will all go down together if it becomes necessary. Waxman asked the President to directly address:
Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about the credibility of the forged evidence to other Administration officials, including officials at the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the White House;
Whether the CIA had any input into the "Fact Sheet" distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and
Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of the Union address regarding Iraq’s attempts to obtain uranium from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the statement.
I can hear the distant echoes of Senator Howard Baker in the Senate Watergate hearings asking, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
THE PERFECT STORM
It’s all coming together on the radar screen and the chances are that these storms are going to merge. In this all out economic war of survival, as Peak Oil forces its way into the public consciousness, Russia will likely continue to provide Saddam with arms and technical assistance. France may well share intelligence. China, with the slightest nod, can contribute tactical advice and many mines for the Mediterranean. All of them can indirectly, and through plausibly deniable methods, foster and supply revolts in oil producing regions around the globe. And they can all laugh and deny as the U.S. tries to point a finger at them. This has all been done before.
In the meantime Vladimir Putin can cushion his allies with cheap oil as the U.S. starts to die of thirst.
Before Americans become outraged that such a scenario might be unfolding, I would remind them that every one of these tactics has been employed by the United States in spades against each of these countries for more than fifty years. It was the U.S. that chose this course to begin with. The tragedy, of course, is that the American people will suffer greatly as the storms converge. The truth is that the American people have never been any more of a concern to the powers that be than the people in the rest of the world have, except that giving them a higher standard of living made them compliant and dumb. It appears as if even that is no longer necessary. The destruction of American credibility and the transfer of its wealth are necessary steps in the creation of the New World Order.
Everything might just come crashing down all at once and if that happens the powers that rule will sacrifice their little Caesar and cut a deal with the other nations quickly. Just as in Shakespeare’s play, there will be many wounds in Caesar’s body, inflicted by many different people. But most certainly one of the daggers will be found in the hand of George Tenet and the CIA. He knows where the real power resides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
|
|
hitech_46253
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 499
Location: Indianapolis, IN U.S. |
|
Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:55 pm
|
|
|
Since we're off topic here... Let me caution you on Mikey Ruppert.. While he claims to be a former spook, evidence is piling up that he's STILL a spook. His close association with Barbie Hartwell, who's association with Stew Webb, Carl Worden and other DIS-INFORMERS are big red flags. Like Art Bell, you're getting PARTIAL truth to hook you into some lies. Ruppert recently tried accusing Alex Jones of misinforming people regarding gun control provisions in the Homeland Security act.... Alex Responded and showed THEY'RE IN THERE!
----- Original Message -----
From: Everyman
To:
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 6:00 PM
Subject: [govtwatch] Re: ALEX JONES' RESPONSE TO MIKE RUPPERT POST
Remember Ruppert's stories about a Navy Officer (Vreeland) arrested in
Canada who tried to warn about 9/11 coming. He supposedly was in Russia when
he saw documents that connect Iraq to 9/11? It is all disinformation. These
operatives are getting desperate now that they've been disclosed!
For several months now I have been very suspicious of Ruppert. I can almost
guarantee now he is a Zionist and false-flag operative.
[name withheld by DE]
----------
Ruppert's bashing of Alex Jones and Hilton below:
This message is being sent to the exact same limited distribution list of 14
people as my message from last night.
I am relieved to learn that Barbara Honegger has not formed a formal
alliance or partnered or endorsed the work of Stanley Hilton. She apparently
expressed some interest in his research but has not - as was implied by a
series of email threads that were sent to me and many others yesterday -
made any kind of a link between her work and his. This is a great relief.
Honegger is a respected writer and researcher with whom I have a
disagreement over the FAA/NORAD/DoD actions of 9-11. Time and research by
many over a considerable period will establish the truth there. As all of
you know, I will continue to contest any 9-11 analysis which does not accept
the demonstrable and willful USG actions on 9-11 which allowed the attacks
to succeed and which can be explained in no other way.
The danger I was warning against was that created by Hilton's inflammatory,
unprofessional and apparently racist remarks which included citations of The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion and agreement with the premise that the
terrorist war was about "coming after white people."
The danger posed by that kind of rhetoric is apparent to any sober
researcher and the speed with which the thread was spreading across the
Internet required immediate action. I know this based upon bitter experience
last year with ad hominem attacks on my personal life and research.
Barbara Honegger's work - just like my own - deserves impartial and fair
analysis and debate that is devoid from the overcharged emotional energy
that it had been linked with by people other than me throughout the day
yesterday. Now that many more people are aware of exactly what was said in
the Alex Jones broadcast the possibility that Hilton's remarks will cloud
that debate has apparently been removed.
Again, I encourage anyone with any doubts about this issue to listen to the
entire broadcast at:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/hilton_03_11_03.mp3
Mike Ruppert
http://whatreallyhappened.com/letters.html
===============
ALEX JONES' RESPONSE TO MIKE RUPPERT POST
In Response To: WARNING FROM MIKE RUPPERT (BarbaraHartwell)
Title: Alex Jones Sets the Record Straight Concerning
the Stanley Hilton Interview
Back in September of 2001, I interviewed the head of
the House impeachment team, David Schippers, and was
criticized by Mike Ruppert, who is now criticizing my
interview with Stanley Hilton (who is representing 400
family members of the family of the victims of the
Sept 11 attacks). I have interviewed hundreds of
people, including Ruppert, who has now become
my detractor.
I really don't care when the Washington Post or the
New York Times attacks me. After all, we know what
side they're on. But when someone I have promoted and
supported continually attacks me, I have to speak up.
In his story Ruppert claims that he has "indirectly
confronted me" over "outright fabrications regarding
Patriot Act II." Well, I've never heard from him and
haven't gotten a single email from anyone who heard him
"confront me." Much of my analysis of the Patriot Act II (available at http://www.infowars.com/print_patriotact2_analysis.htm )
has been seconded by hundreds of newspapers and government
watchdog groups.
Days after the passage of the first Patriot
Act(October 27, 2001) I posted a story analyzing the
draconian measures it entails. That story is
available at http://www.infowars.com/HR_3162.html and
is very accurate.
To properly assess the new Patriot Act, one must look
at the US code and the interface between Patriot Act
II and the original Patriot Act. Several others have
questioned small portions of my analysis, but upon
researching it, they have found that I'm correct. It
does contain the national DNA database, secret arrests
and executions. Section 501 that allows the
government to strip Americans' of their citizenship is
the definition of the "enemy combatant" designation.
In criticism posted on Rumor Mill News of my interview
with Stanley Hilton, Mike Ruppert says that I
fabricated a section of the bill S.22 concerning
Our Lady of Peace Act that contains provisions to
register gun owners. Simply click on the following
link to read Gun Owners of America's analysis: http://www.gunowners.org/108anatb.htm. Before writing
this, I even took time out to call the Executive
Director of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, to ask
his opinion of S. 22 and gun registration and he told
me that not only did our Lady of Peace Act do that,
but that there was also the national ballistics
database that registers the gun itself with the
Federal Government. It not only registers gun owners,
it forces States to turn over information on gun
owners including tax returns and unemployment
records. All total, there are eight different gun
bills inside S. 22, and I suggest that people read all
eight of them, as I did a month ago, before forming any
opinions.
What really saddened me was the implication that I'm a
racist by taking comments I made about racism out of
context. I have stated time and time again (as I did
on that night's show) that the phony right-wing talk
radio circuit will make racial comments about Middle
Easterners and that people think that it's acceptable
to take their rights away. They think it will
never happen to white America. Black talk show host
and author Tony Brown has said on my show that first
they do it to the disadvantaged minorities,
then they do it to the white people. I challenge
people to go listen to the interview themselves so
they can hear what I said. You can listen to
myself and Stanley Hilton decry the racism being
promoted against Middle Easterners
during the interview at the following link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/hilton_03_11_03.mp3
Here is the transcript from where I attack (far from
promote as Ruppert said) racist white America:
Caller: "They're going after the Arabs now, but next,
next it's going to be, guess what? The white people."
Stanley Hilton: "Yeah well the Arabs are not really
Muslim fanatics as is presented, as I said earlier
from the eyewitnesses, these people are more
interested in Playboy than the Koran."
Alex Jones: "Well let me just say this, I don't come
up with this comment out of nowhere. I look at the FBI
training manuals, I have them on tape, I have them on
video. When I say 'white people' I want racist white
America that goes 'oh yeah, Bush, kill them Arabs,
kill them.'...you know, it's acceptable to have radio
promos where it goes 'look at them camels run, look at
them ragheads' - that's on national radio - that type
of racism is acceptable and I think it's disgusting."
Many times we only post partial transcripts on our web
sites. By tomorrow you will be able to read the
entire transcript, but please take the time to
hear the original interview at the link listed above.
Also, please note that Ruppert accuses Hilton of being
anti-Semitic in the following quote...
"But Hilton, who was a senior staffer to Bob Dole is
far, far worse. He is the reincarnation of Daniel
Sheehan who will destroy the lawsuit from the
inside. Not only did he pander to pro-white,
anti-Semitic overtones, he took the exaggerated points
that Jones made and took some even further."
Our prisonplanet.com webmaster found an article from
the Jewish Bulletin News where Hilton is DEFENDING a
Jewish San Quentin prison guard who has filed an
anti-Semitism suit against his prison.
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk020913/bn29b.shtml
"Ashenfarb and his attorney, Stanley Hilton, had in
the past presented their own settlement proposal to
the state with a much higher, undisclosed dollar
amount. But the guard claimed he is reluctant to
settle the case out of court."
I hope everyone can continue to focus on enlightening
the general public to the fact that there is a New
World Order, the Patriot Act II does destroy our
Constitutional liberties and that our greatest hope
lies with the average man and woman getting involved
at the grassroots level.
I know this about my radio talk show and my web sites.
I do the best job I can to tell the truth and to
stand up to corruption wherever I may find it.
And, yes, it's true -- I'm not perfect, unlike other
people. I would challenge folks to get on the radio
six hours a day, run two websites, make documentary
films, write books, give public speeches, do a TV show
twice a week and raise a family.
Love Live the Republic. Death to the New World Order,
Alex Jones
=====
WARNING FROM MIKE RUPPERT (views: 3009)
BarbaraHartwell -- Friday, 14 March 2003, 10:25 a.m.
FOLLOW UP ON HILTON, JONES & HONEGGER (views: 436)
BarbaraHartwell -- Friday, 14 March 2003, 5:01 p.m.
NEW: ALEX JONES' RESPONSE TO MIKE RUPPERT POST (views: 26)
ZAPPER -- Saturday, 15 March 2003, 12:45 a.m.
[ View Thread ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
|
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:28 pm
|
|
|
The delusional capt walker (armchair capt) is a sadly misinformed Washington DC area real estate dealer that has problems handling the truth and seeing through the piles of $#@#! being spewed by the media and this traitor filled administration.
|
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:27 pm
|
|
|
Perhaps this thread should be moved to Freeform or Other Trails since it has less and less to do with chemtrail evidence? I bet the debunkers just love to see topics such as this one be derailed...2 steps back for the cause.
Well you tried ICU812, to be logical and level-headed in your quest for evidence. Bush-bashing ultimately wins out yet again. Perhaps we should rename this forum Bush Central??
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Lulu on 03-26-2003] |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:19 am
|
|
|
We have gone off topic and not just into Bush bashing but also into Ruppert bashing and obscure arguments within arguments.
Just to close this subject, and I won't post any more here on this thread (on this topic) one way that Ruppert did impress me on my first seeing him was when I saw that he was not just another "anti-Zionist". His views on Israel are nuanced.
This is what he said in "Truth and Lies of 9/11": "There's a recurring theme out there that maybe the Israelis did this (the terrorist attacks). You hear about it in some right-wing circles. Nonsense. They didn't do it. They were warning the U.S. hand over fist and the U.S. did not listen. Because it needed the attacks. And you will be convinced of that. But here's one of the most telling pieces of evidence that I've found. We reviewed the list of former tenants of the World Trade Center at the on-line Wall Street Journal site. Scroll to the very bottom and notice the moving date for the offices of Zim American-Israeli Shipping to Norfolk Virginia. They were in the World Trade Center. They must have had Mossad input because they vacated one week before September 11 and they broke their lease. The Israelis didn't pull the attack but they were smart enough to get their people out of the way. How come our government didn't do the same thing for us?"
That to me is a good message: "How come our government didn't do the same thing for us?" If the American government started applying principles of defending American citizens the way that Israel defends Jews, that would definitely be a change for the better.
I say that as a non-American and a non-Jew.
|
| |
|
|
ICU812
Joined: 30 Mar 2001
Posts: 103
Location: Edmonton, Canada |
|
Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:06 pm
|
|
|
In lite of all that's going on on our rock right now, being distracted is quite easy.
This is certainly a less 'immediate' impacting environmental and humanitarian concern than the current middle east war.
We shall continue!
Although ground level precipitation analysis will not establish the origin of contaminant, it does establish that the contaminant is present. The results of testing has caught the attention of our Capital Health authority, the media, growers and our Water Treatment Department. They want to see more!!
What levels of two components, indicated to be in chemtrails, can you expect to find within 'your' precipitation?
Does anyone have research information from studies on Al & Ba levels found in precipitation in an urban environment?
When time permits, I will post this to the science forum.
Latest Lab Results of Aluminum and Barium within our snowfall:
March 16, 2003
Aluminum 0.108mg/l
Barium 0.066mg/l
Results of rural Al & Ba analysis.
Aluminum 0.0093mg/l
Barium 0.001mg/l
Indicated Aluminum is 11X higher than rural results.
Indicated Barium is 66X higher than rural results.
Opening the floor to 'scientific publications' relating to the use of Al, Ba, SF6 or any atmospheric tracers in 'atmospheric experiments'.
Opening the floor to 'documentation' showing a 'request for bidders' for the supply of Al, Ba, SF6 or any atmospheric tracers to be used in atmospheric experiments.
Opening the floor to observations of frequency of 'current' unusual persistent contrails now that some of the 55th AFWS is overseas.
Opening the floor to information relating to SWMS.
Lulu, my passion for the rock I stand on and my responsibility to the children I leave it to, will continue to encourage me, until I have a better understanding.
Moving forward.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by ICU812 on 03-27-2003] |
| |
|
|
NotAsNaiveAsYou
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 4
Location: Canada |
|
Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:47 pm
|
|
|
My amazement with this forum continues to grow exponentially by hour.
Does anyone actually read through all these 3000 word posts?
Let me explain contrails to you...
An aircraft leaves a condensation trail (hence, contrail) behind it when the moisture formed during combustion and emmitted with the exhaust gases is sufficient to saturate the air, and subsequently causing condensation.
For each pound of aircraft fuel burned, approximately 1.4lbs of water vapour are formed and ejected with the engine exhaust gases. This increases the relative humidity in the wake of the aircraft. On the other hand, the heat generated by the engine tends to lower the relative humidity in the wake by raising the temperature. There is a gradual mixing of the exhaust with the air behind the aircraft which viaries from zero immediately behind the aircraft to complete mixing a considerable distance behind.
In certain conditions, the net result is to increase the humidity to saturation so that cloud forms one or two hundred feet behind the aircraft as the exhaust cool. In the case of jet aircraft, the critical conditions under whick contrails form are almost the same for all types of aircraft.
Whether a trail will form or not depends on the temperature and relative humidity of the air surrounding the aircraft. Contrails will not form when the relative humidity is 100%, but they will form at less than that depending on the atmospheric pressure and and temperature. For example at 200 hectopascals (40 000 feet) contrails will form at any temperature colder than -55Celcius even with 0% relative humidity and at -50Celcius if the relative humidity is less than 90%.
Whether the contrails will be persistent or quickly evaporate depends mainly on whether the contrail particles are composed of super-cooled water droplets or of ice crystals. If they remain as super-cooled water droplets, mixing with the surrounding air will cause them to evaporate within a minute or so. Ith they have turned to ice crystals, they may persist for HOURS, and indeed several contrails may merge to cause an overcast of cirrus 'cloud'. At temperatures colder than -40celcius water droplets freeze to ice crystals within a very short time so that it is at temperatures colder than this that contrails will normally be persistant, provided that they will form. They may also change to ice crystals and persis if the relative humidity is very high, for example in thikn cirrus cloud.
Since contrails make the visual detection of aircraft extremely easy so for military operations it may be important to avoid forming them. To avoid this, military pilots often take certain steps to avoid creating them, for instance:
1.Flying at a flight level where the temperatures are warm enough that persistent contrails will not form.
2.Fly very high in the stratosphere provided that the temperatures there are not too cold. The air will be very dry and as stated before, it takes very cold temperature to produce contrails at great heights.
3.Reduce throttle setting as much as possible. The more fuel burned the more water vapour produced.
One must also consider the changes in atmosphere....for instance the changes in heights of the tropopause & stratosphere. Drastic changes in temperature and moisture content within the tropopause and stratosphere.
Hopefully this will help dispel some of your misunderstanding, and help you to get one step closer to ending your worries everytime you see an airplane with contrails behind it!
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 10:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
