posted 09-20-2002 03:27 PM            

I am finding I have a lot more questions than we are getting answers from our leaders. WE THE PEOPLE elect the government. I think others on this board are right to be concerned what our actions will have further down the road. I think this administration doesn't understand the fire they are playing with. There is talk of expanding the "terror war" to other countries besides Iraq as well. What is THAT going to lead to?

The situation we have now may be compared to cans of overturned gasoline with a child being handed matches.

Mech

posted 09-20-2002 11:03 PM               

I share your concerns and those expressed by Pat Buchanan in Ellyn's link, but I disagree that this is in incompetent hands who haven't considered the fires they are dealing with. I think they know full well what they are dealing with; i.e. 30 years of occupation, an increase in terrorism.. etc. But I think they have weighed this against the alternative obvious points;

And here are a few basic and obvious questions you might want to consider;

What IF, the conspiracy theory that the WTC was actually attacked by "illuminati, remote controlled aircraft" is false?

What IF, it actually happened as reported; A group of terrorists, part of Osama Bin Laden's, Al-Qaeda branch, really IS responsible for attacking the WTC and Pentagon.

What IF there are provable links between Al-Queda and Sadam Hussein as the first WTC attack and Tony Blair's new evidence is purported to indicate?

Isn't all that the anti-US, anti-Bush conspiracy theorists have is just that,...a theory?

If it is a false theory, and If Sadam, should he obtain a nuclear weapon, he will use Al-Queda members to attack the United States, by simply placing such a weapon in their hands

THEN

Don't we have an obligation to insure that this potential is not going to occur?

Sure, Buchanan’s scenario is very realistic, I think, BUT wouldn't it be better to have Buchanan’s scenario come to pass, have the US in a position to Democratize the world and control the rich oil deposits of Iraq than risk the possibility that Sadam would use a nuclear weapon on a US city...and THEN react?

I think the current Bush administration has carefully weighed these scenarios, given that the WTC was indeed a very real attack by real terrorists. The Bush administration knows that these same people would gladly use a nuke against a US city should it come into their possession. THAT's why we are taking pre-emptive action to eliminate the threat at the most likely current source of a nuclear weapon....Sadam Hussein.

Now, if we obtain control of oil and topple the puppet Saudi government and the evil monsters currently controlling Iran, and free Israel from the threat of suicide bombers funded by Sadam and Saudi Arabia, as a side effect to our war against Iraq, then I see this as the better alternative that waiting for Iraq to deliver a nuke to a US city.

Wouldn’t you agree?

I think the Bush administration has carefully balanced and weighed these two scenarios as well and are choosing the lesser of two evils.

posted 09-21-2002 12:28 AM            

I NEVER, i REPEAT NEVER!!!.. liked Pat Bucannan...

I think this will create even MORE terrorism. Why should the U.S. contol iraqs oil? It's NOT ours in the first place. We could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy strategies and eliminate that umbilical cord. Can you imagine how Saudi Arabia(the empire WE built) would act if we said..."sorry, we don't need your oil anymore see ya". They would scramble and scrape to find anothr buyer...after all, isn't it PETRO dollars that started this mess in the first place?...along with the training (BY THE CIA) of all these warriors for the "Jihad" during the Soviet/Afgan wars--in essence after wards becoming war lords and LESS REPORTED--HERION Running to the U.S. and Europe by the ones who would gain from it the most.

Who will gain as a result of this WAR? The U.S.? WHO in the U.S.? Do you really believe that the world will be a safer place as a result of this bloodbath...where thousands of iraqi women and children will die? Why should ISRAEL benefit from this? they have proven themselves time and time again..INVADERS and Conquerers of Palestinian lands.Don't you think that some people may turn their attention away from Israel and find a NEW enemy? How much civil liberties will be left here if THAT happens?

The U.S. has NO RIGHT to control the destiny of the Iraqi people. You only need to look at the 1991 Gulf War footage of "the road to Basra" of civilians slaughtered by U.S. Military Pilots on the grounds they were SUSPECTED of being a part of Saddams military.was that a "surgical strike" using "smart weapons"? I don't think so.Wasn't it the UNITED STATES that supplied Saddam with BIOWEAPONS to use on our hated enemy at the time Iran? Uh....YEAH.Wasn't it BUSH SR. who decide to let all of the Kurdish rebels to DIE opposing Saddam after he order trops out despite his military advisors claiming that there WAS a strong, united military front against against Saddams regime?

Another point, Take Pakistan, originally that country was essentially run by warlords as well untill there was a Coup'de'tat and Musharf took over, thanks in a lot of ways to the U.S., Now Pakistan has Nuclear capibility. It wouldn't take much for one of these warlords to knock off Musharaf and claim the country for their own. THEN what do we have? An islamic fundementalist country that has the atomic bomb!

This government has repeatedly LIED and killed hundreds of thousands of people to protect imperialist interests. Are you really naive enough to think that they aren't a little P'Ved about that?

Sept. 11th has only happened ONCE because were damned lucky, that's all.

By the way... it MAY be POSSIBLE that Sept. 11th was orchestrated....It would not suprise me in the least.

posted 09-21-2002 01:17 AM            

'yodabreath' previousy stated:

quote:

---

What IF, the conspiracy theory that the WTC was actually attacked by "illuminati, remote controlled aircraft" is false?

---

who said anything about 'illuminati remote controlled aircraft'? Perhaps I missed that?
The fact is that fema arrived in New York on Monday september 10th, 2001. they arrived there prior to the attacks, to prepare. I have a clip of a fema agent admitting that they had arrived there on the monday before the attack occured. Additionaly it has been admitted by a tearful fbi operative that we did in fact have prior knowledge of the attacks and that they could have been prevented. And why exactly is it that Bush is allowed to put restrictions on groomlake, where a majority of high tech weaponry is researched and developed, while at the same time attempting to fool the public that we need to attack IRAQ for doing any type of similar research.

quote:

---

What IF, it actually happened as reported; A group of terrorists, part of Osama Bin Laden's, Al-Qaeda branch, really IS responsible for attacking the WTC and Pentagon.

---

What if you do actual in depth research for yourself. If you do this objectively and look at objectively, you should be able to realize that the media has simply hyped the whole issue with disinformation and propoganda to fool the general populous (like yourself) into believing that hostile action is necessary.

quote:

---

What IF there are provable links between Al-Queda and Sadam Hussein as the first WTC attack and Tony Blair's new evidence is purported to indicate?

---

There could be links to al-quaeida and saddam, but only the event that IRAQ would harbor, fund, or provide weapons for muslim extremist would warrant potential hostile action. There is no evidence supporting any of this according to the official reports by the cia and fbi.

Additionally, yodabreath, instead of implying the same misinformation that can be easily heard or scene through any mainstream media outlet, perhaps you should try to take an objective look at the big picture. for example, instead of ignoring all of the relevant information and concerns posted within this thread and many others and only offering common 'what if's' based on media hype, perhaps you should at least try to address the abundance of information that is posted in this thread that simply anihilates and debunks your claims of widely distributed and propogated cNN/NBC/Foxnews 'hype'.

The only reason IRAQ is trying to build weapons of mass destruction is because a great deal of the worlds nations already have such technologies. which in essence puts them in a situation in which they could easily be dominated and occupied. You claim that IRAQ would maliciously use this type of technology against us without provocation. I think that is about the biggest and most asinine assumption I've ever hear. Did it ever occur to you that there is clear motive for the Bush Administration to attack IRAQ simply for the economocial benefit in the form of natural resources?

posted 09-21-2002 01:35 AM               

There is so much wrong with your post, it is hard to even respond to.

First of all....You didn't address my post above. I provided the scenario where a US city is nuked first if we fail to take pre-emptive measures. Your lack of response to that and deep concern for the Iraqi people (rather than the victims of the terrorist assaults, the US and Israeli citizens) is very telling. You are in effect, saying….“let them Nuke New York next time, I’m willing to take that risk.” Well if it’s all the same to you. I’m not. And luckily my view is the majority view.

quote:

---

Better for whom?

---

Better for the USA, and it’s allies….the victims of terrorist assaults perpetrated by the countries you would seek to protect and prevent us from attacking.

quote:

---

I think this will create even MORE terrorism. Why should the U.S. contol iraqs oil? It's NOT theirs in the first place.

---

A madman controls the oil now, and he uses it to line his own pockets, while starving his own people. It would be in far better hands under US control. Such are the spoils of war. Oil is a bonus…we kick out a mass murdering monster, and free a people…and use oil to create an income for those same people, not one man. This is as it should’ve been. It’s a win/win for the Iraqi people and the United States citizens to have US intervention.

quote:

---

We could kill our dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy strategies and eliminate that umbilical cord.

---

We could and we are. But changing over an entire economy is a difficult task. Your problem is that you’re making the assumption that this war is solely about oil. We would have no reason to go to war, if we didn’t have a mad man about to obtain a nuclear weapon which he would be determined to use on US soil. Oil is not relevant.

quote:

---

Can you imagine how Saudi Arabia(the empire WE built) would act if we said..."sorry, we don't need your oil anymore see ya". They would scramble and scrape to find anothr buyer...after all, isn't it PETRO dollars that started this mess in the first place?...along with the training (BY THE CIA) of all these warriors for the "Jihad" during the Soviet/Afgan wars--in essence after wards becoming war lords and LESS REPORTED--HERION Running to the U.S. and Europe by the ones who would gain from it the most.

---

Oil is sold on the world market to all nations….buyers don’t distinguish it’s source. And no…oil didn’t start all this mess in the first place. Sadam’s aggression did. In the case of Afghanistan, Russian aggression did. Without heroin…the Afghani people do not have an economy. Selling it is the way most of them make enough to eat. We have been destroying poppy fields however, because it was also the main source of finance for the Taliban.

quote:

---

Who will gain as a result of this WAR? The U.S.? WHO in the U.S.? Do you really believe that the world will be a safer place as a result of this bloodbath...where thousands of iraqi women and children will die?

---

If thousands of Iraqi women and children (don’t forget men) die, it will literally be at the hands of a mad man named Hussein who kills them….and I mean that literally. He will use his weapons on his own people. He could easily prevent this by stepping down and giving himself up to US or UN custody….As Melosovic has done. The US will gain the peace of knowing that they prevented a mad man from nuking a US city….and yes, one evil dictator less makes the world a safer place.

quote:

---

Why should ISRAEL benefit from this? they have proven themselves time and time again..INVADERS and Conquerers of Palestinian lands.

---

If Israel benefits, it is a fortunate side effect. Amazing how you seem so concerned over the “bloodbath” that faces Iraqi women and children, but not concerned at all with Israeli women and children, when Israel is a democratic ally. Are we to gather from this that you think Israeli lives are less valuable, that Sadam’s form of dictatorship and control through torture and murder of his own people is MORE valuable? Sadam’s aggression needs to be protected? ALLOWED? Is this what you are saying?

It seems to me this is exactly what you are saying…and it is disturbing. You are siding with evil over a known democracy that is being brutally assaulted on a daily basis. AND you seem to think that Palestinans own lands. They do not. They were rejects from Jordan because Jordan did not want them. Israel, on the other hand, was created by the UN after world war II. Through continued attacks upon Israel by the Palestinians however, Israel has been forced to respond, as is the right and obligation of a sovereign nation to protect its people from attack. Here again, you side with the corrupt, illegitimate government of Arafat, a known mass murderer who starves his own people while lining his own pockets with millions (even billions) in financial aid dollars. You side with the suicide/homicide bombers, and then question why Israel would respond. There is something highly disturbing about your commentary and reasoning process here.

quote:

---

The U.S. has NO RIGHT to control the destiny of the Iraqi people.

---

So you’re saying the destiny of the Iraqi people is better left in the hands of Sadam? The US does not seek to control the destiny of the Iraqi people. Their destiny is determined by the whims of an evil monster currently. It can only improve the situation should that monster be eliminated.

quote:

---

You only need to look at the footage of "the road to Basra" of civilians slaughtered by U.S. Military Pilots on the grounds they were SUSPECTED of being a part of Saddams military.was that a "surgical strike" using "smart weapons"? I don't think so.

---

They were Iraqi soldiers leaving Kuwait after looting and raping and pillaging the entire country, returning to Iraq with stolen goods. Their deaths were unfortunate….but that happens in war. Nobody said it is pretty. I am more concerned about American lives than the lives of rapist, looters and murderers of the enemy however.

quote:

---

This government has repeatedly LIED and killed hundreds of thousands of people to protect imperialist interests. Are you really naive enough to think that they aren't a little P'Ved about that?

---

I’m a little pissed that those bastards bombed the WTC and Pentagon….Why aren’t you? I don’t give a damn whether they are pissed or not. Tough luck. When you attack us, be prepared to be attacked. The United States would not need to kill terrorists were it not for their own aggression upon this country. Because we attack them back, I expect them to be a little upset. That’s the price they pay. They are murderers. Therefore they are about to reap what they’ve sown, and unfortunately their own actions may costs the lives of innocent civilians. That’s the way war works. When we attacked Germany….did we worry about some civilians getting in the way? By your philosophy we should have just let Hitler go on to do what he was doing….because we don’t want to put any innocent Germans at risk. We should have just let the Japanese win the war and take over the United States because we didn’t want to hurt any poor innocent Japanese people. You are saying the US should just get on it’s knees and let the evil dictators of the world do what they will to this country and it’s allies. If your view prevailed…there would be no United States. I’m glad your view is in the minority and it is not going to prevail….because I think I love this country and it’s people and it’s freedom, a little more than you do from what I’m seeing.

quote:

---

Sept. 11th has only happened ONCE because were damned lucky, that's all.

---

The fact that September 11th happened at all is because we had eight years of the most corrupt administration in US history that severely destabilized the world, and let our intelligence and defenses decay. Clinton, made 9/11 possible.

quote:

---

By the way... it MAY be POSSIBLE that Sept. 11th was orchestrated....It would not suprise me in the least.

---

posted 09-21-2002 01:51 AM            

Better for the USA you mean the BUSH's, JP Morgan, Rockwells, and the Gates's of America?Just look at our economy DISINTERGRATING before our eyes...WHY? If you don't know there is no need to give you an answer.

The U.S. Exectutive branch doen't give a RATS BUTT about iraqi civilians, and you REFUSE to see the long term effects that this "terror war" will have both on American democracy as well as just generally pissing off the arab world, among others... at the United States. I would sacrifice my car(or for some of us SUV's) over someone elses life...would you? I would NOT sacrifice my young son for BUSH just so he and CHEYNEy and his ilk can enhance his oil accounts.

I won't DIE FOR OIL. I served 4 years in the military and basically had no identity in order to serve the needs of corporate/inperialist interests and now I am here to EXPOSE them.You only ASSUME who flew airplanes into the WTC.I still QUESTION that so called fact.

You seem to believe that the U.S. government is innocent in this matter when in all actuality, what we are doing around the world has finally come back to bite us on the ass and now you are blaming someone else(other country) for it?

Pllllease! If Saddam IS a threat, we made him in the first place.

It's time for the U.S. to come clean!

posted 09-21-2002 02:14 AM               

Would you let a US city be nuked first rather than take pre-emptive measures??? This is the third time I’ve asked now. The answer must be YES if you so blatantly refuse to address this question. Let’s just put all the cards on the table now. You seem to be saying you value the lives of US citizens less than Sadam’s. And you served in the United States military? I’m glad you’re out, you would be fighting on the wrong side.

quote:

---

The U.S. Exectutive branch doen't give a RATS BUTT about iraqi civilians

---

What evidence do you have that would support this statement? Again…you’re not using simple logic. If the Executive branch did not give a “RATS BUTT” about Iraqi civilians, then we would not bother with smart weapons. We would just nuke the whole damn place or drop a couple hundred daisy cutters on Bagdad.

quote:

---

and you REFUSE to see the long term effects that this "terror war" will have both on American democracy a well as just generally pissing off the arab world, among others at the United States

---

I just addressed this. Since when do we care if we piss off the enemy? Did we care if we pissed of Germany by attacking Hitler? Did we care if we pissed off Japan by nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima? People get pissed off in war. I’d say the Arab world, as you put it, should worry about pissing off the United States next time. You aught to be ashamed to call yourself a soldier with that attitude. You‘re saying…“let’s not attack the enemy who is trying to kill us…we might make them mad”. A more cowardly, ridiculous, limp wrested comment, has probably not been made. An Iraqi soldier would laugh his ass off at that one.

quote:

---

I won't DIE FOR OIL. I served 4 years in the military and basically had no identity in order to serve the needs of corporate/inperialist interests and now I am here to EXPOSE them

---

I think you’re exposing your own irrational mindset if you ask me. You weren’t in the military to die for oil. You were there to fight for America.

quote:

---

You seem to believe that the U.S. government is innocent in this matter when in all actuality, what we are doing around the world has finally come back to bite us on the ass and now you are blaming someone else(other country) for it?
Pllllease! If Saddam IS a threat, we made him in the first place.
It's time for the U.S. to come clean!

---

posted 09-21-2002 03:26 AM            

That is maddness.
I wonder what my Moroccan friend would say about that who I graduated college with.

Whatever I say will have no consequense or effect.Thus as it has always been with most forward thinkers throughout history. In fact...you have nothing to fear because you are literally aping EXACTLY what BUSH, POWELL,(who covered up the mi Li civilian massacre in Vietnam),RUMSFELD,FLIECHER,and CHENEY say. More than likely you will get exactly what you want and MY generation (x) will see the results.

You think that this is going to create peace...you are SORELY mistaken.

BLINDLY accepting what our so-called leaders say is just and justification of a full military campaign is shortsighted and as far as I am concerned SUICIDAL to our democracy.

By the way....i get the impression from some of your posts that you are a PILOT or at least knowlagable about FAA/FAR Rules?

YOUR WORDS..

"That is normal. This is exactly what you'd expect to see from airline traffic approaching or taking off in accordance to ATC published approach corridors and standard instrument departures. If they are making contrails then they are most likely flying on published airways having reached contrailing altitudes.

"Jets can appear from the ground to be flying in formation, when in reality they are complying with ATC vectors or approved IFR flight plans and flying well within proper ATC sequencing and separation standards for IFR aircraft. "

Are you a pilot or not? Wht do you know about IFR?

Inquiring minds want to know....

EYES WIDE OPEN NOW!!

\/
OO
"
O

MECH

posted 09-21-2002 12:39 PM            

Al quaida attacked the 'NWO', not the american people.

posted 09-21-2002 01:54 PM               

By Robert Burns
AP Military Writer
Saturday, September 21, 2002; 1:02 PM

WASHINGTON –– President Bush has received a detailed Pentagon plan containing military options for deposing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, a senior defense official said Saturday.

The highly classified plan, delivered to the White House in early September by Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief who would execute any military action in Iraq, will undergo additional refinements in the weeks ahead, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

On a visit to U.S. troops in Kuwait, Franks said Saturday his forces are ready if called upon.

"We are prepared to undertake whatever activities and whatever actions we may be directed to take by our nation," he said at a news conference. But he also noted: "Our president has not made a decision to go to war."

Thousands of American and Kuwaiti forces are preparing to begin a large-scale training exercise, called Eager Mace, using amphibious, ground, air and naval forces. The exercise, which is held periodically in the Kuwaiti desert – most recently in May 2001 – has not been publicly announced.

Franks' delivery of his war plan to Bush was first reported in Saturday's New York Times. The newspaper cited officials familiar with war planning as saying the Franks' plan contains the number of ground troops, combat aircraft and aircraft carrier battle groups that would be needed to knock out Iraq's air defenses and military communications and then seize Baghdad.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a key concern of war planners is the possibility that Iraq would launch an attack on U.S. and allied forces in the region using weapons of mass destruction. He suggested that Iraq's means of delivering such weapons – by ballistic missile, aircraft or other means – would be among the priority targets at the outset of a U.S. attack.

As Bush considers his options for using military force against Iraq, his administration is simultaneously consulting with Russia and other countries on a new U.N. resolution that would threaten Iraq with war if it does not meet its decade-old obligation to disarm.

Russia is leaving the door slightly open to compromise on the U.N. resolution. Russia's decision could turn on whether it gets new and convincing evidence that Saddam is building up stockpiles of dangerous weapons.

Talks will continue at the United Nations, where the United States and Britain are trying to overcome resistance from Russia, China and France to leveling new demands without proof.

A defiant Iraq announced Saturday that Baghdad would reject any new U.N. resolutions Saddam's government believes are unfavorable.

"The American officials are trying ... to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council," Iraq's state-run radio said.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

Bush's request for a congressional resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq continues to draw a mixed reception.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., criticized Bush's approach and said "we must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted other possible options to assess and eliminate Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction program.".

"We must not act alone," he said. "We must have the support of the world."

But Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said there was now broad support among Democrats for Bush's resolution. "We feel that the president should be authorized to take military action (without) the U.N. if the U.N. will not do it," he said.

posted 09-21-2002 03:02 PM            

Military Supremacy at Heart of Bush Strategy
by Roland Watson in Washington

NO state will be allowed to challenge the military supremacy of the United States under a national security strategy for the 21st century revealed by President Bush yesterday.

Mr Bush’s warning, and the tone of the document, were a far cry from his stance during the presidential election two years ago when he said that he would pursue a “humble foreign policy”.

The document seeks to enshrine Mr Bush’s post- September 11 doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, fleshing out for the first time his assertion that the US must confront emerging threats before they materialize.

The 33-page document, submitted to Congress yesterday, also reveals the previously unstated determination of the US to do everything possible to maintain its status as the world’s sole superpower.

A key pillar of American national security policy would be to “dissuade future military competition”, the White House document states.

The essential role of US military strength is to “build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge”. It says: “Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.”

The document stops short of spelling out what would happen if a potential challenger did begin to emerge. Since the end of the Cold War deprived Moscow of its superpower status a decade ago, the US has had no rival in terms of military strength.

But instead of easing its spending on defense, like many Nato countries, the Pentagon is increasing it. The US defense budget for 2003 is $400 billion, an increase of 6 per cent. Washington spends as much on defense as the next eight largest military powers combined.

With Russia financially strapped, Mr Bush’s message appeared aimed at China, a rising military power which is increasing both its conventional and nuclear capabilities.

Bush's National Security Strategy
Reflecting the changes thrust on to White House foreign policymaking by September 11, the document states: “America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones.” But it aims to “turn adversity into opportunity”, pursuing “a distinctly American internationalism” that reflects US values and interests.

Wary of charges that the US is throwing its weight around, Mr Bush used his foreword to the document to insist that Washington was not acting only for itself. “We do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom,” he said.

But the heart of the President’s proposals for ensuring America’s national security is the vigorous pursuit of threats from rogue states and terrorists before they strike.

Elaborating on the doctrine of which he first spoke at the West Point military academy in June, Mr Bush said that the US would seek allies as it confronted these threats. But the document added that “we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively”.

The key to America’s efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction would be “counter-proliferation”. Although it failed to spell out in detail what measures or pre-emptive move that would encompass, they would allow the US to “deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed”.

The White House conceded that it has been slow to comprehend “the true nature of this new threat”, adding: “Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture. We cannot let our enemies strike first.”

Iraq is mentioned explicitly at points, but much of the thrust of the new policy is aimed at President Saddam Hussein and others of his ilk.

Deterrence based on the threat of retaliation worked in the Cold War, it argues, but is unlikely to work against “leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people and the wealth of their nations”.

In the Cold War weapons of mass destruction were a weapon of last resort, but today America’s enemies regarded them as weapons of choice, and could use them to strike at or blackmail the US. “To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.”

Senators expressed initial concern at the tone of the new policy. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said: “The United States should never forecast to the rest of the world that we desire one inch of foreign territory.”

Extracts from policy blueprint

“America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few.”

“The US National Security Strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better.”

“Deterrence based only on a threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks . . . to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.”

“It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.”

“Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict.”

Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd

So much for the economy..

posted 09-21-2002 04:16 PM            

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A defiant Iraq said Saturday it will not abide by a U.N. resolution imposing new conditions in the weapons inspections issue or threatening war, while in Kuwait a top U.S. general said his forces are ready to attack Iraq if called on.

The sharp words come as America and Britain try to overcome Russian, Chinese and French resistance to a new U.N. resolution threatening Iraq with war if it does not destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

It also follows news that President Bush has received a detailed set of military options to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and neutralize his most dangerous weapons.

A highly classified plan was delivered to Bush by Gen. Tommy Franks in September and will undergo refinements in the weeks ahead, a U.S. official said Saturday on condition of anonymity.

Franks, speaking in Kuwait, said U.S. soldiers have been training closely with Gulf allies recently and are ready to act against Iraq if Bush gives the order to do so.

Asked if U.S. forces were ready for war, Franks said: ``We are prepared to undertake whatever activities and whatever actions we may be directed to take by our nation.'' But, he noted at a press conference Saturday wrapping up a three-day visit, ``our president has not made a decision to go to war.''

Baghdad's announcement that it would not back any new U.N. resolutions was made during a meeting between Saddam, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and other senior Iraqi officials. It did not say when the meeting took place.

``American officials are trying, according to the media, to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council. Iraq declares it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the U.N. Secretary General,'' said the brief announcement, which was carried on state-run Iraqi radio.

The Iraqi statement did not elaborate, but Baghdad is believed to oppose any new U.N. resolution that includes the threat of military strikes on Iraq or a change to the weapons inspections regime or the oil-for-food program.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expressed little surprise at Iraq's reaction.

``Anyone who has watched the past decade has seen the Iraqi government defy some 16 U.N. resolutions and change their position depending on what they thought was tactically advantageous to them and kind of jerk the United Nations around,'' he told CNN. ``So it is no surprise at all.''

At the White House, Sean McCormack, a National Security Council spokesman, said Iraq's position that it will not comply with future resolutions is ``very disappointing.''

``We are working very hard within the international community and specifically in the United Nations to address in an effective way the issue of Iraqi noncompliance,'' he said. ``As the president has said, this is an important test of the United Nation's resolve.''

Iraq on Monday announced it would accept the unconditional return of weapons inspectors nearly four years after they left. Washington said the move was designed to divide the Security Council and Bush has dismissed it as a ploy and has not ruled out unilateral American military action.

Existing Security Council resolutions give weapons inspectors 60 days from when they begin work in Iraq to give the council a work program. Once the program is approved and the inspectors and International Atomic Energy Agency becomes operational, Iraq will need to cooperate and comply for 120 days.

Western diplomats have said the new U.S.-British draft would tighten the amount of time Iraq has to comply and include new instructions for weapons inspectors.

posted 09-21-2002 04:35 PM               

Softcover
ISBN: 0-9716807-5-2
NewsMax journalists Christopher Ruddy and Carl Limbacher have a blockbuster new book published on September 11, 2002.
It’s called Catastrophe: Clinton’s Role in America’s Worst Disaster - and tells the real story of 9/11 - the one the big media are afraid to report.
Catastrophe begins on January 20, 1993, when William Jefferson Clinton took the oath of office as the 42nd president of the United States of America. Clinton swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” from enemies both foreign and domestic.
During the next eight years, Bill Clinton would preside over the most corrupt administration in American history. He would be only the second president in American history to be impeached.
When Bill Clinton took office, American supremacy on the world stage had never been so great and unchallenged. Our military was without equal. The economy was beginning a record boom.
Soon after Bill Clinton left office, Americans began to discover his bitter legacy.
Even as Clinton was leaving Washington, the American economy had begun to move into a serious recession.

And America’s belief in invulnerability was shattered on September 11, 2001, when 19 Arab hijackers slammed civilian jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
As Catastrophe: Clinton’s Role in America’s Worst Disaster demonstrates, the events of September 11 not only were predictable after eight years of Clinton, but they also could have been prevented.

Catastrophe exposes what really happened during the Clinton years, and how Bill Clinton and his administration systematically undermined America’s national security by emasculating the U.S. military and the nation’s intelligence agencies.
Bill Clinton made America vulnerable to attack.

Here are just some of the revelations from Catastrophe:

Clinton’s own admission that he could have extradited Osama bin Laden from Sudan - but he didn’t because he felt bin Laden was not a threat! If you don’t believe this, read his verbatim comments from our exclusive tape recording!
A senior CIA officer goes on record to reveal that Bill Clinton helped Saddam Hussein by allowing him to illegally sell oil - and make billions to stay in power.
Clinton adviser Dick Morris says that Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against American troops at the Khobar Towers - and he ignored the warning!
The FBI and CIA could have easily foiled the 9-11 attacks - but were negligent as two known terrorist gained entry into the U.S. with the CIA’s full knowledge. They would later participate in the 9-11 attacks.
FBI agent Coleen Rowley says the FBI could have prevented 9-11, but refused to get a search warrant on one of the 9-11 terrorists.
NewsMax broke the story that Bill Clinton tied the hands of the CIA and FBI - hear from agents on the inside who broke the story on NewsMax and reveal what really happened.
Bill Clinton refused to require driver’s licenses to expire at the time of expiring visas. If he had done this, one of the 9-11 terrorists would have been arrested or deported.
The 1996 Clinton-Gore airline safety commission set the stage for 9-11.
Why Clinton’s adviser Dick Morris says Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinksy helped Osama bin Laden survive and plot 9-11
Read Bill Clinton’s shocking statements about America’s guilt in 9-11 - he even blamed America for 9-11 and cited our treatment of the Indians and Muslims during the Crusades!
A secret 1994 terrorism report warned of suicidal hijackings - and Bill Clinton ignored it.
And there is much, much more in Catastrophe, including:
There is strong evidence that the West Nile virus was the first bioweapon used by Iraq. Did you know the first cases appeared near the United Nations in New York and that a major Iraqi defector said Saddam bragged in 1997 he would release the West Nile virus on America?
A top economics adviser to Russia’s President Putin warned on the front page of Pravda, just months before 9-11, that a catastrophic “financial attack” on the U.S. economy would take place. She has new warnings about the future.
The Russian government officially told its citizens to cash out dollars in the months after 9-11 - and warned of an economic collapse. Did it have advance knowledge?
Two top U.S. military commanders have warned that weapons of mass destruction will be used in the new war on terrorism.
FEMA has a secret plan to build emergency cities that could house millions of Americans - after our cities are attacked by weapons of mass destruction.
New evidence exists that al-Qaeda acquired small nuclear weapons in the late 1990s.
Why is Warren Buffet predicting a nuclear attack on a U.S. city?
China’s hidden ties with the Taliban and al-Qaeda are revealed, along with new evidence that China was providing arms and intelligence to both groups even after 9-11.
A senior Senate aide goes on the record to say that senators and congressman will never investigate the FBI’s role in 9-11 - they are too afraid the FBI will blackmail them.
If the U.S. invades Iraq, Saddam has already told the U.S. how he will retaliate and what weapons he will use.

posted 09-21-2002 04:42 PM               

Saturday 21 September 2002

WAR'S BEGUN

EXCLUSIVE: British jets hit vital Iraqi HQ

By Tom Newton-Dunn, Defence Correspondent

BRITISH and American warplanes have bombed Iraq's most important air intelligence headquarters.

The dramatic escalation is seen as the first stage of war with Iraq.

President Bush insisted yesterday that the world does not need proof that Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons before taking action.

"We must anticipate," he said. "The most dangerous thing would be to find out they had a nuclear weapon after they developed one."

The attack on buildings and bunkers at Tallil Airbase, 160 miles south-east of Baghdad, marked a change in tactics.

Command and communications links in Saddam's air defence system, and military airfields, are now being methodically targeted instead of guns and mobile radars.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in Washington yesterday: "I directed it. I don't like the idea of our planes being shot at."The idea that our planes go out and get shot at with impunity bothers me."

Mr Rumsfeld admitted for the first time that the US and Britain have no "smoking gun" proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

"There isn't a single smoking gun," he said. "If we waited for a smoking gun in this instance we would find it after the fact."

Air attack site Tallil is home to Iraq's key Southern Sector Operations Centre from where all air defences south of Baghdad are co-ordinated.

Bombers, including four RAF Tornado GR4s, used precision-guided weapons in the raids involving a total of 20 planes. Destroying Saddam's air defences would be crucial for any land invasion.

Military expert Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said last night: "There is no doubt in my mind that the first stage of war with Iraq has quietly begun."Knocking out Tallil will be of vital strategic interest to an invading force. I believe we will see a lot more raids like this one until the coalition are sure they can operate over southern Iraq safely."

It was the fifth coalition air strike on Iraqi military targets this month, and the 15th since August 5.

All have been made under cover of the UN mandate to enforce the northern and southern no-fly zones set up after the 1991 Gulf War.

But the frequency of the attacks has shot up.

Marine Corps General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: "The recent strikes have degraded the air defence capabilities of Iraq."

Mr Rumsfeld said he could not say whether the change of tactics has left Iraq less capable of defending itself against attacks to topple Saddam.

He added: "Whether they are going to be net stronger or weaker in the event anything were to occur in the future is a function of how fast they are able to rebuild, replace and replenish that capability."

Asked when he had ordered the switch of tactics, he snapped: "Less than a year and more than a week. Less than six months and more than a month."

Mr Bush cranked up the war talk in a speech in Iowa.The President warned that with or without the United Nations, "if Iraq's regime continues to defy us and the world, the United States will move deliberately yet decisively to hold Iraq to account."

Baghdad's outer air defence ring - which the Tallil base helps to co-ordinate - has seen the largest concentration of bombing raids in recent weeks.

British and US bombers appear to be clearing a wide path to the Iraqi capital from Kuwait and the Persian Gulf.

There have also been recent reports that US Special Forces entered northern Iraq as long ago as February to begin preparations for war.

Operating freely in the semi-autonomous zone controlled by the Kurds, the troops are believed to be constructing key landing zones and airstrips to support a US-led invasion.

The RAF has begun an exercise at St Mawgan, Cornwall, to practise setting up a remote air base.

The drill involves warplanes and more than 1,500 personnel.An RAF spokesman said the exercise had been planned for a long time and there were no orders to have personnel prepare for further deployment.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12204872&method=full&siteid=501 43

posted 09-21-2002 05:16 PM            

Can't see the forest for the trees I guess.

Hey Yoda, you are throwing personal insults now? Not nice!

FYI... I could give two $#!=s about Bill Clinton, never voted for him, never cared for his love of big buisness either.

You RESPECT Bush?...No comment needed.

I see you are hawking Limbacker's book... "Weasel" is the most apt description of Newsmax founder Carl Limbacher. Here's a guy who pops up all over the place, masquerading as a "journalist" on the national scene. But the real story is how he's managed to hoodwink the general public-at-large into acknowledging him as a legitimate and respectable mainstream journalist when in reality he's at best a Republican hack and at worst a man who (at least tacitly) endorses genocide.

The Limbacher deception runs the gamut from CNN and MSNBC, where he appears from time to time, to scores of talk radio shows across the nation, to college campuses such as the University of Akron, who inflicted him and Reed Irvine upon impressionable students, portraying these two as "acclaimed, nationally recognized journalists." Limbacher is highly esteemed at Freak Republic and with Sean Hannity, who calls him one of the "best reporters in America."

What irks alot of people is the rank hypocrisy of Limbacher and NewsMax. If he/they would just be honest and admit that they're propagandists engaging in advocacy journalism and not true journalism, then they could take their rightful place, but we're certainly not holding our breath. Even Matt Drudge de-linked from NewsMax long ago while another staunch right-wing conservative, Thomas Clough, is onto the weasel, writing that "Limbacher is best known to New York area radio talk show listeners as 'Carl from Oyster Bay' from the days when he worked as a printer. He was a relentless caller to the ABC Radio talk show lineup: Lionel, former Mayor Ed Koch, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh. He has made the transition from talk show caller to internet political LouElla Parsons. NewsMax articles feel like Limbacher: short and shallow, seldom over two printed pages, and heavy on the gossip."

Cutting to the chase, the real Limbacher emerges in his hundreds if not thousands of calls to talk radio programs, particularly Bob Grant. In fact it was Limbacher with whom Grant was conversing in a negative way about the late Ron Brown when Grant hoped aloud that Brown was dead before the news confirmed that he had indeed been killed. Yet unbeknownst to most is Limbacher's calls and guest appearances on far right fringe shortwave radio programs such as the Right Perspective with John VanSoest and Frank Magnavito, who broadcast from Hal Turner's house on Friday evenings. On one occasion Limbacher called into the Right Perspective and AGREED with host Hal Turner that it might be OKAY if China bombs LosAngeles because of all the minorites living there.SICK!

Limbacher's racial bias against the African American community in evident in several of his "Inside Cover" digs, where he routinely condemns various prominent African Americans as bigoted for relatively tame remarks and yet never calls someone like his good friend and associate Bob Grant on the carpet for blatant racism. Instead, Grant is portrayed as a victim of the same type of smear that in fact Limbacher himself actually engages in. Meanwhile, Limbacher places Jesse Lee Peterson on a unique pedestal as the preeminent "civil rights leader" in America today and people buy into it. It's the same old tired game of another white bigot telling African Americans who your leaders shall and shall not be, as if African Americans as individuals are supposed to have any sort of leader(s) anyway.

I don't buy his arch conservative fluff.

But back to the topic of the GULF WAR....

Mech

posted 09-21-2002 05:40 PM               

You don't know it yet...but you're a little left of Lenin politically speaking.

posted 09-21-2002 05:51 PM            

I am a person not a pet for politicians.

You try to label and divide people all the while thinking your way of thinking is best and "right for this country".

Obviously you have proven yourself intolerant of others ideas that don't fit into your political value system by attacking and insulting them.

Mech

posted 09-21-2002 06:41 PM               

quote:

---

I am a person not a pet for politicians.

---

Ah, but you are a pet for politicians.....You're practically a walking spokesperson for the liberal Democrat left. Every argument you've made, is also being made by this group of politicians and mindless gnomes who thoughtlessly echo their lies and spin.

Tom Daschle and Partrick Lehey would love you.

posted 09-21-2002 06:47 PM            

They are just as corrupt..you forgot PRO GULF WAR Joeseph Lieberman.

Your more than welcome to have your delusions of granduer...Supposedly it's still a "free" country.

LOL!

posted 09-21-2002 06:54 PM            

George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography --- by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin

Chapter - II - The Hitler Project

Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.@s1

The order seizing the bank `` vests '' (seizes) `` all of the capital stock of Union Banking Corporation, a New York corporation, '' and names the holders of its shares as:

`` E. Roland Harriman--3991 shares ''
[chairman and director of Union Banking Corp. (UBC); this is `` Bunny '' Harriman, described by Prescott Bush as a place holder who didn't get much into banking affairs; Prescott managed his personal investments]

`` Cornelis Lievense--4 shares ''
[president and director of UBC; New York resident banking functionary for the Nazis]

`` Harold D. Pennington--1 share ''
[treasurer and director of UBC; an office manager employed by Bush at Brown Brothers Harriman]

`` Ray Morris--1 share ''

[director of UBC; partner of Bush and the Harrimans]

`` Prescott S. Bush--1 share ''
[director of UBC, which was co-founded and sponsored by his father-in-law George Walker; senior managing partner for E. Roland Harriman and Averell Harriman]

`` H.J. Kouwenhoven--1 share ''
[director of UBC; organized UBC as the emissary of Fritz Thyssen in negotiations with George Walker and Averell Harriman; managing director of UBC's Netherlands affiliate under Nazi occupation; industrial executive in Nazi Germany; director and chief foreign financial executive of the German Steel Trust]

`` Johann G. Groeninger--1 share ''
[director of UBC and of its Netherlands affiliate; industrial executive in Nazi Germany]

`` all of which shares are held for the benefit of ... members of the Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals ... of a designated enemy country.... ''

By Oct. 26, 1942, U.S. troops were under way for North Africa. On Oct. 28, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run by the Bush-Harriman bank: the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.@s2

U.S. forces landed under fire near Algiers on Nov. 8, 1942; heavy combat raged throughout November. Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942. In this action, the government announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the Nazis' U.S. partners to carry on the business.@s3

These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were, tragically, too little and too late. President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results.

The facts presented here must be known, and their implications reflected upon, for a proper understanding of President George Herbert Walker Bush and of the danger to mankind that he represents. The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project. The powerful Anglo-American family associations, which later boosted him into the Central Intelligence Agency and up to the White House, were his father's partners in the Hitler project.

President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order, published in obscure government record books and kept out of the news,@s4 explained nothing about the Nazis involved; only that the Union Banking Corporation was run for the `` Thyssen family '' of `` Germany and/or Hungary ''--`` nationals ... of a designated enemy country. ''

By deciding that Prescott Bush and the other directors of the Union Banking Corp. were legally front men for the Nazis, the government avoided the more important historical issue: In what way were Hitler's Nazis themselves hired, armed and instructed by the New York and London clique of which Prescott Bush was an executive manager? Let us examine the Harriman-Bush Hitler project from the 1920s until it was partially broken up, to seek an answer for that question.
Origin and Extent of the Project

Fritz Thyssen and his business partners are universally recognized as the most important German financiers of Adolf Hitler's takeover of Germany. At the time of the order seizing the Thyssen family's Union Banking Corp., Mr. Fritz Thyssen had already published his famous book, I Paid Hitler,@s5 admitting that he had financed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement since October 1923. Thyssen's role as the leading early backer of Hitler's grab for power in Germany had been noted by U.S. diplomats in Berlin in 1932.@s6 The order seizing the Bush-Thyssen bank was curiously quiet and modest about the identity of the perpetrators who had been nailed.

But two weeks before the official order, government investigators had reported secretly that `` W. Averell Harriman was in Europe sometime prior to 1924 and at that time became acquainted with Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist. '' Harriman and Thyssen agreed to set up a bank for Thyssen in New York. `` [C]ertain of [Harriman's] associates would serve as directors.... '' Thyssen agent `` H. J. Kouwenhoven ... came to the United States ... prior to 1924 for conferences with the Harriman Company in this connection.... ''@s7

When exactly was `` Harriman in Europe sometime prior to 1924 ''? In fact, he was in Berlin in 1922 to set up the Berlin branch of W.A. Harriman & Co. under George Walker's presidency.

The Union Banking Corporation was established formally in 1924, as a unit in the Manhattan offices of W.A. Harriman & Co., interlocking with the Thyssen-owned Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart (BHS) in the Netherlands. The investigators concluded that `` the Union Banking Corporation has since its inception handled funds chiefly supplied to it through the Dutch bank by the Thyssen interests for American investment. ''

Thus by personal agreement between Averell Harriman and Fritz Thyssen in 1922, W.A. Harriman & Co. (alias Union Banking Corporation) would be transferring funds back and forth between New York and the `` Thyssen interests '' in Germany. By putting up about $400,000, the Harriman organization would be joint owner and manager of Thyssen's banking operations outside of Germany.

How important was the Nazi enterprise for which President Bush's father was the New York banker?

The 1942 U.S. government investigative report said that Bush's Nazi-front bank was an interlocking concern with the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (United Steel Works Corporation or German Steel Trust) led by Fritz Thyssen and his two brothers. After the war, Congressional investigators probed the Thyssen interests, Union Banking Corp. and related Nazi units. The investigation showed that the Vereinigte Stahlwerke had produced the following approximate proportions of total German national output:

50.8% of Nazi Germany's pig iron
41.4% of Nazi Germany's universal plate
36.0% of Nazi Germany's heavy plate
38.5% of Nazi Germany's galvanized sheet
45.5% of Nazi Germany's pipes and tubes
22.1% of Nazi Germany's wire
35.0% of Nazi Germany's explosives.@s8

Prescott Bush became vice president of W.A. Harriman & Co. in 1926. That same year, a friend of Harriman and Bush set up a giant new organization for their client Fritz Thyssen, prime sponsor of politician Adolf Hitler. The new German Steel Trust, Germany's largest industrial corporation, was organized in 1926 by Wall Street banker Clarence Dillon. Dillon was the old comrade of Prescott Bush's father Sam Bush from the `` Merchants of Death '' bureau in World War I.

In return for putting up $70 million to create his organization, majority owner Thyssen gave the Dillon Read company two or more representatives on the board of the new Steel Trust.@s9

Thus there is a division of labor: Thyssen's own confidential accounts, for political and related purposes, were run through the Walker-Bush organization; the German Steel Trust did its corporate banking through Dillon Read.

The Walker-Bush firm's banking activities were not just politically neutral money-making ventures which happened to coincide with the aims of German Nazis. All of the firm's European business in those days was organized around anti-democratic political forces.

In 1927, criticism of their support for totalitarianism drew this retort from Bert Walker, written from Kennebunkport to Averell Harriman: `` It seems to me that the suggestion in connection with Lord Bearsted's views that we withdraw from Russia smacks somewhat of the impertinent.... I think that we have drawn our line and should hew to it. ''@s1@s0

Averell Harriman met with Italy's fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini. A representative of the firm subsequently telegraphed good news back to his chief executive Bert Walker: `` ... During these last days ... Mussolini ... has examined and approved our c[o]ntract 15 June. ''@s1@s1

The great financial collapse of 1929-31 shook America, Germany and Britain, weakening all governments. It also made the hard-pressed Prescott Bush even more willing to do whatever was necessary to retain his new place in the world. It was in this crisis that certain Anglo-Americans determined on the installation of a Hitler regime in Germany.

W.A. Harriman & Co., well-positioned for this enterprise and rich in assets from their German and Russian business, merged with the British-American investment house, Brown Brothers, on January 1, 1931. Bert Walker retired to his own G.H. Walker & Co. This left the Harriman brothers, Prescott Bush and Thatcher M. Brown as the senior partners of the new Brown Brothers Harriman firm. (The London, England branch of the Brown family firm continued operating under its historic name--Brown, Shipley.)

Robert A. Lovett also came over as a partner from Brown Brothers. His father, E.H. Harriman's lawyer and railroad chief, had been on the War Industries Board with Prescott's father. Though he remained a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman, the junior Lovett soon replaced his father as chief executive of Union Pacific Railroad.

Brown Brothers had a racial tradition that fitted it well for the Hitler project! American patriots had cursed its name back in U.S. Civil War days. Brown Brothers, with offices in the U.S.A. and in England, had carried on their ships fully 75 percent of the slave cotton from the American South over to British mill owners. Now in 1931, the virtual dictator of world finance, Bank of England Governor Montagu Collet Norman, was a former Brown Brothers partner, whose grandfather had been boss of Brown Brothers during the U.S. Civil War. Montagu Norman was known as the most avid of Hitler's supporters within British ruling circles, and Norman's intimacy with this firm was essential to his management of the Hitler project.

In 1931, while Prescott Bush ran the New York office of Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott's partner was Montagu Norman's intimate friend Thatcher Brown. The Bank of England chief always stayed at the home of Prescott's partner on his hush-hush trips to New York. Prescott Bush concentrated on the firm's German activities, and Thatcher Brown saw to their business in old England, under the guidance of his mentor Montagu Norman.@s1@s2
Hitler's Ladder to Power

Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany January 30, 1933, and absolute dictator in March 1933, after two years of expensive and violent lobbying and electioneering. Two affiliates of the Bush-Harriman organization played great parts in this criminal undertaking: Thyssen's German Steel Trust; and the Hamburg-Amerika Line and several of its executives.@s1@s3

Let us look more closely at the Bush family's German partners.

Fritz Thyssen told Allied interrogators after the war about some of his financial support for the Nazi Party: `` In 1930 or 1931 ... I told [Hitler's deputy Rudolph] Hess ... I would arrange a credit for him with a Dutch bank in Rotterdam, the Bank fu@aur Handel und Schiff [i.e. Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart (BHS), the Harriman-Bush affiliate]. I arranged the credit ... he would pay it back in three years.... I chose a Dutch bank because I did not want to be mixed up with German banks in my position, and because I thought it was better to do business with a Dutch bank, and I thought I would have the Nazis a little more in my hands... .

`` The credit was about 250-300,000 [gold] marks--about the sum I had given before. The loan has been repaid in part to the Dutch bank, but I think some money is still owing on it.... ''@s1@s4

The overall total of Thyssen's political donations and loans to the Nazis was well over a million dollars, including funds he raised from others--in a period of terrible money shortage in Germany.

Friedrich Flick was the major co-owner of the German Steel Trust with Fritz Thyssen, Thyssen's long-time collaborator and occasional competitor. In preparation for the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg, the U.S. government said that Flick was `` one of leading financiers and industrialists who from 1932 contributed large sums to the Nazi