posted 05-11-2003 09:50 PM            

---US Central Command began the war with a list of 19 top weapons sites. Only two remain to be searched. Another list enumerated 68 top "non-WMD sites", without known links to special weapons but judged to have the potential to offer clues.
The tally at midweek showed 45 surveyed without success. ---"

WOW! What a threat to the United States! OH I'M soooo Scared!

Blood for oil.

posted 05-11-2003 10:07 PM            

Iraqi "intelligence documents" likely planted

By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/042903Madsen/042903madsen.html

After the United States and Britain were shown to be providing bogus and plagiarized "intelligence" documents to the UN Security Council that supposedly "proved" Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, the world's media is now being fed a steady stream of captured Iraqi "intelligence" documents from the rubble of Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters.

The problem with these documents is that they are being provided by the U.S. military to a few reporters working for a very suspect newspaper, London's Daily Telegraph (affectionately known as the Daily Torygraph" by those who understand the paper's right-wing slant). The Telegraph's April 27 Sunday edition reported that its correspondent in Baghdad, Inigo Gilmore, had been invited into the intelligence headquarters by U.S. troops and miraculously "found" amid the rubble a document indicating that Iraq invited Osama bin Laden to visit Iraq in March 1998. Gilmore also reported that the CIA had been through the building several times before he found the document. Gilmore added that the CIA must have "missed" the document in their prior searches, an astounding claim since the CIA must have been intimately familiar with the building from their previous intelligence links with the Mukhabarat dating from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Moreover, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, including Britain's MI-6, have refuted claims of a link between bin Laden and Iraq.

Gilmore also made it a point to declare he was not providing propaganda for the United States, a strange statement by someone who claims to be a seasoned Middle East correspondent. However, it is highly possible he was providing the propaganda for the benefit of a non-government actor, the neo-conservative movement, which uses the Pentagon as a base of operations, and employs deception and perception management tactics to push its sinister agenda.

The U.S. has been quite active in inviting Telegraph reporters into the Iraqi intelligence headquarters. Other documents "found" by the paper's reporters "revealed" Russian intelligence had passed intercepts of Tony Blair's phone conversations to Iraqi intelligence, that German intelligence offered to assist Iraqi intelligence in the lead up to the war, that France provided Iraq with the contents of US-French diplomatic exchanges, and that anti-war and anti-Bush Labor Party Member of Parliament George Galloway had solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars from Iraq, which were skimmed from the country's oil-for-food program.

Galloway immediately smelled the rat of a disinformation campaign when he responded to the Telegraph about the "found" document. "Maybe it's the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture . . . It would not be the Iraqi regime that was forging it. It would be people like you [Telegraph journalists] and the Government whose policies you have supported," Galloway said.

It is amazing that the U.S. military would be so open about letting favored journalists walk freely about the Mukhabarat building when the Pentagon has clamped tight security on the Iraqi Oil Ministry. The reason for this is obvious. While the Mukhabarat building can be salted with phony intelligence documents, the Oil Ministry is likely rife with documents showing the links between Saddam Hussein and Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton. The company signed more than $73 million in contracts with Saddam's government when Cheney was its chief executive officer. The contracts, negotiated with two Halliburton subsidiaries—Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co.—were part of the UN oil-for-food program, ironically the same program which figures prominently in the charges against Galloway. But unlike the charges against Galloway, the reports about Cheney's links to Saddam Hussein's oil industry originated with relatively more mainstream media sources, including ABC News, The Washington Post, and The Texas Observer.

Gilmore told the BBC that he noticed that on the Mukhabarat documents he discovered, some information that was "erased." The erasures were apparently made with a combination of black marker ink and correction fluid. He said he scraped away at the paper with a razor and miraculously found the name bin Laden in three places. The standard procedure for redacting a classified document is to only use a black indelible marker to mask classified information. However, the proper procedure for trying to read through such markings is not to scrape away the ink as if the document were a instant lottery ticket. Toner print often bleeds through the indelible marker ink. If one holds up such a sheet of paper at a 45 degree angle and under a bright phosphorescent light, the lettering under the ink can be "read" because the lettering almost appears to be "raised." If a razor blade were used to scrape away the markings, the indelible ink and the toner ink would be obliterated. Gilmore's claims appear to be spurious.

It was not long before the Iraqi-al Qaeda "smoking gun" document was reported around the world. America's right-wing propaganda channel, Fox News, featured the "found" document on its lead story on its Fox Sunday News program. Fox anchorman Tony Snow asked the ethically-tainted Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi about the document. Chalabi responded, saying the document provided enough information that Saddam Hussein was knowledgeable about the September 11 attacks on the United States, a canard that has been rejected by intelligence agencies around the world. However, for those who forged or doctored the document it was mission accomplished.

To understand the process in disseminating such propaganda masked as news, it is important to understand the relationship between The Daily Telegraph and its parent company, the Hollinger Corporation, which is owned by British subject and former Canadian Conrad Black. Hollinger. Like Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, Hollinger is a mega-media company that spins right-wing propaganda around the world through 379 newspapers, including the Jerusalem Post. Tom Rose, the publisher of the Jerusalem Post, is a major supporter of Ariel Sharon's Likud Party and is a favorite guest on the right-wing talk shows on Clear Channel radio stations, including that of G. Gordon Liddy of Watergate infamy. Clear Channel, headquartered in Dallas, is owned by close Bush supporters and one-time business partners. To add to the spider's web, one of Rose's Jerusalem Post directors is Richard Perle, a member of Donald Rumsfeld's advisory board.

The "smoking gun" document on Galloway was further played up on Fox News Sunday. William Kristol, an ally of Perle and a dean of the neo-conservatives, and Fox's Brit Hume, a right-wing ideologue who masquerades as a reporter, said the documents implicating Galloway in accepting money from Saddam Hussein was the "tip of the iceberg." They then suggested that French President Jacques Chirac, other Western politicians, and Arab journalists working for such networks as Al Jazeera, would soon be "outed" by further Iraqi intelligence documents. For good mesaure, Fox also announced that Galloway may have given classified satellite imagery to al Qaeda. As is so often the case, the Fox News panelists provided no evidence for their slanderous claims.

Welcome to the new digital and satellite age McCarthyism. Phony documents are "dropped" into the hands of a right-wing London newspaper owned by Conrad Black. They are amplified by Black's other holdings, including the Jerusalem Post and Chicago Sun-Times. The story is then picked up by the worldwide television outlets of News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney, and General Electric and echoed on the right-wing radio talk shows of Clear Channel and Viacom. Political careers are damaged or destroyed. There is no right of rebuttal for the accused. They are guilty as charged by a whipped up public that gets its information from the Orwellian telescreens of the corporate media.

The media operating in concert with political vermin to whip up popular opinion to stamp out criticism is nothing new. It was practiced by Joseph Goebbels quite effectively in Nazi Germany.

It was a British-born actor named Peter Finch who so eloquently and prophetically warned us about the sorry state of today's media. In Paddy Chayefsky's excellent movie, "Network," Finch plays UBS TV news anchormen Howard Beale. When UBS's entertainment division decides to fire Beale because of low ratings, he begins to rant and rave on the air. He is then given his own television entertainment show, "The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves." The most famous scene in the movie is when Beale exhorts his viewers to go their windows and yell, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." We should all be mad as hell about the propaganda in the newspapers and on the airwaves; George Bush and Tony Blair; Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black; Clear Channel and Viacom; the neo-conservative think tank bottom feeders; Rumsfeld and his circle of Pentagon ghouls such as Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Newt Gingrich; and the religious fundamentalists who give aid and succor to America's war machine. To paraphrase Howard Beale, "We should not take them anymore!"

posted 05-12-2003 06:56 PM            

Old hardware left over from the 1980's with NO TRACE of biologicals or chemical agents.

The war was completely unjustified.

Saddam was not a threat to the U.S.

PERIOD.

Blood for oil and money.

posted 05-12-2003 08:25 PM            

Personally, I feel that if this war was about nothing more than liberating Iraq's oil, then it was worth it...but it has accomplished so much more. 1. Iraqi people are liberated 2.Saddam can no longer supply and fund terrorists 3. Saddam can no longer take potshots at our military aircraft 4. Saddam can no longer deal with French, Germans, Russians and Chinese. 5. Saddam can no longer keep oil profits from the people of Iraq to build his own palaces and torture chambers. 6. Saddam can no longer threaten his neighbors in oil producing countries. 7. Saddam can no longer threaten the world oil market and hold Iraqi oil as a bargaining chip...8. Strategically, a victory in Iraq was invaluable in demonstrating to other potential terrorist countries our willingness and effectiveness in using force....An incredibly powerful deterrent to future terrorist acts in America. We have demonstrated to other countries that if you engage in acts of terrorism, your regime will likely be eliminated.

posted 05-13-2003 08:22 AM            

Funny how Saddam was never a problem or enemy to our government untill he soured on deals with POPPY Bu$h before Gulf War I.

posted 05-13-2003 08:25 AM            

GUESS WHAT'S SHOWING UP IN BAGHDAD? AFGAN HEROIN!

Fury rises in Baghdad as drugs return to the alleys
By Phil Reeves in Baghdad

11 May 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=405125

The killing of two US soldiers in Baghdad within 24 hours last week shows how far the US and Britain still have to go to end the chaos gripping the Iraqi capital a month after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Anger is growing among Iraqis at the Allies' failure to restore order in a cityawash with weapons and gangs. Heroin – banned under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship upon pain of hanging - is now being traded in back streets.

Residents of Baghdad – a conservative city with a large Shia Muslim population – are complaining that the breakdown in order has accompanied the emergence of some western practices they view as offensive, and which were prohibited, or tightly restricted, under Saddam.

In al-Bataween – the worst of Baghdad's badlands which is blighted by carjackings and crime – residents say heroin is being traded in the alleys. "In Iraq there were no drugs until March 2003," said Salah Sha'amikh, a pharmacist. "You would be hanged for trafficking. But now you can get heroin, cocaine, anything." He pulled out a Russian-made 8.5mm pistol which he says he keeps to protect his wares.

posted 05-13-2003 12:11 PM            

quote:

---

We built Saddam. He was our boy.

---

Actually we did not. Saddam assasinated his way into power without any help from the US.

quote:

---

Funny how we never gve a RATS @SS about those people untill Bu$h said we needed to go to war.

---

Bush obviously gave a rat's ass. If you did not...If you'd still prefer that Saddam was in power sticking live human beings into plastic shredders, then I'd say it's more of an indication of YOUR lack of concern for other human beings.

quote:

---

Funny how Saddam was never a problem or enemy to our government untill he soured on deals with POPPY Bu$h before Gulf War I.

---

Gulf War I began when Saddam invaded the soveriegn nation of Kuwait.

quote:

---

Had no problem with Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq either.

---

posted 05-14-2003 08:53 AM            

WHAT WMD'S ?.....

Iraq: Bush Tells Americans Saddam Is An Imminent Threat

By Andrew F. Tully
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/08102002135121.asp

Washington, 8 October 2002 (RFE/RL) -- President George W. Bush addressed the American people last night in an effort to convince them of what he believes is the urgency to confront Iraq about its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and to GO TO WAR OVER THE ISSUE if necessary.

Speaking from Cincinnati, Bush said Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, poses a unique threat to the Middle East, to the United States, and to the world. "While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

***** Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant [Hussein] who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people," Bush said.**********

WHERE ARE THEY MR. BUSH?

Bush said the United States and the world cannot afford to wait -- as some have suggested -- for Saddam to abandon his programs of weapons of mass destruction, as required by the United Nations under the terms of the cease-fire that ended hostilities in the 1991 Gulf War. "The longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence," Bush said.

WHERE IS THE WMD'S MR. BUSH?

But the U.S. president said this urgency does not mean that war is imminent or inevitable. Still, he said, he is prepared to lead a coalition of countries in a military strike against Iraq if necessary.

Bush delivered the speech as the U.S. Congress is in the midst of a debate over whether it should give advance approval to Bush to take whatever action he believes would be appropriate on Iraq.

Some members of Congress -- even a few members of Bush's Republican Party -- say such approval should be contingent upon United Nations approval of any military action. Others argue that to set the country's focus on Iraq would dilute the country's more pressing war against international terrorism.

Responding to these arguments, Bush expressed hope that the UN Security Council would pass a new resolution requiring Iraq to submit to unrestricted, unconditional inspections of any sites suspected of developing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

WHERE ARE THE WMD's MR. BUSH?

The United States and Britain are now trying to persuade the other three permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council -- China, France, and Russia -- to accept such terms. Most observers say they expect China not to oppose the measure and merely abstain. But Russia and France say such a resolution is not necessary.

Bush also contended that Hussein works closely with terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's network that has been blamed for the attacks on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. There has been no evidence, however, that Hussein was in any way involved in those attacks, and Bush offered none last night.

THAT'S A LIE MR.BUSH...A LIE YOU PERPERATED

But Bush said confronting Hussein would strengthen the war against terrorism, not weaken it. "Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction, and he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use [weapons of mass destruction] or provide them to a terror network. Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil," Bush said.

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS MR. BUSH?

Furthermore, Bush said, not to act against Iraq would simply embolden other renegade leaders, give terrorists greater access to weapons of mass destruction, and leave the world open to their blackmail.

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS MR. BUSH?

Bush's speech included no new evidence that Iraq was close to creating a nuclear-weapons weapon. But the White House released photos taken by satellite that are said to show two Iraqi nuclear-weapons facilities that have been rebuilt since they were destroyed four years ago. They also show activity at what is described as an Iraqi chemical-weapons plant.

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS MR. BUSH?

Bush's speech comes at a time when public-opinion polls show that Americans are less worried about any threats Iraq may pose than they are about the weak U.S. economy. Some of those surveyed said they believe a war against Iraq may hurt the economy further.

Many respondents also say they believe that war with Iraq would increase the likelihood of more terrorist attacks against the United States.

Despite the misgivings outlined in these surveys, polls show that Bush's approval rating remains high.

NOT FOR LONG.

WHEE ARE THE WMD'S MR. BUSH?

posted 05-14-2003 10:29 AM            

JASON BEATTIE CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=544472003

AN EMBITTERED Clare Short quit the government yesterday, and unleashed a tirade against Tony Blair, accusing the Prime Minister of endangering Labour’s achievements through his "obsessive" pursuit of a place in history, and called on him to quit.

In a damning resignation statement which dissected the failings of Mr Blair’s premiership, Ms Short painted a picture of a presidential leader whose dictatorial style was damaging the party and creating "bad policy".

And in a newspaper interview published today, she twisted the knife further, saying an "elegant succession" should by organised to "keep up the quality of the government".

She added: "I think Tony Blair has enormous achievements under his belt, and it would be sad if he hung on and spoiled his reputation."

The MP for Birmingham Ladywood left the Commons spellbound yesterday as she detailed why she had decided to resign after six years as international development secretary.

Ostensibly, Ms Short had quit in protest at the draft United Nations resolution tabled by Britain and the United States, setting out the plans for post-conflict Iraq. But in her statement she gave vent to a catalogue of grievances about the government and Mr Blair.
‘The Prime Minister ... is in danger of destroying his legacy as he becomes increasingly obsessed by his place in history.’

In the most acrimonious resignation statement since Geoffrey Howe used his valedictory speech to savage Margaret Thatcher in 1990, Ms Short described a government where policies were made in private by advisers to Mr Blair and imposed on departments.

"There is no real collective responsibility because there is no collective, just diktats in favour of increasingly badly thought-through policy initiatives that come from on high," she told MPs.

Although her resignation had been predicted since she accused Mr Blair of being "deeply reckless" in the run-up to military action against Iraq, there was shock and anger at the bitterness of Ms Short’s departure.

Ms Short told the Commons: "Increasingly, those who are wielding power are not accountable and not scrutinised. Thus we have the powers of a presidential-type system with the automatic majority of a parliamentary system.

"My conclusion is that these arrangements are leading to increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through parliament - straining and abusing party loyalty and undermining the people’s respect for our political system."

There was also a clear indication that Ms Short was preparing to use the freedom of the back-benches to harry the government as it tried to reform the public sector. In a rallying cry for the public-service ethos, she called for an end to the "endless new initiatives, layers of bureaucratic accountability and diktats from the centre".
‘There is no real collective responsibility because there is no collective, just diktats.’

This was followed by a personal assault on the character and leadership of Mr Blair, which could strike a chord with those in the party uncomfortable with the leadership.

Ms Short told stunned MPs that if Labour’s first term had been characterised by spin and control freakery, the second term was centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers.

"There is much our government has achieved which reflects Labour’s values and of which we can be very proud. But we are entering rockier times and we must work together to prevent our government departing from the best values of the party.

"To the Prime Minister, I would say that he has achieved great things since 1997, but, paradoxically, he is in danger of destroying his legacy as he becomes increasingly obsessed by his place in history."

Ms Short’s critique of her leader overshadowed her complaints about the UN process which had caused her to resign. She questioned the legality of the Iraqi conflict, accusing the government of acting outside the advice of the attorney general, and added:

"I am ashamed that the government has agreed the resolution tabled in New York and shocked by the secrecy and lack of consultation with departments with direct responsibility for the issues referred to in the resolution."

Baroness Valerie Amos became Britain’s first black woman Cabinet minister when she was named as the replacement for Ms Short, who follows Robin Cook as Cabinet ministers to resign over Iraq.

Downing Street tried to play down the implications of Ms Short’s departure, praising her work and denying she had been excluded from the discussion process leading to the tabling of the draft resolution.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told MPs "every action" undertaken by the coalition forces in Iraq had been legal.

He said: "Every action we have taken in Iraq is consistent with the undertakings we have given in public and all actions we have taken have been taken strictly in accordance with legal advice."

Other senior Labour MPs rushed to support Mr Blair amid fears the populist MP could prompt a dangerous uprising among Labour back-benchers.

Other party members were furious at the self-indulgent tone of her speech, fearing it would offer ammunition to the Tory charge that Labour was split "from top to bottom".

George Foulkes, who had served as Ms Short’s deputy, said she would have had more credibility had she resigned when she first raised doubts about the planned Iraqi conflict.

posted 05-14-2003 10:50 AM            

U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg&refer=europe

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.D

Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.

Blair has said he wants Iraqi oil revenues to be held in a United Nations-run trust fund and spent on rebuilding Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday the U.S. may encourage Iraq to set up an oil revenue-sharing system that would distribute some proceeds from what he called the ``marvelous treasure'' to Iraqi citizens.

Oil production in Iraq was halted before the U.S.-led attack that toppled President Saddam Hussein. According to UN data, the nation is losing about $55 million a day in oil revenue as the U.S., the European Union and the Iraqi people debate postwar reconstruction plans.

Porritt's commission was set up in 2000 to advise the U.K. government on making economic and business activity compatible with environmental-protection policies. The body reports directly to Blair.

posted 05-17-2003 01:58 PM            

Global Opinion from 45 countries
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3405.htm

05/16/03: Gallup International Association (GIA) is releasing a new global public opinion survey conducted after the fall of Saddam Hussein™s regime in Iraq (interviews between 16 th April and 8th May) in 45 countries.

Key Findings from the survey:

Only in the USA itself, in Albania, and in UN administered Kosovo do citizens feel the world is a safer place since the recent military action (48%, 64% and 59% respectively).

****************************************************************************

Majorities in all other countries think that as a result of recent military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place. It is not a surprise then that in almost all countries included in the survey, majorities also disagree that the threat of terrorism has been significantly reduced by the war.

*****************************************************************************

Global opinion is less clear cut on whether military action by the US and its allies in Iraq was justified or not.

However, large majorities in several European countries opposed to the war, still think even now that the regime of Saddam Hussein has been destroyed that military action by the US and its allies was not justified. This is particularly true in France (65%) and Germany (68%) but also in Spain (68%) and even more strongly in Greece (83%).

Outside of Western Europe, in two key countries Israel and Turkey almost 9 out of 10 citizens in Israel (87%) think military action was justified whilst only a quarter of the Turkish population agree (23%).

Regarding the re-construction of Iraq, significant majorities in most countries around the world think the US and its allies should be involved. But they also strongly agree that the United Nations should be involved.

A majority of citizens in many countries would also give Arab countries a role but global opinion is clear that those countries which opposed the war, like France Germany and Russia should not be involved in the re-construction of Iraq.

Most countries agree that the US is too keen to use military force, notably highest in Russia (87%) and France (87%), But agreement is also high in Finland (81%), Switzerland (80%), Serbia (former Yugoslavia 84%) and Turkey (75%).

Highest disagreement levels are found in the USA (51%), Philippines (52%); with disagreement also in Germany (32%), Portugal (31%), Albania (37%), Malaysia (40%),Cameroon (41%) and Nigeria (46%).

Large majorities in all countries agree there can be no peace in the region without a settlement of the Israel/Palestine issue.

In Israel itself, seven out of ten people agree (70%). It follows that in most countries, the majority of the population does not agree that the war will result in greater peace and stability in the Middle East. The exceptions are again the USA itself, Albania and UN-administered Kosovo.

A supplementary question was asked in Israel only, which shows that 51% think that, in light of the military action in Iraq and the end of the Saddam Hussein regime, this development in itself has increased the chances of resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Nine percent feel it has decreased the chances and 35% feel it has had no effect.

Diplomacy is also recognised as a sensitive issue around the world.

Global opinion in many countries is not clear whether the diplomatic rift between the US and its allies with countries opposed to the war like France, Germany and Russia can be easily repaired or not.

In key countries, French opinion splits with 43% agreeing and 47% disagreeing that the diplomatic rift between the US and its allies with countries opposed to the war like France, Germany and Russia can be easily repaired.

In Germany, thefigures are 37% agree and 58% disagree, in Russia 42% agree and 44% disagree.

Among the allied countries in UK 38% agree and 51% disagree and in the USA 45% agree and exactly the same proportion (44%) disagree.

Finally, in almost all countries, most citizens agree that the United Nations has been seriously damaged by recent events, perhaps this is why so many global citizens want to see the United Nations play a significant role in the re-construction of Iraq

The Gallup International Association, now registered in Zurich, Switzerland as a verein, was established in 1947 by George H Gallup and his colleagues. It now has member agencies in 60 countries across the world, regularly conducting market and opinion research in more than 80 countries.

posted 05-17-2003 02:14 PM            

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/05/14/notes051403.DTL

Ha-ha-ha oh man did we ever get smacked on that one. Conned big time. Punk'd like dogs. Just gotta shake your head, laugh it off. They reamed us but good, baby! Damn.

Turns out it really was all a big joke after all. The war, that is. All a big fat nasty murderous oil-licking lie, a sneaky little power-mad game with you as the sucker and the world as the pawn and BushCo as the slithery war thug, the dungeon master, the prison daddy. You really have to laugh. Because it's just so wonderfully ridiculous. In a rather disgusting, soul-draining sort of way.

See, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No WMDs at all. Isn't that great? What's more: There never were. Ha-ha-ha. Gotcha!

No warehouses teeming with nuclear warheads, no underground bunkers packed with vats of boiling biotoxins, no drums of crazy-ass chemical agents that will melt your skin and turn us all into drooling flesh-eating zombies -- unless, of course, you count the sneering vat of conservative biotoxin that is, say, Fox News, in which case, hell yeah baby, we gotcher WMDs right here beeyatch.

Go figure. Those lowly U.N. inspectors were right after all. Who knew? It was all a ruse. We've been sucker-punched and ideologically molested and patriotically sodomized and hey, what the hell, who cares anyway, we "liberated" an oppressed people most Americans secretly loathe and fear and don't understand in the slightest, even though that was never the point, or the justification, or the goal. Go team.

But wait, is liberation of a brutalized and tormented people now the reason? The justification for our thuggery? That is so cool! So that means we're going to blow the living crap out of Sri Lanka and Sudan and Tibet and North Korea and about 47 others, right? Right? Maybe Saudi Arabia, too, second only to the Taliban itself in its abuse of women? Cool! As if.

Ah, but screw the liberal whiny peacenik U.N. inspectors, you know? Let's ask the U.S. search teams themselves, ShrubCo's own squadrons of biologists, chemists, arms-treaty enforcers, nuclear operators, computer and document experts and Special Forces troops who've been in Iraq for weeks now, searching frantically.

Surely they've found something, right? Surely we can now prove that Saddam was fully intending to fillet our babies and annihilate Florida and poke the eyes out of really cute kittens on national TV for sadistic pleasure, right? Gimme a hell yeah!

Whoops. Bad news. As The Washington Post reports, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, the very serious-minded group heading up all U.S. inspections in Iraq, the group absolutely certain it would immediately find steaming neon-lit stockpiles of WMDs piled right next to Saddam's personal stash of gay porn and Britney Spears posters and opium pipes, is coming home with its tail between its legs. Found nothing. Nada.

Psychopatriots are a little nonplussed. Bush is merely "embarrassed." Peace advocates are sighing and drinking heavily. We have done this ghastly horrible inane hate-filled entirely unprovoked thing in the name of power and petroleum and military contracts and strategic empire building, our nation is numb and more bitterly divisive than ever and our leaders are not the slightest bit ashamed.

But of course you're not the slightest bit shocked. You knew it all along. The WMD line was just a ploy that, tragically, much of the nation bought into like a sucker pyramid scheme after being pounded into submission with hammers of fear and Ashcroftian threats and bogus Orange Alerts and having their tweezers confiscated at the airport.

And of course the capacity to be outraged and appalled has been entirely drained out of you, out of this nation, replaced by raging ennui and sad resentment and the new fall season on NBC. This is what they're counting on. Your short attention span. WMDs? That's so, like, last February. Hey look, the swimsuit model won "Survivor"!

Because now it's all done. Like a bad trip to the dentist where your routine cleaning turned out to be a bloody excruciating root canal and 50 hours of high-pitched drilling and $100 billion in god-awful cosmetic surgery, now the bandages come off. Smile, sucker. We're at peace once again. Sort of. But not really. Don't you feel better now? No? Too bad. No one cares what you think.

It's all over but the shouting. And the screaming. And the endless years of U.S. occupation in the Middle East, the quiet building of U.S. military bases in Iraq so we can keep those uppity bitches Syria and Egypt and Lebanon in line, forge ahead with the long-standing plan to strong-arm those damn Islamic nuts into brutal compliance with Bushco's bleak blueprint for World Inc. What, too bitter? Hardly.

Should we care that Osama, the actual perp of 9/11, is still running around free? That terrorism hasn't been quelled in the slightest? That the Mideast is more of a U.S.-hating powder keg than ever, thanks to BushCo? That the economy is in the worst shape it's been in decades?

Should we care that we just massacred tens of thousands of Iraqi (and Afghan) civilians and soldiers and suffered a little more than 100 U.S. casualties and have absolutely nothing to show for it except bogus force-fed pride and this weird, sickening sense that we just executed something irreparable and ungodly and karmically poisonous?

Nah. Just laugh it off. Have a glass of wine, make love, go play Frisbee with the dog. Breathe deep and focus on what's truly important and try to assimilate this latest atrocity into your backstabbed worldview, add it to the list of this lifetime's spiritual humiliations, as you wait for the next barrage, the imminent announcement that we're about to do it all again.

posted 05-21-2003 11:20 PM            

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods21.html

There’s no delicate way to say this, but to supporters of the Iraq war I have a little message.

All together now, people: you were scammed.

No "weapons of mass destruction" have been found. None.

Some of us figured as much, since the rationale for the war kept changing so frequently. And when the search for these weapons was carried out in such a lackluster manner, one had to assume the administration wasn’t really worried about them. (We were casually told that perhaps seven suspected Iraqi nuclear sites had been looted. Nice planning there.)

Some people will believe administration propaganda no matter what. In reply to an article I wrote for SeattleCatholic.com, one person wrote to the editor: "Contrary to Dr. Woods’ reference to the lack of Al Qaeda–Iraqi links, we have all read of the proof of links dating to before 9/11." Have we? That’s funny, because every news article one reads these days concedes that the link has not been made, and that experts prior to the war insisted the alleged link was a mere fantasy. I wonder what special intelligence briefings this critic received.

Some supporters of the war will doubtless plead, "But, but…that’s what Hannity and Limbaugh told me to think!"

Well, it’s time now to start doing your own thinking, since Hannity and Limbaugh wouldn’t know conservatism if it punched them in the face.

The automatons who send you angry emails when you write an article like this condemn you for not wanting to "liberate the Iraqis." (I dealt with that one in an earlier piece.) They’ll point to the toppling of the statue of Saddam as a glorious moment of liberation. They somehow missed the news items informing us that that spectacle was entirely staged: 500 Iraqi National Congress goons were flown in by the Pentagon to put on that display for us. A wide-angle camera shot of the incident shows American tanks patrolling a completely deserted square (apart from the 500 goons).

Moreover, the likelihood increases with each passing day that Iraq will, whether we like it or not, wind up an Islamic state. (The idea that enfranchised Iraqis would vote for feminism and its allied ideologies was, in retrospect, a little ridiculous.) That’s just one of the answers to the veritable army of propagandized automatons who spend their time telling atrocity stories from the days of Saddam’s regime. "Nothing could be worse than Saddam." Well, Woodrow Wilson didn’t think anything could be worse than the Kaiser in Germany. A decade after the President’s death, intelligent men longed for the old Kaiser.

I’ve already explained on this site why crusades for democracy are in no sense "conservative"; the very fact that this needs to be pointed out is something of a barometer of conservative thought at the moment. The neoconservatives, not exactly known for their knowledge of history, point to Japan and Germany as democracy-at-gunpoint success stories, but Japan’s intellectuals had been acquainted with and increasingly interested in Western ideas for nearly a century by 1945, and Germany had been at the heart of Western civilization for millennia. Neither is true of Iraq, to say the least.

It is in the nature of the state to want to keep its people permanently mesmerized by some terrible dictator somewhere. ("Ethel, did you hear he used weapons of mass destruction against his own people?") Saddam may well have been a monster. There are plenty of monsters ruling African nations right now. Anyone care to depose them all? To the brainwashed among us, of whom there are many, try to think: do you suppose that would lead to more stability or less?

To peddle this silly campaign of installing democracy by force, you would have to impugn the patriotism of every early American leader, from Washington to Jefferson to Hamilton to John Quincy Adams to Henry Clay. Every one of them considered it dangerous utopianism to suggest that the United States should right the wrongs of the world (as if the matter were that simple in the first place, a point which the aftermath of the most recent conflict should be bringing home if anyone were paying attention). Anyone criticizing opponents of the Iraq war should have the integrity to condemn these great Americans as well, and be explicit in their repudiation of the American tradition. Now who’s "anti-American"?

Meanwhile, Afghanistan, another example of goodness and light being brought to a benighted people, continues to degenerate into chaos. But for people even to remember Afghanistan, they’d have to have an attention span longer than ten minutes.

Just think about how this is going to go over in the history books, or in history classrooms. The neocons had better enjoy themselves now. History doesn’t look kindly upon those who asked no questions about the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, and the prospects for the present boondoggle don’t look much better.

"Didn’t people know that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11?"

"Yes and no. The easily suggestible among us were carried away by the carefully worded insinuations of the Bush Administration."

"So you mean the patriotism of many decent Americans was exploited and taken advantage of by government officials whose motives couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with ‘weapons of mass destruction’ or any of this other nonsense?"

"I’m afraid so."

"So let’s see. We alienated some of our oldest allies, often gratuitously. We made accusations based on cooked evidence (e.g., the forged documents ‘proving’ an Iraqi nuclear program, the 12-year-old student term paper plagiarized to produce a dossier on Iraqi activity in 2003). We destroyed our credibility in the world through our reckless statements and our transparent desire for war throughout the inspections process, thereby making it less likely that other countries would cooperate with us against real terrorists. Some countries, including some of our friends, even suspected we might plant weapons in Iraq if we couldn’t find any. That’s a new low."

"Correct."

"Then we invaded and found no weapons at all – none of the allegedly huge stockpiles of anthrax and whatever else was supposedly on the verge of being used against us. Meanwhile, order collapsed in the country, and enormous demonstrations favoring an Islamic state broke out."

"Right."

"And hatred of the U.S. grew to an all-time high."

"Indeed."

"And there were people foolish enough to denounce as ‘unpatriotic’ those who had warned that this would happen?"

"Believe it or not, there were."

"And people who called themselves conservative considered this a glorious event? They think conservatism means ignorant, bungling belligerence, and that considerations of diplomacy or their country’s image around the world are the stuff of carping liberals?"

"Yes."

Good thing the neocons have no sense of history, or they’d worry about this: in the decades to come, fewer and fewer people will be able to hear about the Iraq war without snickering and shaking their heads.

posted 05-22-2003 03:45 AM            

By: Ed Henry
http://etherzone.com/2003/henr052103.shtml

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of being lied to. It's bad enough that the government has been lying to us about Social Security while bilking us out of trillions of dollars of our retirement money. But now, they're lying to us about matters of life and death.

Day after day, for nine months, the President of the United States appeared on television to tell us about Saddam Hussein's evil ways and weapons of mass doo-daa. He told us of the harm that could be inflicted upon us unless this evildoer was removed from power, how Saddam had chemical and biological weapons of mass doo-daa, connections to the Al Qaeda, and was trying to put together nuclear weapons to attack us or supply other terrorists and how good he was at hiding these things.

And all of this was followed up by the President's henchmen, his Press Secretary, the Secretary of Defense and even the Secretary of State who lied to the United Nations Security Council.

President Bush promised to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice. With a smirk, he continually repeated the story of how foolish the suicidal terrorists must have been to think we would just sit back and take it, or that maybe we would "sue them." This is one speech that the most media oriented president we've ever known certainly had down pat.

Well, it's been almost two years and we have yet to find the infamous Osama bin Laden or even the evil Saddam Hussein whose regime we just overthrew. We still don't know who mailed anthrax to people in Washington, Florida and New York City, even after finding some missing in our own supply. Hell, we couldn't even find Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta bomber who supposedly hid out in our own hills of North Carolina.

If these are examples of bringing evildoers to justice, we should retire our military and intelligence forces and hire Wackenhut. We even had two nitwits who terrorized the Washington, D.C. area for more than two months by shooting people from the trunk of their car before a truck driver finally caught them sleeping at a rest stop.

Most importantly, we easily overran Saddam's pipsqueak nation with our troops and what have we found in the way of weapons of mass doo-daa? We found absolutely nothing—zero, zip, zilch, nada, squat, the big goose egg, not even a nuclear drop gun.

Now, the powers that lie tell us they would be willing to settle for, and you can expect, some paper documents that show a connection to the Al Qaeda, former nuclear development notes, or maybe some scientists that crack under debriefing now that they're safe from Saddam's evil clutches.

Too late George.

Nobody is going to believe you now. If the Iraqis had any of the things you lied to us about, they would have used them when we invaded. Wouldn't you have done so?

And whatever you discover at this late date, who is going to believe that Saddam buried this doo-daa so deeply that he would have trouble getting to them himself?

Instead, we actually had the Iraqis disarming and destroying legitimate missiles they were permitted but that we claimed had an 18 mile extended no load range. They were destroying these in the days immediately before our invasion and after our forces had been at their border for months. How’s that for a futile attempt to show compliance with UN directives?

The only weapons of mass doo-daa in Iraq were the cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells we brought there. And those have branded us as terrorists.

George and his band of merry murderers are probably miffed that they didn't get to use MOAB (the "mother of all bombs") or that we didn't have field nukes available yet. But hey, we're working on new nuclear development for the next invasion.

Remember the closing song from the movie Dr. Strangelove? The song played as nukes destroyed the world. "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when." It should be the Bush theme song.

If you haven't seen Stanley Kubrick's spoof on nuclear holocaust and military intelligence from the Cold War Sixties, go rent it. It's one of Peter Sellers best and the first film appearance of James Earl Jones. You will not see this film on the loyal television networks busy bringing you Clint Eastwood re-runs or films like Die Hard 24 where our heroes take on impossible numbers of evildoers, destroy them all plus tons of equipment, and do so without suffering more than a scratch or two. We're invincible, right?

While you're at it, you might as well rent the movie Wag the Dog, a more recent portrayal of Washington spin stories starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro. Pay particular attention to "Good Ole Shoe" because we just had the equivalent in Private Jessica Lynch's dramatic nighttime rescue from an Iraqi hospital. Of course, Jessica wasn't killed or a sexual pervert, she just lost her memory of the event.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, honest George is going to stimulate the economy with a trickle-down tax break while average workers who account for two-thirds of the economy are overtaxed and truly double taxed on their exorbitant payroll taxes. But go ahead, get out there and spend, it's the patriotic thing to do.

And if you haven't got the money, put it on your credit card or get a loan. The government does it, and you or your kids get to pay off their tab.

posted 05-24-2003 04:24 AM            

[Better a president who isn't afraid to kick some ass than a panzy democrat.]

You mean the president put himself at risk right along side of our troops? I hope he's been tested for DU contamination along with our returning veterans.

Read the following -only if you have the stomach for it.
http://www.irak.be/ned/missies/medicalMissionColetteGeert/weaponsUS.htm

 Answers by expert Dai Williams and Leuren Moret on the weapons used by US forces

Dear Dirk,
Here is Dai Williams' evaluation of the weapons. Julia doesn't believe that the fireballs Colette saw could have been the daisycutters as they were used quite a way out of Baghdad and visiblity is very poor due to the heavy barage of smoke from the oil fires. I don't believe even the US would use a daisycutter inside a city!?! Don't know what else though. I agree that the terrible slicing of people would have been cluster bombs and the bus bombing an anti tank missile with shaped-charged warhead.
In rage!!
Jo

joanne baker wrote: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 23:59:58 +0100 (BST)
From: joanne baker
Subject: Fwd: Time to question US weapons of indiscriminate effect
To: jobak17@yahoo.co.uk

--- Dai Williams wrote: >
From: "Dai Williams"
To:
CC: ,"joanne baker"
Subject: Time to question US weapons of indiscriminate effect
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 13:10:14 +0100

Dear Weekend programmes and WATO team Please can you ask the Pentagon to explain why and how many Daisy cutters, fragmentation bombs and suspected uranium weapons it has used in the last week in the region around now in the outskirts of
Baghdad? And please can you ask the UK Government whether it condones the use of Daisy cutters in populated areas with large numbers of civilians?

I have been investigating US guided weapons as an independent researcher for 2 years. My primary concern are the 23 suspected uranium weapon systems. But my investigations include similar weapons like thermobaric bombs, daisy cutters etc.

Full weapons identification requires inspection on site by trained and independent weapons analysts. This must be a high priority for the UN. Ex-military personnel, HALO or similar demining organisations may help. Serving military personnel will simply lie about more advanced, prototype or illegal weapons.

Less trained observers can partly narrow down suspected weapon systems from descriptions of their explosions and from injuries on victims.

The following reports were received yesterday via CASI (the Cambridge University based Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq) forwarded this report from two Belgian Doctors in Baghdad.

Partial answers to their questions are as follows(colours are my highlighting of relevant text):

[INCIDENT 1 ] "I have two awful stories to tell", Geert immediately starts when I get him on the line. "Today we drove to Hilla, a small town near Babylon that was heavily bombed yesterday. One poor district was hit by 20 to 25 bombs. The hospital of Hilla
received in the next half an hour 150 seriously injured patients. Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mukhtar said that the wounds were caused by clusterbombs. These are bombs that explode into many small bombs that again explode individually and cause enormous damage.
Clusterbombs are banned by the International Laws on War, but Bush completely disregards these! In the hospital I have seen very many abrading situations. A family of eleven persons, of whom six are dead. A father who is left with one child; his wife and two
sons are dead. Small children with amputated limbs."

Incident 1:
is a clusterbomb description. These are already recognised as weapons of indiscriminate effect by the media.

[INCIDENT 2 ] "My second story is even more horrible", warns Geert. "About a bus with civilians that was fired upon. Not the one in Najaf, which reached the news everywhere, but a case that according to me has not yet been covered by western media. Three days ago, In Al Sqifal, near Hilla, a passenger bus was fired upon from an American checkpoint, with ghastly results. According to
witnesses the bus stopped on time and had, on orders of the American Military, turned back. Dr. Saad El-Fadoui, a 52 years old surgeon who still has studied in Scotland, was immediately on the place of incident from the hospital in Hilla. When he told me
what he had seen there, he again became very emotional, three days after it had happened. 'The bodies were al carbonized, terribly mutilated, torn into pieces, he sighs. 'In and around the bus I saw dismembered heads, brains and intestines,..' One wonders what a criminal weapon of mass destruction could have caused these horrors. Nobody had heard the sound of an explosion; on the bodies no traces of shrapnel were found. A journalist spoke of a heat-weapon with liquid cupper or something like that.. Can the Americans be really that cruel? Dr. Saad El-Fadoui asked us repeatedly to do everything to help stop this horrible war of aggression.

Incident 2:
3 April, Al Sqifal, near Hilla 'The bodies were al carbonized, terribly mutilated, torn into pieces,....One wonders what a criminal weapon of massdestruction could have caused these horrors. Nobody had heard the sound of an explosion; on the bodies no traces of shrapnel were found. A journalist spoke of a heat-weapon with liquid cupper or something like that..

The reference to a heat weapon with liquid copper sounds like a misquote of someone describing an anti tank weapon with a shaped charge warhead. (HEAT also stands for High Explosive AntiTank weapons).
Shaped charge warheads use a focussed explosive blast with a copper (or uranium) core that is melted by the blast and travels at very high velocity to cut through armour plating. "Heat" in the context may also be describing the obvious effects of an incendiary weapon.

If the weapon was fired from the check point (ground to ground) it must have been an anti-tank missile e.g. JAVELIN which uses a tandem shaped charge warhead. Recently purchased by UK forces I question whether JAVELIN warheads use a depleted uranium core
like the prototype that DERA and the MOD made and tested in 1999 (refer MOD website). This would produce a far higher temperature (5000 degrees) blast than copper and may account for the characteristic severe burns on victims."Carbonisation" was typical of uranium weapon victims on the highway of death in 1991.
Shaped charge weapons do not create shrapnel - they work by projecting a lance of burning molten metal, almost a plasma, into the target.

Similar effects would have been caused by the larger Hellfire or Maverick missiles though these are fired by planes or helicopters, not referred to in this report.

QUESTION: What weapon was used by US forces in this incident? Did it contain a Uranium warhead?

[INCIDENT 3] Geert understands me poorly when I say something, the line is not always clear. "We are momentarily without electricity", he explains. "Large blocks in Baghdad are without electricity, last night the bombardment was very severe. Colette
(Geert's collegue-doctor Dr. Collette Moulaert) saw from her hotel room, just behind the mosque in this neighborhood, two enormous fireballs coming down. I think that these are containerbombs of about 7-8 tons each that cause enormous vibrations. "I am
shivering of the cold", Collette said, but this was the vibration caused by the bomb explosion.

Incident 3:
"Colette saw from her hotel room, just behind the mosque in this neighborhood, two enormous fireballs coming down."
The only weapons that match this description are the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter bombs. Developed in Vietnam for clearing jungle into runways they created immense pressure (1000 lbs / sq inch) over a large area - lethal from 300 to 900 metres. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

They literally mash and burn any human beings under the blast area causing extensive internal injuries, severe burns but no shrapnel wounds from the high pressure blast. Rather like high-blast napalm in effect but the bombs are 10-20 times larger.

The two doctors providing these reports are in Baghdad. Dirk, their contact in Belgium, is on 0032-6833 9670.

A reliable UK contact is Joanne Baker in Bristol who knows Collette. Jo is on 0117-902 6534.

===

Incident 4
- is from a separate report from BBC reporter Adam Mynot yesterday (5 April) described civilian casualties with severe burns near Nasiriyah. "The Phosphorus turned the inside of his house white hot". This is the first reference I have heard to Phosphorus weapons in the current war.

A more likely alternative may have been a guided bomb with a uranium warhead e.g. GBU 31 or 32 (for increased penetration and incendiary effects). UK researchers located US patents for upgrading the 2000 lb BLU-109/B hard target warhead (used in the GBU-15, 24, 27 and 31 guided bombs) with a choice of tungsten or depleted uranium. See Appendix 2 of my summary "Hazards of Uranium weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq", October 2002 at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm and extracts at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/pdfs/USpats.pdf

These mini (just under 1 ton) bunker busters were used extensively in the earlier Baghdad bombing. The explosions with intense fireballs at ground level and incandescent metal in their explosion plumes are highly suspected of using uranium warheads.

The existence and use of guided bombs and missiles with uranium warheads is vigorously denied by the UK MOD saying that the Pentagon have assured them that such weapons don't exist. I don't trust either statement. In addition to causing horrific burns on
casualties near the fireball such weapons are likely to be causing hundreds, possibly up to 1500, tons of uranium oxide contamination in target regions of Iraq, especially in and around Baghdad.

==

It is really important that media reports question what kinds of weapons are being used by US (and UK) forces - especially when large numbers of casualties or fatalities are seen with unusual injuries e.g. the fire and blast effects described in the incidents above.

The civilian casualties cause most obvious outrage. But there are very few questions about, or reports of, the forms of mutilation and death inflicted on Iraqi troops. It is customary in times of war to demonise the enemy. But much of the Iraqi army are conscripts..

Injuries to every involved in war - civilians and troops of all sides - are very serious issues. After World War 2 there was sufficient horror for consensus about the Geneva Conventions. The US Military and arms industry have shown supreme contempt for international humanitarian law ever WW2.

If this war shows one thing it is the need for the World to start to get control over the barbarity of the US military industrial context. Criticisms of Saddam Hussein's record of atrocities fade into history as they are eclipsed by the industrialised killing that US Forces have spent billions of dollars perfecting.

A new War Crimes Tribunal will be needed in Iraq as soon as hostilities cease - to inspect the targets and casualties of US weapon systems throughout Iraq. This will of course require a dramatic awakening of the UK Government and Conservative Opposition from
the "war-trance" spell cast on them by Pentagon propaganda.

There will be one mighty reckoning to follow soon for the US and UK Governments (if and) when independent international observers are allowed into Iraq.

Dai Williams
Woking, Surrey
eosuk@btinternet.com
01483-222017 07808-502785

 ======= original message ===========
Dirk Adriaensens wrote:

From: "Dirk Adriaensens"
To:CASI
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:52:31 +0200
Subject: [casi] reports Belgian medical team, from Baghdad

Dear list,

here are two more reports from the 2 Belgian doctors who are still in baghdad. Tomorrow, saturday, Medical Aid for the Third World, in cooperation with SOS Iraq, will send 2 more medical doctors to Baghdad to reinforce their medical team. We think it is very important that impartial reports of "non-embedded" sources keep reminding us about the horrors of this war. This war is particularly
"dirty", and many innocent civilians die. And the lies keep coming. Remember that independent journalist are being harrassed, locked up, tortured and even killed by "friendly fire". A Belgian TV-journalist, who is in the south of Iraq, has described the hostilities of British troups against him yesterday in the 8 o'clock news. Disgraceful.
Now the US/UK-aggressors are using new types of bombs and ammunition. Can anyone tell me more about this type of bombs, which Geert describes in the first report? It has something to do with liquid copper or something. Horrible. Why doesn't the BBC report about this? Surely they must have access to these places, have knowledge about these incidents, because these regions are under US/UK control, they say. To me and others all around the world, the BBC has lost all its credibility. They can't be trusted anymore. They have proven to be a part of the US/UK war-machine. Masks have fallen. Shame on them.
Greetings.
Dirk Adriaensens. www.irak.be

More Explanation of new type of ammunition used by US Forces.

dirk,
this just came in from leuren morett concerning the mystery weapon.
 
Thank you Davey.  I think that weapon that fried the busload of people is a version of the microwave weapon that the US Marines revealed in a press conference 1-2 years ago - they wanted to use it in the US for "crowd control".  These are called NLW, non-lethal weapons, but all you do is turn the dial a little more to the right and "oops we fried them"....

Many of the new weapons and the military research has been on "directed energy" - pain beams, heat the enemy up until his skin is burning, fry his brain or scramble it, alter moods, its really really really really wicked.  What are the Brits there for?  The US is going to ruin their reputation...

It would seem that most of the civilian casualties have been caused by cluster bombs but the bus attack weapon may have been something different. It would not be a microwave bomb. They are something different. They fry electrical circuits and chips. The crowd control weapons (non-lethal supposedly) are gas and there doesnt seem evidence of their use as yet.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/clus-a05.shtml

Thank you very much for your email with this important information which I will pass on to Karen Parker International Human Rights and Humanitarian Lawyer and Philippa Winkler, people working on the DU and weapons issue with the UN Human Rights Commission. 

I am not familiar with the different weapons systems so well detailed by Dai Williams but I do know what the environmental and public health effects of DU are.  The explanations by Dai Williams are very good and I believe his careful research has been extremely
important in addressing the DU issue as well as other illegal weapons now being used.

There are many types of microwave, EMF and pulsed and shaped energy weapons which have been developed and which we may or may not know about not know about because they are classified.  Dai has demonstrated the information it is possible to get from patent applicaitons.  It would be reasonable to expect new types of weapons to be tested in this war.  I agree with Dai that the US has spent billions on creating military weapons and the military industrial complex should be put in check.  We as the citizens of the
world should stop the endless development and use of these on helpless populations.

Please thank the Belgian and other doctors working in Iraq for the Iraqi people.  I am very concerned that they will now be contaminated with DU as a consequence.  I am attaching some articles I have written for circulation and a letter I wrote to
Congressman McDermott with important scientific information about DU: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03.htm

With best wishes - Leuren Moret
President Scientists for Indigenous People
City of Berkeley Commissioner
Past President, Association for Women Geoscientists

posted 05-24-2003 03:19 PM            

Ask any Chinese slave-made plastic American flag waving American and they will just shout "yeah team" "one for OUR side".

I guess killing to make the globalists and Halliburton, Bechtel, and Fluor even richer is okay with them.

posted 05-29-2003 07:03 AM            

OOPS...WE LIED...SORRY

Rumsfeld: “We may never find Iraqi weapons'

By Robert Fox in London and James Langton in New York, Evening Standard
28 May 2003
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/5017118?source=
Evening%20Standard

US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said for the first time today that there may not be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The admission comes amid mounting embarrassment at the failure to produce evidence that Saddam Hussein had an active programme to create weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

posted 05-30-2003 06:36 PM            

30 May 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=410730

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.

The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.

Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found.

The failure to find a single example of the weapons that London and Washington said were inside Iraq only makes the embarrassment more acute. Voices are increasingly being raised in the US ­ and Britain ­ demanding an explanation for why nothing has been found.

Most striking is the fact that these latest remarks come from Mr Wolfowitz, recognised widely as the leader of the hawks' camp in Washington most responsible for urging President George Bush to use military might in Iraq. The magazine article reveals that Mr Wolfowitz was even pushing Mr Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the 11 September attacks in the US, instead of invading Afghanistan.

Ther