War Without End

foppe37 · Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 5:49 am Post subject: no opinions

If I state that Jews in the USA on average are wealthier than other USA citizens this is not something I dream up.

My statements never are opinions, my statements always are based on something.

In the case of Jewish wealth in the USA, this was in an article published by the Israeli journalist Israel Shamir, and he referred to a study published by a USA university lecturer.

I cannot find the article now, I do not file anything.
So please ask Shamir, he has an interesting website.

If you look for him you may run into the websites of his Israeli enemies, he there is described as 'Israel's worst enemy'.

foppe37 · Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 5:51 am Post subject: USA moneycracy

I do hope I do not have to explain how in the USA money buys votes.

foppe37 · Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 5:58 am Post subject: on USA vote fraud

Originally published by Free Republic.

Are the elections in the United States fair and honest? A review of the facts is far less than rassuring.

Since 1964, right after John F. Kennedy was assasinated, vote tabulation for national elections has been handled not by the government, but by a private company lacking any official oversight at all. This company, which changes its name on a regular basis, is currently called "Voters News Service" and is located in New York City. This company is owned by a consortium of TV networks and wire services, which are in turn controlled by the CIA through its Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The TV networks will make a great show of being "first with the election results", but in reality all of them rely on the numbers sent to them by VNS, while seldom aknowledging its existance during the election coverage.

This is the voting process most in use in America today. A voter punches a card in the voting booth. That card is run through a computer at the local voting center, then that computer contacts computers at Voters News Service, or the precinct official telephones the numbers the computer shows him to Voters News Service, which then announces the results via the networks. Poll watchers are allowed to watch the voting booths, to gaurd against polling place electioneering, but in most precincts, the actual counting of the ballots is concealed from the public, and nobody is allowed to see inside the voting machines, or review the computer software that counts the ballots. 70% of all votes in America are counted by machine, and nobody, not private citizen, not local election official, nobody, is allowed to examine how it all works. The accuracy tests conducted on the voting machines before and after the actual election are utterly worthless, as they cannot detect fraud designed to fool the accuracy test itself. In 1988, when voting machines in Illinois were tested with tens of thousands of ballots instead of the few dozen normally used for the accuracy test, over 1/4 of the machines which had passed the standard accuracy test were found to have mistabulated the larger test vote results!

While researching the book, "VOTESCAM", the Collier brothers actually managed to videotape members of the League of Women voters forging ballots, and found hard evidence that Shouptronics and Printomatic vote machines were rigged in the Dade County Elections. In the Shouptronics, the wheels of the mechanical counters were shaved to cause miscounts. In the Printomatic machines, a malfunction revealed that the paper tape with the voting results had been pre-printed before the voting even started! The Colliers, along with attorney Ellis Rubin, handed the evidence to the assistant State Attorney for Florida. Sadly, that assistant State Attorney was Janet Reno, who in a pattern we have all become too familer with, killed the investigation. 60 Minutes taped a segment on the Dade County Vote Fraud, but never aired it.

Mandatory voter registration laws, such as "Motor voter" have been a boon to election fraud, generating registered voters who don't vote and whose names may be used to obtain absentee ballots. In the California election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts to investigate the Clinton White House, canvassers discovered that nearly half of the names registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but again nothing was done. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would cost too much!

The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud. When vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one that ended Pat Buchanon's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only! When the Miami Magazine ran a story on the Dade County Vote Fraud, the magazine was purchased just one month later by the editor of the Miami News, Sylvan Meyer, who ordered that no further stories on vote fraud be published. When precinct workers in the 1974 Dade County elections discovered that the voting machines they were using were rigged, they walked off the job and refused to certify the election process. Police and fire fighters took over the polling duties. The next day, the Miami Herald reported the walk out, but not the reason. When the precinct workers went to the media to report the election rigging, the media ignored them. So did the local attorney general. So did the FBI. Citizens who tried to observe the next election were arrested.

Typical of the horror stories associated with the media-owned Voters News Service is what happened in Dubuque County Iowa during the 1996 Caucuses. The county's 41 precincts met in 41 classrooms at two high schools and voted on old fashioned paper ballots, which were then counted in full view of all present (including representives of the candidates), and the results posted for all to see and verify. The vote totals were then phoned directly into Voters News Service by the county chairman, again in full view of all participants that night. Buchanon won the county by a wide margin, garnering 870 votes. By next morning, Voters News Service had dropped Buchanon's vote total for that county down to 757 votes, a 13% drop. Buchanon lost Iowa by a much smaller margin than 13%.

The Iowa state GOP claimed it could do nothing about the problem; they were "in VNS' hands". VNS, despite the paper ballots proving Buchanon's 870 votes, refused to admit error and refused to change the results for the county. Needless to say, the question of whether Buchanon had had 13% of his votes shaved off in other Iowa counties, ones in which computerized vote machines meant there was no audit trail to check, was ignored. The fact that an obviously fraudulent vote had made it all the way through the system to be reported on national television was also ignored by the media. (Iowa is the state, it should be noted, where a columnist for Salon magazine was charged with vote fraud.)

The complicity by the law enforcement machinery of this nation is astounding. In one election in Boston, a judge declared 968 ballots which had been declared "blank" due to multiple punches to be valid, arbitrarily assigning most of the disputed votes to the incumbant candidate, thereby reversing his defeat. In a computer vote fraud case in West Virginia, an expert witness testifying for the plaintiff sat down at a CES voting machine provided by the defendants, studied it for a while, then with a single ballot card added 10,000 votes to one of the fictional candidates. The judge refused to allow the jury to see the demonstration and the charges were eventually dropped.

Only three states, California, Florida, and Michigan, have laws requiring that the voting machine source code be placed in escrow should it need to be examined after an election. None of those states have any means to verify that the source code placed in escrow is in fact the origin of the compiled code running on the machines election night, and in Michigan, the escrow is simply handled by the voting machine company itself with no overview by a state agency or public interest group.

All the voting machines used in the United States come from just three companies. The Presidents of two of them have been convicted of vote fraud and yet all state governments continue to do business (at very steep fees) with just these three companies. The largest of the three companies has direct access to 50% of the nation's votes. Nobody is allowed to inspect the machines, or watch as the vote totals are accumulated and counted, and there is no audit trail anywhere along the path from the voting machine to Voter's News Service, the private media-owned company that without any official oversight, tells us all what the election results are.

Most states have now passed laws requiring a challenge to election results to be filed within a few weeks of the election, far too short a time for anyone to properly determine if such a challenge is warrented.

Despite such an obvious inhibition, a Democrat who lost a legislative seat in the 1998 Hawaiian election did file a challange, claiming there was vote fraud. A quick audit showed that vote fraud involving absentee ballots had indeed occured, but mostly by the Democrat; who had cheated, but not enough to win. This scandal triggered public questions about several races, including that of the Democratic Governor, Ben Cayutano, who had been trailing his Republican challenger all during the election night, only to have a sudden surge of votes at the last second push him over the top. The governor offered to over-ride the state's two week filing deadline for election challenges and allow a full recount, then back-pedaled and made a full recount contingent on a "pre-audit". The "pre-audit" was assigned to the company which had run the election, along with a warning that if it turned out the election was flawed, their final payment would be withheld by the State of Hawaii. Needless to say the pre-audit found no errors in the election, and despite the urging of the Voter Integrity Project (which was conducting its own investigation) the full recount was canceled. The voting company, ES&S was again been awarded the voting contractr for the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, without any open bidding.

Who chooses what government we live under? Those who cast the votes, or as Stalin observed, those who count them? Do We The People pick those who govern us, or does a private company, owned by the CIA controlled media, and operating without any public oversight? Have We The People consented by vote to bear the $14 trillion burden of a government's reckless fiscal policy, or was that consent and that vote fraudulently obtained?

Just think about all it really means if the elections are being rigged on a massive scale.

It means that the contract between ruler and ruled is broken. The government does not govern with the consent of the governed, it rules by treachery and deception. The crown it wears is a stolen one, usurped from the people by three voting machine companies and one media owned results-announcer totally beyond review and reproach.

So, now we come back to the issue of government debt and who is really responsible for it. If, as appears to be the case, our elections are routinely being rigged, then it cannot be argued that We The People either chose, or approved of, those officials who borrowed trillions of dollars without our permission and sought to enslave us to that debt.

In an atmosphere of doubt about the validity of the voting process, it cannot be assumed that the American people have actually voted for or approved of any of the government's actions and policies for the last 35 years. That includes a couple of wars and some $14 trillion in debt, and the $60,000 in interest payments alone each taxpayer has had to fork over since the 60s.

In light of the numerous incidents of vote fraud uncovered through the years and the quite obvious stonewall on the subject by the officials who benefit from rigged elections and the media that at least helps in the rigging, it is dangerous to assume that American elections are honest. The burden of proof must lie with VNS and the voting machine companies to prove their honesty.

In an atmosphere of doubt about the validity of the voting process, it appears that the entire voting process is a sham, a trick to fool the American people into accepting whatever is done to them by creating the illusion that the people somehow voted for and approved of whatever is being done. That's how Batista fooled the Cuban people. That's how the USSR fooled the Soviet citizens. And that's how the American government fools us.

Cowboy · Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 2:53 am Post subject: Re: no opinions

Cowboy · Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 2:54 am Post subject: Re: USA moneycracy

Cowboy · Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 2:58 am Post subject: Re: USA moneycracy

foppe37 · Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 5:18 am Post subject: FEC and AIPAC

I'd think it's common knowledge how money buys votes, and political posts, in the USA.
The present USA ambassador to the Netherlands got his job because he donated substantially to the Bush jr campaign.
I forgot about the amount, but Dutch politicians made interesting statements about why he has been nominated.
The man behaves like he's ordering some valets here.
I hope you know that Kennedy sr got his London ambassador job in the same way.

The USA now has regulations about the maximum amounts that may be given to politicians for election purposes.
Baruch, in 'The public years', specifically mentions that when Roosevelt was elected he gave a lot of money, and states thta then there was no maximum.
Irving describes Baruch as someone 'who sold White House influence', Irving bases this statement on the Ickes diaries.
Icke was one of Roosevelt's ministers.
Truman broke with Baruch.

Let me end with a quote on AIPAC.
Anyone interested knows that any senator or representative who dares to do anything against Israel loses his seat in the next elections.
Of course this has nothing to do with money.
Jewish power in the USA is such that even the Supreme Court decision mentioned below changed nothing, as a well known USA writer confirmed me few days ago.

Special Report

U.S. Court Orders FEC to Enforce Federal Election Law Against AIPAC

by Richard H. Curtiss

January/February 1997, p. 16

None of the seven retired U.S. officials who filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in January 1988 charging that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and 27 named political action committees were violating federal election laws were in the bloom of youth at the time. Now, almost nine years later, when 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals finally have ruled 8 to 2 in their favor, one of the complainants has died, and five of the six survivors are in their 70s.

But they exhibited quiet satisfaction at the Dec. 6 ruling, as did the lawyers who had kept the case alive over the years by donating their services, charging only for clerical and related expenses. Their demand was that the FEC follow up its own ruling that AIPAC has functioned as a “political committee” by requiring the giant pro-Israel lobbying group to disclose where it gets its now $12 million annual budget, and how it spends that money.

The complainants believe that if the FEC enforces its own rules, the stranglehold that Israel’s principal Washington, DC lobby has had on U.S. Middle East policy may eventually be loosened. Their charge is that although AIPAC has conducted itself as a political action committee, by not registering as one it has exempted itself both from disclosing publicly its receipts and expenditures, and from the federal law which restricts political action committees from donating more than $10,000 to a single candidate in a single election cycle.

They further believe, although it was not a part of the complaint to the FEC, that AIPAC has functioned as a foreign agent, openly pursuing the interests of each successive elected government of Israel, but without registering as such and thus subjecting itself to federal disclosure laws.

The complaint to the FEC, which in fact consisted of a number of separate filings, has a long and tortuous history. It was largely assembled by Abdeen Jabara, who now practices law in New York. As an activist lawyer in Detroit specializing in discrimination complaints, and during a subsequent four-year stint as president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), he saw extensive evidence of violations of election laws by AIPAC officers.

The complaint to the FEC has a long and tortuous history.

The seven public figures who eventually filed the complaint were James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia; the late George Ball, Kennedy administration under secretary of state who also served the Johnson administration as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; Richard Curtiss, former chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency; Paul Findley, an Illinois Republican member of the House of Representatives for 22 years; Rear Admiral Robert Hanks, former commander of the U.S. Navy’s Mideast task force; Andrew Killgore, former U.S. ambassador to the state of Qatar; and Orin Parker, former president of AMIDEAST, a non-profit organization that conducts educational and training projects in the Middle East.

Some of the complainants had joined prominent journalists in writing or speaking publicly on AIPAC activities. They revealed that members of AIPAC’s national board of directors had set up a large number of political action committees in their home states. Although none of the committees mentioned Israel, the Middle East, or Zionism in their non-descriptive titles, their donation patterns to Senate and House candidates followed recommendations in a closely held “green book” circulated to some AIPAC officers and donors.

A “smoking gun” had turned up in the form of a Sept. 30, 1986 memorandum from AIPAC’s then-assistant director of political affairs, Elizabeth Schrayer, telling an AIPAC employee what to say in calls to a number of the PACs concerning their donations to named candidates. The copy of the memorandum that became public also had the employee’s own hand-written notations concerning the calls.

The result of all this was the first complaint to the FEC charging that by setting up 27 named political action committees, and then guiding their donations to specific political candidates, AIPAC itself was acting as a political action committee that should be regulated accordingly. On a Friday afternoon on the last working day of 1990, in an obvious move to avoid media attention, the FEC notified the 27 PACs that they no longer were under investigation.

AIPAC’s “Worst Nightmare”

In its report on the FEC notification, the widely read Washington Jewish Week indicated that the FEC action, in effect, dismissed the complaint. The report even quoted an unnamed AIPAC official as saying that dealing with the complaint had been the “worst nightmare” in the organization’s history.

In fact, however, there was no indication in the FEC release of its findings or actions concerning AIPAC, or of the fact reported in Jewish weekly newspapers that AIPAC was refusing to comply with the FEC’s request for financial records. As a result, the same seven complainants filed a new suit against the FEC itself, seeking to compel it to rule on the original complaint against AIPAC.

The FEC then issued a finding that AIPAC had made in-kind donations that “likely crossed the $1,000 threshold,” meaning the limitation on the amount an individual or organization can donate to a candidate in a single election, and thus functioned as a “political committee.” However, the FEC ruled, it would not require AIPAC to register as such because organizing such contributions was not “the major purpose of AIPAC.”

The seven complainants then filed a third complaint, saying that the FEC had erred in dismissing the complaint against AIPAC, and that its erroneous legal interpretation was the sole reason it exempted AIPAC from disclosing its receipts and expenditures.

When the Circuit Court of Appeals, in March 1995, found 2 to 1 against the complainants, they sought a hearing before the entire appeals court. It was this hearing on May 8, 1996, that resulted in the new decision, with 8 justices ruling for the complainants and against the FEC, and 2 dissenting. The ruling pointed out that in exempting a huge organization such as AIPAC, with its multi-million-dollar budget and some 150 employees, from observing the rules governing political activities on the grounds that such activities were not AIPAC’s “major purpose,” the FEC would open the door to very large-scale political activities conducted without the oversight imposed on other much smaller political committees.

The FEC now has several choices. It can request the U.S. solicitor general to appeal the final Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to the Supreme Court within 90 days of the ruling. Or it can order AIPAC to register as a political committee and open its financial records to the FEC in the same manner as do other political committees, which include the campaign committees of parties and candidates as well as PACs. Or the FEC can seek an injunction to stop AIPAC from making political contributions or it can fine AIPAC. AIPAC, in turn, can interpose legal defenses against FEC orders.

The complainants decline to speculate on what public disclosure of AIPAC records will reveal, both as to sources of AIPAC funding and beneficiaries of AIPAC actions. It is unlikely, however, that many members of Congress will want their constituents to learn how much support they have received through the activities of the powerful group that boasts that it “lobbies for any elected government of Israel,” particularly if the disclosures reveal that a major share of AIPAC’s direction or support has come, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources.

If that is the case, of course, it is unlikely that AIPAC will willingly turn over such records. They could spell the end of its long dominance of congressional action on U.S. military and economic aid to Israel, executive branch appointments of ambassadors to Middle East countries and positions in the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies having a bearing on U.S.-Middle East relations, transfers of military and civilian technology to Israel, and even sales and transfers of American-made military equipment to Arab and Islamic countries.

The fact that AIPAC proved unwilling to comply with the FEC’s first requests for information in 1988 indicates that there may be much in its records that the lobbying group does not want to be made public. If that remains the case, the legal action may be far from over.

The focus, however, now could shift from seven private individuals of limited means suing the powerful Federal Election Commission to that same FEC taking action against what is commonly acknowledged to be the most influential special-interest lobby in Washington, DC. Given the timidity the FEC has exhibited toward AIPAC to date, it is not at all certain that this new court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs will be enough to force the FEC to fulfill its legal mandate. If it does, however, it could change the course of U.S. Middle East policy.

Cowboy · Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: FEC and AIPAC

foppe37 · Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 5:36 pm Post subject: USA education

From your replies I must conclude that you can write, but are unable to read.
This explains of course a lot of otherwise incomprehensible USA behaviour, especially by your present president.

What is below you of course also cannot read, or in any case comprehend.

Sign in Register Go to: Guardian Unlimited homeUK newsWorld news----------------------Archive searchArtsBooksBusinessEducationGuardian.co.ukFilmFootballJobsLifeMediaGuardian.co.ukMoneyThe ObserverOnlinePoliticsShoppingSocietyGuardian.co.ukSportTalkTravel----------------------AudioEmail servicesSpecial reportsThe GuardianThe weblogThe informerThe northernerThe wrap----------------------Advertising guideCrosswordDatingHeadline serviceSyndication servicesEvents / offersHelp / contactsInformationLiving our valuesNewsroomNotes & QueriesReader OffersStyle guideTravel offersTV listingsWeatherWeb guidesWorking at GNL----------------------Guardian WeeklyMoney Observer

Home UK Business Online World dispatch The Wrap Weblog Talk Search

The Guardian World News guide Arts Special reports Columnists Audio Help Quiz

Search this site

Full coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special report: Iraq

Iraq archived articles

Interactive guides on Iraq

More special reports
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britain's armed forces

The anti-war movement

Al-Qaida

United States

Iran

Israel & the Middle East

Nato

Turkey

Full index of our special reports

In this section
Press review: Beheading

Shadow of Iraq could cost Labour dear in Birmingham

'This is a very unhappy time for Blair'

I'm a survivor, insists Rumsfeld

Family says US held man who was beheaded

US forces were taught torture techniques

Danish doctors say Britons beat Iraqis

Guantánamo abuse same as Abu Ghraib, say Britons

Jonathan Steele: Withdrawal from Iraq

Should Piers Morgan resign?

Mirror editor refuses to quit over 'fake' photos

Blair urged to loosen ties with US

France decries the 'black hole' of Iraq

How can America get out of Iraq?

Mirror image reflects badly on Blair

Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's military coup

Donald Rumsfeld has a new war on his hands - the US officer corps has turned on the government

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, told George Bush in February about torture at Abu Ghraib prison. From the limited detail Rumsfeld recalled of that meeting, it can be deduced that Bush gave no orders, insisted on no responsibility, did not ask to see the already commissioned Taguba report. If there are exculpatory facts, Rumsfeld has failed to mention them.
For decades, Rumsfeld has had a reputation as a great white shark of the bureaucratic seas: sleek, fast-moving and voracious. As counsellor to Richard Nixon during the impeachment crisis, his deputy was the young Dick Cheney, and together they helped to right the ship of state under Gerald Ford.

Here they were given a misleading gloss as moderates; competence at handling power was confused with pragmatism. Cheney became the most hardline of congressmen, and Rumsfeld informed acquaintances that he was always more conservative than they imagined. One lesson they seem to have learned from the Nixon debacle was ruthlessness. His collapse confirmed in them a belief in the imperial presidency based on executive secrecy. One gets the impression that, unlike Nixon, they would have burned the White House tapes.

Under Bush, the team of Cheney and Rumsfeld spread across the top rungs of government, drawing staff from the neoconservative cabal and infusing their rightwing temperaments with ideological imperatives. The unvarnished will to power took on a veneer of ideas and idealism. Iraq was not a case of vengeance or power, but the cause of democracy and human rights.

The fate of the neoconservative project depends on Rumsfeld's job. If he were to go, so would his deputy, the neoconservative Robespierre, Paul Wolfowitz. Also threatened would be the cadres who stovepiped the disinformation that neoconservative darling Ahmed Chalabi used to manipulate public opinion before the war. In his Senate testimony last week, Rumsfeld explained that the government asking the press not to report Abu Ghraib "is not against our principles. It is not suppression of the news." War is peace.

Six National Guard soldiers from a West Virginia unit who treated Abu Ghraib as a playpen of pornographic torture have been designated as scapegoats. Will the show trials of these working-class antiheroes put an end to any inquiries about the chain of command? In an extraordinary editorial, the Army Times, which had not previously ventured into such controversy, declared that "the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons ... This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountabilty here is essential - even if that means relieving leaders from duty in a time of war."

William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. It is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is "phoney"; the US army is overstretched and being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy is "zero". In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision."

One high-level military strategist told me that Rumsfeld is "detested", and that "if there's a sentiment in the army it is: Support Our Troops, Impeach Rumsfeld".

The Council on Foreign Relations has been showing old movies with renewed relevance to its members. The Battle of Algiers, depicting the nature and costs of a struggle with terrorism, is the latest feature. The seething in the military against Bush and Rumsfeld might prompt a showing of Seven Days in May, about a coup staged by a rightwing general against a weak liberal president, an artefact of the conservative hatred directed at President Kennedy in the early 60s.

In 1992, General Colin Powell, chairman of the joint chiefs, awarded the prize for his strategy essay competition at the National Defence University to Lieutenant Colonel Charles Dunlap for The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012. His cautionary tale imagined an incapable civilian government creating a vacuum that drew a competent military into a coup disastrous for democracy. The military, of course, is bound to uphold the constitution. But Dunlap wrote: "The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It's too late for me to do any more. But it's not for you."

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists.

· Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of Salon.com

Sidney_Blumenthal@yahoo.com

Special report
Iraq

Chronology
Iraq timeline: Feb 1 2004 - present
Iraq timeline: July 16 1979 - Jan 31 2004

Interactive guides
Click-through graphics on Iraq

Key documents
Full text of speeches and documents

Audio reports
Audio reports on Iraq

More special reports
Politics and the war
Aid for Iraq
Iraq - the media war
The anti-war movement
28.01.2003: Guide to anti-war websites

Useful links
Provisional authority: rebuilding Iraq
Iraqi-American chamber of commerce
cnn.com: David Kay's evidence to US Senate committee

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

hateliars · Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 6:04 pm Post subject:

Sidney Blumenthal is one of Clinton's hacks. I don't doubt that what he says about Cheney/Rumsfeld is correct but as usual with Jews they leave out the Jewish element. The NeoCons are by and large Jews. The people who pushed this war in the media and in the Pentagon are Jews. The war against Iraq was for Israel's benefit and for the benefit of all the profiteers - Jews and non-Jews alike. The people who taught the Pentagon how to torture and debase prisoners were Jews. The person who advocates torture as government policy is Alan Dershowitz. The people who helped bring down the WTC were Israelis with the help of Jews in the Pentagon. The people in Washington who protect Jews from criticism are those dependent upon Jewish money to stay in office.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

What Congressman Paul Findley Said on AIPAC (Zionist) Lobby - page 3