Another Neocon Attempt to Frame Iran Falls Apart


Research for this article was supported by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.

Although nukes and Iraq have been the main focus of the Bush Administration's pressure campaign against Iran, US officials also seek to tar Iran as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. And Team Bush's latest tactic is to play up a thirteen-year-old accusation that Iran was responsible for the notorious Buenos Aires bombing that destroyed the city's Jewish Community Center, known as AMIA, killing eighty-six and injuring 300, in 1994. Unnamed senior Administration officials told the Wall Street Journal January 15 that the bombing in Argentina "serves as a model for how Tehran has used its overseas embassies and relationship with foreign militant groups, in particular Hezbollah, to strike at its enemies."

This propaganda campaign depends heavily on a decision last November by the General Assembly of Interpol, which voted to put five former Iranian officials and a Hezbollah leader on the international police organization's "red list" for allegedly having planned the July 1994 bombing. But the Wall Street Journal reports that it was pressure from the Bush Administration, along with Israeli and Argentine diplomats, that secured the Interpol vote. In fact, the Bush Administration's manipulation of the Argentine bombing case is perfectly in line with its long practice of using distorting and manufactured evidence to build a case against its geopolitical enemies.

After spending several months interviewing officials at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires familiar with the Argentine investigation, the head of the FBI team that assisted it and the most knowledgeable independent Argentine investigator of the case, I found that no real evidence has ever been found to implicate Iran in the bombing. Based on these interviews and the documentary record of the investigation, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the case against Iran over the AMIA bombing has been driven from the beginning by US enmity toward Iran, not by a desire to find the real perpetrators.

A 'Wall of Assumptions'

US policy toward the bombing was skewed from the beginning by a Clinton Administration strategy of isolating Iran, adopted in 1993 as part of an understanding with Israel on peace negotiations with the Palestinians. On the very day of the crime, before anything could have been known about who was responsible, Secretary of State Warren Christopher blamed "those who want to stop the peace process in the Middle East"--an obvious reference to Iran.

William Brencick, then chief of the political section at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires and the primary Embassy contact for the investigation, recalled in an interview with me last June that a "wall of assumptions" guided the US approach to the case. The primary assumptions, Brencick said, were that the explosion was a suicide bombing and that use of a suicide bomb was prima facie evidence of involvement by Hezbollah--and therefore Iran.

But the suicide-bomber thesis quickly encountered serious problems. In the wake of the explosion, the Menem government asked the United States to send a team to assist in the investigation, and two days after the bombing, experts from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrived in Buenos Aires along with three FBI agents. According to an interview the head of the team, ATF explosives expert Charles Hunter, gave to a team of independent investigators headed by US journalist Joe Goldman and Argentine investigative journalist Jorge Lanata, as soon as the team arrived the federal police put forward a thesis that a white Renault Trafic van had carried the bomb that destroyed the AMIA.

Hunter quickly identified major discrepancies between the car-bomb thesis and the blast pattern recorded in photos. He wrote a report two weeks later noting that in the wake of the bombing, merchandise in a store immediately to the right of the AMIA was tightly packed against its front windows and merchandise in another shop had been blown out onto the street--suggesting that the blast came from inside rather than outside. Hunter also said he did not understand how the building across the street could still be standing if the bomb had exploded in front of the AMIA, as suggested by the car-bomb thesis.

The lack of eyewitness evidence supporting the thesis was just as striking. Of some 200 witnesses on the scene, only one claimed to have seen a white Renault Trafic. Several testified they were looking at the spot where the Trafic should have been when the explosion occurred and saw nothing. Nicolasa Romero, the wife of a Buenos Aires policeman, was that lone witness. She said she saw a white Renault Trafic approach the corner where she was standing with her sister and her 4-year-old son. But Romero's sister testified that the vehicle that passed them was not a white Trafic but rather a black-and-yellow taxi. Other witnesses reported seeing a black-and-yellow taxi seconds before the explosion.

Argentine prosecutors argued that pieces of a white Trafic embedded in the flesh of many of the victims of the explosion proved their case for a suicide bomb. But that evidence was discredited by Gabriel Levinas, a researcher for AMIA's own legal team. Levinas is a member of a leading Jewish family in Buenos Aires who had published a human rights magazine during the dictatorship (his uncle's car was used to kidnap war criminal Adolf Eichmann and spirit him off to Israel for trial in 1982.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iran, hawks, bush, lies


http://www.alternet.org/story/74331/

 

http://911review.org
http://911review.stumbleupon.com/
http://godandall.blogspot.com/
http://batcave911.blogspot.com/
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/911review

Sept 11 date + the Saudi Bin Laden Group ?


We already knew that the Saudi Bin Laden Groups website domain name had expired the day of the attacks, but theres much more to it i recently found.

This article is best understood

by reading the links 1 2 3 4 5 6

First, some background info on them...

Saudi Bin Laden Group

Construction company by the Bin Laden Family with many ties to the oil- and military industry. Profits from the "war on terrorism"
as a partner of the Carlyle Group. Osama is one of more than 50 children of Mohammed bin Laden (->),
who built the family's $5 billion business, Saudi Binladin Group, largely with construction contracts from the Saudi government.

After the 1996 truck bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 U.S. servicemen, Saudi Binladin Group
built military barracks and airfields for U.S. troops.

The BinLadin Group (BLG) partnered with the Iridium / Motorola Satellite Project. (Link cached)

Another partner of BLG was Bredero-Shaw (->), which is a Halliburton company, former CEO of Halliburton was Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Yet another link to Halliburton is pipeline constructor H. C. Price, who built both pipelines together for the Bin Laden Group or Enron. saudi-binladin-group.com/pcm.htm
Mirror: lebensaspekte.de/groundzero/binladin_hcprice.html

 

The Saudi Bin Laden wesbite domain name expired September 11 2001
911review.org/brad.com/Iridium/bin_bott_03.gif

one of the satellites, Iridium 38, was launched on September 11 1997.


documents for the Suadi Bin Laden Group of the Iridium Satelitte systems were signed on September 11 1998 Including that of Hasan Bin Laden

(Hasan M. BinLadin) Hasan is Bother to Osama

Hasan bin Laden served as a director of the Iridium Middle East Corp. subsidiary, reported the New York Daily News.
The Saudi bin Laden Group, the family's investment arm, has also reportedly invested in the global phone link firm.

Hasan (bin Laden) can see Tony Blair's new home through his window.He said he was a friend of Hasan and sometimes the two of them would go out to restaurants. www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24519

"In December 2000, shortly before Cohen left ffice, the Pentagon awarded Iridium Satellite LLC a$72 million contract , without competitive bidding, that helped save the company's communications satellites from destruction. David R. Oliver Jr. [current director of business development and echnology for Naval Systems, Northrop Grumann Electronic Sensors and Systems Division], who was a enior procurement official at the time, said that heand Cohen were the Pentagon's principal advocates for he Iridium deal.

Over the past two years, Iridium has paid the Cohen Group about $400,000 to lobby the ouse, Senate and Department of Defense, according to lobbying disclosure statements

Mark Grossman sits on the Cohen Group board of directors - and Cohen 
interlocks neatly with Lockheed's board. As mentioned, James M. Loy,
senior counselor at the Cohen Group, directs Lockheed, and so does
Joseph W. Ralston, vice chairman the Cohen Group
- a Lockheed Martin sub-contractor.

Mark Grossman is
considered a key figure in the Plame investigation,

 

 LINK   Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 9/11 Terrorists, Part 37: Mercenaries 
 
The West Nile outbreak and the anthrax mailings began with the 1998 
BioVax meeting held in the Truman Room of the White House, attended by SAIC's Jerry Hauer and William Patrick. Another participant at the meeting
was William Cohen, who, as a Republican Senator, signed off on the heavily-spun Cheney-Hamilton ran-contra report. In 2004, he was elected to the American International Group's (AIG) Board of Directors.
Cohen is also a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Cold War propaganda mill nd ultracon academic base of Ray Cline, John Hamre, Admiral Crowe, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Kenneth Langone,Henry Kissinger and others central to 911 and subsequent profiteering
through privatization.
http://911review.org/Alex/PROJECT_ANTHRAX_5_.html
 
Bush Sr.  met members of the Bin Laden Group, together with the Carlyle Group and James Baker III on the day of September 11th.
Bush1 Carlyle BinLaden Ties
 
=============
 
  Back to the domain name   www.saudi-binladin-group.com
which expired on Sept 11 2001
www.saudi-binladin-group.com 

Date with Destiny?

"A web domain registered to the Saudi Binladin Group (the megabucks corporation uses the alternate spelling of the family name) raises questions about what role, if any, the family has played in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The domain was registered on Sept. 11, 2000, with a preset expiration date of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a technician with VeriSign, an Internet domain registry service formerly known as Network Solutions.
Coincidence?
Or was this website set up to start the countdown on the most devastating attack in U.S. history?

This was no accident, according to a VeriSign technician in Mountainview, Calif.
"This was timed so it would expire on that date," says the technician, who identified herself only by her first name, Antonette, and by her employee number, 001.

The Binladin website was created by a company called Arq Limited, a U.K. web design firm. The administrative, technical and billing contact listed on the whois search is a man named Philip Lumsden.
After several calls to the U.K., I learned that Arq Limited went out of business, replaced by a company called Active 8 Solutions, which shares the same Bath, England, mailing address and a telephone number that is only one digit off from Arq Limited’s old number.
I learned one more interesting thing.
"Mr. Lumsden left a week ago," said a man who answered the phone at Active 8 Solutions. "I am not aware of why he left."

A half-dozen odd calls Tuesday, October 15, to the Saudi Binladin Group’s headquarters in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, turned up little other than assurances that if I called back in 20 minutes or a half-hour, then somebody would be able to give me some information about the website.

The next day, I called again and again was told to call back later. By deadline, neither of the two emails I sent seeking comment were answered.

The trail of the saudi-binladin-group.com website that I began following two weeks ago has taken me to a couple of very strange places — including a five-year-old mysterious death that may be al-Qaeda’s first hit on U.S. soil — and a very nervous British businessman who thought he was getting the bargain of a lifetime when he purchased the assets of a British web-design firm that created the domain." - Philadelphia City Paper (10/18-25/01)


         Registrant:  Saudi Binladin Group (SAUDI-BINLADIN-GROUP2-DOM)  Prince Abdullah Street Jeddah, 21492 SA
Domain Name: SAUDI-BINLADIN-GROUP.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact: *Lumsden, Philip*
(PLP239) philip@ARQ.CO.UK

Arq Limited
**Philip Lumsden**, Managing Director, CyberSol said, "VitalLink is the perfect tool to have on the CyberSol product list as it is rugged, robust and gives customers peace of mind when they are in remote areas that they are close to medical help, any time, anywhere." With customers covering all areas including military, law enforcement and national security agencies, emergency services, utilities, industrial, oil and gas exploration and processing, and healthcare CyberSol have the contacts for the remote medical solution
apfn.net/messageboard/02-23-05/discussion.cgi.72.html
    Which brings us to the mysterious case of Paul Gabelia.

According to a police report, on Sun., Sept. 1, 1996, Fairfax County, Va., police discovered human remains in the trunk of a 1991 silver Mercury Sable sedan that had been on fire. The body’s feet and knees were bound with wire, and jumper cables were wrapped around its neck. Its hands appeared to be free.
 Read the rest here

Rense already has some of this info here...

rense.com/general14/willsomedare.htm


more here...

CHENEY'S GAS PLANT IN TURKMENISTAN
rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=20739


if interested, more here possibally linking the whole thing to anthrax...
citypaper.net/articles/2002-06-06/pretzel.shtml
 ================
 
 LINKS...

Iridium satellite system and 9/11

Business as usual for Bin Laden group, BIG business !

Binladin Group - 9/11 Encyclopedia

Anatoly Ivanovich Kiselev and Iridium

Leo Mondale and Iridium

Mark Gercenstein and Iridium

Edward F. Staianoand Iridium

UK Indymedia - Naming Names: The Bin Laden Galaxy

More on the Cohen Group

Khashoggi, Part 36: Who Mentored Michael Hayden?

 

Do bin Ladens benefit financially from attack?

 

mysterious case of Paul Gabelia.

More on the Saudi Bin Laden Group

Philip Lumsden - 9/11 Encyclopedia

www.saudi-binladin-group.com Lumsden, Philip

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deregulating the Dream


America is close to being a 3rd world country when it comes to class and wealth.

My take:
Americans (mostly republican) constantly brag about how we are the BEST at everything, the problem is that we are not.
Its time we faced facts and started actually DOING something about it, instead of hiding our head in the sand not wanting to believe it.
If you talk to most republicans, they will DENY that our educational system isnt the BEST, instead of realizing it, and wanting to do something about it.Fighting the truth gets us no-where.
Our educational system is comparatively marginal at best.

Our health care system hardly gives any help at all to low income people.

Our prison system is VERY overcrowded, and we have more people in jail per-capita than any other country on earth.

We spend 288,000,000 a DAY on the war in Iraq.
Army "deserters" are up over 80%

Our military is stretched to far in case we need them for a REAL threat,
OR, a natural disaster.

More Arabs and Muslims hate us than they did 5 years ago.

1 million Iraqis are dead.

We have lost many of our civil rights.

We are being spied on (probably right now)

We havent invested (fast enough) on clean renewable energy.

Oil prices can bring this country to its KNEES,
and nothing is being done about it.

Global warming threatens our future, and not only are we EXTREMELY unprepared, but some people actually believe its not a threat.

We trot along in our daily lives with memories of "Leave it to Beaver",
thinking that our world will not change as long as we follow goos Christian morals and defend our country from the "terrerasts".
We dont realize that 1 of 100 things could put a damper on our dreams, like the Yellowstone caldera blowing and destroying 80% of our country.
Not only is our military not here, or prepared to help us, but we are not prepared for it physically, OR mentally.
What if we go to war with Iran, the biggest Saudi refinery blows up,
and send oil prices to 15$ or $20 a gallon ?

With $20 a gallon gas, the country WILL shut down as we know it.
Food prices would soar, companies would shut down, people couldnt leave their homes, the Gov would have food lines, there would be martial law, and all chaos would break out.

We are already in a class warfare, and only 1 side is waging the war.
Most of us are totally complacent thinking that as long as our daily lives are not too disrupted, like loosing cable TV, or our cell phone, that our Government is taking care of us.

But what if its not ?
If some major change happens, and its very possible, it could throw this class "warfare" in a spin, leaving only the top 1% of the country able to live comfortably.

I read a report the other day saying the 1/2 of all the BEES in the U.S. have died.
If not stopped, this could leave no fruits or vegetables in our grocery stores, and could have much farther reaching implications.

This is one small example, but MANY things could happen.
Our society is very fragile, and we need to realize this and prepare for it.
Spending 288 million dollars a day on an illegal war isnt helping much.

Its time we stop bragging about how good we are,
and start ACTUALLY DOING something about it.

Hopefully a DEM will do that.


Brad
911review

Of God and All

 

========================

 

Deregulating the Dream

 

No natural disaster has hit the American middle class, scholars and activists who gathered in North Carolina last week agree, just a series of political decisions that have privileged the powerful.

November 12 , 2007

Just 1 percent of Americans currently hold about half the financial wealth of the entire United States.

Meanwhile, notes Washington University sociologist Mark Rank, the nation’s bottom 60 percent hold less than 1 percent of that wealth, and 75 percent of Americans, sometime in their adult lives, can now expect to “experience a year either in poverty or near poverty.”

How much more unequal can the United States become? Plenty

If the United States keeps to its present course, Rank predicted last week at an insight-rich national conference on inequality in North Carolina, the nation could “begin to reflect the bifurcation patterns more typical of third-world countries,” with the privileged opting to “physically separate themselves from the middle and bottom.”

That separation, Rank added, has already begun — via everything from gated communities to growing private school enrollments.

The good news? Inequality amounts to an unnatural disaster. Conscious political decisions have helped make the United States deeply unequal. Conscious political decisions can, by the same token, help undo that inequality.

That theme sounded repeatedly last week on the University of North Carolina campus as Mark Rank and dozens of other academics, activists, and policy makers converged for two days of discussion and debate on “Wealth Inequality and the Eroding Middle Class.”

Prince exit packageThe conference — hosted by the university law school’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity — didn’t make many headlines. The conference had perhaps a more important role: helping Americans make sense of the headlines we already see.

Headlines, for instance, on the subprime mortgage market collapse. The subprime market, University of Connecticut law professor Patricia McCoy explained last week, didn’t even exist a quarter-century ago.

But in 1980 “waves of federal deregulation” began reshaping the banking industry, stripping away meaningful limits on mortgage terms and rates. Lenders soon became able, for the first time, to “segment the mortgage market between stronger and weaker borrowers” — and manipulate the weaker into paying through the nose.

By 2006, American families were carrying adjustable rate mortgages with interest rates that could double at the first reset. And if these families went to refinance those mortgages, they faced prepayment penalties that could hit as high as $9,000 on a $150,000 loan.

All this deregulation would prove spectacularly lucrative for the nation’s biggest lenders — Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo, for instance, pocketed $295.7 million over a five-year span — and spectacularly devastating for struggling families.

“By year-end 2008,” notes the University of Connecticut’s McCoy, “over 2 million subprime loans are expected to go into foreclosure.”

The inequality that deregulation has nurtured could, in theory, be offset by tax policies that target extremely high incomes. But current tax policies, University of Oklahoma law professor Jon Forman pointed out last week, are doing precious little to redistribute excess.

We now have, Forman noted, “hardly any taxes on wealth and investment income.” Taking just one small step to change this situation — by eliminating the current tax break for capital gains and dividends — “could raise about $130 billion a year.”

Lawmakers could take all sorts of other steps, conference presenters made clear, to broaden the distribution of America’s wealth. You can check them out outline, where the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity is this week posting conference highlights.

— Sam Pizzigati

tpmcafe.com

nowpublic.com

batcave911

god and all

911review.stumbleupon.com

colboard.com/

 

Mystery of the dying bees


Bees Seem To Be Dying Across USA Print E-mail
Contributed by Yvette Rosser
Image
Honey Bee

Albert Einstein: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

Species under threat: Honey, who shrunk the bee population?

Across America, millions of honey bees are abandoning their hives and flying off to die, leaving beekeepers facing ruin and US agriculture under threat. And to date, no one knows why.

It has echoes of a murder mystery in polite society. There could hardly be a more sedate and unruffled world than beekeeping, but the beekeepers of the United States have suddenly encountered affliction, calamity and death on a massive scale. And they have not got a clue why it is happening.
Michael McCarthy reports
Published: 01 March 2007. The Independent, UK
The Independent, UK


Across the country, from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, honey bee colonies have started to die off, abruptly and decisively. Millions of bees are abandoning their hives and flying off to die (they cannot survive as a colony without the queen, who is always left behind).

Some beekeepers, especially those with big portable apiaries, or bee farms, which are used for large-scale pollination of fruit and vegetable crops, are facing commercial ruin - and there is a growing threat that America's agriculture may be struck a mortal blow by the loss of the pollinators. Yet scientists investigating the problem have no idea what is causing it.

The phenomenon is recent, dating back to autumn, when beekeepers along the east coast of the US started to notice the die-offs. It was given the name of fall dwindle disease, but now it has been renamed to reflect better its dramatic nature, and is known as colony collapse disorder.

It is swift in its effect. Over the course of a week the majority of the bees in an affected colony will flee the hive and disappear, going off to die elsewhere. The few remaining insects are then found to be enormously diseased - they have a "tremendous pathogen load", the scientists say. But why? No one yet knows.

The condition has been recorded in at least 24 states. It is having a major effect on the mobile apiaries which are transported across the US to pollinate large-scale crops, such as oranges in Florida or almonds in California. Some have lost up to 90 per cent of their bees.

A reliable estimate of the true extent of the problem will not be possible for another month or so, until winter comes to an end and the hibernating bee colonies in the northern American states wake up. But scientists are very worried, not least because, as there is no obvious cause for the disease as yet, there is no way of tackling it.

"We are extremely alarmed," said Diana Cox-Foster, the professor of Entomology at Penn States University and one of the leading members of a specially convened colony-collapse disorder working group.

"It is one of the most alarming insect diseases ever to hit the US and it has the potential to devastate the US beekeeping industry. In some ways it may be to the insect world what foot-and-mouth disease was to livestock in England."

Most of the pollination for more than 90 commercial crops grown throughout the United States is provided byApis mellifera, the honey bee, and the value from the pollination to agricultural output in the country is estimated at $14.6bn (£8bn) annually. Growers rent about 1.5 million colonies each year to pollinate crops - a colony usually being the group of bees in a hive.

California's almond crop, which is the biggest in the world, stretching over more than half a million acres over the state's central valley, now draws more than half of the mobile bee colonies in America at pollinating time - which is now. Some big commercial beekeeping operations which have been hit hard by the current disease have had to import millions of bees from Australia to enable the almond trees to be pollinated.

Some of these mobile apiaries have been losing 60 or 70 per cent of their insects, or even more. "A honey producer in Pennsylvania doing local pollination, Larry Curtis, has gone from 1,000 bee colonies to fewer than eight," said Professor Cox-Foster. The disease showed a completely new set of symptoms, "which does not seem to match anything in the literature", said the entomologist.

One was that the bees left the hive and flew away to die elsewhere, over about a week. Another was that the few bees left inside the hive were carrying "a tremendous number of pathogens" - virtually every known bee virus could be detected in the insects, she said, and some bees were carrying five or six viruses at a time, as well as fungal infections. Because of this it was assumed that the bees' immune systems were being suppressed in some way.

Professor Cox-Foster went on: "And another unusual symptom that we're are seeing, which makes this very different, is that normally when a bee colony gets weak and its numbers are decreasing, other neighbouring bees will come and steal the resources - they will take away the honey and the pollen.

"Other insects like to take advantage too, such as the wax moth or the hive beetle. But none of this is happening. These insects are not coming in.

"This suggests that there is something toxic in the colony itself which is repelling them."

The scientists involved in the working group were surveying the dead colonies but did not think the cause of the deaths was anything brought in by beekeepers, such as pesticides, she said.

Another of the researchers studying the collapses, Dennis van Engelsdorp, a bee specialist with the State of Pennsylvania, said it was still difficult to gauge their full extent. It was possible that the bees were fleeing the colonies because they sensed they themselves were diseased or affected in some way, he said. This behaviour has been recorded in other social insects, such as ants.

The introduction of the parasitic bee mite Varroa in 1987 and the invasion of the Africanised honey bee in 1990 have threatened honey bee colonies in the US and in other parts of the world, but although serious, they were easily comprehensible; colony collapse disorder is a deep mystery.

One theory is that the bees may be suffering from stress as beekeepers increasingly transport them around the country, the hives stacked on top of each other on the backs of trucks, to carry out pollination contracts in orchard after orchard, in different states.

Tens of billions of bees are now involved in this "migratory" pollination. An operator might go from pollinating oranges in Florida, to apples in Pennsylvania, to blueberries in Maine, then back to Massachusetts to pollinate cranberries.

The business is so big that pollination is replacing honey-making as the main money earner at the top end of the beekeeping market, not least because in recent years the US has been flooded with cheap honey imports, mainly from Argentina and China.

A typical bee colony, which might be anything from 15,000 to 30,000 bees, would be rented out to a fruit grower for about $135 - a price that is up from $55 only three years ago. To keep the bees' energy up while they are pollinating, beekeepers feed them protein supplements and syrup carried around in large tanks.

It is in these migratory colonies where the biggest losses have been seen. But the stress theory is as much speculation as anything else. At the moment, the disappearance of America's bees is as big a mystery as the disappearance of London's sparrows.
----------------
Vanishing bees threaten US crops
By Matt Wells
BBC News, Florida, USA
news.bbc.co.uk

It is officially called Colony Collapse Disorder, but a more pithy way of describing it would be Vanishing Bee Syndrome.

The Hackenbergs and their hives
Bees are driven around Florida to help pollinate early crops
All over America, beekeepers are opening up their hives in preparation for the spring pollination season, only to find that their bees are dead or have disappeared.

Nobody, so far, knows why.

The sad mystery surrounding the humble honeybee - which is a vital component in $14bn-worth of US agriculture - is beginning to worry even the highest strata of the political class in Washington.

"Hillary Clinton's got interested in this in the last week or so," said David Hackenberg, the beekeeper leading the drive to publicise their plight.

"And she's not alone," he said. "There's a lot of Congressmen have called...wanting to know what's going on. It's serious.

Bees in a hive
Before: a healthy beehive....
"It's not just affecting the beekeepers, it's affecting the farmers that produce the food, and in the end it's going to affect the consumer," he added, sighing deeply.

What makes our interview slightly surreal is that we are standing next to an orange grove, in rural Florida, while about 70 hives of bees buzz angrily behind us, as if to emphasise their predicament.

Dead and dying bees in affected hive
...and after: a hive with CCD

Mr Hackenberg is suffering along with his bees. Like many in his rather neglected profession, he and his son spend the summer and autumn in the north of the country, driving their bees down south during the winter, to kick-start the early fruit and vegetable crops.

In a matter of weeks, he lost just over 2,000 of his 3,000 hives. The yard of his small honey farm near Tampa Bay, is littered with empty boxes, which normally would be full of worker bees, doing what they do best.

As we speak, his mobile phone chirps constantly, with yet more beekeepers across the US, reporting losses of up to 95%.

Pesticides?

Federal scientists, the National Beekeepers Association and state researchers have come together to form an emergency working group to try and halt the disastrous trend.

There are as many theories as there are members of the panel, but Mr Hackenberg strongly suspects that new breeds of nicotine-based pesticides are to blame.

"It may be that the honeybee has become the victim of these insecticides that are meant for other pests," he said. "If we don't figure this out real quick, it's going to wipe out our food supply."

Just a few miles down the sunlit road, it is easy to find farmers prepared to agree with his gloomy assessment.

In the old days, crops would be pollinated by bees living in the woods around the fertile fields, but housing developers have gobbled up much of the natural habitat, according to Carl Grooms, who runs Fancy Farms Inc.

"The squash crops that we grow have a male and female bloom, and the bee has to visit...to make it pollinate and produce," he said.

"We're going to have a hard time finding rental bees to aid in this pollination and if it's as critical as it looks like it will be, I probably won't even plant anything this spring."

Back at the Buffy Bee honey farm - the Hackenberg's Florida base - two members from the working group checked in to pay their respects, and take some bee samples on their way back to Washington.

Crazy theories

Dennis van Engelsdorp, a Pennsylvania-based beekeeper and leading researcher, walks over to an isolated group of hives, and pulls out two different wooden frames that would normally be covered in bees, busy making honey.

The difference is obvious. While one is teeming with insects, the other is virtually uninhabited. "The adult population totally disappears," he said. He shakes his head in frustration.

Nathan Rice and Dennis van Engelsdorp take samples from a hive
The US Department of Agriculture is working on finding the cause

He runs through the long list of possible causes, ranging from new mite infestation to new chemicals, but he is adamant that it is too early to pin the blame on insecticides.

"We have no evidence to think that that theory is more right than any other...There's stronger evidence for some other things really," he said.

He points to the fact that the Colony Collapse Disorder is inconsistent even within localised regions. Some beekeepers have managed to retain completely healthy hives.

His caution is backed up by Nathan Rice, from the Department of Agriculture's bee research laboratory.

"While there is a lot of this crazy guessing going on, people get kind of concerned," he said. "We're here to try to figure out why it's happening."

Future fears

The sensitivity of the beekeepers themselves is easy to understand. For the Hackenbergs, their livelihood is at stake, not to mention the millions of bees that have died.

David Hackenberg's son, Davey, 35, is angry and frustrated that there are no answers yet. "We're working hard at it every day, and we're going to keep working hard until the bank comes and says, 'hey, we're taking the place,'" he says with a defiant edge.

As a father of four, he thinks that the time may have come to get out of the bee business.

Tales abound around the Hackenberg breakfast table of beekeepers who have already given up after a calamitous few months trying to pollinate the huge almond crop in California.

Some bankrupt beekeepers do not have the money to get themselves home, let alone their equipment.

A bumper-sticker on one of the family trucks shows support for the Bush-Cheney ticket in the 2004 election, but Davey is now wondering whether anywhere near enough has been done by governments - and everybody else - to keep his fragile industry and environment going.

Honey Bee Die-off Alarms Beekeepers
Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News
dsc.discovery.com

Feb. 5, 2007 — Something is wiping out honey bees across North America and a team of researchers is rushing to find out what it is.

What’s being called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has now been seen in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and way out in California. Some bee keepers have lost up to 80 percent of their colonies to the mysterious disorder.

"Those are quite scary numbers," said Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s lead apiarist. Whatever kills the bees targets adult workers which die outside the colony — with few adults left inside, either alive or dead. The disorder decimates the worker bee population in a matter of weeks.

Aside from making honey, honey bees are essential for the pollination of tens of million of dollars worth of cash crops all over the United States. That’s why almond growers of California, for instance, are taking notice and pledging funds to help identify and fight the honey bee disorder.

Among the possible culprits are a fungus, virus, or a variety of microbes and pesticides. No one knows just yet. On first inspection, the pattern of die-offs resembles something that has been seen in more isolated cases in Louisiana, Texas and Australia, vanEngelsdorp said.

"Right now our efforts are on collecting as many samples as possible," said vanEngelsdorp. Bees that are collected are carefully dissected and analyzed to see what might have killed them.

Other researchers are keeping track of the problem using Google Earth, as well as cutting edge hive-sniffing and eavesdropping technology to investigate the problem.
We’re trying to sort out the myriad of variables," said Jerry Bromenshank of the University of Montana and Bee Alert Technology, Inc. "We’ve sent teams to Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California. The scenario was about exactly the same everywhere we looked."

The locations of the bees are put on a global database to see it there is any geographic pattern. Bromenshank also uses a groundbreaking audio analysis technique that allows them to hear specific changes in bee colony sounds when specific chemicals are present. Chemical air sampling in hives is also being planned, he said.
Just how bad the bee problem is right now is unknown, since the first cases came at the end of 2006 and many colonies in northern states are not active yet.

As spring awakens honey bee colonies, it will be vital that beekeepers send information to the scientists, regardless of how well or poorly their bee colonies are faring, said Bromenshank. For that purpose the scientists have put together a confidential beekeeper survey on their Website, http://maarec.org.

"Beekeepers overwintering in the north may not know the status of their colonies until they are able to make early spring inspections," said Maryann Frazier, apiculture extension associate in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences. "This should occur in late February or early March.

"Regardless, there is little doubt that honey bees are going to be in short supply this spring and possibly into the summer."

Mystery Ailment Strikes Honeybees

_ Although the bodies of dead bees often are littered around a hive, sometimes carried out of the hive by worker bees, no bee remains are typically found around colonies struck by the mystery ailment. Scientists assume these bees have flown away from the hive before dying.

_ From the outside, a stricken colony may appear normal, with bees leaving and entering. But when beekeepers look inside the hive box, they find few mature bees taking care of the younger, developing bees.


By GENARO C. ARMAS
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 11, 2007; 11:17 PM

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- A mysterious illness is killing tens of thousands of honeybee colonies across the country, threatening honey production, the livelihood of beekeepers and possibly crops that need bees for pollination.

Researchers are scrambling to find the cause of the ailment, called Colony Collapse Disorder.
Washington Post
washingtonpost.com

Reports of unusual colony deaths have come from at least 22 states. Some affected commercial beekeepers _ who often keep thousands of colonies _ have reported losing more than 50 percent of their bees. A colony can have roughly 20,000 bees in the winter, and up to 60,000 in the summer.

"We have seen a lot of things happen in 40 years, but this is the epitome of it all," Dave Hackenberg, of Lewisburg-based Hackenberg Apiaries, said by phone from Fort Meade, Fla., where he was working with his bees.

The country's bee population had already been shocked in recent years by a tiny, parasitic bug called the varroa mite, which has destroyed more than half of some beekeepers' hives and devastated most wild honeybee populations.

Along with being producers of honey, commercial bee colonies are important to agriculture as pollinators, along with some birds, bats and other insects. A recent report by the National Research Council noted that in order to bear fruit, three-quarters of all flowering plants _ including most food crops and some that provide fiber, drugs and fuel _ rely on pollinators for fertilization.

Hackenberg, 58, was first to report Colony Collapse Disorder to bee researchers at Penn State University. He notified them in November when he was down to about 1,000 colonies _ after having started the fall with 2,900.

"We are going to take bees we got and make more bees ... but it's costly," he said. "We are talking about major bucks. You can only take so many blows so many times."

One beekeeper who traveled with two truckloads of bees to California to help pollinate almond trees found nearly all of his bees dead upon arrival, said Dennis vanEnglesdorp, acting state apiarist for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

"I would characterize it as serious," said Daniel Weaver, president of the American Beekeeping Federation. "Whether it threatens the apiculture industry in the United States or not, that's up in the air."

Scientists at Penn State, the University of Montana and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are among the quickly growing group of researchers and industry officials trying to solve the mystery.

Among the clues being assembled by researchers:

_ Normally, a weakened bee colony would be immediately overrun by bees from other colonies or by pests going after the hive's honey. That's not the case with the stricken colonies, which might not be touched for at least two weeks, said Diana Cox-Foster, a Penn State entomology professor investigating the problem.

"That is a real abnormality," Hackenberg said.

Cox-Foster said an analysis of dissected bees turned up an alarmingly high number of foreign fungi, bacteria and other organisms and weakened immune systems.

Researchers are also looking into the effect pesticides might be having on bees.

In the meantime, beekeepers are wondering if bee deaths over the last couple of years that had been blamed on mites or poor management might actually have resulted from the mystery ailment.

"Now people think that they may have had this three or four years," vanEnglesdorp said.
http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.7.BEES.htm


NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published March 21 2007
Mysterious collapse of honeybee populations threatens national food supply
by Christian Evans
newstarget.com

The honeybee population in the United States is currently suffering a devastating collapse. Honeybees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies. Have they all been kidnapped by mad beekeepers, or is something more frightening occurring with the pollinators in our ecosystem?

During the final three months of 2006, a distressing number of honeybee colonies began to diminish from the United States, and beekeepers all over the country have reported unprecedented losses. According to scientists, the domesticated honeybee population has declined by about 50% in the last 50 years.

Reports of similar losses to the honeybee population have been documented before in beekeeping literature, but are widely believed to have occurred at this scale previously only at a regional level. With outbreaks recorded as far back as 1896, this is regarded as the first national honeybee epidemic in U.S. history.

The phenomenon, referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is not yet well understood. Even the existence of the disorder remains in dispute. Nevertheless, what cannot be denied is that a shortage of honeybees in the continental U.S. has affected cropowners from California to the New England states.

"There are shortages [like this] that pop up from time to time," said Claire Kremen, a conservation biologist at Princeton University. "Whether there are more [shortages] than there were 20 years ago, one would guess yes, as there are fewer bees to go around, but it's not well documented."

Subsequent investigations suggest these outbreaks of unexplained colony collapse were experienced by beekeepers for at least the last two years. Are the honeybees dying in the fields they pollinate, or do they simply become too exhausted and disoriented to find their way back home?

Why honeybees are the invisible link to an abundant food supply
Whatever the reason, why should we care so much? Why should it matter at all to Americans?

When entire bee populations seem to disappear or die out in alarming numbers, the ramifications can be astounding. Bee pollination, which most farmers depend on, is responsible for as much as 30% of the U.S. food supply.

"Every third bite we consume in our diet is dependent on a honeybee to pollinate that food," said Zac Browning, vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation.

A Cornell University study has estimated that honeybees annually pollinate more than $14 billion worth of seeds and crops in the United States. These include such diverse food sources as almond blossoms, pumpkins, cucumbers, raspberries, avocados, and alfalfa. Unless something is done to protect the honeybee population soon, many fruits and vegetables may disappear from the food chain.

"The sudden and unexplained loss of honeybee populations is an early warning sign for coming disruptions in modern agriculture," explained Mike Adams, executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center non-profit group (www.ConsumerWellness.org). "If we continue to lose honeybees at this rate, we may find ourselves in a dire food supply emergency that will not be easily solved," Adams said.

"During the last three months of 2006, we began to receive reports from commercial beekeepers of an alarming number of honey bee colonies dying in the eastern United States," said Maryann Frazier, a senior extension associate in the Department of Entomology at Pennsylvania State University's College of Agricultural Sciences.

"Since the beginning of the year, beekeepers from all over the country have been reporting unprecedented losses. This has become a highly significant yet poorly understood problem that threatens the pollination industry and the production of commercial honey in the United States," she said.

Honeybees are killed by synthetic chemicals
Scientists, for now, have primarily attributed the honeybee decline to diseases spread as a result of mites and other parasites as well as the spraying of crops with pesticides. It may also result from the treatment of forests, rangelands and even suburban areas to control a wide variety of pests.

"There is no question that the extremely irresponsible use of synthetic chemicals in modern farming practices is significantly contributing to this devastating drop in honeybee populations," said Mike Adams. "The more chemicals we spray on the crops, the more poisoned the pollinators become. And the fact that honeybees are now simply disappearing in huge numbers is a strong indicator that a key chemical burden threshold has been crossed. We may have unwittingly unleashed an agricultural Chernobyl."

In order to deal with this devastation, a newly formed CCD working group has been organized in hope of finding a solution to the dwindling honeybee population. According to the CCD mandate, the group will explore "the cause or causes of honeybee colony collapse and finding appropriate strategies to reduce colony loss in the future."

Comprised of university faculty researchers, state regulatory officials, cooperative extension educators and industry representatives, the working group hopes to develop management strategies and recommendations for this epidemic. Participating organizations include the USDA/ARS, the Florida Department of Agriculture, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State University, and Bee Alert, Inc., a technology transfer company affiliated with the University of Montana.

Research involving the value of honeybees to agriculture could be beneficial to both the beekeeper and the grower. The knowledge formed from such research maximizes the likelihood of finding answers that will aid beekeepers in promoting good health for honeybees within the pollination industry. It should also keep the grower well informed about the process of pollination and the relative damage of different pesticides to honeybee populations.

A detailed, up-to-date report on Colony Collapse Disorder can be found on the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium Web site at http://www.maarec.org

The pesticide link to honeybee populations
Pesticides, specifically neonicotinioid pesticides, including imidacloprid, clothianiden and thiamethoxam, poison the bee while it is in the process of collecting nectar and pollen. The poisoning may occur when the material is ingested, or it may be transported to the hive where it poisons other bees in the colony.

According to a recent report, "Pesticides in Relation to BeeKeeping and Crop Pollination, even organic insecticides -- the chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates, and carbamates -- vary in their toxicity and are not recommended."

Pesticides can also damage wild bees, but the toxicity level of a specific insecticide to honeybees and wild bees is not always the same. Even among wild bees, some materials are more toxic to one species than to another.

According to the CCD report, "If bees are eating fresh or stored pollen contaminated with these chemicals at low levels, they may not cause mortality but may impact the bee's ability to learn or make memories. This could cause the colonies to dwindle and eventually die."

So far a few common management factors have been found, but no common environmental agents or chemicals have been identified. There is no one substance currently being branded as the culprit.

Not limited to the United States, this problem is complex and the ramifications are alarming. Such a loss to the honeybee population can occur in other countries that have highly developed agricultural infrastructures.

This only begs an even deeper question for society to answer: If we are so dependent on honeybee pollination for our food supply, what happens when the bees are wiped out? Mike Adams calls our current food production situation a "food bubble" and explains that as mankind disrupts nature and destroys sustainable ecosystems, the natural backlash will impact the food supply first. "Following a century of synthetic chemical poisoning of planet Earth, the human race is in for a rather abrupt population correction. The collapse of pollinators is merely a sign of things to come. Humans will either find a way to live in balance with the planet, or they may ultimately face the same fate as the honeybees."

---------
When Bees Disappear, Will Man Soon Follow?
Apr 5th, 2007, 7:45 AM
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3545166/

Jean-Claude Gerard Koven

Last week I received an email from a friend reporting a sudden, devastating collapse in America's bee population. The message triggered an immediate unpleasant shiver through my body as I recalled the ominous quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left.

No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

Being a bit skeptical, I assumed this was just another piece of alarmist misinformation finding its way onto Internet distribution lists. A few minutes' research not only confirmed the story, but made me realize that the problem is far from local. In official circles, the condition is called either Fall-Dwindle Disease or, more commonly, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

The communication I received stated: "Honeybees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies.

During the final three months of 2006, a distressing number of honeybee colonies began to diminish from the United States, and beekeepers all over the country have reported unprecedented losses. According to scientists, the domesticated honeybee population has declined by about 50 percent in the last 50 years. Reports of similar losses to the honeybee population have been documented before in beekeeping literature, but are widely believed to have occurred at this scale previously only at a regional level. With outbreaks recorded as far back as 1896, this is regarded as the first national honeybee epidemic in U.S. history."

The topics grabbing headlines these days leave little room in the news for the plight of an insect. What we fail to appreciate is that without an abundance of bees to pollinate crops, the United States could lose as much as 30 percent of its food supply. According to Zac Browning, vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation, "Every third bite we consume in our diet is dependent on a honeybee to pollinate that food."

There is no doubt about what is happening - or its consequences if the situation is not rectified. What remains murky is the cause. According to Walter Haefeker, director of the German Beekeepers Association, CCD has four possible causes: the varroa mite, introduced from Asia; the widespread practice of spraying wildflowers with herbicides; the practice of monoculture (a single crop covering a large area); and the controversial yet growing use of genetic engineering in agriculture.

However, it is the thinking of one of the cell phone industry's former scientific hired guns that caught my attention. When George Carlo, M.D., the celebrated author of "Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age" and current chairman of the nonprofit Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., weighs in with an opinion, we'd all be fools not to listen carefully.

On a recent conference call, Dr. Carlo laid the blame for the sudden demise (often within 72 hours) of entire bee colonies on the recent proliferation of electromagnetic waves (EMF). He cited the startling statistic that, at present, there are some 2.5 billion cell phone users around the world. While this (plus the explosive growth of cell phone towers) used to be the major concern, the problem has been significantly exacerbated by the recent introduction of satellite radio. Imagine being closeted in a confined environment filled with chain smokers; it would be impossible for you to get a breath of clean air. It is becoming equally difficult for you to avoid the now-measurable damage from EMF exposure.

Dr. Carlo commented that the constant electromagnetic background noise seems to disrupt intercellular communication within individual bees, such that many of them cannot find their way back to the hive. His conclusions are confirmed by a recent study conducted by three departments of Panjab University (India), which has found that cell phone towers - the dominant source of electromagnetic radiation in the city of Chandigarh - could well be the cause behind the mysterious disappearance of butterflies, some insects (like bees), and birds.

Andrew Weil, M.D., author of "Spontaneous Healing and 8 Weeks to Optimum Health," fully agrees: "Electromagnetic pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced in this century, all the more dangerous because it is invisible and insensible."

In some countries, up to 10 percent of the population suffers from a serious EMF-induced condition that Dr. Carlo and others call membrane sensitivity syndrome. In a recent address to the Health, Social Services and Housing Sub-Panel in the United Kingdom, Carlo explained:

"Originally, this type of condition was the result of high chemical exposures; we used to call it chemical sensitivity. Now we have identified the same type of condition in patients who are exposed to various types of electromagnetic radiation. It is a medical problem.

People who have membrane sensitivity syndrome have internal bleeding.

They can be in a room where somebody puts on a cell phone, and they will end up having an immediate reaction; they will go home and they will bleed and in their stool they will have blood. This condition is very debilitating. It prevents these people from being able to work; they cannot earn a living, they have difficult relationships with their children, their spouses give up on them. .. It is a very, very serious medical problem."

The bees are the modern-day counterpart of the canaries that miners used to carry with them as they descended into the mine shafts. If the birds died, it was an early warning of a buildup of toxic gases in the mine.

When canaries die or bees disappear, we are being cautioned that we too are in immediate danger. It is time to listen to the message nature is telling us. Denial - the favorite ploy of those whose profits are being threatened - is no longer an option. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

I shudder to think of what will become of humankind if we linger too long in stage two: "no more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

----- End forwarded message -----


Millions of Bees Die - Are Electromagnetic Signals To Blame? eeng.net


Informant: smileycoyote

--------

Ecological Apocalypse: Why Are All The Bees Dying?
prisonplanet.com/

--------

Keepers fear mystery bee illness
buergerwelle.de


I also wrote to the London bee keeper man as follows,

Dear John Chappel

Statement from Ingrid

There is a huge body of research on bees from Germany that has never been considered in the UK.

This research shows that bees carry magnesomes in their underbelly and are thus highly sensitive to magnetic fields. They communicate and navigate via electromagnetic frequencies.

The German researchers consider bees to be bio indicators for the biological effects of radiation. They are the canaries in the coal mine.

The current environment with microwave radiation levels billions of times higher than the natural background levels is like putting a fish in a poisoned pond.

The bees try to escape the radiation and get lost and exhausted.

Ingrid Dickenson
Director hese-UK
hese-project.org

Dr Warnke is one of the leading researchers in Germany in this area. He is convinced of the harmfullness of the phone masts to bees and has been saying so for years.

Please feel free to contact us if you want any information.

We are currently translating a Swiss research paper summarising the effects on bees.


Re are mobiles killing our bees?

Andrea has spoken to Dr Warnke. He is convinced of the radiation being the cause.

See one of his early papers:

Effects of electric charges on honey bees
Dr Warnke
Bee World vol 57 no 2 1976 hese-project.org

--------

Cell Phones May Be Wiping Out Bees, say Scientists
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/cell_phones_may_be_wiping_out_bees.htm

http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=bees
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=bees
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Carlo
celsias.com

March 15, 2007 · Filed under Agriculture & Food, Environment & Wildlife by Craig Mackintosh

Here is an update to the brief bee story we did a few weeks ago. I’ve been keeping an eye on the Colony Collapse Disorder phenomenon that is causing a lot of furrowed brows in the U.S., as this may well become the biggest issue of 2007.

Things are getting dire on the U.S. agricultural front, and there are similar reports beginning to filter through from countries in Europe. Disappearing by the billions, on a worker strike we do not know how to negotiate

The sad mystery surrounding the humble honeybee - which is a vital component in $14bn-worth of US agriculture - is beginning to worry even the highest strata of the political class in Washington.

“Hillary Clinton’s got interested in this in the last week or so,” said David Hackenberg, the beekeeper leading the drive to publicise their plight.

“And she’s not alone,” he said. “There’s a lot of Congressmen have called…wanting to know what’s going on. It’s serious. - BBC

There’s still no concrete evidence about what is killing the millions and billions of bees around the country, but there are a lot of guesses.

The phenomenon is recent, dating back to autumn, when beekeepers along the east coast of the US started to notice the die-offs. It was given the name of fall dwindle disease, but now it has been renamed to reflect better its dramatic nature, and is known as colony collapse disorder.

It is swift in its effect. Over the course of a week the majority of the bees in an affected colony will flee the hive and disappear, going off to die elsewhere. The few remaining insects are then found to be enormously diseased - they have a “tremendous pathogen load”, the scientists say. But why? No one yet knows.

… The disease showed a completely new set of symptoms, “which does not seem to match anything in the literature”, said the entomologist.

… the few bees left inside the hive were carrying “a tremendous number of pathogens” - virtually every known bee virus could be detected in the insects, she said, and some bees were carrying five or six viruses at a time, as well as fungal infections. Because of this it was assumed that the bees’ immune systems were being suppressed in some way. - The Independent

There are as many theories as there are members of the panel, but Mr Hackenberg strongly suspects that new breeds of nicotine-based pesticides are to blame.

“It may be that the honeybee has become the victim of these insecticides that are meant for other pests,” he said. “If we don’t figure this out real quick, it’s going to wipe out our food supply.”

Just a few miles down the sunlit road, it is easy to find farmers prepared to agree with his gloomy assessment.

… Dennis van Engelsdorp, a Pennsylvania-based beekeeper and leading researcher… is adamant that it is too early to pin the blame on insecticides.”We have no evidence to think that that theory is more right than any other…” - BBC

Urban sprawl and farming also have taken away fields of clover and wildflowers, as well as nesting trees.

Pesticides and herbicides used in farming and on suburban lawns can weaken or kill bees.

Caron said a new class of pesticides used on plants, called neonicotinoids, don’t kill bees but hamper their sense of direction. That leaves them unable to find their way back to their hives.

… Because these bees aren’t returning to their hives, researchers don’t have a lot of evidence to study.

Those dead bees that have been found nearby have only deepened the mystery.

“They are just dirty with parts and pieces of various diseases,” said Jim Tew, a beekeeping expert with the OSU Extension campus in Wooster. “It looks like a general stress collapse.”

Similar disappearances have occurred over time. Tew said he remembers a similar phenomenon in the 1960s. Then, it was called “disappearing disease.”

“It was exactly the same thing,” he said.

But this one, Caron said, apparently causes hives to collapse at a much quicker rate and is more widespread.

Cobey said it could be from too much of everything: bad weather, chemicals, parasites, viruses.

“If you give them one of these things at a time, they seem to deal with it,” she said. “But all of these things, it’s too hard.

“I think the bees are just compromised. They’re stressed out.” - Columbus Dispatch

Whatever the cause, some farmers are getting desperate, to the point of not bothering to plant their crops.

“The squash crops that we grow have a male and female bloom, and the bee has to visit…to make it pollinate and produce,” he said.

“We’re going to have a hard time finding rental bees to aid in this pollination and if it’s as critical as it looks like it will be, I probably won’t even plant anything this spring.” - BBC

Huge monocrop farming systems and specialisations, and the spread of suburbia across natural habitat, are removing natural diversity. Bees have been lumped together in the millions, in a factory farm type environment not so unlike that of our chickens and other livestock animals. Many of these bees are transported across several states to perform pollinations in orchards and farms around the country. Today they are in contact with substances they shouldn’t have to deal with - pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, and pollen from genetically modified crops. Researchers are scrambling to find answers, and as the spring season is upon us, time is running out.

Honey bees, which are not native to the U.S. incidentally (they were imported for crop pollination), are tasked with the pollination of approximately one third of all U.S. crops.

… scientists are very worried, not least because, as there is no obvious cause for the disease as yet, there is no way of tackling it. - The Independent

------------------
Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?
news.independent.co.uk
Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees

By Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross
Published: 15 April 2007- The Independent & The Independent on Sunday

It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.

They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.

German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."

The case against handsets

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.

Honeybees Vanish, Leaving Keepers in Peril
New York Times
New York Times link


This is a very serious problem. We need to bring massive media attention to this. It could be the last straw holding together civilization. Please contact your government or an NGO. See that attention is being paid to this (unnoticed) emergency in your area. This seems to be a worldwide plague that could wipe us all out.... and it is hardly getting any attention! PLEASE HELP!

Thanks,
Yvette

 

http://www.taosplaza.com/content/view/252/136/

 

MORE...

dying bees mystery

 

http://911review.stumbleupon.com/review/13892569/

Wall Street Czars depopulating the World


Wall Street Czars depopulating the World
Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:48:55
By Afsaneh Ostovar, Press TV, Tehran

Leuren Moret

Leuren Moret is an American independent scientist and international expert on radiation and public health issues.

She has devoted her life to awakening the public to the destructive consequence of depleted uranium munitions that are used by the US military. She has made relentless efforts to stop the US continuing to pullout the environment.


Q. The US is using DU weapons in violation of international treaties. Why is not the international community forcing the US to put an end to the use or production of such weaponry?

A. I've asked that question many times myself.
With the demonstrated total and complete failure of international judicial remedies - by the International Criminal Court and the world court - to enforce the 1925 Geneva poison gas protocol, the Geneva and Hague conventions, international agreements and other treaties, and the failure of depleted uranium weapons to meet the standards (in four out of four categories) of legality under international law, it is clear that the international judicial system is morally and procedurally bankrupt. In other words, international laws and treaties are meaningless and/or selectively enforced. Just like the US nuclear weapons labs where I have worked, they selectively enforce the rules only when they want to 'get someone', in other words, they unfairly target and enforce laws that may be on the books, but are ignored.

And that has been true throughout the nuclear project since the end of WWII when atomic bombs, weapons of mass destruction, were dropped on living civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, the only two Christian cities in Japan. And that was a case of Christians dropping the first atomic bombs on Christians. Those first atomic bombs were weapons of mass destruction and they were illegal in every sense of the law. They were dropped without the consent of the scientists who developed them, without the consent of the political leadership (with the exception of President Truman who was talked into it by one man - Col. Henry Stimson, Sec. Of war and a Wall Street banker and member of Skull and Bones), and with the strongest opposition coming from the US military leadership - especially General Leslie Groves who was in charge of developing atomic bombs as head of the Manhattan Project.

The decision to drop two atomic bombs was made by one man - Colonel Henry Stimson - a Wall Street banker with ties to Churchill and the city of London bankers. It's always the international bankers who are engineering these horrific wars and the development of ever more horrific technologies of war.

However the hypocrisy of the US government must also be addressed. Depleted uranium munitions meet the definition of WMDs under US Federal Code in 2 out of 3 categories, and they violate US military law because the US is a signatory to the Geneva and Hague conventions. If the US government is so worried about Iran being a nuclear threat, then why did Henry Kissinger give Iran nuclear power plants, and President Gerald Ford give Iran plutonium?

September 16, 2005, in the UN General Assembly, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela said:

"We could, on the basis of national realities, exchange knowledge, integrate markets, interconnect, but at the same time we must understand that there are problems that do not have a national solution: radioactive clouds, world oil prices, diseases, warming of the planet or the hole in the ozone layer. These are not domestic problems."

And on September 17, 2005, in the UN General Assembly President Ahmadinejad of Iran eloquently brought the depleted uranium issue to the table:

"Ironically, those who have actually used nuclear weapons, continue to produce, stockpile and extensively test such weapons, have used depleted uranium bombs and bullets against tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, and even their own soldiers and those of their allies, afflicting them with incurable diseases, blatantly violate their obligations under the NPT, have refrained from signing the CTBT and have armed the Zionist occupation regime with WMDs, are not only refusing to remedy their past deeds, but in clear breech of the NPT, are trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy. All these problems emanate from the fact that justice and spirituality are missing in the way powerful governments conduct their affairs with other nations. "

A third courageous world leader has also recognized that depleted uranium global pollution is the most important issue today, for example Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, former Prime Minister of Malaysia. He held an international war crimes conference February 5-7, 2007, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, attended by 5000 people.

The issue of radioactive weapons and depleted uranium played an important role at this conference.

So we have three world leaders now who have spoken out about the horror and illegality of depleted uranium weaponry. But the NATO countries are silent and complicit in the poisoning of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Lebanon with their illegal weapons. The approximately 5000 US bunker buster bombs that Israel bombed Lebanon with, in the July 2006 attack. Dr. Chris Busby has reported evidence of not only depleted uranium in the bomb craters along the Lebanon/Israel border, but also traces of deuterium, high levels of uranium 235, and neutron activation products that quickly decayed within 3 weeks. The analyses were done at the British Government Radiation Laboratory at Harwell, so they must be correct.

Those anomalous radiation fingerprints suggest that 4th generation nuclear weapons were also included in the bunker buster dirty bombs. In other words, the US/Israel are now carrying out two nuclear wars from within the same bomb - or shall we call it the new 'super nuker.' What hypocrisy for the US to cry 'terrorist' about Iran, when US bombs delivered by Israeli jets are nuking Lebanon, Israeli citizens, and everyone in the region. Well, it is well known in America that the victimizer always turns himself into the victim.

The truth is that the 'nuclear states' have, and are using, nuclear weapons for blackmailing weaker countries in order to depopulate them and steal their mineral resources. It's just that simple.


Q. What is the depleted uranium and how does it affect the lives of human beings? What are the consequences of DU contamination?

A. Depleted uranium is radioactive waste from the nuclear weapons and nuclear power programs. 99.5% of the uranium that is mined becomes depleted uranium after 0.5% uranium 235 is removed in the enrichment process. Iran is legally enriching uranium for their nuclear power program, and the IAEA has stated that this is a perfectly legal activity in a country with nuclear power plants. It is being used as an excuse by the US and international community to threaten Iran.

In 1942, radioactive poison gas weapons were suggested for development under the Manhattan Project. In other words, the scientists did not know if they could successfully make atomic bombs, so they said “…Let's make dirty bombs, dirty missiles, and dirty bullets out of the depleted uranium, since we have lots of that, and it will permanently contaminate the air, water, soil, food, and blood in a region where we use these munitions.” It was a great weapon to kill, maim and disease lots of people.

So in 1942 they knew everything about depleted uranium but did not use it until 1973, during the oil crisis, when the US government gave it to Israel and supervised them using it in the Yom Kippur war. I have met so many women in Berkeley, California, who lived in Israel [occupied Palestine] then in Kibbutzes, and they have an epidemic of breast cancer in their families now. Well, that was just the beginning.

The US has contaminated 39 states with depleted uranium since 1945 from testing, manufacture, sales, storage and disposal of these weapons. The US is in a massive epidemic of radiation related illnesses, which is increasing every year - the US government nuked its own people with atomic bomb testing, nuclear power plants, and now depleted uranium.

Not only are the Middle East and Central Asia contaminated forever with radioactive depleted uranium, which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, but it has contaminated and mixed throughout the global atmosphere, causing a global epidemic of diabetes and other radiation related illnesses.

Depleted uranium is a radioactive nano-particle doomsday machine, which is not only causing diabetes all over the world, but it is invisibly increasing death rates, and decreasing birth rates globally - that is called depopulation. The Queen of Britain and the Rockefellers (US) own most of the uranium, and the city of London bankers control world uranium supplies and prices. Nice partnership, isn't it? Through her mother (maiden name Roche), Princess Diana was actually a Rothschild (city of London bankers). Many people believe that Prince Charles married Diana for her Stuart bloodline, which made her more royal than Charles. But when Prince William becomes king, England will have a Rothschild on the throne… that is the bloodline wanted from Princess Diana.

Well, if you think about the thousands of tons of depleted uranium the US/UK have admitted using since 1991, that would be the same as releasing the radiation from at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs into the atmosphere since 1991, ten times more than during atmospheric testing. Well, look at the increase in diabetes in Japan since 1991, which represents the global effect of depleted uranium pollution.

Source: vital statistics of japan 2004 (vol.1), ministry of
health, labour and welfare, p.202-3.



Then there are the effects to consider on the unborn babies. Consider the large increase in low birth weight babies in the US since 1991, caused by the global depleted uranium pollution. This is happening all over the world. Unlike infant mortality, these babies survive but they are at much greater risk for health problems during their lives: diabetes, learning disabilities, obesity, heart defects, and they are never really strong and healthy. The babies may look normal on the outside, but the DNA is damaged both in the nucleus and in the mitochondria of the cell, as well as other damage we still don't understand. Over future generations, the genetic damage will be expressed in unpredictable ways, and gradually the genome will degrade and decline in vigor. source: US government data: Center for Disease Control (CDC)

The consequences of depleted uranium global pollution is damage to the genome of the entire planet which is being degraded and destroyed slowly over time - for all living things. This is a demonic plan by the city of London and Wall Street banking establishments, and the new world order, the 'globalists' who want to depopulate the world by 2-4 billion people. They don't call London the world capital of terrorism for no reason.

Depopulation, through a continuous global covert nuclear war, has been waged against citizens, paid for by citizens through taxation, privatized, and secretly implemented by the global ruling elite. From 62 years of depleted uranium wars alone, global public health has been devastated by large increases in death rates and chronic disease, and decreasing birth rates, both evident in the vital statistics of many countries since 1945. This is a global trend.

This is what Henry Kissinger said about it in 1974 in the National Security Council:

Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that 'depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the third world.' He cited reasons of national security, and because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries… wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of the US.

Implications of world wide population growth for US security & overseas interests”, national security memo 200, April 24, 1974

According to an NSC spokesman at the time, the United States shared the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the 'population crisis' is a greater threat to US national security interests than 'nuclear annihilation'. In 1975, Henry Kissinger established a policy-planning group in the US state department's office of population affairs.

By 1979 depopulation was the top priority of US national security policy, as outlined in the national security paper global 2000 written by Rockefeller contractors Henry Kissinger, Z. Brzezinski, Gen. Alexander Haig, and Ed Muskie for President Carter.

So it is very clear that depleted uranium weaponry is being used for the purpose of depopulation in the Middle East, Central Asia, Lebanon, Yugoslavia… and these areas of course are rich in mineral resources that the Zionist Anglo-American economic empire wants to control. The tiger economies (China, Japan, Korea and India) are another serious economic threat - so another nuclear war is being carried out against them with nuclear power plants forced on them by the US/UK war crimes racketeering syndicate (who own the uranium and the nuclear power industry). The Zionist Anglo-American banking establishment is an international permanent war economy, a war crimes racketeering syndicate, the most vicious and ruthless in the history of the world: once again, they are the greedy bankers of the Wall Street and the city of London, and let's include the British throne which will soon crown a Rothschild as king.

Q. What parts of the world have been poisoned by the DU? Are there more regions at risk of contamination?

A. All of the world has been poisoned by the DU - most of it since 1991. The health statistics from around the world clearly show the global impact. But even the oceans are being killed by the radiation, the baby fish die just like our babies. Or they are born weak and may not survive to become adult fish. This also happened during atmospheric testing. Between 1957 and 1963 the fishing catch in the North Atlantic declined by 50%, but recovered within a few years as soon as atmospheric testing ended, because of the partial test ban treaty which Russia, the UK and US signed. However, the pacific fishing catch declined 65% by 1970 and never recovered because some nuclear states continued testing. It is happening all over again since 1991 with the introduction of DU weaponry by the US and the UK. In Japan, I learned that the fishing catch has declined 10% just in the past few years.

The DU is globally mixed in 1 year - it is found in the ice record in Antarctica, Hawaii, the Alps, the Himalayas, and even in the Andes of South America. There is nowhere to hide or any way to escape.

Q. The US soldiers who were sent to the Persian Gulf War were also poisoned due to the DU US weapons. There are many reports of their devastating situation in the past and at the moment. Isn't the US government concerned about the lives of its own military personnel?

A. Here is a news story tonight on the internet. It is the despair and anger expressed by a member of Congress from the San Francisco area where I live. Listen to his words on the floor of Congress speaking to Bush “you have no money for health care for children… or for more war… You just like to blow things up.”


Here is a lawyer friend of mine, from the international law firm of Morrison and Foerster, who has filed a class action lawsuit against the Veterans Administration for Health Care for our very sick veterans… the medical disability rate is over 55% since 1991, when they started using depleted uranium weapons.

Our children are being turned into uranium meat as soon as they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. What about the poor people who live in those regions and have for thousands of years….

The leadership in the US, the Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon have been taken over by a shadow government - that shadow from Wall Street and the city of London. The US is bankrupt and is being carved up like a turkey by the globalists. Europe is too… the EU is just another region being dragged into slavery… like the US-Canada-Mexico, which is now undergoing unification. I cannot believe this global nightmare being rolled out.

Our soldiers are just being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan and given a death sentence as soon as they arrive. Our national guard, to protect our states from being overtaken by our own military, is being destroyed to make this global takeover easier. Black youth in the ghettoes are refusing to join the military. They are saying “it's more dangerous in Iraq now than in the ghetto… We are staying home.”

Major Doug Rokke told me that gang members and juvenile delinquents coming back from their army service in Iraq are taking military trucks from bases here like at Fort Lewis, and going out into towns around the military bases and robbing banks. Then they go back into the ghettos and kill the police… That's what they learned in Iraq.

As Henry Kissinger famously said after Vietnam:

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy".

I think in reality the US government has killed far more Americans, their own citizens, than they have killed in other countries. The CIA has cannibalized the US just like it has eaten through the economies and killed the people of many other countries. The CIA is bringing the drugs from Afghanistan and South America into our communities. It's a great way to fund elections and to make huge profits.

Over $850 billion a year in drug money in the US is the CIA cash-flow through the US economy. The US economy would collapse without it.

Q. Are these soldiers receiving proper health care from the current US administration?

A. Of course not. They are receiving a plane ride back to the US and then they are dumped into their communities by the Pentagon and given no help, no medical care, nothing. I have them calling me up every day, they find my name on the internet, and they are begging me to help them… they want to commit suicide, their wives are sick… this is a nightmare not only over in the Middle East and Central Asia, but here as well.

Our country is bankrupt - morally, spiritually, and financially.

Q. Could you explain for our readers the beginning of your opposition to the nuclear weapons?

A. Well, I worked in two nuclear weapons labs, as a geoscientist cleaning up the mess at the labs. I did not know what nuclear weapons were until I went to Japan in 2000, invited to the Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Conference as a plenary speaker. I was horrified when I saw the effects of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Americans had seen the aftermath in 1945 of those horrific bombs, there never would have been a nuclear weapons program in the US. It was hidden from the public and still is. It is a brotherhood of death, the ultimate rejection of life… it is a huge lie.

When I stood in the peace museums of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I realized that I had to spend the rest of my life working on the terrible issue of nuclear pollution. I am a mother, I am a scientist, I am a woman and a giver of life; I cannot stand to see another mother and father with a sick child, a sick baby, a sick grandparent… the youngest and the oldest are the ones who suffer from radiation the most.

So here is what I am doing, a global campaign, a US campaign to get DU bills for our soldiers in the state legislatures - Congress is nonfunctional.

In Hawaii they call me the 'enfant terrible' of depleted uranium.

Well, if I am a naughty child for doing that, I am a very very very much more naughty scientist… and I am having lots of fun with my radiation wrecking ball… informing the public about what they should know about radiation and its impact on public health and the environment. Seriously, there really is no other choice.

Q. What are the human costs of the depleted uranium?

A. We are facing a global mass extinction of 2-4 billion people, and a war against the genetic future of all species.

If the Bush Administration and the US Navy are really stupid enough to bomb Iran with their [nuclear] friend Israel, well then they deserve what they get if they knock over that beehive. Iran is not Iraq… Iraq was a 'cakewalk' compared to what a mess they will have with Iran.

I want the people of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and the people of the world to know that I love and respect them. Americans are not bad people, I am not a bad person because I am American, it is our government that has hijacked and stolen our country and our soul from us.

But this nightmare they are creating is not over yet, and like Iraq, it will not turn out the way they think it is going to… Bush is not the only sociopath in power who likes to blow things up. Other countries may retaliate…

And there are many ways to punish the Zionist Anglo-American economic empire. Its future is fading…. You never create wealth by destroying things.

AO/RE

 

More on DU...

Depleted Uranium Trojan Horse - 9/11 Review

Depleted Uranium 9-11Review

Video DEPLETED URANIUM WTC towers DU

Bijlmermeer air disaster - Israel - Sarin Gas + depleted uranium

SHOCK and AWE Iraq War Wiki info Apr 06

Susan Lindauer - Political Prisoner

 

Amputee soldiers return to active duty


 

Associated Press Writer


 

In the blur of smoke and blood after a bomb blew up under his Humvee in Iraq, Sgt. Tawan Williamson looked down at his shredded leg and knew it couldn't be saved. His military career, though, pulled through. Less than a year after the attack, Williamson is running again with a high-tech prosthetic leg and plans to take up a new assignment, probably by the fall, as an Army job counselor and affirmative action officer in Okinawa, Japan.

In an about-face by the Pentagon, the military is putting many more amputees back on active duty - even back into combat, in some cases.

Williamson, a 30-year-old Chicago native who is missing his left leg below the knee and three toes on the other foot, acknowledged that some will be skeptical of a maimed soldier back in uniform.

"But I let my job show for itself," he said. "At this point, I'm done proving. I just get out there and do it."

Previously, a soldier who lost a limb almost automatically received a quick discharge, a disability check and an appointment with the Veterans Administration.

But since the start of the Iraq war, the military has begun holding on to amputees, treating them in rehab programs like the one here at Fort Sam Houston and promising to help them return to active duty if that is what they want.

"The mindset of our Army has changed, to the extent that we realize the importance of all our soldiers and what they can contribute to our Army. Someone who loses a limb is still a very valuable asset," said Lt. Col. Kevin Arata, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command at the Pentagon.

Also, just as advances in battlefield medicine have boosted survival rates among the wounded, better prosthetics and treatment regimens have improved amputees' ability to regain mobility.

So far, the Army has treated nearly 600 service members who have come back from Iraq or Afghanistan without an arm, leg, hand or foot. Thirty-one have gone back to active duty, and no one who asked to remain in the service has been discharged, Arata said.

Most of those who return to active duty are assigned to instructor or desk jobs away from combat. Only a few - the Army doesn't keep track of exactly how many - have returned to the war zone, and only at their insistence, Arata said.

To go back into the war zone, they have to prove they can do the job without putting themselves or others at risk.

One amputee who returned to combat in Iraq, Maj. David Rozelle, is now helping design the amputee program at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington. He has counted seven other amputees who have lost at least part of a hand or foot and have gone back to combat in Iraq.

The 34-year-old from Austin, Texas, said he felt duty-bound to return after losing his right foot to a land mine in Iraq.

"It sounds ridiculous, but you feel guilty that you're back home safe," he said. "Our country is engaged in a war. I felt it was my responsibility as a leader in the Army to continue."

Rozelle commanded a cavalry troop and conducted reconnaissance operations when he returned to Iraq, just as he had before the mine blast. Other amputees who have returned to combat, ranging from infantry grunts to special forces soldiers, have conducted door-to-door searches, convoy operations and other missions in the field.

"Guys won't go back if it means riding a desk," Rozelle said.

He said his emotions at the start of his second tour in Iraq, which lasted four months, were a lot like those during his first stint: "I was going back to war, so it was as heart-pounding as the first time."

Mark Heniser, who workedas a Navy therapist for 23 years before joining the amputee program at Fort Sam Houston in 2005, said both the military and the wounded benefit when amputees can be kept on active duty: The military retains the skills of experienced personnel, while the soldiers can continue with their careers.

Staff Sgt. Nathan Reed, who lost his right leg a year ago in a car bombing, is 2 1/2 years from retirement and has orders to head in July to Fort Knox, where he expects to be an instructor.

"My whole plan was to do 20 years," said the 37-year-old soldier from Shreveport, La. "I had no doubt that I would be able to go back on active duty."

Not everyone comes through treatment as rapidly or as well as Williamson, Reed and Rozelle. Some have more severe injuries or struggle harder with the losses, physically or emotionally. Soldiers who lose a limb early in their careers are more likely to want out. Those with long service are more motivated to stay, Heniser said.

Williamson did not want to return to combat, and it is not clear he could have met the physical qualifications anyway.

The military planned to discharge him on disability, but he appealed, hoping to become a drill instructor. The Army ruled that would be too physically demanding for Williamson, a human resources officer before being sent to lead convoys in Iraq, but it agreed to let him return to active duty in some other capacity.

He is regaining his strength and balance at the new $50 million Center for the Intrepid, built to rehabilitate military amputees. A hurdler in high school he ran the Army minimum of two miles for the first time in mid-May, managing a 10-minute-per-mile pace on his C-shaped prosthetic running leg decorated with blue flames.

He is working out five days a week - running, lifting weights and doing pool exercises - and just got his first ride on a wave machine used to improve balance.

"I could leave here today if they told me I had to," Williamson said.

 

http://911review.org/Reports/iraq/Amputee_soldiers.html

Interview With Former CIA Director George Tenet


THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview With Former CIA Director George Tenet; Army: Joan Baez Not Banned; Inside Reagan's Mind: New Diary Excerpts

Aired May 2, 2007 - 17:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


WOLF BLITZER, HOST: And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Happening now, President Bush and Congress back to square one on Iraq.

But is the president now setting a lower standard for victory?

He's accused of having blood on his hands. Now, George Tenet is fighting back. My one-on-one interview with the former CIA director. That's coming up.

And inside the mind of Ronald Reagan -- a new look at his presidential diaries. Stunning details of the assassination attempt, a nuclear stand-off and stand-offs with his own children.

I'm Wolf Blitzer.

You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

U.S. troops back on the offensive in the Shiite slums of Baghdad, a day after the president's veto of a withdrawal timetable. The U.S. military says three more soldiers died today, bringing the war's total for U.S. troops to 3,355.

For the president and the Democrats, it was back to square one on Iraq. Congress today failed to override that presidential veto. The two sides now trying to stake out some common ground for a potential compromise.

Let's go to our White House correspondent, Ed Henry -- Ed, what's next?

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, what's next is all sides are trying to find a deal here. They started those talks at the White House this afternoon. But no breakthrough.

Instead, what might be more noteworthy about today is the fact that the president tried to lower the bar for success in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The definition of success, as I described, is, you know, sectarian violence down. What -- it -- success is not no violence. There are parts of our own country that, you know, have got, you know, a certain level of violence to it.

HENRY (voice-over): Tony Snow had difficulty explaining that.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: ... define an acceptable level of violence?

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I will...

MALVEAUX: I mean how can that possibly be defined?

SNOW: That's a very good question and I don't have an answer.

HENRY: A far cry from what the president was saying one year ago this month.

GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think the point is how do we achieve our objectives, which is a democracy which can defend itself, sustain itself, a country which is an ally in the war on terror and a country which serves as a powerful example for others who desire to be free.

HENRY: Snow insisted there has been no shift.

SNOW: ... of success is still an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself. It's one where you will have levels of violence that will not jeopardize the ability of the government to function on an ongoing basis.

HENRY: But with violence in Baghdad getting worse, the president's evolution has been stark. At a press conference shortly before the November election, he was asked if the U.S. was winning in Iraq.

BUSH: Absolutely, we're winning.

HENRY: New defense secretary, Robert Gates, readjusted that in December.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We are not winning the war in Iraq, is that correct?

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: That is my view, yes, sir.

HENRY: Now, the president says winning is an open question.

BUSH: Slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed or we won't succeed.

HENRY: The president's most immediate concern is working out a deal on the war funding bill he voted Tuesday.

BUSH: Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences. Today is a day where we can work together to find common ground.

(END VIDEO TAPE) HENRY: Now, the president also revealed he's appointed his chief of staff, Josh Bolten, as well as two other top aides, Stephen Hadley and Rob Portman, to get up to Capitol Hill and try to work this out. They're going to have a meeting in the Senate starting tomorrow.

But the bottom line is the president is still not giving in on a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops while Democrats still insist that has to be in the war funding bill. So there's no compromise in sight -- Wolf.

BLITZER: The negotiations will continue, though.

Thanks very much.

Ed Henry at the White House.

U.S.-led forces are angering a key ally in the war on terror. Dozens of Afghan civilians have died in recent days during raids against the Taliban.

Afghanistan's leader now warning that patience in his country is wearing very, very thin.

Let's go to our CNN correspondent Brian Todd -- Brian, what is this all about?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it's about a real upsurge in fighting in recent weeks between U.S.-led forces and the Taliban. Several reports of non-combatants caught in the crossfire and a resentment among Afghans that has now reached critical "mission accomplished" speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

TODD (voice-over): One of America's most crucial allies in the war on terror fed up with how U.S. and NATO-led forces are fighting the Taliban in his country.

PRES. HAMID KARZAI, AFGHANISTAN: We can no longer accept civilian casualties the way they occur. It's becoming to be heavy for us.

TODD: How heavy?

A U.N. official in Afghanistan tells CNN they have credible reports that 49 civilians were killed in a brutal fight last weekend near the western city of Herat. One injured man gives his account of who the casualties were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): There were no Taliban. Ten of my relatives have been killed.

TODD: A U.S. officer said there were many Taliban killed in that battle.

Contacted by CNN, an officer with NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, also speaking for U.S. forces, says: "We have no specific confirmation of any civilian casualties. It, of course, remains a possibility. And we appreciate President Karzai's words and we're making inquiries into the incidents."

There have been many incidents. One U.S. officer in Afghanistan tells us Taliban extremists "have been fighting more than fleeing in recent weeks, as U.S. and NATO forces stepped up operations, battles that have clearly raised concern at the highest levels over how aggressively this war should be fought and how to approach those caught in the crossfire.

That U.S. officer says it often takes time after a battle to determine who the civilians are among the dead and wounded.

And this from Michael Scheuer, who once headed the CIA unit assigned to go after Osama bin Laden.

MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER CIA OFFICER: You never kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians. But you never refrain from killing civilians if it's essential to defeat the enemy.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

TODD: Scheuer says, if anything, U.S. and NATO forces have not been aggressive enough. He says the Taliban won't be defeated in Afghanistan unless more force is applied, and inevitably, he says, there will be more civilian casualties -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Why are there so many civilians now being caught in the crossfire?

TODD: Well, a journalist there tells me that several -- in several of these battles NATO-led forces have been very quick to call in air support and some casualties have occurred because of that.

But Michael Scheuer also says that in a lot of these battles, the Taliban often fights from positions right in the middle of these civilian villages and he says some of those civilians killed are relatives of Taliban fighters who they've brought with them.

BLITZER: Brian Todd reporting on a significant story.

Thank you.

Brian is going to stay on top of that story for us.

A war gone wrong has thrown one of America's closest allies into a major upheaval. An inquiry commission in Israel blames top leaders for failures in last summer's war in Lebanon against Hezbollah.

And if President Bush thinks his approval ratings are bad, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert now stands -- get this -- at 0.

CNN's Atika Shubert is in Jerusalem -- Atika.

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the pressure is ratcheting up on Prime Minister Olmert. Now, members of his own party and critical members of his cabinet are openly rebelling against him.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

SHUBERT (voice-over): Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, has made it clear. She is asking Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign.

"In my meeting, I expressed my opinion that resignation is the correct thing as far as he is concerned," she said.

That is a major blow to Olmert. She is a popular politician, a leading member of Olmert's Kadima Party and a critical member of his government.

So far, Olmert shows no signs of quitting.

He said: "To those who are eager to take advantage of this report to reap certain political advantage, I suggest slow down."

It would take 61 members of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, to oust the prime minister and dissolve parliament for new elections.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

SHUBERT: At this point, Olmert has no public support to appeal to. According to newspaper polls, more than 65 percent want him to resign and it could all come to a head on Thursday, when tens of thousands are expected to hit the streets, demanding that he step down now -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Atika, thanks very much.

Atika Shubert in Jerusalem for us.

Let's check in with Jack Cafferty.

He's got The Cafferty File -- Jack, think about this before you get to your question.

Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel, his job approval number down now in the low single digit. And if you factor in the margin of error, it could be negative -- below zero.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting to me that Israel gets involved in a failed war and the government and the citizens of that country hold their leaders responsible and are taking steps to kick them to hell out and get somebody else to run the country.

BLITZER: The chief...

CAFFERTY: What a cool idea.

BLITZER: The chief of staff of the Army resigned. The defense minister is under enormous pressure. And Olmert's numbers, as you know, they're -- and the foreign minister, who's in his own party, is now saying he should step down.

CAFFERTY: What'll happen now? Can they -- you said that -- he said they need 61 votes. Can somebody introduce a resolution to toss him...

BLITZER: The public...

CAFFERTY: ... and then they'll vote and...

BLITZER: The public is going to demand that he goes and then there's going to be a fight. Tzipi Livni will be in that fight. Netanyahu will come in from Likud.

Maybe...

CAFFERTY: But Olmert's gone, right?

BLITZER: Yes, I think -- I think everybody agrees that his days as prime minister are probably numbered.

Ehud Barak, the former prime minister, is running to lead the Labor Party. But that's inside Israeli politics.

CAFFERTY: Yes, no, no. I understand. I'm just -- I'm just making some mental notes in conjunction with another democracy and the way they're handling a failed war.

It seems like women are often the toughest critics of their own gender and politics is no exception. The Associated Press reports that women sometimes set exceedingly high standards for female candidates.

This could be a problem for Hillary, who wants to become the first woman ever elected president of the United States.

Some people think that's because women expect the first female president to be perfect and want to hold her to a higher standard. Not that recent standards have been that much to write home about. Higher expectations can translate into greater scrutiny, as well.

The Associated Press analyzed recent election data and found that gender matters more for women than for men when it comes to picking a president.

The analysis also shows women are more likely to vote -- vote for and dismiss someone just because she's a woman. One adviser to Clinton says that voters see women candidates in a more personal way, which can be frustrating when they want voters to focus on their ideas instead. She says because people are used to seeing men run for president, they don't pay attention to things like their hair, hem lines and spouses, although if any of the men showed up with a hem line, I suppose we would be taking notice.

The question is this -- why would women be tougher on a female candidate for president than men are?

E-mail caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to cnn.com/caffertyfile.

What do you think about that... Wolf.

BLITZER: I think it's a good question and I'm anxious to hear what our viewers think about it, Jack.

Thank you very much.

CAFFERTY: Did you ever play dodge ball?

BLITZER: Yes, in junior high.

Thank you.

Up ahead, the former CIA director, George Tenet, answering critics who say he helped mislead this country into the war in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE TENET, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: They also have said I have blood on my hands.

BLITZER: Yes, they do.

TENET: And let me say something. That's the most repugnant thing I've ever heard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But is he sorry for the bad intelligence he provided the president, the country?

I'll ask him directly in my one-on-one interview.

Also, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warning the Middle East has "everything at stake in Iraq." We'll have details of her critical mission to the region right now.

Plus, banned or not -- we're going to show you what's at the heart of a dispute between the U.S. Army and singer Joan Baez. You're going to want to see this.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: A furious battle is raging over just how America was led into the war in Iraq. The top U.S. intelligence official at the time says he's been turned into a scapegoat.

Others, though, accuse him of having blood on his hands.

BLITZER: Joins us now, the former director of the CIA, the author of the new book "At The Center of the Storm: My Years At The CIA," George Tenet.

Director, thanks for coming in.

TENET: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: We've got a lot of questions to go through. We'll start right now with one shocking claim you make in the book -- and there are many. But this one really sticks out: "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat in advance of the war, the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein's regime."

What do you mean there was no debate about the imminence? Was there an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein?

TENET: Well, it was never about imminence, Wolf. It was about the prospect of surprise. And in reflect -- and people have said, well, there were meetings that I didn't know about, and that's entirely possible.

I'm making a more fundamental strategic point. If you look at how we ultimately fought and implemented the war, I think better questioning at the front end on how war fighting translated into peacekeeping, stabilization and ultimately rebuilding the country, that kind of integrated questioning, I think, could have been done a lot better than it was.

BLITZER: But did he represent an imminent threat to the United States?

TENET: Well, as I said at Georgetown in 2004, not imminent, but surprise. Atika -- the question that policymakers grappled with -- would he surprise us in a way that limited our ability to respond?

BLITZER: Because I want you to listen to what Colin Powell, the then secretary of state, said at the United Nations with you sitting right behind him in advance of the war.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option -- not in a post-September 11th world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, now when he says a few more months, that sounds imminent to me.

TENET: Well, I think everybody understood, Wolf, we said he had chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. I think that the preponderance of our view was this was a question of surprise and would we be surprised?

And the real issue for us always was there was a lot of we didn't know and we always believed, on the basis of our history with him, that what we didn't know posited greater capability.

Of course, we found out that we were wrong, but that was, you know, history, deception, denial -- many reasons why we were wrong. But we believe what we wrote.

BLITZER: Because on this specific point, when I heard the words "a few more months" -- and I'm sure most people who were listening to Colin Powell at that time -- it sounded like -- it sounded like it was -- the clock was ticking and the United States had to get rid of Saddam Hussein right away.

TENET: Well, Wolf, the policymakers believed there was risk in waiting and they took those actions.

BLITZER: He is another point that certainly came out, the WMD, that the U.S. intelligence community, the best in the world, was so wrong on these issues. And that was the major reason that at least was justified for the war in Iraq, the National Intelligence Estimate that you approved basically concluded -- and I'll just read the headline of it -- "Iraq's Continuing Programs of Weapons of Mass Destruction."

You concluded there were chemical stockpiles, biological stockpiles. This was a damning indictment that justified going to war.

TENET: Well, Wolf, we -- we -- we followed Iraq's weapons programs for 10 years. I had followed them in the Clinton administration and in the Bush administration. Our analysts wrote what we believed. We made our best judgments. We made our best assessments. We turned out to be wrong for many reasons that go to the heart of our tradecraft. It's no solace that every other country in the world believed it, as well.

But at the end of the day, once we got on the ground, you know, you -- the truth seemed so implausible, why someone would risk the destruction of his country, why someone would risk so much, and yet when we looked at his deception and denial and his procurement, we came to those conclusions.

We came to those conclusions based on what we really believed.

So people -- nothing disingenuous about the process.

BLITZER: It wasn't just the weapons of mass destruction that was so powerful in making the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. It was the nuclear potential -- the mushroom cloud, as Condoleezza Rice spoke about it, as the president spoke about it -- you don't want that mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun.

TENET: Well, Wolf, the National Intelligence Estimate said five to seven years away with moderate confidence. Now, policymakers may have, at the time, remembered what happened in 1991, when we said they were years away and when we got on the ground they said we found out that they were months away.

But in any event, what the National Intelligence Estimate said was five to seven years.

BLITZER: But it also said in its key judgments -- and I'll read it to you -- it said: "Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons. In view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

TENET: Right.

BLITZER: Now, that sounds like they're building a bomb.

TENET: Well, reconstitution is something we should have been much more careful about talking about. But the Estimate also says five to seven years away. It's interesting, we had a big debate on the nuclear tubes, you'll recall. Even the Department of Energy, who didn't buy into the nuclear tubes, signed up to the judgment that said he is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

BLITZER: And Colin Powell went further, though, when he told the world at the United Nations this.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POWELL: Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You authorized that. You were sitting right behind him.

TENET: There's no -- there's no doubt about the fact that he was determined to get there. Even -- even David Kay, in his first report, said we should remove all doubt about the fact that he intends to acquire a nuclear capability.

As to his intent, the Secretary was right.

BLITZER: The intent, but it was still a long way off and there was no imminent prospect...

TENET: His determine...

BLITZER: ... that he was going to have a nuclear bomb.

TENET: Well, you know what we were all worried about -- you know, we talked about -- there is much about his programs that we don't know and when we wrote that estimate, our concern was what we don't know is going to cause us to be surprised.

BLITZER: In addition to the WMD, which you were wrong on that, right? The nuclear -- I guess you could misinterpret the words, but to the average person out there, it sounded like Saddam Hussein was getting very close to getting a nuclear capability. TENET: Sure.

BLITZER: The other argument was the connection between Saddam Hussein, his regime and al Qaeda that caused, especially in the post- 9/11 era, a huge amount of concern. And there was a sense you've got to get rid of Saddam because of his connection with al Qaeda.

TENET: The intelligence community and our -- and the CIA specifically outlined three areas of concern. We had concerns about contacts. We had concerns about training. We had concerns about the safe haven that had been provided to the Ansar Al-Islam in northeastern Iraq, where, of course, the Iraqi government didn't control.

We were also very explicit about the fact that we didn't believe this was anything more than two organizations seeking to take advantage of each other. We saw no capacity, authority, direction and control on the part of Iraq for al Qaeda attacks.

So you had concerns. The concern we have is, is later on in this process...

BLITZER: That's a much more nuanced...

TENET: Well, but...

BLITZER: ... explanation.

TENET: But it is...

BLITZER: But in your letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee...

TENET: Yes, right.

BLITZER: ... and you once worked for the Senate Intelligence Committee -- it seemed pretty blunt. It seemed pretty obvious.

TENET: We talked about the contacts, training and safe haven. In my testimony -- in my testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I also gave the judgment that I just gave you.

Unfortunately, in that one letter, it fell out...

BLITZER: Let me read to you...

TENET: ... not intentionally.

BLITZER: Let me read to you what you told, because I remember reading this and I -- I concluded at the time, like a lot of the senators who voted for the authorization -- there is a connection there and it's in this post-9/11 era, Saddam Hussein is working with Osama bin Laden.

Let me read to you what you wrote. TENET: All right.

BLITZER: These are your words: "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom" -- the war in Iraq -- "we have solid evidence of the presence" -- excuse me, in Afghanistan -- "we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some who have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who would help -- who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

And listen to this. This is -- these are your words: "The reporting also stated that Iraq has played -- has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gasses and making conventional bombs"...

TENET: Yes, and we...

BLITZER: Now, to the average person...

TENET: Right.

BLITZER: ... reading that...

TENET: And it was a source of concern to me.

BLITZER: ... it looks like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden...

TENET: Right.

BLITZER: ... are in bed.

TENET: Well, you have to -- you have to get to the subordinate clause and you have to also make clear the ultimate judgment. We didn't in that letter, but we did in all of our testimonies, in all of the papers that we presented. The Senate Intelligence Committee evaluated our work here, said that we were reasonable in the judgments we made.

The issue, for me, Wolf, is all of those things were causes of concern and yet some tried to posit operational control and command legitimacy that we never saw, and that became an issue.

BLITZER: Do you regret writing this letter?

TENET: We -- we would regret not having that clause that was -- that I talked about that was in all of our testimonies and every paper that we wrote. We were -- we were sloppy in that letter.

But everybody understood -- on the question of authority, direction, control and capacity -- we were never there.

BLITZER: Because that seems like a nuance. You know, there's a lot of anger... TENET: Well, it's not -- it's not a nuance. It's an important issue.

BLITZER: But these words are pretty blunt...

TENET: Well, and...

BLITZER: ... poison gases...

TENET: It's what -- it's what we...

BLITZER: ... conventional bombs.

TENET: And it's what we believed.

BLITZER: All right.

Here's an excerpt from this very damning critique from retired CIA officers. They wrote a letter to you after your book came out. Among other things, they say this: "By your silence, you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat."

And then you went -- they go on to say: "Instead of resigning in protest when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained silent."

TENET: Well...

BLITZER: What do you want to say...

TENET: Well, this...

BLITZER: ... to these angry CIA officers...

TENET: Well...

BLITZER: ... who think you should have resigned?

TENET: Well, first of all, Wolf, there are other officers who have a sharply different view, and maybe you'll talk to them. Other officers...

BLITZER: We have another letter from them...

TENET: ... who (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But let me...

BLITZER: ... who support you.

TENET: But let me say this. They also have said I had blood on my hands.

BLITZER: Yes, they do.

TENET: And let me say something. That's the most repugnant thing I have ever heard. We woke up and I woke up every day to protect men and women in uniform. They sat on this show and said that we had reporting from a source that said he didn't have WMD.

They mischaracterized that reporting. That reporting said he doesn't have a nuclear weapon, but he's developing one covertly and aggressively. He's stockpiling chemical weapons. The weapon of last resort is mobile missiles with chemicals and he's dabbling in -- in biological weapons.

So, the implication is, is that we fed phony information to the president. We didn't.

The implication is, is that when the post-war situation emerged, that we didn't speak truth to power and tell the president exactly what was happening on with an insurgency, why de-Baathification, disbanding the Army and other issues, were not being pursued in a way we believed, and how an insurgency was going to develop.

The notion -- the notion that we didn't speak truth to power, didn't tell people what we believed in the confines of government...

BLITZER: He...

TENET: Look, I was the director of Central Intelligence. My job is to do the best I can to give people the best data possible. Policymakers make their decisions.

I know that we acquitted our responsibilities consistent with our values.

BLITZER: You met with the president almost every single morning. You briefed him on overnight developments, told him what the threats were. You had an opportunity to speak directly to the president and if you didn't think it was worthwhile going to war against Saddam Hussein, you clearly could have made that case.

TENET: Wolf, the job of the director of Central Intelligence is to provide data, not to make policy. The minute...

BLITZER: You didn't have to make policy...

TENET: No, no, no...

BLITZER: ... but you could tell the president...

TENET: No. The minute...

BLITZER: ... you know...

TENET: The minute...

BLITZER: ... there's no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. He's contained...

TENET: It was never a...

BLITZER: ... in his box...

TENET: It was never a question...

BLITZER: ... the no fly zones are working. There is no need to go to war.

You could have said that to the president.

TENET: Wolf, our job is to tell them what we believe and what the intelligence shows. Once you cross the line, your objectivity them becomes questioned. Your analysis then becomes questioned. It's a line that I adhere to.

Now...

BLITZER: Should you have said -- spoken to the president more bluntly, though?

If you felt as strongly as you did that there were no imminent threat, should you have said, Mr. President...

TENET: It was never...

BLITZER: ... I've got to tell you...

TENET: ... ever been...

BLITZER: ... I see all of this intelligence...

TENET: Wolf...

BLITZER: ... there -- some of it is good, some of it is questionable.

TENET: Wolf, there was not a question of imminence. It was always the question of surprise. Policymakers made a determination on the fact that they didn't want to be surprised. Everybody understood the nature of this threat. That's the determination they made.

Illogical?

Not illogical. Their job to make that choice. My job to provide the data.

BLITZER: Here's what Senator John Kerry says today: "No White House should ever have bullied the director of the CIA to make a case for a war that he knows isn't true and no White House should reward it with the Medal of Freedom. George Tenet never should have received the medal in the first place."

That's Senator John Kerry.

TENET: Well, you know, I respect Senator Kerry. I disagree with him. The president made that determination. The president gave me that medal for our work on terrorism in Afghanistan and post-9/11, for the work the men and women of CIA did. I thought about the medal. I understood the context. I thought that rewarding our people for the work they had done was the right thing to do.

BLITZER: Should you give back that medal?

TENET: I would never give back that medal.

BLITZER: Should you donate at least some of the proceeds, the royalties from the book, to the families of killed and injured U.S. troops?

TENET: Wolf, my family and I have looked after people all our lives. I will continue to find ways to look after people. I'm the chairman of the CIA Memorial Foundation. We work to provide assistance to the families of officers who have been killed and I will continue to do what I think is good for people for the rest of my life.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

BLITZER: And coming up, we'll have more of my one-on-one interview with the former CIA director, George Tenet.

Did U.S. intelligence agencies go too far after 9/11?

You're going to be interested to hear what he has to say.

Also, Ronald Reagan's private diaries offering some stunning new details and a few surprises.

Plus, details of the dispute between the singer, Joan Baez, and the U.S. Army. Find out why she says she was banned from a concert for wounded troops.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: To our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Happening now, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, warning the Middle East has "everything at stake in the outcome in the war in Iraq."

The embattled World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz says he's confident the scandal swirling around him won't hurt the bank's work. An ethics panel is investigating his handling of a promotion and a raise for his girlfriend, a World Bank employee.

And a record for the Dow. It's on its longest winning streak since 1955.

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Desperate to find and stop terrorists, did U.S. intelligence agencies go too far after 9/11?

More now of my interview with the former CIA director, George Tenet.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: I have to ask you a question on allegations the CIA, your agency, engaged in torture. You've said there was no torture. You won't describe what the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used against al Qaeda suspects involved.

But Khalid al-Masri, a German citizen born in Lebanon, he wrote a piece in the "L.A. Times" saying this: "I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan..."

Is that true?

TENET: I don't believe what he says is true. But let me say this. Let me say this about this whole torture question. In the after math of 9/11, we lived with a palpable fear of how much we did not know about what was going on in our country.

Senator McCain started a great debate here. Here's what I would ask people. I know that the program we engaged in saved lives, thousands of lives. I know it helped us against al Qaeda.

Policymakers, the president, the Congress determine where you want to be in the moral continuum. We are a country of laws and a country of values. Tell us where you want to be. Make it very, very clear to us. Have consensus on it.

Don't let the pendulum swing back and forth. Give you intelligence community clear instructions, and we'll follow them.

BLITZER: In a war, if American POWs were exposed to the same "enhanced interrogation techniques" that these expects were exposed to, would that be appropriate?

TENET: Well, you never -- look, Wolf, I would never -- I don't know what they'd be exposed to. And I don't want to talk about techniques. Here's the only thing I would say to you again.

Make a determination of where you want us to be. Tell us what the right thing to do is. We'll do it.

I know that in that time period after 9/11, we understood the risks. We understood we were on new territory. The president authorized. The attorney general said it was legal.

We briefed the chairman and ranking member of our oversight committees. Nobody was hiding anything. We were in a -- we were in a tough environment.

If you don't want to do it, that's fine with us.

BLITZER: One example. Could you give us one example? Because you say it saved thousands of lives. These techniques? Can you give us an example?

TENET: Well, we found out about additional airline plots against the East and West Coast of the United States.

BLITZER: Thanks to these techniques?

TENET: Thanks to these techniques. We found out about that surveillance of financial institutions in New York thanks to these techniques. We found out about plots in Karachi thanks to these techniques. We identified people we never knew about who were planning further terrorist attacks against the United States thanks to these techniques.

BLITZER: So if you had to do the techniques over again, you'd do them?

TENET: Well, it's not that you would do them. If you're authorized and it's legal and it's briefed -- and we play in a system of laws and governance. It's not just us.

You know, in the time period that I lived in, and the threats that we faced, and the issues we were dealing with, and -- Wolf, where are you going to be if you're holding someone who you know is coming to kill you and your family tomorrow afternoon, and you didn't do what you thought you needed to do to get the data? What would you be saying to me today?

You would be saying me, you didn't do your job and you didn't save lives. Well, that's extreme, isn't it? Well, that's what we were living with at the time.

BLITZER: And you say al Qaeda is still here in the United States, plotting an even more spectacular attack?

TENET: Wolf, I say I don't know it. I can't prove it. My operational instinct is that this is the enduring target for them. That when 9/11 happened, one wave of terrorists came in.

They're a savvy intelligence organization. I don't know it, but my instinct tells me more people came here to settle and be patient and see whether we have the wherewithal and the vigilance to keep a system of domestic protection in place to deter them.

I worry about it. We're still the brass ring. They are determined to hurt us, commensurate with our standing as a superpower. That's what they want to do.

BLITZER: The book is entitled "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA". George Tenet, with Bill Harlow.

Thanks very much for coming in, Director.

TENET: Thanks very much, Wolf.

(END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: And coming up, the folk singer Joan Baez accusing the U.S. Army of banning her from a concert for U.S. troops. But the military has a very different story. We'll have both sides coming up.

Also, the great communicator, President Ronald Reagan. Excerpts of his personal diary now going public. You're going to be surprised to hear some of this.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: There's a growing controversy involving the folk singer Joan Baez and the U.S. Army. She wasn't able to perform at a concert for wounded troops. The question is, why?

Let's turn to our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

Jamie, what are both sides saying?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, Joan Baez clearly thinks she was persona non grata on the Walter Reed campus, but the Army insists it was nothing personal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice over): John Mellencamp won praise for how at his Friday night concert for wounded troops at Walter Reed he stuck to singing and muzzled his criticism of the Iraq war. But his friend, antiwar activist Joan Baez, has put politics back on center stage with a letter to "The Washington Post" alleging she was banned from appearing at the event at the last minute.

Baez writes that while she stands as firmly against the Iraq War as she did the Vietnam War, she regrets having ignored the needs of returning veterans and realizes now she might have contributed to a better welcome home. And she calls it a "strange irony" that four days before the concert she was not approved by the Army to take part.

The Army insists there's nothing strange about it. They simply didn't know Joan Baez and Dan Rather were also invited to appear until after a contract with HDNetwork, which was broadcasting the concert, had been finalized.

A spokesman for Walter Reed told CNN, "The notion Ms. Baez was 'banned' is certainly not the case. She is welcome here. I don't know of anybody who is banned."

A spokesman for Mellencamp confirmed to CNN that Joan Baez' name was not submitted until the Monday before the Friday concert, but said that's when they had planned to deal with specifics. The Army insisted that was simply too late to change the complicated arrangements.

Joan Baez sings a duet with Mellencamp on his current album, "Freedom's Road". At the concert he simply dedicated that song to his friend Joan without any fanfare.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: Now, Wolf, a spokesman for John Mellencamp, Bob Murla (ph), said it doesn't appear that there's any political litmus test to get into Walter Reed. In fact, he noted that Mellencamp himself was against the war and "they let him in" -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie, thanks very much.

Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.

Up ahead, the diaries of Ronald Reagan. Our Frank Sesno has the excerpts. Stay with us for that.

And later, the Republican presidential hopefuls revealing what they'd want to have with them if stranded on a desert island. We're going to tell you who has the most practical answer.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Today perhaps we're getting our best look yet inside the mind of former president Ronald Reagan. "Vanity Fair'" magazine is just out with exclusive excerpts from a new book based on handwritten diaries the president kept during his years here in Washington.

Our special correspondent, Frank Sesno, covered Ronald Reagan's presidency for CNN.

Frank, any big surprises?

FRANK SESNO, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, a few.

The diaries reveal Ronald Reagan, Wolf, really in stunning detail. And they show that he was far more engaged than many of his critics thought.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RONALD REAGAN, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I, Ronald Reagan, do solemnly swear...

SESNO (voice over): The actor-turned-president started keeping a diary the day of his inauguration in 1981, and almost never skipped a day. The entries ranging from the profound to the mundane. There's humor and emotion throughout.

He writes of driving through throngs in New York. "I wore my arm out waving back to them. I pray constantly I won't let them down."

An assassination attempt nearly killed him. The president remembers, "I walked into the emergency room and was hoisted onto a cart where I was stripped of my clothes. It was then we learned I'd been shot and had a bullet in my lung. Getting shot hurts."

The diaries are filled with references to politics and politicians, terrorism and tax cuts. Of the dramatic 1986 summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, when both countries' nuclear arsenals were on the table, Reagan writes about his refusal to kill Star Wars, his dream of a shield against incoming missiles.

"I pledged I wouldn't give away SDI, and I didn't. But that meant no deal. I was mad. He tried to act jovial, but I acted mad and it showed."

There is much, much more. The diaries reveal rifts with his children. One time, his son Ron hung up on him. "End of a not perfect day."

After his daughter Patty screamed about the Secret Service protection invading her privacy, he wrote, "Insanity is hereditary. And you catch it from your kids."

But something is constant. His devotion to Nancy shines through again and again. This entry from 1981: "Our wedding anniversary, 29 years of more happiness than any man could rightly deserve."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SESNO: And Nancy has custody of her husband's diaries now. They're the only daily presidential diaries in American history. She let historian Douglas Brinkley edit and abridge them. The result, the Reagan dairies will be published in about three weeks -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Do these diaries surprise you as someone who covered that whole era?

SESNO: And been to the Reagan Library and read his private documents. Yes and no.

Yes, they surprised me in their detail. They are so rich with specifics of what was happening one day to the next.

No. We know he was a prolific writer. We know he may have written as many as 10,000 letters to ordinary citizens during his presidency.

BLITZER: What struck you as most poignant in the excerpts you've seen?

SESNO: Wolf, I think what struck me as I read these excerpts that were most poignant is his writing around the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 -- 241 American servicemen lost their lives ultimately in that. He wrote, "We all believe the Iranians did this bombing." A day later he wrote, "Lebanon gets worse as the death toll climbs."

But where you really see it is after he came back from a memorial service with the families. He writes this: "Sometimes the widows or mothers would just put their arms around me, their head on my chest and quietly cry. One little boy, 8 or 9, politely handed me a manila folder, saying it was something he had written about his father. Later, when I could read it, I found it was a poem entitled 'Loneliness.'"

It almost chokes you up to read this.

You know, after the bombing, after the barracks bombing, Reagan stood firm and said, "America's not leaving." Four months later, we were out.

BLITZER: Frank Sesno, our special correspondent.

Thanks very much.

Up ahead, Jack Cafferty and your e-mail. Why would women be tougher on a female candidate for president?

And in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour, he made headlines as he came out as the country's first gay governor. You're probably going to be surprised at what Jim McGreevey wants to do now. That's coming up in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Lou Dobbs getting ready for his show that begins right at the top of the hour. He's also getting ready for a primetime special at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

First of all, what are you working on at the top of the hour, Lou?

LOU DOBBS, HOST, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT": Wolf, thanks.

We're coming to you live from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, tonight. Here for a special report at 8:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN, "Broken Borders".

Coming up at the top of the hour on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT," we'll be reporting on new efforts for the White House and congressional Democrats to reach a compromise on war funding. Will Democrats drop their demand for a timetable for withdrawal? House majority leader Congressman Steny Hoyer is among our guests tonight.

Also tonight, our food supply at risk from dangerous imports. The federal government cutting the budget and staff for food inspections. And incredibly, the man in charge at the FDA says, don't worry, our food safety system isn't broken.

We'll have that special report.

And Congress, with the full support of the Bush administration, is determined to impose illegal alien amnesty on American citizens. Two lawmakers have introduced that amnesty legislation. Congressman Jeff Flake and Congressman Luis Gutierrez are among our guests.

We hope you'll join us for that, a great deal more, all the day's news, at 6:00 p.m. Eastern, at the top of the hour. Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: And very quickly, Lou, why Hazleton, Pennsylvania?

DOBBS: Hazleton, Pennsylvania, Wolf, is at the epicenter, and a metaphor, really, for all of the communities in this country trying to deal with the impact of illegal immigration. A problem, a crisis, really, across the nation.

Hazleton has been among the first to pass ordinances to limit hiring of illegal aliens and providing housing for illegal aliens. That case in court.

We're going to meet with the entire community here. All views will be represented in that special report coming up at 8:00 p.m. tonight.

BLITZER: Sounds good, Lou. Thanks very much.

Let's check in with Jack Cafferty. He's in New York -- Jack.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: The question this hour, Wolf, is why would women be tougher on a female candidate for president?

Ernest in New York, "Women know that if a female makes it to the White House, and she happens to mess up during her time as president, that women will never be thought of as capable of anything besides a good muffin recipe. It will do for women's rights what Cochran did for black-white relations in the O.J. trial, set it back 50 years."

Pam in Connecticut writes, "Hi, Jack. I really don't believe women are tougher on another woman. As a woman, I've always believed that females are better candidates for political office. The lack of testosterone keeps the aggression at bay; thereby letting them think with their brains instead of their male counterparts who tend to think with other parts of their anatomy."

Jane in Texas, "Women expect more from a female candidate because they simply don't expect much at all from a man."

Ouch.

Marie in Florida, "I think women are intimidated by a woman in power, especially those raised in an era when women didn't hold such positions. Such a strong woman may invalidate the lives they lead, particularly those who have sacrificed their education and careers for their spouses and families."

Barbara in Arizona writes, "One standard I respect is a woman who leaves an abusive husband. In Hillary's case, she sets a bad example for abused women. Had she left Bill, as a woman I would have some respect for her. She shows poor judgment."

Sarah writes, "I don't know why, but men have had their chance since 1871. And look where we are now." And Guy in Michigan writes, "Jack, every woman knows exactly what every other woman is thinking at all times. They are telepathically linked with each other. That's why if several women were locked in a room together, homicide would occur."

If you didn't see your e-mail here, you can go to cnn.com/caffertyfile. We post a bunch more of these online, and there are also video clips of this if you're having trouble disciplining your dog -- Wolf.

BLITZER: A very popular feature with our viewers, Jack. Thank you.

Coming up next, if you were trapped on a desert island, what would you want with you? Find out how the Republican presidential candidates responded.

Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Stranded on a desert island, what one item would you want? We have the answers from the Republican presidential candidates. And some are quite revealing. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: If you were going to be stranded on a desert island, what would you want to bring? The Associated Press put that question to presidential candidates.

Last hour we showed you what the Democrats said. This hour, the Republicans.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani says a book and some music. Senator John McCain of Arizona says just books. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney says he'd bring his wife, as did Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee wants a laptop with satellite reception. And get this -- Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, his desert island necessity? A boat.

Smart.

We're here in THE SITUATION ROOM weekday afternoons, 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Eastern, back for another hour in one hour at 7:00 p.m. Eastern.

Until then, thanks for joining us.

"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.

 

===================

Perle: ‘I Never Believed Saddam Was Responsible For 9/11?

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed former Iraq war architect Richard Perle to get his response to accusations by George Tenet that he was advocating an attack against Iraq in the days after 9/11. Perle acknowledged meeting Tenet a week after 9/11 at the White House, but claimed he never conversed with Tenet. Perle then said, “I never believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.”

But CNN played a clip from 9/16/01 that showed Perle telling the network:

Even if we cannot prove to the standard that we enjoy in our own civil society they are involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden. That can be documented.

There is more strong evidence that Perle was advocating a war against Iraq shortly after 9/11. As ThinkProgress has noted, Perle signed a letter to President Bush on 9/20/01 that stated the following:

[E]ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Moreover, conservative pundit Robert Novak recalls in a column today:

Over the telephone on Sept. 17, Perle told this column that there were few good targets in Afghanistan but many in Iraq. Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense, was then chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.

After thoroughly trashing Tenet, Perle later in the same interview cited him as a source for a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. “There was a relationship,” Perle said. “It has not only been documented, as I said in the clip. But George Tenet himself has written a letter that indicates this.”

Tenet did indeed write a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 claiming an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. But Tenet recently told Blitzer, “We were sloppy in that letter.”

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/04/perle-lies/

'Black Ops' Implicated in Jill Carroll Kidnapping


'Black Ops' Implicated in Jill Carroll Kidnapping

by Fintan Dunne, BreakForNews.com
12 January, 2006 14:00GMT


There are clear signs that the kidnapping of the still-missing American journalist, Jill Carroll was a political act closely tied to U.S. interests relating to the Sunni opposition in Iraq.

The 28-year-old freelancer for The Christian Science Monitor was ambushed by gunmen in Baghdad last Saturday morning. Her Iraqi interpreter, who carried press ID was killed during the incident. No group has claimed responsibility.

On the face of it just another of Iraq's many kidnappings. But when we examine the timing, location and events subsequent to the abduction, they point to collusion involving the U.S. --or worse still, an American-inspired 'Black Ops' gambit.

The very day Jill Carroll was taken, President Jalal Talabani said that Iraq's political groups could form a coalition government within weeks. Forming a government including Sunnis is a key American goal because it could rob the resistance of political support. But the Association of Muslim Scholars(AMS), which is the intellectual backbone of the Iraqi resistance, is a significant impediment to the formation of such a government.

The following day, Sunday morning, before dawn and ahead of a meeting between Talibani and Adnan al-Dulaimi, the leader of the largely Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, U.S. troops raided the Umm al-Qora mosque complex, headquarters of the AMS. They used explosive charges used to blow out door locks, smashed windows, arrested half a dozen people and ransacked offices.

Later that Sunday, following that high-level meting with President Talibani, al-Dulaimi said significant progress had been made in their efforts to form a government of national unity. "Talabani and I have an identical point of view regarding the formation of a national unity government based on consensus,'' al-Dulaimi said.

To one AMS suporter, the motivation for the raid was clear.

"This crime came as punishment for the association's position on the occupation and its position on the latest elections," said Sheik Younis al-Ekaidi.

But the U.S. military told Agence France Presse that the raid was linked to the hunt for Jill Carroll. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman, said the raid was ordered "as a direct result of a tip by an Iraqi civilian that activities related to the kidnapping were being carried out inside the mosque." However, giving the lie to this U.S. claim, as Aljazeera reported, on the same Sunday morning U.S. and Iraqi forces raided villages in Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. The villages are the home of the Zowba tribe to which Shaikh Harith al-Dhari, who heads the Association of Muslim Scholars belongs.

The AMS have always been a significant player in Iraqi resistance politics , and a thorn in the side of U.S ambitions in Iraq. BreakForNews.com was the only Western media outlet to report that in January, 2004 then US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte met with AMS leader Dr. Al-Dhari, to discuss Iraqi security and the upcoming elections to which the AMS was opposed. The account of their meeting was carried in an interview with Al-Dhari by Mohamed Al-Anwar, published in the Jan 20-26 edition of Cairo's Al-Ahram.

Al-Dhari said the meeting had been arranged through French diplomats at Negroponte's request. He confirmed that his group offered to reverse its position on the election, once given a timetable for an American forces withdrawal.

That meeting is a sign of the pivotal role of the AMS, and opens up another possibile motivation for last Sunday's U.S. raids. That they were part of a 'carrot and stick' strategy to pressure al-Dhari and the AMS, while simultaneously hacking a deal with al-Dulaimi's wing of Sunni political expression.

And that the claimed search for Jill Carroll was the convenient pretext on which to raid the mosque. Which raises the question of who exactly abducted the reporter, with such exquisite political timing.


THE PERFECT AMBUSH

The kidnapping of Jill Carroll took place within yards of the office of Adnan al-Dulaimi, whom Carroll had been scheduled to interview at 10 a.m. Saturday, according to her driver.

Mr. al-Dulaimi, however, never showed up for the interview. After 25 minutes, Carroll and her interpreter left. They were waylaid as they drove away from his offices.

"It was very obvious this was by design," said the driver. "The whole operation took no more than a quarter of a minute. It was very highly organized. It was a setup, a perfect ambush."

One kidnapper pulled the driver from the car, jumped in, and drove away with others crammed into the rear of the vehicle around Carroll and her interpreter. "They didn't give me any time to even put the car in neutral," the driver said.


The body of the interpreter, Allan Enwiyah, 32, was later found in the same neighborhood. He had been shot twice in the head. He was discovered by one of the guards stationed outside Dulaimi's office, who told AFP he heard nearby gunshots and rushed to find the body.

Media reports say Jill Carroll's car was stopped about 300 yards from al-Dulaimi's office. But the Washington Post is likely more correct to put the distance at a few hundred feet. The driver said he hadn't gone far enough to shift the car beyond third gear, and that he initially thought the men were guards clearing the route for a convoy going to or from the office of al-Dulaimi.

So what if the kidnappers were indeed connected to al-Dulaimi?

AFP reports that al-Dulaimi himself told the agency he had no appointment to meet a Western journalist. But who better to arrange the false meeting which lured the journalist to the site of the kidnapping than some al-Dulaimi staffer? And once in the web, she would never leave the environs of al-Dulaimi's offices.

Of course, one could argue that all this may have been an idea concocted by al-Dulaimi or his associates. And that the alleged tipoff to U.S. foces which led to the raid on the AMS headquarters was another ploy by the same elements.

But, U.S. commanders are unlikely to be so dumb as to fall for a transparent smear, and then mount a high-profile raid on the politically-sensitive AMS mosque --all without realizing they were being made dance to someone else's political tune.

Plus there is the matter of the simultaneous U.S. raid on the AMS leader's home village.

It looks like either the U.S. was willingly used, or because it suited their agenda anyway, that more likely some Black Ops element of U.S. forces were in on the upcoming abduction from the start.

Either way, it doesn't look good for Jill Carroll, who has been kidnapped in the same part of Baghdad where Margaret Hassan, an aid official, was abducted in 2004. Hassan has never been released and is believed killed by her abductors. A great friend to ordinary Iraqis, Hassan's abduction has been tainted by similar suspicions about U.S. Black Ops involvement.

It's not a good omen.


A VERY HUMAN REPORTER


Jill Carroll herself authored two articles for the Christian Science Monitor in April of last year, which are tragically ironic in retrospect.

One entitled "Iraq's rising industry: domestic kidnapping" was about the discovery of the bodies of 50 alleged kidnapping victims in the Tigris River.

She quoted one victim of a kidnapping by extremist Sunnis, who told her: "I could never imagine some day I will face such a tragedy."

They are words she might well use herself today -if she is still alive.

She also wrote an article about Californian Marla Ruzicka, the head of an NGO who died with her Iraqi driver when their car was caught between a suicide car bomber and a US military convoy. In the article she revealed personal feelings which belie the image of a hard-nosed journalist oblivious to danger:





"One of my favorite memories of her was when I was sitting in the middle of the Palestine Hotel lobby in Baghdad, surrounded by a confusing swirl of soldiers, officials, and reporters. Fear swept over me. What was I doing here? I had come as a freelancer, with no experience covering a war. Just as I was quietly freaking out, Marla appeared in the dusty, harried scene. She was the picture of calm in a perfect French braid and long blue dress. She was like a breeze blowing through, so tranquil, so clean.

Later in the fall of 2003 when I moved here and was despairing of my sputtering freelance work she would always say, "Jill, good for you. You're working so hard. I'm so proud of you."...

My friend Scott... said no one had heard from Marla since about 2 o'clock that afternoon. The other journalists and I all feared a kidnapping. Then we got a call from the US military saying a woman fitting her description had been in an accident, ....they said the woman was dead on arrival.

The only thing we can say now is at least she died doing what she wanted, doing what she really, really believed in."

"All I ever wanted to be was a foreign correspondent," Carroll wrote last year in the American Journalism Review. She too was doing what she wanted.

I never knew her. But as a journalist I can only echo Marla's words to her:

"Jill, good for you. You're working so hard. I'm so proud of you."


References:
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/NegroponteMeetsResistanceScholars.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D398BD63-B112-4FB4-BA87-EFA94D6B8243.htm
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001809093
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2006/01/09/AR2006010902078_pf.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5532085,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/p01s04-woiq.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060107/wl_afp/iraq_060107130813
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0422/p06s01-woiq.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/21780/

-------
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/

http://911review.org/news/Iraq_torture_abuse_jails.html

http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesPearl.shtml

FOR LOVE AND BLOOD MONEY


FOR LOVE AND BLOOD MONEY

"Everybody knows Northrop Grumman and G.E., but if you went out on the street and asked who the top 10 [defense] contractors are, I can guarantee you that SAIC would not be one of them."
~ Glenn Grossenbacher, in "Washington's $8 Billion Shadow".


Last Thursday, I posted a link to a long article on the Wolfowitz scandal from The New Yorker and carried at Truthout, noting that the article suggested that Wolfowitz had been appointed to the World Bank in an effort to keep events in Iraq moving according to the Bush Administration playbook.

More on that has come out today, from the NYTimes:


The Defense Department directed a private contractor in 2003 to hire Shaha Ali Riza, a World Bank employee and the companion of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense, to spend a month studying issues related to setting up a new government in Iraq, the contractor said Monday.

The contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC, said that it had been directed to hire Ms. Riza by the office of the under secretary for policy. The head of that office at the time was Douglas J. Feith, who reported to Mr. Wolfowitz.

After her trip to Iraq, Ms. Riza briefed members of the executive board of the World Bank on efforts to rebuild after the American invasion and specifically on the status of Iraqi women, according to Ms. Riza’s supervisor at the time.


All of this is very loaded. For example, SAIC is perhaps one of the worst corporate parasites sucking blood money out of Iraq. Check this excellent rundown on the SAIC bloodsuckers at in a Vanity Fair article from last month:


The company's annual revenues, almost all of which come from the federal government, approached $8 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, and they are continuing to climb. SAIC's goal is to reach as much as $12 billion in revenues by 2008. As for the financial yardstick that really gets Wall Street's attention—profitability—SAIC beats the S&P 500 average. Last year ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, posted a return on revenue of 11 percent. For SAIC the figure was 11.9 percent. If "contract backlog" is any measure—that is, contracts negotiated and pending—the future seems assured. The backlog stands at $13.6 billion. That's one and a half times more than the backlog at KBR Inc., a subsidiary of the far better known government contractor once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Halliburton Company.


And since we just celebrated Tax Day in the US, check this out:


It is a simple fact of life these days that, owing to a deliberate decision to downsize government, Washington can operate only by paying private companies to perform a wide range of functions. To get some idea of the scale: contractors absorb the taxes paid by everyone in America with incomes under $100,000. In other words, more than 90 percent of all taxpayers might as well remit everything they owe directly to SAIC or some other contractor rather than to the IRS.


How much did you donate last year to SAIC's war industry welfare?


What everyone agrees on is this: No Washington contractor pursues government money with more ingenuity and perseverance than SAIC. No contractor seems to exploit conflicts of interest in Washington with more zeal. And no contractor cloaks its operations in greater secrecy. SAIC almost never touts its activities in public, preferring to stay well below the radar.


Naturally, there's a link to what Sibel Edmonds has referred to as Dime-a-Dozen Generals:


Civilians at SAIC used to joke that the company had so many admirals and generals in its ranks it could start its own war. Some might argue that, in the case of Iraq, it did.

[ . . . ]

SAIC executives have been involved at every stage of the life cycle of the war in Iraq. SAIC personnel were instrumental in pressing the case that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the first place, and that war was the only way to get rid of them. Then, as war became inevitable, SAIC secured contracts for a broad range of operations in soon-to-be-occupied Iraq. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, SAIC personnel staffed the commission that was set up to investigate how American intelligence could have been so disastrously wrong.


It's all an inside job, and a completely cynical one at that. There's more backgrounder on SAIC at CorpWatch, and a search of that site for "Science Applications International Corporation" reveals more info. Then there's a listing at Sourcewatch.

Another connection between the Wolfowitz girlfriend scandal and Sibel's information is the mention of Douglas Feith. In the NYTimes article, once again Feith feigns Alzheimer's disease by claiming that he can't recall a damned thing about ordering Wolfowitz's main squeeze to be hired by SAIC or to be sent to Iraq. Of course, "Doug Feith's International Advisors Inc, a registered agent for Turkey in 1989 - 1994, netted $600,000 per year from Turkey . . ." as Lukery has previously posted, meaning that Feith is deep into the deep shit of the Deep State.

More on Feith's stupidity vis-a-vis Iraq here. Feith also cooked the books, so to speak, on the al-Qaeda/Saddam connection.

And what about Shaha Ali Riza? Well, for one thing, the arrangements Wolfowitz made for her put her in the State Department and increased her salary from $132,660/year to $193,590/year--with no donations to SAIC required because, not being a resident of the US, Riza paid no taxes on income. That tax-free salary definitely put her way over Condoleeza Rice, who earns $186,000 before taxes, according to the BBC.

Riza herself took to playing the helpless, innocent victim last week, an angle that the LATimes has begun to manufacture. But is Riza really so helpless or innocent?

The story is that Riza moved out of the World Bank to the State Department because Wolfowitz took over as the World Bank chief and you can't have that kind of conflict of interest at the World Bank. But with the news today of Doug Feith's involvement with this business, I suspect Riza's move was contrived to continue to facilitate blood money rolling in to war industry contractors, like SAIC, from Iraq. In the build-up to the Iraq war, there was considerable tension, if not downright hostility, between the State Department and CIA, and the Pentagon. Kanan Makiya talked about the hostility in a PBS Frontline interview in 2003. That hostility continued during the so-called reconstruction and continues this day through the neoconservative gang vs. Baker-Hamilton gang (read that as Pentagon gang vs. State/CIA gang).

If Wolfowitz was appointed to lead the World Bank in order to facilitate the Pentagon gang's interests in Iraq, then my money says Riza was moved to the State Department not to avoid a conflict of interest at the World Bank, but to keep tabs on the State Department's handling of Iraq for the Pentagon gang. That's the real reason why everyone's making a big deal of this affair.

With the big blood bucks of the war industry on the line in Iraq, the antagonism between the Pentagon gang and the State/CIA gang continues, only this time underground and with a mole--Shaha Ali Riza.

 -----------------------

Brad 

http://batcave911.blogspot.com/ 

Investigators Eye Broader White House Email Trail



    By Jason Leopold
    t r u t h o u t | Report

    Thursday 05 April 2007

    Last week, Justice Department documents turned over to a Congressional committee investigating circumstances behind the selective firing of seven US attorneys revealed that some Bush administration officials have primarily used email accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee to conduct official White House business. This appears to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

    The revelation that White House staffers used outside email accounts to conduct administration business comes on the heels of a report in the National Journal alleging that Karl Rove uses an RNC email address to conduct a majority of his duties as White House political adviser.

    Now Congressional investigators are taking a second look at public corruption cases it closed the books on. They'll try to determine if current and former White House officials were more deeply involved in scandals than previously known, and if so, whether administration officials used outside email accounts to cover up their involvement in cronyism or other malfeasance.

    Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, intends to get to the bottom of the issue.

    Citing Congress's investigation of White House contacts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff as an example of apparent misuse of outside email accounts, Waxman is seeking the deposition of Susan Ralston regarding communication she had via email with Abramoff. Ralston is a former assistant to White House political adviser Karl Rove. The questioned emails between Ralston and Abramoff concerned official White House business conducted through Ralston's RNC email address, according to documents released by Waxman's committee.

    Ralston, who was also an assistant to Abramoff prior to her tenure at the White House, told the lobbyist to contact her through her RNC email address concerning specific favors he requested from the White House on behalf of his clients, so as to avoid leaving an automatic paper trail that is established when White House email servers are used. Ralston hasn't yet responded to Waxman's request.

    In letters sent last week to the RNC and the Bush/Cheney 2004 Campaign, Congressman Waxman urged the two groups to preserve all emails sent by White House officials from their servers, because of their relevance to Congressional probes, including the US attorney scandal.

    "I am writing about email records in the possession of the Republican National Committee. Congressional investigations have revealed that White House officials have used nongovernmental email accounts, including those maintained by the RNC, to conduct official White House business," Waxman's letter states. "The Committee has questions about who has access to these email records and how the RNC protects them from destruction or tampering. The Committee also directs you to preserve all such records because of their potential relevance to Congressional investigations."

    Waxman added that emails released by the Justice Department in connection with the US attorney probe appeared to demonstrate that White House officials were using their RNC email accounts to circumvent the archives system.

    That statement has a familiar ring to it.

    In a story first reported by Truthout last year, in a federal court document filed in January 2006 in US District Court in Washington, DC, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed that his investigative team "learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." That document was filed during the discovery phase of the perjury and obstruction of justice trial against former vice presidential staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

    Less than two weeks after Fitzgerald revealed that emails from the White House were missing, 250 pages of emails from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's office were turned over to investigators working for the special prosecutor - more than two years after the investigation began.

    The White House offered no official explanation concerning the circumstances regarding the sudden reappearance of the emails it turned over to Fitzgerald on February 6, 2006, or if there was any truth to Fitzgerald's allegations that the emails were not automatically archived. At the time, a White House spokeswoman would only say that staffers "discovered" the batch of documents during a search.

    A number of theories emerged at the time in an attempt to explain why the emails were not preserved. Media reports settled on the idea that White House computers simply broke down and failed to archive the emails.

    However, Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, said in an interview with the Associated Press last year that the reason the White House offered to explain how the emails went missing "invites suspicion."

    "Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," Aftergood said. "A particular subset of records sought in a controversial prosecution have gone missing. I think what is needed is for the national archivist to ascertain what went wrong and how to ensure it won't happen again."

    A spokesperson for the National Archives did not return calls for comment.

    Fitzgerald's office would not comment on specific evidence in the case. A spokeswoman for Libby's defense attorney, Theodore Wells, said Wells would not address whether the emails he received during discovery contained RNC email addresses because Wells is preparing to file an appeal on behalf of his client. In February, a jury found Libby guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury.

    However, the revelation that administration officials used their RNC email accounts to keep tabs on the US attorney purge raises questions about whether emails in the Plame leak investigation were truly lost due to a computer failure or if they were actually sent by White House officials through the RNC servers.

    In the US attorney case, Rove's deputy and special assistant to the president, J. Scott Jennings, used an email address maintained by the RNC to query a Justice Department official in December about the timing of the firings, which left some members of Congress with the impression that Jennings was attempting to conceal White House involvement in the matter.

    The RNC, for its part, was heavily involved in the campaign that White House officials, including Karl Rove, undertook to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to win support for the Iraq war.

    The committee issued a set of "talking points" to reporters in July 2005, attacking Wilson and claiming that Rove was the victim of a "partisan attack." At the time, Rove was identified as one of the officials who leaked Plame's identity,

    The RNC would not respond to questions about Rove or other White House officials who came under scrutiny in the Plame leak, or whether those staffers used RNC accounts to discuss the case and as a result withheld evidence from the special prosecutor during the height of the probe.

    However, that scenario would certainly explain why Fitzgerald did not find a crucial email Rove sent to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley on July 11, 2003, that proved Rove was far more involved in the Plame controversy than he had let on during an appearance before a grand jury and in interviews with FBI investigators in the fall of 2003.

    FBI investigators obtained more than 10,000 pages of documents and emails from administration officials during the course of their investigation into the leak, but absent from the mountain of evidence was the July 11 email Rove sent to Hadley, saying he had a conversation with former Time reporter Matthew Cooper about Wilson.

    The conversation between Rove and Cooper took place before Robert Novak unmasked the covert CIA operative in a newspaper column on July 14, 2003. However, for nearly two years, Rove maintained that the first time he knew Plame worked for the CIA was when he read about it in Novak's report. Only after the story was published, Rove testified, did he discuss Plame with other reporters.

    However, in 2005, as Fitzgerald applied pressure to Cooper to testify about the identity of the source who told him that Plame worked for the CIA, Rove's attorney Robert Luskin made a startling discovery: he found the email Rove sent Hadley and turned it over to Fitzgerald.

    The Washington Post, citing an unnamed source, reported that Rove sent the email to Hadley from his government account and said it was "unclear" why the email did not turn up during a search in 2003.

    According to a report in Newsweek, FBI investigators did not initially find the email Rove sent to Hadley because "the right search words weren't used" two years ago, an explanation that seems highly unlikely.

    But if the National Journal story published two weeks ago is true, there is a 95 percent chance that the email was actually sent from Rove's RNC email address.

    While the communication between Rove and Hadley does not cover official White House business, and therefore it may not be improper if Rove did in fact send it from his RNC account, it still raises questions about whether Fitzgerald successfully secured all of the evidence related to Rove's involvement in the leak.

    Moreover, it raises questions about whether the RNC purged incriminating emails Rove sent from the committee's server regarding his prior knowledge of Plame's identity. It also leaves unresolved whether Rove knowingly withheld the email from investigators during early stages of the probe that centered primarily on securing emails from the White House server.

    According to a report published last week in PC World, White House spokesman David Almacy said setting up outside email accounts through the RNC for certain administration staffers was cleared by White House attorneys.

    The RNC email accounts "allow legitimate political activities to be conducted by appropriate staff members without using White House accounts, which would be illegal under the Hatch Act. 'It was specifically set up that way so that people weren't using their official accounts for political activities,' he said. Only certain White House staff members have such outside accounts, including those who regularly communicate with outside political groups," Almacy told PC world.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040507J.shtml 

http://batcave911.blogspot.com/ 

Pat Tillman's family speaks out against latest whitewash of "friendly fire" killing in Afghanistan Human beings continue to be s


Pat Tillman’s family speaks out against latest whitewash of “friendly fire” killing in Afghanistan

“Human beings continue to be sacrificed on the altar of a dual military occupation”

By Tom Carter
29 March 2007

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The family of Patrick Tillman, a victim of “friendly fire” in the war in Afghanistan, spoke out strongly against the US military’s latest efforts to gloss over as “missteps” what they described as “criminal negligence, professional misconduct, battlefield incompetence, concealment and destruction of evidence, deliberate deception, and conspiracy to deceive” in his death.

In a statement to the press on March 26, the family of the slain football star and US Army Ranger condemned the findings released on Monday of an 18-month probe conducted by the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General into Pat Tillman’s April 2004 death. Characterizing the findings of the military’s fifth investigation into the matter, the family said, “The truth is not what we received today. Once again, we are being used as props in a Pentagon public relations exercise.”

“We remain convinced,” they continued, “that the priority of the Pentagon was to prevent the public knowing that Pat was killed by the military’s highest priority shock infantry unit, and that he was killed by a combination of shoddy leadership and clear violations of the Rules of Engagement, as well as violations of the Law of Land Warfare.”

The family appealed to Congress to investigate Tillman’s case, as well as the cases of other soldiers killed by fratricide in Iraq and Afghanistan. “These cases will further establish a pattern—now well-known by the American public—of spin and deception by the Pentagon and the administration it serves,” Tillman’s family argued.

Patrick Tillman, a star athlete for the Arizona Cardinals with a multimillion-dollar contract, left his lucrative position on the team to join the military in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. He was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004.

On May 3 of that year, at a nationally televised public memorial service in San Jose, Tillman’s final minutes were described as a heroic standoff with Taliban insurgents. A Navy SEAL that had previously served with Tillman in Iraq reported that Tillman had ordered members of his platoon “to seize the tactical high ground from the enemy ... Pat sacrificed his life so that others could live.”

Tillman was even posthumously awarded the Silver Star, the second highest US military decoration for valor, and promoted to corporal. The Pentagon statement accompanying the award declared, “He ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Rangers up a hill near the enemy’s location ... As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing positions and personally provided suppressive fire ... Tillman’s voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces.”

Following his death, the military seized every opportunity to promote Tillman as an all-American hero in the “war on terror,” someone who had everything and gave it all up to valiantly fight and die for his country. Patriotic observances were made at sporting events, and the official story of his death was endlessly repeated and embellished in the media. President Bush called Tillman “an inspiration on and off the football field.”

However, after numerous probes, investigations, and interviews with eyewitnesses, it became clear that the official military account of Tillman’s death was pure fiction. Tillman was killed by friendly fire in a bungled operation with numerous features the military found too embarrassing to be made public.

On April 22, 2004, Tillman’s 34-man platoon—2nd Platoon, A Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment—was ordered to split up after one Humvee out of nine carrying the platoon broke down on the tenth day of a sweep operation near Khost in the Paktia province of Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border.

Half the platoon was instructed to proceed to the village of Manah, while the remainder stayed behind with the inoperative Humvee to wait for a local tow truck. The platoon commander, Lt. David Uthlaut, objected to the order to split up his platoon, but was ignored. The Washington Post in December 2005 suggested that Manah had no military significance, but that the top brass in the operation wanted to record the village as an achieved objective sooner rather than later.

Uthlaut went with half of the platoon towards Manah through a canyon, and left Sgt. Greg Baker in charge of the second half, which waited for a tow truck to pick up the disabled vehicle. Patrick Tillman went with Uthlaut, while his brother, Kevin Tillman, who was serving in the same unit, stayed with Baker’s group. Uthlaut also left a .50-caliber machine gun, the platoon’s heaviest weapon, behind with Baker’s group, which would be more vulnerable to attack.

Uthlaut’s group made it out of the canyon without incident, but the high walls of the canyon rendered radio contact between the two groups impossible. After the tow truck arrived, Baker’s group followed.

Before it could leave the canyon, however, Baker’s group was ambushed. According to the military version of events, insurgents attacked with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades as well as land mines or improvised bombs. The Los Angeles Times, however, reported in December of 2004 that there were no insurgents present; Baker’s group simply panicked after hitting land mines. Whatever the case, Baker’s group raced to extricate itself from the canyon.

When Uthlaut heard the explosions, he ordered his men to turn around and rushed back into the canyon to rescue the rest of the platoon. Patrick Tillman, knowing his brother was in Baker’s group, got out of his Humvee and led a three-man fire team on foot up a ridge in an attempt to flank any attackers. However, as he and two other soldiers, including one native Afghani with a full beard, came into view of the embattled Rangers in Baker’s group, they were mistaken for insurgents.

At 100 meters, soldiers from Baker’s group opened fire with the .50-caliber machine gun, killing the Afghani soldier instantly. Patrick Tillman and the other soldier dove flat on the ground. Tillman tried to identify himself, shouting “Cease fire! Friendlies!” over the shooting and throwing a signal grenade. The firing stopped momentarily, and believing that he had been recognized, Tillman stood up, waving his arms. He was immediately gunned down.

Uthlaut’s soldiers ultimately identified themselves by firing flares continuously into the air and by throwing smoke grenades. The only surviving soldier of Tillman’s fire team described a “river of blood” coming from Tillman’s body; his “head was gone.” Uthlaut himself, as well as his radio operator, were wounded in the fighting.

The military could not allow this version of events to reach the American public, even though more than a dozen soldiers involved in the fighting, Tillman’s immediate superiors, and high-ranking officers at a command post nearby knew within hours that his death was accidental.

One of the more unpleasant facts among many concerning the incident is that the Rangers apparently did not hesitate to turn a .50-caliber machine gun on a man waving his hands in the air when they believed he was an insurgent. An Army report sent out the day of his death said that Tillman had died in the medical treatment facility after his vehicle came under “direct and indirect fire” from insurgents.

What remained of Tillman’s clothes and equipment was burned as “biohazard,” soldiers were instructed not to talk about the incident, and Kevin Tillman was not told until after the operation was over that his brother had been killed. Kevin Tillman was subsequently flown back to the States with his brother’s body, but was still not given an explanation of his death.

Following the latest investigation, a number of military personnel have been cited for certain errors and “missteps,” and the documents surrounding the Silver Star award have been found to exhibit “deficiencies.” Tillman’s family has rejected these results, calling them an “attempt to impose closure by slapping the wrists of a few officers and enlisted men” and “another bureaucratic entrenchment.”

“Human beings continue to be sacrificed on the altar of a dual military occupation,” the family declared. “Thousands of Americans and Afghans, hundreds of US allies, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis’ lives have been lost and shattered. We say these things with disappointment and sadness for our country.”

See Also:
Soldiers, families speak at Walter Reed public hearing
Government indifference, cost-cutting compound ravages of war for wounded US troops
[15 March 2007]
Walter Reed scandal lifts lid on neglect of wounded US troops
[10 March 2007]

Top of pagehttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/till-m29.shtml =============================

New Logic for the war in Iraq.

http://911review.stumbleupon.com/review/8926262/

 

If the US attacks Iran....: George Bush's "Samson Option"


If the US attacks Iran....: George Bush's "Samson Option"



Global Research, March 7, 2007
 
 

The Samson Option is terminology used to explain Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as an ultimate defense strategy if its leaders feel threatened enough to think they have no alternative. It comes from the biblical Samson said to have used his great strength to bring down the pillars of a Philistine temple, downing its roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistine tormentors. It's a strategy saying if you try killing me, we'll all die together, or put another way, we'll all go together when we go. Richard Wagner had his apocalyptic version in the last of his four operas of Der Ring des Nibelungen - Gotterdammerung, or Twilight of the Gods based on Norse mythology referring to a prophesied war of the Gods resulting in the end of the world.

The Bush Doctrine isn't that extreme, and it's not the intent of this essay to suggest its unintended consequences may turn out that way even though the threat it may is real if they start firing off enough nukes like they're king-sized hand grenades. The Doctrine refers to the administration's foreign policy first aired by George Bush in his commencement speech to the West Point graduating class in June, 2002. It was later formalized in The National Security Strategy of September, 2002 and updated in more extreme form in early 2006 that makes for scary reading not recommended at bedtime. It mentions Iran in it 16 times stating: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran" while failing to acknowledge what Pogo said about us on an Earth Day poster in 1970 and in a 1972 book titled - "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us."

The updated NSS details an "imperial grand strategy" with new language more belligerent than the original version that was intended to be a declaration of preemptive or preventive war against any country or force the administration claims threatens our national security. It followed from our Nuclear Policy Review of December, 2001 claiming a unilateral right to declare and wage future wars using first strike nuclear weapons that in enough numbers potentially can destroy all planetary life, save maybe some resilient roaches and bacteria. In still other national security documents, the administration intends being ready by maintaining total control over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to defeat any potential challengers using all weapons in the arsenal, including those nukes masquerading as king-sized grenades.

The doctrine got its baptism in Afghanistan right after the 9/11 attacks and before the 2002 NSS was released. It then played out in real time "shock and awe" force (without nukes) in Iraq that seemed to work like a charm until it didn't. That brings us to today and an administration feeling cornered by failure and needing to change the subject and get a victory in the face of major defeat or at least buy enough time to run out the clock on its tenure so a new administration can take over and deal with the mess left over. It'll be king-sized if the audible war drums now beating are for real.

Enter Iran to play dual roles for the Bush administration plus the same one always center stage when strategic resources are at stake. It's the designated target to pull George Bush's Middle East fat out of the fire and fulfill our 28 year commitment to regime change in the country since its 1979 revolution ousted Shah Reza Pahlavi whom we installed to replace democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 in the CIA's first-ever go at regime change. Those events began and ended the same way - violently, but if George Bush proceeds as he's now threatening, they'll seem like tempest-in-teapot prologues to the main event ahead looking like full scale war large enough to engulf the whole region and entire Muslim world with it.

CIA's assessment is blunt. If the US attacks Iran, Southern Shia Iraq will light up like a candle and explode uncontrollably throughout the country. CIA ought to know and likely concluded big trouble won't just be in Iraq, Shia Islam and the Middle East. It may show up anywhere including a neighborhood near you but not to express reconciliation and friendship.

Washington's other motive is no mystery to anyone knowing why we attacked and now occupy Iraq. It had nothing to do with nonexistent weapons and everything to do with removing a leader unwilling to accept our imperial management rules whose country happens to have the fourth largest and easily accessible proven oil reserves in the world we want to control. The joke goes - how did our oil end up under his sand. The same is true for Iran and has since 1979. The country's leaders reject our rules, and it too has easily accessible oil reserves that are the world's third largest behind Saudi Arabia and Canada (including the country's heavy reserves). Further, both countries have vast untapped more of them adding to their allure and Washington's determination to control them alone to have veto power over who gets access.

If the US attacks Iran, all bets are off on what's to come. The echoes of Waterloo could turn George Bush's Middle East adventurism into his inadvertent Samson option by expanding the Iraq conflict to a regional one with impossible to predict consequences that won't be good for Western interests and especially US ones. It will inflame the region and produce a tsunami of Shia rage and solidarity enough to inflame and unite the whole Muslim world in fierce opposition to America, its culture and people. It may irrevocably transform the region making it unwelcome for decades or longer to anything Western that only arrives for what it can take and doesn't take no for an answer.

It's backlash may also affect the administration and its party as unintended fallout from an ill-conceived adventure gone sour and beyond repair. And it may have further unintended consequences as well - the painful blowback kind from angry people striking back in catastrophic payback ways far harsher than ever before. It could be a dirty bomb or two detonated in one more US cities or a nuclear reactor core meltdown from sabotage or attack releasing lethal radiation in amounts great enough to make downwind areas from it forever uninhabitable. Imagine a nightmarish vision of New York or Chicago (surrounded by 11 aging nuclear power plants) as ghost towns, their structures intact but unfit to be occupied.

There is a macabre bright side, however, once past the onslaught if it comes and its aftermath. In six years, the Bush administration achieved the near-impossible. It made the US a pariah state alienating the whole Muslim world and vast numbers more everywhere including growing numbers at home with George Bush's approval rating at numbers approaching the lowest ever for a US president. Its policies of permanent war on the world, repression at home, entrenched corruption, worship of wealth and privilege, and indifference to human needs and the people he was elected to serve already destroyed any notion the country is a model democratic state or that Bush and his neocon fanatics should be governing it. Their imperial arrogance accelerated the country's fading global hegemony well advanced since the 1970s and likely irreversible. They buried the nation's influence and dominance in Iraq's smoldering sands and Afghanistan's rubble that are now both graveyards for US ambitions in those regions and beyond.

Attacking Iran will just make things far worse. It would be a fanatical "hail Mary" act of insanity that by one definition is repeating the same mistakes, expecting different results. It has no more chance of success than our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if nuclear weapons are used, including so-called low-yield ones, it will be an appalling crime against humanity and catastrophic event potentially affecting millions in the region by radiation poisoning alone. If it happens, it will irreversibly weaken US influence and credibility everywhere accelerating our decline even faster toward second-class status and loss of world leadership already hanging by a thread. It could also be a potentially lethal blow to the benefits of "Western civilization" always arriving through the barrel of a gun and thuggish heel of a colonizer's boot with the US having the biggest barrels and largest shoe sizes.

Key US players know the risks and want our losses cut before it's too late to act. They want an end to war, not more of it in a strategically vital world region too important to lose while fearing it's likely too late. The National Intelligence Estimate supports them believing the war in Iraq is unwinnable, transforming the country into a pro-American state impossible, and the president's notion of victory illusory. George Bush ignores its assessment and presses on.

Reports by Seymour Hersh and others now say the administration wants to weaken the Bashir Assad-led Syrian government's alliance with Iran and further undermine Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon and the region by funding Sunni extremist groups with known ties to al-Queda in what's called a "redirection program." It's the brainchild of Dick Cheney/Elliott Abrams (of Iran-Contra notoriety)/Zalmay Khalilzad/Condi Rice/Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan/Israeli elements & Co. with CIA's hands are all over it covertly beyond Congress' reach. It includes a larger effort, with Saudi help, to fund and unleash Sunni extremist elements against Tehran at the same time Washington is preparing to include Iran and Syria in regional discussions on the situation in Iraq. It proves again duplicity and shameless hypocrisy are never in short supply in Washington. They're only topped by the neocon leadership's crazed strategy to make a hopeless Middle East debacle catastrophic.

The Concocted Myth of Iran's Threat

The ancient Persian empire became Iran on March 21, 1935. From that time till now, Iran obeyed international law, never occupied a foreign territory, and never threatened or attacked another state beyond occasional border skirmishes over unsettled disputes of the kinds other nations engage in that are far short of all out wars. It only had full-scale conflict defensively after Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion in September, 1980 backed, equipped and financially aided by Washington that included supplying chemical and biological weapon precursors and crucial intelligence on Iranian field positions and force strength.



Free Cook Books
Recipe Chief has 23 Free Cook Books.
News, Videos, Forums, Chat
Truthhub.com; a network of truthseekers...
Deals on Top 9/11 Books, DVDs
Synthetic Terror, 9/11 Mysteries, etc. 911 Truth!
Look Back DVD
Escape with a Movie Tonight
Free Vet,s Patch w/order
New Bags are now being added
9/11 and AIDS Big Lies
Powerful Lies negatively shaping our World



The conflict became known as the Iran-Iraq war. It lasted till August, 1988 over which time a million or more people died, countless numbers more were wounded and displaced, with America all the while inciting both sides to keep up the killing. It hoped to destroy both countries and then move in to pick up the pieces like it's been trying to do since in the Middle East and elsewhere with growing difficulty as not everyone likes our rules and some are even bold enough to renounce them.

Iran became a major US adversary after its 1979 revolution established the Islamic Republic in February, 1980. Since then, the two countries have had no diplomatic ties and relations between them have been frosty and uncertain at best with Washington only interested in normalization on its usual one-way dictated terms. They're the same kinds offered other developing states - we're "boss," surrender your sovereignty to ours, and accede to neoliberal market-based rules made in Washington that aren't negotiable. Iran refuses so it's public enemy number one topping the US target queue for regime change. Rule by extremist mullahs and reactors aren't the problems. They're just pretexts like all the phony intelligence about Iran destabilizing Iraq discussed below.

Despite a hopeless quagmire in Iraq, the Bush administration seems focused on further escalation notwithstanding the danger, near-impossible chance of success, and mounting opposition and anger to its agenda in the homeland. It's coming from the public on Iraq and even the Congress with some there getting twitchy enough to voice concern, though still far short of acting as they can and should with too many there twitching to fight, not quit. It's also heard in the highest ranks of power from both parties first circulated in the Jim Baker-led Iraq Study Group that reported its rumor-leaked findings December 6. It represented a clear rejection of Bush administration Iraq policies gone sour, a proposed rescue plan and effort to save his family name, and a scheme to restore US Middle East dominance, fast slipping away, and near past the point of no return by now from which there's likely none.

Despite its clout, its recommendations went unheeded, especially regarding engaging Iran and Syria to help bail Bush's Middle East fat out of its self-made fire. And nothing's changed in the wake of Washington's agreeing to include those countries' officials in initial and follow-up discussions on Iraq's security along with members of the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Unity, G 8 countries, and five permanent members of the Security Council.

The decision represents no softening of the US's position, and the administration likely will use the talks to repeat unproved claims Iranian elements support anti-American forces in Iraq, continue refusing broader diplomatic discussions unless Tehran stops enriching uranium which it won't nor should it be forced to or be punished for, and keep negotiating the way it always does - making ultimatums and accepting no compromise, meaning nothing will be resolved and tensions will only be further heightened. And if anyone doubts that's how things will unfold, the New York Times was front and center spelling it out. It reported any US discussions involving Iran and Syria won't be "from a position of weakness (so the administration intends) ratcheting up the confrontational talk (to show) the United States was in more of a driver's seat" and not planning to negotiate in good faith. No surprise.

The Bush administration's rejectionism has even deeper roots going back at least to a 2003 "grand bargain" offer from Iran - unreported, of course, in the corporate media. It was approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, former President Mohammad Khatami and former Foreign Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. Former Bush National Security Council official Flynt Leverett revealed it calling it a "serious proposal (he knew from multiple sources) went all the way up to former Secretary of State Colin Powell (who) 'couldn't sell it at the White House.' " It was part of a six year Bush administration pattern of rejecting all Iranian overtures with responses of ultimatums, threats and Washington-style bullying all framed to send the same message. Washington wants nothing less than regime change and may go to war for it.

Fast forward to today and the largely unreported testimony of former Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee February 1. He highlighted it in an op ed piece in the Los Angeles Times February 11 calling "The war in Iraq....a historic strategic and moral calamity undertaken under false assumptions.... undermining America's global legitimacy (and) tarnishing America's moral credentials. (It's) driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability." It's too bad he ignored the most damning fact of all - the Iraq and Afghan wars are both acts of illegal aggression the Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime" and Nazis convicted of it were hanged. Don't expect a hint of that from a spear-carrying member of the empire in good standing.

Brzezinski did say the conflict is ominous for the national interest, and if the country stays bogged down in Iraq it's on track for a "likely head-on conflict with Iran and much of the Islamic world." He believes if it happens it will mean a "spreading and deepening (protracted) quagmire lasting 20 years or more and eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (causing) pervasive popular antagonism" and plunging the US into growing political isolation. He stated a "plausible scenario (for war with Iran) might be "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act (real or otherwise) blamed on Iran."

Brzezinski represents powerful interests using him as their influential spokesman. They want an end to policies gone sour they see harming "the national interest" meaning their own. He and they want "a significant change in direction" with a strategy to "end the occupation of Iraq" with a serious US commitment to "shape a regional security dialogue that includes all Iraq's neighbors including Iran and Syria and other major Muslim countries like Egypt and Pakistan." He's calling for an unambiguous "determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time," and believes the US should "activate a credible and energetic effort (to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without which) nationalist and fundamentalist passions (will eventually doom) any Arab regime (perceived supporting) US regional hegemony." Brzezinski sounded alarmist about the Bush administration's hostile intentions toward Iran, and his implications are clear. Washington's agenda is ominous and threatening the national interest. He denounced the scheme and pressed Congress to engage Iran, not attack it. His message so far is unheeded.

Brzezinski's influential voice was joined by Russian President Vladimir Putin's addressing the international security conference in Munich February 10. He stunned listeners with his harsh frankness accusing the US of endangering the world pursuing policies aimed at making it "one single master (in a) unipolar world." He went on saying "It has nothing in common with democracy (and the people) teaching us democracy (but) don't want to learn it themselves." He continued that US policy "overstepped its national borders in every way....in the economic, political and cultural policies it imposes on other nations."

He claimed the US is responsible for "a greater and greater disdain for the principles of international law (and) no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them." He also accused the US of stimulating "an arms race (in an environment where) peace is not so reliable." He added "Unilateral actions have not resolved conflicts but have made them worse," and force should only be used when authorized as international law requires by the UN Security Council. He sounded an alarm gone unheard in the West that "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force - military force.... that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts (and) Finding a political settlement....becomes impossible." He further warned about the use of "space (or) high tech weapons" with implications of a new cold war, nuclear arms race and frightening possibility of devastating nuclear war that was unthinkable before the age of George Bush.

The Dominant Media React

As President of a major world power, Putin's comments went out to the world getting broad coverage, if only for a day or so, while Brzezinski's were largely and shamelessly ignored by the corrupted corporate media still carrying the administration's water and trumpeting its phony claims like verifiable gospel. It happened on February 11 in the New York Times as reported by correspondent James Glanz. His column breathed the scantiest hints of skepticism that smacked of the same kind of Judith Miller-type journalism about WMDs helping take the country to war with Iraq in 2003. He said the US military showed "their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war....used to kill more than 170 Americans in the past three years" with only hints about its reliability or the source presenting it having none.

He cited senior defense officials in Baghdad February 11 displaying "an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers (claimed to be directly linked) to Iranian arms factories." Without credible proof, they said "Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against Americans (basing their judgment) on general intelligence assessments (of the same kind used to justify attacking Iraq, meaning phony ones.) The specious Times report reeked of innuendos for what it lacked in hard proof about lethal weapons. They could have come from any source, manufactured anywhere, including by Pentagon contractors easily able to duplicate anything scattered around the country and on Iraqi streets for years after the Iranian conflict and now used by resistance fighters or anyone else who has them.

Typical Times saber rattling was at it again after Bush's inept February 14 news conference trumpeting his claim Iran was sending weapons to Iraq to undermine security and kill Americans while never looking more pathetic and awkward doing it. In "Times talk," reporters Stolberg and Santora stated "Mr. Bush's remarks amounted to his most specific accusation to date that Iran was undermining security in Iraq....(and he) dismissed as 'preposterous' the contention by some skeptics that the United States was drawing unwarranted conclusions about Iran's role." They barely questioned the president's nonsensical claim he's certain "the (paramilitary) Quds Force, a part of the government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D's that have harmed our troops" that has as much credibility as those WMDs we had to fear along with that "mushroom shaped cloud" we couldn't afford to wait to see before acting.



Free Cook Books
Recipe Chief has 23 Free Cook Books.
News, Videos, Forums, Chat
Truthhub.com; a network of truthseekers...
Deals on Top 9/11 Books, DVDs
Synthetic Terror, 9/11 Mysteries, etc. 911 Truth!
Look Back DVD
Escape with a Movie Tonight
Free Vet,s Patch w/order
New Bags are now being added
9/11 and AIDS Big Lies
Powerful Lies negatively shaping our World



Facts On the Ground Trump the Propaganda

Revealed facts on the ground in Iraq belie all Pentagon and administration phony assertions along with their shameless daily echoing on the Times front pages. The military couldn't even get its evidence straight in presenting an 81mm mortar shell Iran doesn't make, and the ones shown the media had fake markings in English for a Farsi-speaking country. It's also inconceivable Shia Iran would be fighting Iraq's Shia government it's allied with and aids. The US has been fighting an anti-Iranian Sunni resistance largely in al-Anbar province and the most violent parts of Baghdad. It stretches credibility to imagine Iran is arming its enemy that denounces Iraq's dominant Shia puppet government as a US pawn.

That hardly deters Washington claiming further solid evidence Iranian agents are involved in what the State Department calls "networks" (meaning Iranians) working with individuals and groups in Iraq sent there by the Iranian government without a shred of evidence to prove it. Even General Peter Pace, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, dismisses the claim as unproved and further said during a February trip to the Pacific region there is "zero" chance of a US war with Iran.

He may be echoing the kind of sentiment the London Times reported February 25 that "highly placed defence and intelligence sources (say) Some of America's most senior commanders are prepared to resign (in protest) if the White House orders a military strike against Iran." The paper calls this type of high-level internal dissent unprecedented signifying great distaste and misgivings in the Pentagon for an attack on Iran. That's a sentiment even its Joint Chiefs Chairman may share as well as the six retired generals (and likely others) who publicly denounced the Pentagon's handling of the Iraq war last spring and the administration's incompetence overall.

Nonetheless, preparations for war go on that veteran journalist Seymour Hersh again wrote about in late February in the New Yorker magazine. According to Hersh's informed sources: "The Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran....at the direction of the President. (It includes) a contingency plan...that can be implemented (in) 24 hours....The Iran planning group (is assigned) to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq (on top of its previous focus to destroy) Iran's nuclear facilities and possible regime change." Hersh's report supplements others, like one from BBC, saying the US military is planning an all out "shock and awe" blitzkrieg on the country's nuclear facilities, military and infrastructure that may come in the spring that's now just days away.

A clear sign of that possibility is the huge naval buildup in the Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean with two heavily equipped and armed carrier groups in theater and a reported third en route either to replace one there or add to it. The combined task force in place is a formidable assemblage of 50 or more warships with nuclear weapons, hundreds of planes and contingents of Marines and Navy personnel.

The buildup is part of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan for preemptive nuclear war specifically targeting Iran and North Korea. Earlier, Dick Cheney originated the idea when he served as GHW Bush's Defense Secretary in the early 1990s. Rumsfeld picked up the scheme in 2004 as authorized by the 2002 National Security Strategy proclaiming an official doctrine of preemptive or preventive war for the first time. From it he approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" for military readiness against hostile countries that included the nuclear option. He drew on CONPLAN (contingency/concept plan) 8022 completed in November 2003 detailing a plan to preemptively strike targets anywhere in the world judged a national security threat including hardened structures using tactical so-called low-yield nuclear bunker busters with Iran the apparent first target of choice. The Omaha-based US Strategic Command (StratCom) would run any operation if undertaken as it's the command center for the country's nuclear deterrent and overseas the military's nuclear arsenal.

All military branches have ready battle plans to implement against Iran under the name TIRANNT for Theater Iran Near Term. If an attack order comes, it can be launched from the assembled Naval task force in the region and/or by long-range US-based bombers and other warplanes and missiles strategically based in locations like Diego Garcia and elsewhere within striking distance of Iranian targets. It will be able to assault Iran round the clock for weeks against a claimed number of 1500 nuclear-related sites located at 18 main locations in the country. Also designated are thousands of strategic military and civilian targets including vital infrastructure, industrial sites, air, naval and ground force bases, missile facilities and always command-and-control centers with possible help from Israeli warplanes that might, in fact, initiate an attack with US forces then joining in to support their regional partner.

That kind of devious scheme could persuade Congress to go along never wanting to offend the Israeli Lobby that's been spoiling for a fight with Iran for years and now may get it horrifically with unimaginable consequences. They'll affect Israel and the US alike as well as spillover to unstable countries in the region like the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese and may be unsettling enough to unseat sitting rulers and governments replacing them with the kinds of fundamentalist regimes not likely to welcome US presence or influence in the region and intending to do something about it.

The Bush Roadmap to War with Iran

Reports circulated as early as last year and in 2005 that the Bush administration signed off on a "shock and awe" attack against Iran to destroy its perfectly legal commercial nuclear program that may involve using so-called "mini-nuke robust earth penetrator bunker-buster" weapons that won't be "mini" in their catastrophic effects if indeed used. These are powerful dangerous weapons. They can be made to any desired potency, would likely be from one-third to two-thirds as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb that destroyed an entire city, but could have far greater explosive capability that potentially will be catastrophic to the area struck and well beyond by radiation contamination alone.

Pentagon false and misleading reports about them claim they're "safe for civilians" because they penetrate the earth and explode underground. Test results prove otherwise showing when released from 40,000 feet a B61-11 nuclear earth-penetrator burrowed about 20 feet in the soil for a pre-explosion depth able to produce intense fallout over the area struck that's unremediable and would result in enough permanent surface contamination to be unsafe for human habitation. Nonetheless, weapons able to cause a nuclear holocaust are cleared for use real time along with conventional ones if a "shock and awe" attack is ordered against Iran or any other nation on the false and misleading pretext of protecting the national security only threatened by a rogue leadership at home willing to risk catastrophic mass destruction in pursuit of its insane and unachieveable imperial aims.



Free Cook Books
Recipe Chief has 23 Free Cook Books.
News, Videos, Forums, Chat
Truthhub.com; a network of truthseekers...
Deals on Top 9/11 Books, DVDs
Synthetic Terror, 9/11 Mysteries, etc. 911 Truth!
Look Back DVD
Escape with a Movie Tonight
Free Vet,s Patch w/order
New Bags are now being added
9/11 and AIDS Big Lies
Powerful Lies negatively shaping our World



Not surprisingly, we have an eager partner in Israel straining at the leash to fulfill its long-term agenda to attack Iran alone (possible but doubtful) or along with its US ally that keeps getting reinforced by bellicose statements by its high officials like the one reported February 13 by ultra-right wing Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He commented in a radio interview that if necessary "We will have to face the Iranians alone, because Israel cannot remain with its arms folded, waiting for Iran to develop non-conventional (nuclear) weapons." Officials like Lieberman, current Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are dangerous men on the far right allied with others in government and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) all dripping war talk that must be taken seriously from a nation dedicated to conflict and never shy about striking the first all out aggressive blow.

The same theme comes from a report published February 11 that vice-president Cheney's national security advisor, John Hannah (who replaced Lewis Libby just convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI), speaking for the Bush administration, considers 2007 "the year of Iran" saying a US attack is a real possibility. Hannah played a key role in the run-up to the Iraq war having written the first draft of Colin Powell's infamous pre-war speech to the Security Council citing bogus evidence. He also played a lead role putting out phony pre-war intelligence from Iraqi exiles. Now he's at the seat of power and must be taken seriously, especially since his boss barely disguises his aggressive posturing for war against the Iranian state he's wanted for 15 years or more.

They're both part of the high-level propaganda messaging similar to the lead-up to the Iraq war. It's aim is instill fear to make the administration's case that Iran poses serious threat enough to justify military action against it. It follows UN Resolutions 1696 in July demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31, which it didn't, and 1737 in December imposing limited sanctions on Iran for not abiding by what the Security Council demanded in July. A second deadline passed putting the Iranian matter back in the Security Council to consider new sanctions be imposed and ratcheting things closer to a US attack as further events unfold.

And so the beat goes on with US oil reserves being stockpiled, Iranian diplomats apprehended in Iraq, the Pentagon and Israeli forces scheming together, the US military buildup in the Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean continuing, US ground forces moved to the Iran-Iraq border, Patriot missiles strategically installed in Israel and neighboring Arab states, a "surge" of up to 50,000 additional troops planned, and a change of commanders on the ground in Iraq made replacing less hawkish ones with others supporting the Bush war strategy.

They're part of the new Pentagon team under Defense Secretary Robert Gates who told the Senate Armed Services Committee the military needs to prepare for large-scale operations against countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran that reaffirms the administration's commitment to its "long war" Dick Cheney said won't end in our lifetime, but may end up shortening it. Clearly Iran is the next planned target, the dominant media echoes the threat, and Congress is just a talking-shop like always posturing as the gathering storm in the Gulf intensifies.

Published reports, citing credible sources, point to an attack on Iran by April by an administration on total expanded war footing with the president spoiling for a fight by goading Iran to react in response to his order to "seek out and destroy" (supposed) Iranian "networks" in Iraq. Bush minced no words in a radio interview saying "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq (even though there's none)....we will respond firmly." Other officials joined the jingoistic chorus accusing Iran of involvement in sectarian violence practically signaling an upcoming attack that easily could follow a manufactured pretext if Iran fails to provide one on its own which it won't. It's never hard to do, and the infamous trumped up Gulf of Tonkin one in August, 1964 shows how easy it is to fool the public and get Congress to go along.

Iran could save us the trouble by responding to US provocations going on now for months by illegally flying unmanned aerial surveillance drones across its airspace and secretly placing special forces reconnaissance teams on the ground "to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups" according to an earlier report by Seymour Hersh. So far, Iran hasn't taken the bait even though it knows what's happening and reportedly downed one or more intruding aircraft it has every legal right to do but is treading dangerously against an adversary looking for any pretext to pounce. It's leaders also knew what Washington was up to after being made a charter member of Bush's "Axis of Evil." In that status, it's blamed for the administration's failure in Iraq with false claims of arming the resistance and inciting violence.

War on Iran may, in fact, have already started, and two bombings in Southeastern Iranian Zahedan bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan the week of February 12 may have been one of its volleys. Arrests were made and a video seized according to provincial police chief Brigadier General Mohammad Ghafari. From it he claims the "rebels (have an) attachment to opposition groups and some countries' intelligence services such as America and Britain." An unnamed Iranian official also told the Islamic Republic News Agency one of those arrested confessed he was trained by English speakers, and the attack was part of US plans to provoke internal unrest.

While none of this conclusively proves US involvement, there's no secret Washington wants regime change, is actively stirring up internal ethnic and political opposition toward it, and reportedly is working with exiled Iranian leaders including the Mujahideen el-Khalq (MEK) Iranian opposition guerrilla cult the US State Department lists as a terrorist organization, but not apparently when it's on our side.

Full-scale war on Iran may just be a concocted terrorist attack away from starting the "shock and awe." There's no secret what's planned and none whatever that doing it will be another unprovoked, unwarranted act of preemptive illegal aggression only the US and Israel support. It's also no secret Iran is no pushover. It's no match for US and/or Israeli power, but it's got powerful weapons one writer says are "unstoppable" like Russian-built SS-N-22 Sunburn Missiles and more advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhont anti-ship ones designed to sink a US carrier that's a formidable weapon of war but not invulnerable. Iran also has Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems and NATO-made Exocet and Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles that pack a punch and can sink our ships when launced from land, surface ships or submarines along with 300 or more warplanes, and a large ground force estimated at around 350,000.

US engaging Iran may now hinge on resolving the Washington power struggle between Bush administration neocons and more practical trilateralist types in the camp of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jim Baker, and other powerful Washington figures including the president's father. It's also up to Congress to decide which side it's on and whether it will act or watch from the sidelines and risk nuclear war and its fallout. It may not be long finding out how events will unfold. Just the kind and level of rhetorical noise will tell who's winning with congressional inaction and media complicity so far giving the hawks a big advantage. Haven't we seen this script before, and isn't the likely ending clear, except this time the stakes are far greater and so is the risk to everyone on both sides.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at www.lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and tune in online to hear The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on The Micro Effect.com each Saturday at noon US central time.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN20070307&articleId=5008

Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman

Behind The Israeli Mole - 9-11Review

War on Iran: Bush is preparing for bombing, Cheney Neocons behind it
NYC hit by terrorist nuke - Atomic Iran PART 3
The Coming Nuke - 9-11Review

Mockingbirds Cannistraro and McGovern - CIA - iran contra

http://911review.org

New Logic for the war in Iraq.


New Logic for the war in Iraq.
 
 
A reporter recently asked George Bush,
if he thought the war in Iraq was a mistake.

Bush responded... "People still don't seem to get it"

Then went on to try and articulate his thoughts....

We went over there to free these ungrateful bastards.
Sure, well over 1/2 million of them are dead now, but you have to weed out a few of the guys who dont appreciate freedom.
Im sure their families are much happier now. At least now, they can put food on their families (1)
You have to understand, 1/2 million of them (2), and only 3 or 4 thousand of us, thats pretty good (3) !
Besides, we have given them billions of dollars (4)
Anyway, its the Democrats fault. People like Pat Tillman (5), who didnt support the war,
give a wrong message to our troops. If he woulda just fell in line, like a good soldier, we wouldnt look so stupid now.
You see, thats the kinda thing that makes us wiretap (6) people. We wouldnt have to break the law, if these kind of people just "understood".

Its not as bad as the Democrats make it seem. John McCain (7) was just there strolling through a market.
We are building schools and hospitals(8) so that the ones that arnt dead yet, can have a decent eduacation and health care.
We have virtually rid Iraq of Al-Queda (9) influence as well.

You see, we had to get rid of Saddam, not only was he getting ready to kill everyone in the U.S.,
but he was hurting his own people. Now that he is gone, things should get much better.
Now, all of those poor people in Iraq are free, but we have to stay there to secure the freedom see ?

People keep telling me that I cant just kill everybody in Iraq, that the American people wouldnt put up with it, but they seem to be putting up with everything else, so why not ?

When asked exactly WHO the enemy is in Iraq, bush responded
"Oh thats easy, they are the bad guys".

bUSH hUMOR - political satire

Bush Humor -Political satire

Bush Humor -Political satire photos

911review.org

Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan


I had mentioned earlier that the Baker commission was just a farce to distract the American people.

This is what you do, to keep the war going...

1) Get a group of well respected people to look into the situation.

2) Create a media frenzy around it.

3) Make the American people THINK that you are making changes.

4) Tell the American people it will take months (at least) to see if the changes work.

Well, i was only 1/2 right.

Theres MORE to it.

I smell a False Flag OP in the working.

The president cant invade IRAN right now, (without congress)

because there is no immenant danger,

BUT, lets say, if there was a large scale attack aginst our troops in Iraq, that "supposedly" came from IRAN,

then, is it an immediate danger ?

-----------------------------------------

Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan

vdare.com/roberts/070109_congress.htm

By Paul Craig Roberts

Is the surge an orchestrated distraction from the real war plan?

A good case can be made that it is. The US Congress and media are focused on President Bush’s proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran.

Commentators have expressed puzzlement over President Bush’s appointment of a US Navy admiral as commander in charge of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The appointment makes sense only if the administration’s attention has shifted from the insurgencies to an attack on Iran.

The Bush administration has recently doubled its aircraft carrier forces and air power in the Persian Gulf. According to credible news reports, the Israeli air force has been making practice runs in preparation for an attack on Iran.

Recently, Israeli military and political leaders have described Israeli machinations to manipulate the American public and their representatives into supporting or joining an Israeli assault on Iran.

Two US carrier task forces or strike groups will certainly congest the Persian Gulf. On January 9 a US nuclear sub collided with a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups will have scant room for maneuver. Their purpose is either to provide the means for a hard hit on Iran or to serve as sitting ducks for a new Pearl Harbor that would rally Americans behind the new war.

Whether our ships are hit by Iran in retaliation to an attack from Israel or suffer an orchestrated attack by Israel that is blamed on the Iranians, there are certainly far more US naval forces in the Persian Gulf than prudence demands.

Bush’s proposed surge appears to have no real military purpose. The US military opposes it as militarily pointless and as damaging to the US Army and Marine Corps. The surge can only be accomplished by keeping troops deployed after the arrival of their replacements. Moreover, the increase in numbers that can be achieved in this way are far short of the numbers required to put down the insurgency and civil war.

The only purpose of the surge is to distract Congress while plans are implemented to widen the war.

Weapons inspectors have failed to find a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Most experts say it would be years before Iran could make a weapon even if the Iranian government is actively working on a weapons program. Since the danger, if any, is years away, why is Israel so determined to attack Iran now?

The answer might be that Israel has the chance now. The Bush administration is in its pocket. The White House is working with neoconservatives, not with the American foreign policy community represented by the Iraq Study Group. Neoconservative propagandists are in influential positions in the media. The US Congress is intimidated by AIPAC. The correlation of forces are heavily in Israel’s favor.

Part of the Israeli/neoconservative plan has already been achieved with the destruction of civilian infrastructure and spread of sectarian strife in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. If Iran can be taken out with a powerful air attack that might involve nuclear weapons, Syria would be isolated and Hezbollah would be cut off from Iranian supplies.

Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to achieve its aims in the Middle East. How influential will Israel and the neoconservatives be with the next president in the wake of a US defeat in Iraq and Israeli defeat in Lebanon? If the US withdraws its troops from Iraq, as the US military and foreign policy community recommend and as polls show the American public wants, the only effect of Bush’s Iraq invasion will have been to radicalize Muslims against Israel, the US, and US puppet governments in the Middle East. Extremist elements will tout their victory over the US, and the pressures on Israel to accept a realistic accommodation with Palestinians will be over-powering.

Now is the chance--the only chance--for Israel and the neoconservatives to achieve their goal of bringing Muslims to heel, a goal that they have been writing about and working to achieve for a decade.

This goal requires the war to be widened by whatever deceit and treachery necessary to bring the American public along.

The US Congress must immediately refocus its attention from the surge to Iran, the real target of Bush administration aggression.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Brad

911review.org

Geroge Bush - reciting the pledge of allegiance (humor)


i pledge allegiance to my wife...

(oops, sorry),

i pledge allegiance ....

(one second, ive got GAS)

[political satire, bush humor i got gas heart pledge of allegiance to God ]

i pledge allegiance to God

(oops, "The president's job is never to promote a religion.")

-Oval Office, May 5, 2006

i pledge allegiance ....

i pledge....

i pledge allegiance to the united states of Americar,

to which it stands one lady

under, ummm....

one religion... OOPS...

One, i mean, umm....

i pledge allegiance to Dick Cheney, his wife,

and their beautiful gay daughter...

Aww heck, well, umm...

One nations under the republicans,

to which I stand for one and for all.

Play BALL !

digg.com

nowpublic.com

bUSH hUMOR

more bUSH hUMOR

911review

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address