BE GRATEFUL YOU LIVE IN CANADA. IT'S A GREAT COUNTRY

[River_God]

You are stressed out conspiracy theories.

The Downing Street Memo could just be the tip of the iceberg of how determined Bush's administration was to invade Iraq.

In July 2002 the DSM summarized conversations between the heads of British and American Intelligence. It explicitly stated that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

The DSM indicates more than that Bush and Blair were lying through their teeth when they said “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.”

In hindsight, the following two examples clearly illustrate how “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of invading Iraq.

(1) In his State of the Union Address, Bush misleadingly demonized Saddam as a man who gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. The press sensationalized this story even though the CIA had long since concluded that both Iran and Iraq gassed each other in the battle for Halabja, and that the dead Kurds' bodies indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war detailed the Halabja gas incident in The New York Times on Jan. 31, 2003 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm , but it was largely ignored in the pre-war hysteria.

(2) Bush also used his State of the Union Address to scare Americans into believing that Saddam had acquired yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Bush blatantly presented his Niger “Yellowcake” document to the UN, allegedly proving that Saddam was secretly buying uranium. Bush’s Yellowcake document turned out to be so badly forged, however, that it took the IAEA took only 24 hours to announce it was fake.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts...nn21032004.html

Whether Bush’s team knew they were using a fake document is debatable, but it begs the question of how they obtained such a document without forging it themselves.

It is very clear, that Bush ignored the fact that the CIA had sent Joseph Wilson to Africa to investigate the yellowcake charges, and that Wilson determined the allegations had little foundation. Instead of Bush’s administration being relieved that Iraq most probably hadn’t bought yellowcake in Niger, Wilson’s wife was brutally threatened by Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

As part of a smear campaign, Libby and Rove told the press (Judith Miller) that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA agent. This clearly had nothing to do with Wilson’s credibility, but only served as a brutal threat to anyone wishing to share contradictory evidence on Iraq’s WMDs. Undaunted, Wilson later publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq.

These two examples (among several others) confirm that Bush’s administration was willing to fabricate information to scare American’s into invading Iraq. The second example also shows how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to indirectly threaten the life of Valerie Plame to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs.

What other crimes did the neo-con cabal commit? It’s unlikely that the Plame leak was the beginning and the end of their crimes. Why was the Bush administration so uncooperative during the Plame Investigation? Why was the Bush administration so uncooperative during the 9-11 Commission Investigation? What are they trying to hide? Were Bush and Cheney just Lewis Libby and Karl Rove’s flunkies through the whole scandal or were they more complicit?

Is the neo-con cabal continuing to fabricate evidence to support the invasions of other oil-rich countries like Iran and Venezuela (Note Bush’s claim of Hugo Chavez rigging the election in Venezuela even though Jimmy Carter supervised the event and claimed that it was far more transparent, honest and fair than the USA’s federal election in the State of Florida. The intrigue in Syria is also surprising considering that all Hariri’s assassination accomplished was to speed Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon.)

Fabricating evidence to support the invasion of Iraq might go to a whole new level, however, when you consider the Anthrax scare.

Pundits loudly announced that the only people who had anthrax were the USA, Russia and Iraq, and then hysterically demanded to know why Americans weren’t connecting the dots. Unfortunately there are a few more dots to take into consideration.

ANTHRAX MYSTERY?

Is it surprising that the CIA and FBI haven’t exposed the anthrax killers? Are the anthrax killers near the top of the FBI’s most wanted list? We do know this about the anthrax murders:

1. The letters contained highly classified weaponized anthrax (Ames Iowa strain, weaponized at Fort Detrick Maryland) developed by the U.S. military and/or the CIA.

2. The letters were mailed from Trenton New Jersey while the Republicans were trying to jam through the Patriot Act that would give President Bush unprecedented power to disregard Americans’ civil rights, increase defense spending, control the media and wage war.

3. Anthrax letters were mailed to:

a) Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News (A fairly balanced news network)

The New York Post. (A well known newspaper)

c) A boy died of anthrax after visiting ABC news (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)

d) A editor for the National Enquirer died of anthrax (A very widely distributed and widely hated tabloid that is prone to sensationalize conspiracy theories)

e) A mailroom worker contracted anthrax at CBS News (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)

The media was driven into hysteria from the Anthrax letters and fervently backed the war on Terror. Note that anthrax letters were not sent to war loving media giants FOX or CNN.

f) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (Democrat, S.D.) received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Patriot Act.

g) Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vt.) received an anthrax letter after he expressed reservations about the Patriot Act. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill.

4. No Republicans received anthrax letters. George Bush Sr and Collin Powell didn’t receive anthrax letters. No CIA agents, Military Personnel, Weapons Dealers, Oil Companies or Jewish Organizations receive anthrax letters. No large public gatherings were targeted with anthrax. (This all lends serious doubt that either Arab militants or Saddam Hussein were behind the letters)

5. The Letters contained scribbled words “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” that were written by someone worried that his handwriting could be traced. Tom Brokaw, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy and the NY Post have no obvious connection to Israel. The anthrax letters, instead, looked like they might have been forged to frame Islamic militants.

After receiving his anthrax letter, Senator Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Patriot Act, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the appropriate balance.

6. The letters were precisely targeted and perfectly timed to unite the media and the opposition (Democrats) in the War on Terror, the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq.

7. The letters (only 4 were positively identified) did not kill their intended targets, but the anthrax material was so sophisticated that the spores passed through the envelopes and infected people all along their path--including secretaries and postal workers. Five people are known to have died from inhaling spores from these letters, and 13 others were infected but survived.

8. The Anthrax Letters created the maximum amount of terror with the minimum loss of life.

9. Dozens of hoax anthrax threats have been widely publicized in the media. The CIA and Bush administration have promoted some of these hoax threats – encouraging many American to buy gas masks and seal off their houses with duct tape. Faulty (read: fabricated) CIA “intelligence” about Iraqi Anthrax built hysterical U.S. support for an invasion despite serious doubts from Americans, Brits and most of their closest allies. Hoax anthrax scares are still creating front page headlines and extreme terror throughout North America.

10. The day after the anthrax letters were mailed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (6 days before either Senator received the letters), the original batch of Ames strain anthrax was destroyed with the permission of the FBI --- making tracing this anthrax type much more difficult. Could it be incompetence, conspiracy or cover up that, two months after the anthrax attacks started, the FBI still had not investigated the only facility capable of producing weaponized anthrax -- the biological warfare program based at Fort Detrick Maryland.

11. Within a ten day period, immediately after the USA Patriot Act was passed, three top anthrax experts with knowledge of the U.S. bioweapons program died under suspicious circumstances. Within four months 8 more world-leading microbiologists were killed. Coincidentally, the controversial coroner of one microbiologist (Don Wiley) was later found wrapped in barbed wire with a live bomb strapped to his chest.

12. British microbiologist, weapons expert and would-be whistle blower David Kelly (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly

) died in an “alleged suicide” on July 17, 2003 – amidst world wide publicity that the U.S. and Britain had invaded Iraq largely based on fabricated “intelligence”. Half the world was anxiously waiting for further news releases on Kelly just before his mysterious death. It is notable that on the morning of his death, Kelly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller (of Valery Plame leak and Lewis Libby Indictment fame) and told her that many dark actors were playing games. (Email sent by Dr Kelly to Judith Miller on July 17, 2003

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/conte.../com_4_0076.pdf

)

Were some of these dead microbiologists capable of exposing the anthrax killers? Had they been e-mailing each other about the attacks? This stuff has got all the makings of a detective thriller other than creating any serious doubts as to who was responsible for the letters. The only thing that really has to be established is a motive.

(A) Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they honestly believed that the American people needed to be shaken up – even after 9/11 – in order to face the threat of suicide bombers?

(

Did the perpetrators mail the letters to cash in on hysterical support for:

a. Increased Weapons Spending? Hundreds of billions of dollars are going into somebody’s pockets.

b. An Invasion of Afghanistan with its strategic presence along the east border of Iran, and the oil-rich Caspian Sea?

c. An Invasion of Iraq (on allegations of stockpiling anthrax and other WMDs) with its strategic presence along the west border of Iran.

d. An invasion of Iran with current (delayed) allegations of its complicity in 9-11 and the terrorist attacks?

e. Complete control of the oil-rich Middle East?

f. Note that Shell Oil is paying $150 million in fines to the SEC and FSA for overstating its reserves by (at least) 20%. Shell’s auditors warned the company as early as January 2000 that its reserves were overstated. Could other oil companies also have been overstating their reserves and pressuring the U.S. and British governments for access to oil in Iraq, the Caspian Sea, Iran, (and Venezuela)?

© Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they wanted to create a massive distraction from the financial meltdown on Wall Street that was being caused by widespread exposure of corporate corruption (ENRON, WorldCom, Merck, Arthur Anderson, Halliburton etc. etc. etc.)?

The people who profit the most from a crime are the people most likely to have committed it. Who profited the most from the Anthrax letters?

I really hope that the answer to the above multiple choice question is (A) but it makes you want to get some straight facts from the people Americans are trusting with their lives.

It would be better than Santa Clause if there was a believable: (D) None of the above; answer

Who else has a clear, believable motive to precisely target the media and the opposition with anthrax?

Remember how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to pre-emptively threaten the life of Valerie Plame (by leaking her identity to the press) to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs? Remember how Bush was willing to use the forged “Yellowcake” document? How much of a stretch is it to assume that one or two members of Bush’s administration were willing to threaten the liberal media and the main senate opponents of the Patriot Act and the ensuing Iraq war????

Remember that some of the people that were so desperate to invade Iraq were among the few people in the world capable of accessing the weaponized anthrax from Fort Detrick.

It's chilling that it might only take a few hundred people, a few billion dollars, some orchestrated scare tactics and a lot of greed to completely hijack a government with an annual budget of a trillion dollars.

Even with all the inconsistencies surrounding 9/11, Bush's team figures that it's in their best self-interest not to co-operate with investigations. What are they trying to hide? Are people just too apathetic or dumb to need to know what's going on in the world?

Like Bush said, terrorists have to be brought to justice—no matter who they are.

It would be best if the whole Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfwitz, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Trent Lott, Richard Perle etc) was put on polygraphs to see if they know of any conspiracies around the WTC bombings, Anthrax letters or Iraq invasion.

For consistency, other Washington insiders like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry etc should also be put on lie detectors.

It’s laughable that lowly police officers and CIA agents are rigorously tested with polygraphs, but the directors appointed to control the agencies are considered “untouchable”, “beyond suspicion” and “above the law”– even during global debacles like 9/11, the War on Terror and the War on Iraq.

Notes

It’s Ironic that in his latest speech Bush called on Americans to make more sacrifices in the war on terror, while he and his friends seem to be getting rich off it.

Note that Halliburton stock is up 300% since Iraq was invaded in March 2003. Cheney’s half million deferred stock options probably went up over 1000%.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=hal&t=5y&l...=l&q=c&p=&a=&c=

Chevron is up 200% since March 2003. Does Rice have any options in Chevron? How about her friends.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CVX&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=c&c=

United Defense Industries went from $20 to $75 before being bought out. Nobody knows how Carlyle Corp is doing because it is private, but it is probably going through the roof. The Bush family has probably made tens of millions.

How does this compare with the finances of the soldiers in Iraq? Many of them will barely be employable when they get back home.

Deaths and injuries are growing in Iraq with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have also been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. (2005/11/18)

[scribblet]

This is wearing out my scroll button and I'm running out of tin foil hats. LOL

[tml12]

The New York Post. (A high profile, fairly balanced newspaper)

The NY Post is the cheapest of all papers sold in New York, is owned by Rupert Murdoch (you know the right-wing guy from Fox News), and is very right-wing.

At least get your conspiracy theories right River.

[River_God]

The NY Post is the cheapest of all papers sold in New York, is owned by Rupert Murdoch (you know the right-wing guy from Fox News), and is very right-wing.

Good point tml. Murdoch bought the POST in 1977

Any paper in New York is high profile by most stanadards, and I remember reading at least two liberal stories in it.

Maybe it was a red herring? Judith Miller got a fake anthrax letter too.

Here is some more info on Rupert Murdoch (It helps explain why Australia jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon)

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy

July 16, 2004

In recent years, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: According to Businessweek, "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered." But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right. He is also an enabler of the oppressive tactics employed by dictatorial regimes, and a man who admits to having hidden money in tax havens. In short, there more to Rupert Murdoch than meets the eye.

Media Manipulator

In 2003, Rupert Murdoch told a congressional panel that his use of "political influence in our newspapers or television" is "nonsense." But a close look at the record shows Murdoch has imparted his far-right agenda throughout his media empire.

MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER:

Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, "The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp… In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch's own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now – I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly." [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03]

MURDOCH THE NEOCONSERVATIVE:

Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.C. opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [source: AJR, 12/01]

MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST:

Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

MURDOCH THE INTIMIDATOR:

According to Agence France-Press, "Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel threatened to sue the makers of 'The Simpsons' over a parody of the channel's right-wing political stance…In an interview this week with National Public Radio, Matt Groening recalled how the news channel had considered legal action, despite the fact that 'The Simpsons' is broadcast on sister network, Fox Entertainment. According to Groening, Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance with headlines like 'Do Democrats Cause Cancer?'" [source: Agence France-Press, 10/29/03]

[tml12]

I don't much care for him either River.

[River_God]

I don't much care for him either River.

I sure don't want Canadian Conservatives to get sucked into the ideology of American and Australian fanatical-Conservatives.

Guys like Murdoch can't be aloowed to get a monopoly on the media.

I'm guessing that was the major drive behind excluding "cultural resources" from WTO juridiction.

I'm sure guys like Murdoch would love to own every last printing press, book store, TV station and web-server in the world.

These guys even feel threatened by countries like Sweden. Maybe it's just anger at not being able to fully dominate their markets.

[tml12]

I don't much care for him either River.

I sure don't want Canadian Conservatives to get sucked into the ideology of American and Australian fanatical-Conservatives.

Guys like Murdoch can't be aloowed to get a monopoly on the media.

I'm guessing that was the major drive behind excluding "cultural resources" from WTO juridiction.

I'm sure guys like Murdoch would love to own every last printing press, book store and TV station and web-server in the world.

They even feel threatened by countries like Sweden. Maybe it's just anger at not being able to fully penetrate their markets.

While my area of speciality is North American Politics and I can't really comment on Austrailian politics, I will say I don't think that I would generalize so much about US politics.

Neither Bush's father, nor John McCain, nor Colin Powell, nor about 60% of the Republican Party is "fanatical" right-wing. They are centre-right. This administration is just a bit fanatical.

[River_God]

While my area of speciality is North American Politics and I can't really comment on Austrailian politics, I will say I don't think that I would generalize so much about US politics.

Neither Bush's father, nor John McCain, nor Colin Powell, nor about 60% of the Republican Party is "fanatical" right-wing. They are centre-right. This administration is just a bit fanatical.

Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell's chief of staff until January this year, alleged that US policy on Iraq before and after the March 2003 invasion had been hijacked by an alliance between Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, fostered by President George Bush's "detached" attitude to details of post-war planning.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle330218.ece

Wilkerson even accused Vice-President Dick Cheney of creating the climate in which prisoner abuse could flourish, and implied that he might have committed war crimes.

Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wil...w.ap/index.html

[tml12]

While my area of speciality is North American Politics and I can't really comment on Austrailian politics, I will say I don't think that I would generalize so much about US politics.

Neither Bush's father, nor John McCain, nor Colin Powell, nor about 60% of the Republican Party is "fanatical" right-wing. They are centre-right. This administration is just a bit fanatical.

Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell's chief of staff until January this year, alleged that US policy on Iraq before and after the March 2003 invasion had been hijacked by an alliance between Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, fostered by President George Bush's "detached" attitude to details of post-war planning.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle330218.ece

Wilkerson even accused Vice-President Dick Cheney of creating the climate in which prisoner abuse could flourish, and implied that he might have committed war crimes.

Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wil...w.ap/index.html

River,

Are you trying to pick fights with me? I don't think I disagreed with you criticisms of a lot of the Bush government's policies. However, I am not satisfied that Harper or Martin are involved in any of them.

I should add: Martin is involved in many of the research I have done as well

[River_God]

While my area of speciality is North American Politics and I can't really comment on Austrailian politics, I will say I don't think that I would generalize so much about US politics.

Neither Bush's father, nor John McCain, nor Colin Powell, nor about 60% of the Republican Party is "fanatical" right-wing. They are centre-right. This administration is just a bit fanatical.

Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell's chief of staff until January this year, alleged that US policy on Iraq before and after the March 2003 invasion had been hijacked by an alliance between Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, fostered by President George Bush's "detached" attitude to details of post-war planning.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle330218.ece

Wilkerson even accused Vice-President Dick Cheney of creating the climate in which prisoner abuse could flourish, and implied that he might have committed war crimes.

Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wil...w.ap/index.html

River,

Are you trying to pick fights with me? I don't think I disagreed with you criticisms of a lot of the Bush government's policies. However, I am not satisfied that Harper or Martin are involved in any of them.

I should add: Martin is involved in many of the research I have done as well

No I was agreeing with you that most of the US politicians are probably pretty good. Cheney and Perle's cabal, however, probably highjacked the US administration on the Iraq war. They fooled everybody with their fake evidence and blatant lies. Wilkerson alluded to that himself.

This same group are are in the Washinton Times which recently gave Harper such a showering.

The Washington Times

Published December 2, 2005

Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.

Last Updated Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:54:28 EST

CBC News

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach lashed out Monday at the leader of her former party, saying she defected because of the threat Stephen Harper posed to national unity.