Flashbacks - January 2010

Eric Von Zipper did not say, "You Denialists!"

Do You PAY To Watch Television Commercials?

Are YOU are being cheated out of your hard earned money by pay television providers?

If you can answer YES to any of the above, ask yourself these simple questions:

Why should I, as a Satellite, Cable, or Broadband Television Subscriber, have to pay to watch commercials on PAY TELEVISION?

Shouldn't the people who want me to watch their television commercials pay for my subscriber television service?

Television was free when it was only available via antenna and Nobody complained about having to pay to watch television commercials. - FCC Consumer Complaints

Legality of the Iraq War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
_OR_
As Guilty of War Crimes As the Cheney/Bush Administration?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must." [Continue Reading At]:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Those Who Approved the Iraq War Resolution

House of Representatives Democrats

Gary Ackerman, Rob Andrews, Jim Barcia, Ken Bentsen, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Rod Blagojevich, Bob Borski, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Brad Carson, Bob Clement, Bud Cramer, Joseph Crowley, Jim Davis, Peter Deutsch, Norm Dicks, Cal Dooley, Chet Edwards, Eliot Engel, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Martin Frost, Dick Gephardt, Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Ralph Hall, Jane Harman, Baron Hill, Joe Hoeffel, Tim Holden, Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, William Jefferson, Chris John, Paul Kanjorski, Patrick Kennedy, Ron Kind, Nicholas Lampson, Tom Lantos, Nita Lowey, Ken Lucas, Bill Luther, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey, Frank Mascara, Jim Matheson, Carolyn McCarthy, Mike McIntyre, Michael McNulty, Martin Meehan, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Bill Pascrell, Collin Peterson, David Phelps, Earl Pomeroy, Tim Roemer, Mike Ross, Steven Rothman, Max Sandlin, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Ronnie Shows, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith, John Spratt, Charles Stenholm, John Tanner, Ellen Tauscher, Gene Taylor, Karen Thurman, Jim Turner, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler, Al Wynn

Senate Democrats

Baucus Bayh Biden Breaux Cantwell Carnahan Carper Cleland Clinton Daschle Dodd Dorgan Edwards Feinstein Harkin Hollings Johnson Kerry Kohl Landrieu Lieberman Lincoln Miller Nelson Nelson Reid Rockefeller Schumer Torricelli

House of Representatives Republicans

Robert Aderholt, Todd Akin, Dick Armey, Spencer Bachus, Richard Baker, Cass Ballenger, Bob Barr, Roscoe Bartlett, Joe Barton, Charlie Bass, Doug Bereuter, Judy Biggert, Michael Bilirakis, Roy Blunt, Sherwood Boehlert, John Boehner, Henry Bonilla, John Boozman, Kevin Brady, Henry Brown, Ed Bryant, Richard Burr, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Sonny Callahan, Ken Calvert, Dave Camp, Chris Cannon, Eric Cantor, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Castle, Steve Chabot, Saxby Chambliss, Howard Coble, Mac Collins, Larry Combest, John Cooksey, Christopher Cox, Phil Crane, Ander Crenshaw, Barbara Cubin, John Culberson, Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Davis, Tom DeLay, Jim DeMint, Nathan Deal, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, John Doolittle, David Dreier, Jennifer Dunn, Vern Ehlers, Bob Ehrlich, Jo Ann Emerson, Phil English, Terry Everett, Mike Ferguson, Jeff Flake, Ernest Fletcher, Mark Foley, Randy Forbes, Vito Fossella, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Elton Gallegly, Greg Ganske, George Gekas, Jim Gibbons, Wayne Gilchrest, Paul Gillmor, Ben Gilman, Virgil Goode, Bob Goodlatte, Porter Goss, Lindsey Graham, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Mark Green, Jim Greenwood, Felix Grucci, Gil Gutknecht, James Hansen, Melissa Hart, J. Dennis Hastert, Doc Hastings, Robin Hayes, J.D. Hayworth, Joel Hefley, Wally Herger, Van Hilleary, David Hobson, Peter Hoekstra, Steve Horn, Kenny Hulshof, Duncan Hunter, Henry Hyde, Johnny Isakson, Darrell Issa, Ernest Istook, William Jenkins, Nancy Johnson, Tim Johnson, Sam Johnson, Walter Jones, Ric Keller, Sue Kelly, Mark Kennedy, Brian Kerns, Peter King, Jack Kingston, Mark Kirk, Joe Knollenberg, Jim Kolbe, Ray LaHood, Steven LaTourette, Tom Latham, Jerry Lewis, Ron Lewis, John Linder, Frank LoBiondo, Frank Lucas, Mary Mack, Donald Manzullo, Jim McCrery, John McHugh, Scott McInnis, Buck McKeon, John Mica, Dan Miller, Gary Miller, Jeff Miller, Jerry Moran, Sue Myrick, George Nethercutt, Robert Ney, Anne Northup, Charles Norwood, Jim Nussle, Tom Osborne, Doug Ose, Butch Otter, Michael Oxley, Mike Pence, John Peterson, Thomas Petri, Chip Pickering, Joe Pitts, Todd Platts, Richard Pombo, Rob Portman, Deborah Pryce, Adam Putnam, Jack Quinn, George Radanovich, Jim Ramstad, Ralph Regula, Dennis Rehberg, Thomas Reynolds, Bob Riley, Hal Rogers, Mike Rogers, Dana Rohrabacher, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Edward Royce, Paul Ryan, Jim Ryun, Jim Saxton, Bob Schaffer, Ed Schrock, Jim Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions, John Shadegg, Clay Shaw, Christopher Shays, Don Sherwood, John Shimkus, Bud Shuster, Rob Simmons, Michael Simpson, Joe Skeen, Nick Smith, Christopher Smith, Lamar Smith, Mark Souder, Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, John Sununu, John Sweeney, Tom Tancredo, Billy Tauzin, Charles Taylor, Lee Terry, Bill Thomas, Mac Thornberry, John Thune, Todd Tiahrt, Pat Tiberi, Pat Toomey, Fred Upton, David Vitter, Greg Walden, James Walsh, Zachary Wamp, Wesley Watkins, J.C. Watts, Dave Weldon, Curt Weldon, Jerry Weller, Ed Whitfield, Roger Wicker, Heather Wilson, Joe Wilson, Frank Wolf, Don Young, Bill Young

Senate Republicans

Allard Allen Bennett Bond Brownback Bunning Burns Campbell Cochran Collins Craig Crapo DeWine Domenici Ensign Enzi Fitzgerald Frist Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hatch Helms Hutchinson Hutchison Inhofe Kyl Lott Lugar McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Roberts Santorum Sessions Shelby Smith Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Voinovich Warner

[Continue Reading At]: http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/voted4war.html +++ Dahbud Mensch

The danger of hired guns

Private security contractors are set to make up half of the military presence in Afghanistan, but has the US lost control of them?

by James Denselow, guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 January 2010 13.00 GMT, Article history

Seventeen Iraqi civilians were killed in Nisoor Square, Baghdad, on 16 September 2007. Some of the bodies were so badly shot up and burned that they had to be identified by their dental records. Guards from the private security firm Blackwater were accused of shooting randomly at the civilians as their convoy passed by, while the company insisted they were responding to an ambush.

Last week a US judge dismissed the charges against the guards on the grounds of procedural errors. The Iraqi government, perhaps also looking to score nationalist points as an election looms, was outraged. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh accused the men of committing a "serious crime" and Prime Minister Maliki warned that "whether in the United States or in Iraq, we will not give our rights up".

As inertia continues to characterise the Middle East peace process and outreach to Iran and Syria, the Blackwater case casts more doubt on the ability of the Obama administration to live up to the rhetoric the president outlined in Cairo when he spoke of mutual "principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings". There is a shameful irony that the "new Iraq" is now criticising America on the basis of human rights and justice, with the Iraqi human rights minister, Wejdan Mikhail, saying she was "astonished" by the US decision to dismiss the case.

The role and remit of private security contractors in America's wars remain highly contested. The animosity felt towards these contractors in Iraq, in particular, is hard to exaggerate. The Iraqi war fired the starting gun for the mass privatisation of war – the burgeoning of private security companies staffed by ex-soldiers from armies across the world parodied in the John Cusack film War, Inc.

It was the killing of contractors that sparked the twin battles of Fallujah, the most deadly single battles of the occupation to date. Foreign Affairs reported that contractors were involved in 36% of cases in the Abu Ghraib incidents; and the recent release of Peter Moore was linked to the discovery by the Guardian that his four contractor guards were killed because they were seen as legitimate combatants. Much of the hatred of contractors is blamed on the perception of them as trigger-happy, especially when they are guarding convoys. This view was reinforced by multiple video clips, some on companies' own websites, showing what appear to be contractors firing indiscriminately at cars

The ability to prosecute US contractors was a key sticking point in the prolonged debate over the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa), which finally allowed US troops to be tried in Iraqi courts, but only in cases of serious, premeditated crimes committed while soldiers were off-base and off-duty. Private contractors, previously immune to prosecution in Iraq, became wholly bound by Iraqi laws.

Some may be surprised that the death of 17 Iraqi civilians has created such a stir considering that between 94,939 and 650,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2003. Yet this particular case has become a test of the untangling of the US occupation of Iraq and the restoration of the country's sovereignty. After all, despite Saddam Hussein's killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, it was the deaths of 96 people from Dujai that sent him to the gallows.

Scott Horton, an attorney specialising in international law, told Democracy Now that the procedural failure of the Blackwater case "almost looks like the Justice Department prosecutors here wanted to sabotage their own case, it was so outrageous". But why would a government undermine its own case? Perhaps it is worried about what Erik Prince, chief executive of Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) could reveal about the the inner workings of CIA and military operations across the globe.

The Iraqi government clearly hasn't given up on the case and is now looking into alternative civil suits against the firm. Meanwhile, despite the work in Iraq drying up and the lack of immunity protection, contractors are moving over to the lucrative war in Afghanistan. Indeed, it is reported that private contractors will make up at least half of the total military workforce in Afghanistan, according to Defense Department officials cited in a new congressional study. With the rule of law far weaker in the more chaotic Afghanistan arena, the question is what guarantees are in place for preventing another Nisoor Square massacre?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/07/security-contractors-iraq-afghanistan

Steve Bell
Why Do Senate & Congress Protect War Criminals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince +++ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

Martin Rowson

"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there [9/11?], I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal… What you lot don’t understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it." - Ariel Sharon, Israel, 1982

HOW CAN EHUD BARAK APPEAR IN THE BBC STUDIO JUST MINUTES AFTER THE FINAL [9/11] ATTACK WITH A PRE-PREPARED SPEECH ???

As if by magic, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak appeared from BBCs main office in London with a pre written/ pre prepared speech. He Spent 30 minutes speaking about how dangerous some "Islamic" countries and terrorists are. At the end of the interview, the news reporter stated that Mr. Barak joined him an hour before it was broadcasted, meaning Barak was there even an hour earlier. In real time of events this means he was there within minutes of the blast, with a pre-written interview. He knew beforehand that the attacks would take place. It was not difficult to see that Barak came with a pre written speech as he is quick to point out all of Israel's enemies which he calls "rogue states". The answers to the interview were carefully prepared to use public sentiments created by the blast, against enemies of Israel. These could not have been developed between the time of attacks and Barak appearing on BBC. Barak's presence in UK could also not have been co-incidental at that crucial time. 11 September 2001

http://www.11september.2itb.com/bbc_letter.htm

Video of Pentagon Plane shown while Barak speaks on BBC !

http://911exposed.org/BBC.htm - Video - http://911exposed.org/BBC_files/barak-bbc.mpeg

YouTube - BBC Ehud Barak 9/11 Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hhiJanLm7g

Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it. - Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 3 Oct. 2001. Source One - Source Two - Source Three

Republicans & Democrats are Lying Hypocrites
Who Support Selective Terrorism Against U.S. Military

Remember the U.S.S. Liberty - 34 U.S. Military Dead, 171 Wounded

Republicans and Democrats Spent $55 million of your Tax Dollars to discover if Monica Swallowed, and only $3 million on the Mass Murders of 9/11 and the 9/11 cOMMISSION - What are THEY trying to cover up and why?

Source: http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/icanseeclearlynow.html

Peace Can Be Universal

Photograph: Bill Perry, VVAW/VFP/IVAW location: Baltimore MD, 1.10.09

Did Dick Cheney Start This Lie?

They Took Babies Out of Incubators and Left Them to Die

I volunteered at the Gaza Al-Shifa hospital. While I was there, I saw the Israeli soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die. - by Nayirah Hillkn Owlton - Source #4, 5, & 6

Context of 'October 10, 1990:
False Allegation of Iraqi Depredations
against Kuwaiti Children Inflames Public Opinion'

Iraq invades Kuwait. In response, the US suspends National Security Directive 26 (see October 2-6, 1989), which established closer ties with Baghdad and mandated $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees to Iraq. [Los Angeles Times, 2/23/1992] The secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, begins pressing President Bush to go to war with Iraq without securing Congressional approval. His rationale is two-fold: he doesn’t need Congressional authority, and he might not get it if he asks. Cheney moves the Pentagon onto a full war footing, even going so far as to create what author and former White House counsel John Dean calls “his own concocted high-risk plans of battle, which he tried but failed to sell at the White House.” Bush will juggle Cheney’s view with that of House Speaker Tom Foley, who will give the president a document signed by 81 Democratic members who insist that if Bush wants to go to war, he needs the authorization of Congress. Dean will write that Cheney’s arguments “are based on bogus legal and historical arguments that have been made before, but no one has pushed them longer or harder than he has.” [Dean, 2007, pp. 89-91]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_1817

Bush's Impending Watergate

By Harvey Wasserman - May 23, 1991

George Bush should be impeached. Whether he will be impeached depends on the intestinal fortitude of Congress. But the evidence is clearly sufficient to begin proceedings.

The grounds for impeachment rest in the now-familiar circumstances around the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis. The story has circulated since the mid 1980s, but in recent weeks has gained startling new confirmation.

The circumstances are worth repeating: On November 4, 1979, radical Iranian students seized some 55 American citizens and began a crisis that lasted until the moment Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president 444 days later.

Future historians may well blame President Jimmy Carter for the inception of the crisis. He ignored warnings that it could happen and stumbled badly once it began. Some may also wonder if he exploited the situation to deflect a challenge to his renomination from Sen. Edward Kennedy.

But by October of 1980, one thing was clear: If the hostages were released prior to the election, Carter would be re-elected. If not, Ronald Reagan would win. All major polls -- including one by the primary Republican pollster, Richard Wirthlin -- showed a 10 percent swing on just that issue.

In early October, word spread through the world media that Carter had negotiated a deal for the hostages' release. It was widely believed that he had agreed to unfreeze some $4 billion in assets claimed by the deposed Shah, and to supply spare parts to the American-made arms inherited by the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary regime. The hostages were due home by mid-October, in ample time to assure Carter's re-election.

Then, mysteriously, the deal was off. The hostages weren't coming home after all. What happened?

The Iranians were known to detest Jimmy Carter. Despite his advocacy of human rights, Carter had befriended the brutal, repressive Shah. Conceivably, the Muslim fundamentalists tantalized Carter with the hostages' possible release and then, just for the hell of it, left him hanging.

There were other theories. Columnist George Will suggested that Iran responded to Reagan because he had threatened to use nuclear weapons if the hostages weren't released, something the pacifistic Carter would not have done.

But two years later, Barbara Honegger, a member of the Reagan campaign team, angrily left the White House staff, leveling charges of sexual discrimination. She then asserted that during the 1980 campaign a special "October Surprise" Committee had operated with a mandate that appeared focused on sabotaging Carter's arrangements and guaranteeing that the hostages remain in Teheran until after the 1980 election.

Honegger claimed no direct proof, but she recalled being told that the hostages would not be coming home because October Surprise Committee member Richard Allen (later chief of Reagan's National Security Council) had "cut a deal" to keep them in Teheran. Future CIA director William Casey may have masterminded the sabotage, Honegger said.

Honegger was dismissed by Reagan-Bush staffers as a "low-level munchkin." But her allegations were given powerful confirmation in 1985 by Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, president of Iran at the time of the crisis. According to Bani-Sadr, George Bush, then candidate for vice president, may personally have flown to Paris on a crucial weekend to convince the son of the Ayatollah "that the hostages should not be released during the Carter administration." Instead, Bani-Sadr said, "they should be released when Reagan became president. So, in return, Reagan would give them arms."

Indeed, Iran was desperately needed weapons to carry on its holy war with Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Hostilities had begun in September, and they were short on guns and cash. There was little doubt they would trade whatever "assets" they had for the arms they needed -- including the American hostages.

The story became common knowledge among top Middle Eastern operatives, including Bassam Abu Sharif, number two man in the Palestine Liberation Organization (assassinated during the recent Gulf War) and Mansour Rafizadeh, a former CIA operative and head of the Shah's dreaded SAVAK secret police.

"The deal was made to release the hostages exactly the moment Ronald Reagan was president," Rafizadeh told the Other America's Radio Network. "It was promised for the arms," said Rafizadeh. "The moment Ronald Reagan was president, they signaled the plane [with the hostages aboard], they took off. After, the shipment of the arms started from Tel Aviv."

Despite repeated denials from the Reagan-Bush team, the story gained some media prominence during the 1988 election, including a story in the Advocate, a major feature co-authored by activist Abbie Hoffman (now dead by an alleged suicide) in Playboy, and an op-ed in the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.

Just prior to the election, a self-proclaimed former CIA operative named Richard Brenneke claimed to have personally flown Bush to Paris to negotiate the deal. Producers from CBS' 60 Minutes were preparing a feature on Brenneke, who was in jail in Colorado, when questions about his credibility were raised and the feature was canceled. The Miami Herald, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and other major publications carried stories concluding there was insufficient evidence to confirm or deny the deal occurred.

Recently, Brenneke was cleared of perjury charges stemming from his claimed connection to the Paris trip. And the assertions have resurfaced with new power. Former Carter security adviser Gary Sick, after a two-year investigation, has released a book arguing the likelihood that an "arms for no hostages" deal was, in fact, made. Bani-Sadr has issued a new book asserting the same thing. Bill Moyers' Frontline devoted an entire program to it. Bush's denials -- issued just before his recent heart problems -- that he ever flew to Paris during the 1980s campaign made front-page news across the nation.

But does the story really turn on that? White House spokesperson Marlin Fitzwater says all of Bush's time can be accounted for. Bush has vehemently denied ever going to Paris during the 1980 campaign. Yet the official log of Bush's whereabouts on the crucial weekend -- when he is alleged to have made the deal -- has a hole big enough for him to have flown to Paris, negotiated the deal and then flown back.

The idea that the vice presidential candidate would have flown abroad to negotiate a deal that amounts to treason might seem absurd. Bush, after all, was formerly head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and a master of plausible deniability. It was clearly out of character to expose himself in such a direct manner to what could ultimately be a scandal of truly epic proportions.

On the other hand, the Iranians could well have demanded Bush's personal presence. It was well-known that the Ayatollah's cabal put little faith in the American electoral system. Like many Iranians, they believed that the true power in U.S. politics rested not with elected officials, but with the secret police, i.e. the CIA. As the CIA's former head, they believed Bush to be the true power in the Reagan-Bush campaign, and may well have demanded his personal approval for any trade of their hostage "assets."

Even so, the question of Bush going to Paris may be a red herring. The circumstances pointing to the likelihood of a deal being made are overwhelming. That Carter had all but secured their release is well-known. That there was a Reagan-Bush October Surprise Committee run by Allen and Casey is undeniable, as is the fact that the hostages were released precisely at the moment that Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. It is also well-known that large quantities of American-sponsored arms began flowing through Israel in March 1981.

As for the question of Iranian motive, although Khomeini profoundly hated Jimmy Carter, he had no reason to like Reagan more, and would hardly have bothered to spite one representative of the "Great Satan" over another. In Iran's jihad with Saddam Hussein, however, the hostages were an asset to be traded, a bargaining chip to go to the highest bidder. Carter was deeply disinclined to send Iran large quantities of arms; once in office, Reagan did just that.

Thus, the evidence suggesting that George Bush actually flew to Paris to negotiate the deal is ultimately irrelevant. As the number two man on the ticket and the former head of the CIA, no such deal would have been cut without Bush's approval, whether he flew to Paris or not.

And that means high treason and public crimes of the highest order. The ideal that the nominees of a major party could have knowingly prolonged the agony of American citizens in exchange for weapons is about as low as one could imagine any politician sinking.

In fact, the sabotage may even have preceded the October negotiations. Earlier in 1980, Carter set out to free the hostages with "Operation Eagle Claw," built around a surprise helicopter landing and secret assault on the building where they were held in Teheran.

The mission proved disastrous. At least two American helicopters crashed into each other in the desert long before they made it anywhere near Teheran. Eight Marines were killed. Carter looked ineffectual and frustration with the hostage crisis escalated.

Unfortunately, the operatives in charge of Desert Claw may not have been loyal to Carter -- or to the U.S. Carter held deeply alienated a broad range of CIA operatives by trying to clean up the Agency when he first came to power. Admiral Stansfield Turner, the tough but honest Navy man Carter put in charge at the CIA fired some 600 "spooks" soon after taking command. Many were deeply loyal to former Director George Bush and to the "Old Boy" network that serves as the Agency's true infrastructure.

That loyalty may have carried over to sabotage of Operation Eagle Claw. For the man who served as chief mission planner was none other than Richard Secord, who later surfaced as a major kingpin in the shady arms dealings between the Reagan White House and the contras of Nicaragua. A top staffer at a key base in Eagle Claw's catastrophic helicopter support operation was none other than the legendary Colonel Oliver North. Working closely with him as a logistical planner was Albert Hakkim, who later sat by Secord's side at the Congressional Iran-contra hearings and wept of his love for Oliver North.

As historian Donald Fried has put it "Precisely the people in the intelligence community commissioned to develop some kind of rescue for the hostages were those elements of covert action close to William Casey and hostile to Carter."

Casey, of course, later became Reagan's CIA chief. But higher up in the chain at the time of the failed rescue mission was Donald Gregg, a member of Carter's National Security Council who later surfaced as s high-level Bush operative. Gregg's close personal ties to Bush became a serious issue in light of his extensive dealings with key contra figures tied both to the Iran-contra scandal and illegal drug shipments coming from Central America. Gregg is now Bush's ambassador to South Korea.

In a recent interview Carter specifically implied that Gregg might have betrayed key security items to Bush during the 1980 campaign. Students of the affair, including author Gary Sick, also wonder if Gregg might have fed the Reagan-Bush team key items in the dealings between Carter and the Iranians.

At this point with Bush's popularity so high on the heels of a much-desired military victory millions of Americans would not want to believe such a story could be true. The U.S. triumph over Saddam Hussein clearly filled a psychological void plaguing Americans since Vietnam. It allowed for a military triumph where the most recent memory had been of defeat. And it gave Americans the opportunity to do penance for the mistreatment of Vietnam veterans by showering those who fought the brief Gulf War with a heroes' welcome outstripping anything since World War II and way out of proportion for the size and duration of the Iraqi massacre.

Nonetheless, there is nothing in the character of the Reagan-Bush regimes that indicates a moral incapability of cutting such a deal. More than 200 members of the administration were indicted during their eight-year tenure, including Attorney General Edwin Meese and close Reagan counselors Michael Deaver and Lyn Nofziger. By all accounts, the Reagan-Bush administration were the most corrupt since the short term of Ulysses S. Grant.

The idea that Ronald Reagan and George Bush could have conspired to prolong the torment of U.S. hostages dwarfs the miasma that was Watergate on both a moral and political scale. Ultimately its impact will depend on the willingness of Congress to investigate the facts and act on what it finds. It is time for Congress to once again assume its role in the balance of powers. Impeachment means bringing to trial. The evidence is clearly sufficient to begin the process.

At presstime, Congress had launched a preliminary staff investigation into the Reagan-Bush 1980 campaign and whether there had been negotiations with Iran to delay the release of the American Hostages.

The Great Iraq War Lie

The pictured girl [above] told the world under tears that she saw how Saddam Hussein's soldiers took babies out of their incubators and let them die on the cold floor. - In Novembre 1990 Bush41 told this lie to the poor soldiers. - In truth she hadn't been in Kuwait at the time. The girl was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington, USA.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/incubatorlie.html

Has The Illegal Iraq War Poisoned Our Faith In Congress?

Steve Bell - Chilcot inquiry casts new doubts on Iraq war
Alastair Campbell tells Chilcot inquiry that Tony Blair made secret pledge to George Bush

'We will be there': Blair gave secret pledge to Bush on Iraq war, Campbell reveals

Former No 10 communications chief Alastair Campbell gives insight into correspondence with White House in months before start of war in 2003 which led to Saddam Hussein's removal

by Richard Norton-Taylor, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 21.16 GMT, Article history

Tony Blair privately assured President George Bush in letters written a year before the invasion of Iraq that Britain would "be there" in any US-led attack on the country, it was revealed at the Chilcot inquiry today.

The disclosure came during sometimes sharp exchanges with Alastair Campbell, Blair's communications chief and close adviser, who described Gordon Brown, the then chancellor, as "one of the key ministers" Blair spoke to about Iraq. [Continue Reading At]:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/12/bush-blair-pledge-iraq-campbell-chilcot

Steve Bell - Chilcot Nostalgia Hour: [Blair sings] I'll Be There, I'll Be There
'We will be there': Blair gave secret pledge to Bush on Iraq war, Campbell reveals

Former No 10 communications chief Alastair Campbell gives insight into correspondence with White House in months before start of war in 2003 which led to Saddam Hussein's removal

Read My Lips - The Bush/Blair Love Movie

READ MY LIPS originally appeared at: www.atmo.se/readmylips (non-working link) and was mirrored at:

http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/images/readmylips_blush.mov - Click link to view

Was It ... All ... A Lie? = Probably
War Criminal Bush's Lying Words on 9/11 and Osama

13 September 2001 - The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.

17 September 2001 - I want justice... There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, Wanted: Dead or Alive !

28 December 2001 - Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control pf a [sic] county. Now, he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run.

Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden, but one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice.

28 December 2001 - And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in a cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...

13 March 2002 - I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and REALLY DON'T CARE. IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT. IT'S NOT OUR PRIORITY.

8 April 2002
I am truly not that concerned about him.

[THE BUSH AND BIN LADEN FAMILIES ARE FRIENDS]
The Above IS In Flash Video Format:
http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/BOQ.html
Music & Vocal by John McCutcheon - Empty WORDS by George W. Bush, War Criminal

Remind Us: Why did the United States invade Iraq? - Flash

Lawsuits: AT&T collects illegal taxes on Internet access

Over the last month, a series of federal lawsuits around the country have charged AT&T with illegally collecting "taxes" on wireless data plans. The suits, which all seek class action status, say that there are no such taxes.

By Nate Anderson - Last updated January 12, 2010 7:52 PM

AT&T's wireless unit has been hit by numerous federal lawsuits over the last month, each arguing that the mobile telephony giant is illegally collecting nonexistent "taxes" on phone data access plans. The cases have been filed in states as varied as Georgia, Indiana, and Alabama, but all make the same charges against AT&T—and all use the same idiosyncratic spelling of "I-Phone."

That's because the same lawyers are involved in each one.

Taxes and "taxes"

The charges in these cases stem from AT&T's sales tax collection practices. The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act bans most taxes on Internet access until 2014. Despite the law, AT&T has allegedly collected sales taxes on its data plans, which the complaint says clearly amount to "Internet access" under the law.

In each state, the lawyers have found an individual to bring the complaint, each version of which is largely identical to the others. The goal is for a judge to certify the case as a class action lawsuit, opening the door up to the "thousands of individuals" impacted by AT&T's collection of the "purported sales 'taxes'."

In some states, the claim is merely that the "taxes" are not actually "taxes" at all, just ways to collect more revenue. But in some states, like Alabama, the suit points out that companies which collect sales tax are allowed to hold back tiny percentages from the state in order to cover the cost of compliance (in Alabama, it's 0.25 percent of the tax).

While the law sounds simple, implementation can be complicated, in part because many states disagree on what the law actually covers. According to a 2006 report (PDF) from the Government Accountability Office, Internet access sold to consumers and businesses is tax-exempt, but Internet services sold to ISPs themselves is not (states differ on their acceptance of this distinction). Furthermore, the GAO argues that things like telephone service, video services, and even VoIP should be taxed, since they are "telecommunications" service and not "Internet access."

The GAO report does suggest that basic Internet connections, including those provided by DSL, cable, and wireless technologies, cannot be taxed; the lawsuits argue that such taxes are in fact being levied by AT&T. The company hasn't been commenting on the suits, and AT&T has not yet filed a response in any of the cases we examined. It's quite possible that the company will claim its data plans are not pure "Internet access" under the law, despite being broken out separately on the bill, but we'll have to see.

How much money is at stake here is hard to say. The lawsuits do say that they expect the issue to exceed the $5 million threshold for class action cases.

The cases appear to be spearheaded by lawyers from Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson, & Gorny, personal injury lawyers from Missouri. (Partner Jim Bartimus was the Personal Injury Litigator of the Year in Kansas City for 2009.) BFRG is no stranger to this sort of litigation, and has previously secured a $450 million settlement from mobile phone companies after claiming that the firms hid rate increases as "tax increases."

And AT&T is no stranger to being sued. In the last year alone, the company's wireless unit has faced big lawsuits from songwriters over its ringtones, lawsuits for slow 3G speeds, and even attempted class action suits over the iPhone's lack of MMS.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/lawsuits-claim-att-collects-illegal-taxes-on-internet-access.ars

Telecom Crimes

Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

Violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution

Unlawful electronic surveillance or disclosure or use of information obtained by electronic surveillance in violation of 50 U.S.C. §1809.

Unlawful interception, use or disclosure of Class communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511

Unlawful solicitation and obtained disclosure of the contents of communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) or (a)(2)

Unlawful solicitation and obtained disclosure of non-content records or other information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(3)

Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act

Violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers

Click to view TELECOM CRIMES & PUNISHMENT

Don't Worry Haiti, Obama Is Sending Help
Mega barf alert AND gag me with a chainsaw!

Obama asks 'Heckuva job, Brownie' George W. Bush to help with Haiti relief efforts

By Lori Price, www.legitgov.org 15 Jan 2010

Because George W. Bush did *such* a great job responding to Hurricane Katrina (aka blown levies), President Barack Obama is asking his killer drone soul mate to help with Haiti relief efforts! Such a request assigns legitimacy to the illegitimate P_resident that was Bush, who was installed in a coup d'etat, and serves to permanently elevate Bush from war criminal and torturer (Shock & Awe executor, Waterboarder-in-Chief) to world-class humanitarian. [Click to Continue Reading at www.legitgov.org ]

REMINDER: Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize ...
Jul 9, 2008 ... It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment." EFF, the other non-profit organization behind the telecom lawsuits, announced the same, ...

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn't present for any of the votes, but shared Obama's support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly. [Click To Continue Reading]

Stupidity Buys the Lie

by Dahbud Mensch, 201001.17

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels

Supreme Court to democracy: Drop dead

With a single rash, partisan act, the high court has tainted the Bush presidency, besmirched its own reputation and soiled our nation's proudest legacy.

By Gary Kamiya

Dec. 14, 2000 | Tuesday, Dec. 12, is a day that will live in American infamy long after the tainted election of George W. Bush has faded from memory. With their rash, divisive decision to dispense with the risky and inconvenient workings of democracy and simply award the presidency to their fellow Republican, five right-wing justices dragged the Supreme Court down to perhaps its most ignominious point since the Dred Scott decision.

The court was the last American civic institution to have preserved an aura of impartiality, to be regarded as above the gutter of partisanship and self-interest. The reality, of course, is that no court, no judge, no human being, is completely free of those entanglements. Yet the court has generally acted wisely in avoiding judgments that would inevitably and utterly besmirch it. With one reckless and partisan ruling, it squandered its most precious possession: its reputation. It may take years, even decades, to repair the damage done by the Scalia-Rehnquist court's decision to cancel the election and crown the winner.

It's hard not to conclude, now that this whole sorry saga is over, that the fix was in from the beginning. Not the crude, "vast right-wing conspiracy" fix of Hillary Clinton's imagination, but a de facto fix. Why shouldn't one think the game was rigged, when five Republican-appointed justices -- one of whose son works for the law firm of the lawyer representing Bush, another of whose wife is recruiting staff for the Bush admininstration and two of whom have made clear their desire to retire under a Republican administration -- trashed their entire judicial philosophy to ram through, with only the most cramped of legal justifications, a last-second victory for a Republican who lost the national popular vote and, when the votes in Florida are actually counted, is likely to have lost the Florida one as well?

Perfect justice does not exist. But this was judicial folly, politically explosive and judicially threadbare. This was the court stepping in and awarding victory to one side before the game was over. Even those of us who don't often agree with the court's conservative majority expected better. [Continue Reading]

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier,
just so long as I'm the dictator." George W Bush - December 18, 2000

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

Republicans Knew About 9/11 In Advance

RICE: I know that, had we thought that there was an attack coming in Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try and stop it. And I know that there was no single thing that might have prevented that attack.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" [Using planes].

Why Didn't the Air Force Stop 9/11?

What Corporate Media Failed to Mention About 9/11:
[New Air Rules Were In Place After A Small Plane Crashed Into White House]

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW;
Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House

By MAUREEN DOWD,
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 1994

Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House.

No one tried to stop it.

Administration officials, who pieced together the flight path, said that the Secret Service agents stationed outside the South Portico had only seconds to scramble out of the way as the two-seat, propeller-driven Cessna 150, its power apparently shut off and only its wing lights on, came straight at them.

Gliding over the treetops, the Cessna passed the fountain and the red cannas blooming on the South Lawn, bounced off the grass just short of the White House, crashed through the branches of a magnolia tree planted by Andrew Jackson and came to rest in a crumpled heap two stories below the Clintons' unoccupied bedroom.

President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, were sleeping across Pennsylvania Avenue at Blair House, the guest house for visiting dignitaries, while repairs were being made to the ventilation system in the White House residence. The Clintons moved back into the White House today.

The authorities said the plane had been stolen and the pilot was Frank Eugene Corder, a 38-year-old truck driver from Maryland. His relatives said he had struggled with vertiginous moods, alcohol, a drug conviction, financial problems, the recent rupture of his third marriage and the death of his father.

Associates said that Mr. Corder, who was killed in the crash, even told a friend last year that he felt so hopeless he might fly a plane on a suicide mission to the White House. That could not be confirmed.

As the chilling sight of the crumpled airplane at the base of the mansion was beamed around the world, a debate began about whether White House security was lax.

Security officials said today that the plan for protecting the President against aerial attack relied more on moving him quickly to safety than on stopping the attack.

Secret Service officials, asserting that their shield around the President himself had not been penetrated, said their initial conclusion was that Mr. Corder was not trying to kill the President and appeared to have acted alone, though law-enforcement officials and several agencies would investigate.

Mr. Clinton was awakened at 2:35 A.M. by his chief of staff, Leon E. Panetta, who had been alerted to the 1:49 A.M. crash through a series of calls set in motion by a military aide who was sleeping in the basement of the White House residence, Lieut. Comdr. Richard Fitzpatrick. After being told of the crash, the President went back to sleep, aides said.

Mrs. Clinton returned to the family quarters this morning and watched from the Truman balcony above the diplomatic entrance as Secret Service agents, police officers and firefighters prowled the area, removing the wreckage, hosing away fuel and planting yellow flags to set off the gouge in the lawn left by the plane.

The South Lawn, where the Middle East peace pact was signed last year, was a remarkable sight today to those who had assumed that the White House had a sophisticated security system, with anti-aircraft guns and perhaps even rooftop missiles that could shield the mansion from an aerial intrusion, especially one so unsophisticated. Only 50 yards from the Oval Office, just around the corner from the Rose Garden, sat the tangle of metal, what was left of the plane's nose inches from the barred office window of the White House physician, Comdr. E. Connie Mariano, one floor below the State Dining Room. Near the Patio Furniture

The wreckage sat next to a set of white, wrought-iron patio furniture, across from the wide lawn where bleachers had been set up in anticipation of an afternoon ceremony today for the National Service plan, a ceremony that was moved. The cockpit was reminiscent of a crushed beer can, and the tail was tilted up, mostly intact. A tarpolin had been hung over the plane to conceal its identification numbers. A twisted brown aircraft seat rested in the dirt just left of the wreckage.

The scene was frightening proof of what military and security officials, planning against terrorist attacks, had long privately believed: that the White House is more vulnerable than anyone admits.

Judging from what happened today, either someone made a terrible security mistake or the integrity of the "secure" air space around downtown Washington -- one nautical mile on either side of the White House, extending up to 18,000 feet, and broadening to envelope the Mall, the Capitol and most of the area's well-known monuments and museums -- depends on intruders playing by the rules.

Passers-by can often see Secret Service agents walking on the White House roof or on duty in an observation post there. But experts said it would be dangerous to fire missiles in downtown Washington. A hit might send an aircraft crashing into a nearby landmark, like the Hay Adams Hotel or the Treasury Department. And, as a senior White House official noted today, "If you missed, E Street becomes pretty ugly, pal."

At a White House briefing this afternoon, a Secret Service official painted a picture of frantic activity and jittery uncertainty as the Cessna dropped quietly out of the night sky, landing without flame or fireball.

The official, Carl Meyer, said that agents had spotted the plane only after it completed its U-turn toward the White House and that they only had "enough time to run for cover."

Mr. Meyer added that he did not know if the Federal Aviation Administration's radar had detected the Cessna as it approached and violated the capital's restricted air space, saying that radar could probably not track a small aircraft flying at tree-top level, particularly if it was not using a standard electronic device that identifies the aircraft and enhances its image on radar screens.

Once the plane crashed, officials tried to determine whether the landing was an accident or part of an elaborate assassination attempt -- and whether the plane might still have explosives aboard.

"The first thing we had to determine was, what was the situation?" Mr. Meyer said. "Was this just a plane that ran out of gas? Did somebody have a heart attack? We just didn't have a good sense of what was involved here. Or, was it a diversion, was something going to come?"

Adolphus Roberts, an eyewitness who was on the mall and saw the plane approach from the north, over 17th Street, told investigators and reporters that the plane had flown near the Washington Monument and then made a left-hand turn toward the White House.

"It had lights on both wings, it turned left and lined up with the White House," he said. "I heard a large boom sound. There was no fire, no nothing." He said he heard no engine noise, suggesting that Mr. Corder may have cut his engine as he glided down toward the lawn.

By early morning, the wreckage was already a tourist attraction. No Plans 'Against a Lunatic'

Patrick Porter, 46, a software engineer for General Electric from Portland, Ore., looked at the South Lawn from behind yellow police tapes. "It just proves you can make all the plans in the world and there's nothing you can do to plan against a lunatic who doesn't think rationally," he said.

In Aberdeen, a small Maryland town 25 miles northeast of Baltimore, Mr. Corder's brother did not seem to know of any particular grudge that he might have held against Mr. Clinton. "Shock," said Mr. Corder's brother, John. "Surprise. It hit us right out of the blue."

After daylight, Mr. Clinton, wearing black jogging clothes and a baseball hat, returned to the White House and later peered out a window at the wreckage. Both he and his wife sought to play down the incident. In remarks by satellite to new members of his Americorps volunteer program, the President said that the White House "will be kept safe, and it will be kept open and the people's business will go on."

Mrs. Clinton told guests that it "has been quite an unusual day here at the White House."

Photos: Frank Eugene Corder, a trucker from Maryland, died when the small, single-engine plane he was piloting crashed on the South Lawn behind the White House early yesterday, the authorities said. He is shown in a 1993 photograph, above. At top, an investigator by the wreckage, just outside the Presidential private quarters, which were unoccupied at the time of the crash. (Photographs by Agence-France Presse (top), Associated Press (right) (pg. A1); Remnants of the plane that crashed near the White House's South Lawn being taken away yesterday. (Stephen Crowley/The New York Times) (pg. A20) Map/Diagram: "WHAT HAPPENED: The Crash at the White House" 1. Frank Eugene Corder stole a Cessna 150, a two-seat, single-engine airplane, from Hartford County Airpark, a private airport in Maryland, and took off after midnight yesterday. 2. He flew south toward Washington. 3. The plane entered the restricted flight zone at the center of Washington, near the White House. 4. After making a 180-degree turn west of the Washington Monument, Mr. Corder headed toward the White House. 5. The plane crashed at 1:49 A.M. on the South Lawn of the White House and skidded 50 feet along the ground into the wall two floors below President Clinton's bedroom; the Clintons were across the street at Blair House. Mr. Corder died in the crash. (Sources: Associated Press, Federal Aviation Administration) (pg. A20)

Crash at the White House - New York Times - 1994

Cheney Caught Ordering Air Force Standdown on 9/11
Cheney Caught Ordering Air Force Stand down on September 11, 2001.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm. 9/11 Commission Report ...
www.welfarestate.com/wtc/cheney-911-coup.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

The "Stand Down" of the Air Force on 9/11
Jun 18, 2006 ... Why there was NOT a "stand down" order: explaining the "failure" of the Trillion Dollar Air Force to defend its headquarters ...
www.oilempire.us/standdown.html - 107k - Cached - Similar pages

Cheney stand down order
[[the following Cheney stand down order is confused for a shoot down order]] ... Cheney stand down order { May 23 2003 } · Cheney told bush air force one is ...
newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/norad-faa-response/cheney-stand-down-order.txt - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Were Stand-Down Intercept Orders Given On Morning Of 911?
The Air Force spokesman confirmed that AFTER the alerts and requests for ... somewhere in the executive branch a STAND DOWN ORDER was issued --- to a pretty good ... about Bush having to make the decision to shoot down flight 77 on 9-11-01. .... Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept ...
www.prisonplanet.com/were_stand_down_intercept_orders_given_on_morning_of_911.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11
New World Order ... Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11 ... "We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, ...
bushstole04.com/911/mineta_confirms.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11 ...
... text alongside him– that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order not to shoot down hijacked ... "We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, ...
hidhist.wordpress.com/terror/911/the-pentagon/norman-mineta-confirms-that-dick-cheney-ordered-stand-down-on-911/ - 90k - Cached - Similar pages

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11 ...
The idea that "the order still stands" matches up with a change in NORAD and Pentagon ... "We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, ... the Vice President's role in ordering NORAD to stand down on 9/11. ...
muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1111 - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11
Mineta DOES NOT say that he heard Cheney order a stand down. ..... Cheney and Rumsfeld were putting the entire air force on drills that simulated attacks on ...
digg.com/world_news/Norman_Mineta_Confirms_That_Dick_Cheney_Ordered_Stand_Down_on_9_11 - 182k - Cached - Similar pages

Mineta, Cheney and A the orders still stand @ controversy:
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Further evidence that Vice President Cheney. = s order on 9/11 regarding .... accounts that Bush was airborne in Air Force One when shoot down order ...
www.journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.pdf - Similar pages

9-11 Review: The 'Stand-Down Order'
The 'Stand-Down Order'. The shocking failure of the air defense system to .... The Vice-President (Cheney) is on record as approving the shooting down of ... Planes from Andrews Air Force base were in the sky "just minutes" after the ...
911review.com/means/standdown.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

POWERFUL EVIDENCE AIR FORCE WAS MADE TO STAND DOWN ON 9-11
Jul 1, 2002 ... Vice President Cheney said on MEET THE PRESS September 16th that the FAA had open ... The bases did so under an order affecting major Army installations ...
www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/update630.htm - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11
Jun 26, 2007 ... Alex Jones' American Dictators -- Order Now and let Your Friends and Family Know ... "We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, ... about the Vice President's role in ordering NORAD to stand down on 9/11. ...
www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/mineta_confirms_cheney_ordered_911_stand_down.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Exposing NORAD's Wag The 911 Window Dressing Tale ...
NORAD says they actually waited till 9:24 a.m. to order Langley AFB to scramble. ..... 9:11 a.m.: The two F-15 Eagles from Otis Air National Guard station in Falmouth; ... 9:23 a.m.: Bush talks privately with Cheney, his National Security ..... Stand Down. The United States Air Force is the most technologically ...
standdown.net/ - 118k - Cached - Similar pages

John McQuaid: The Cheney Campaign
Haunted by the fact that 9-11 happened on his watch. Bush was in Florida, Cheney was in ... Why did he give the order for Norad to Stand Down? Why was our Air Force on manuevers in Canda? Why was he playing War Games on ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mcquaid/the-cheney-campaign_b_206857.html - 189k - Cached - Similar pages

Cheney Implicated 9/11
Andrews Air Force Base assigned to protect the Capital is 11 miles from ... However, According to General Meyers & Mineta, Cheney's stand down order ...
www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/cheny_implicated_911.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

DID CHENEY ALLOW OR ORDER 9/11 PLANE TO STRIKE PENTAGON
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
a.m., too late for him to authorize the Air Force to shoot it down. ... the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand- down order to ...
www.ericlarsen.net/FOOD%20FOR%20THOUGHT%207.1.2007.pdf - Similar pages

Cheney's Bunker Mentality | Mother Jones
Cheney has been talking a lot about 9/11. So what was he doing that day? ... He said that the Air Force was trying to set up a combat air patrol (CAP) ..... We still don't know whether Cheney was issuing a Standdown order for Flt. 77 or ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/cheneys-bunker-mentality - 120k - Cached - Similar pages

Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11
Jun 17, 2008 ... We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, ..... It makes clear that Cheney issued a shoot-down, not a stand-down, order. ...
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9368 - 106k - Cached - Similar pages

The Andrews Air Force Base Stand Down: How the ...
The Stratcom Stand Down on 9/11 · "Ringing Like Crazy": Were U.S. Military ... Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Secret Government ... Andrews Air Force Base is located just 10 miles southeast of Washington, DC, .... He told the Secret Service agent, "I would feel more comfortable receiving such an order from someone ...
shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrews-air-force-base-stand-down-how.html - 92k - Cached - Similar pages

Cheney: Architect of 9/11? « Meltdown 2011
Posted on March 11, 2008 by Scott Gallup ... Obviously Cheney had not issued a shoot-down order but a stand-down order. ... and what was then an amazingly flatfooted response from our US Air Force. ...
meltdown2011.com/2008/03/11/cheney-architect-of-911/ - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

QUAKER TERRORISTS

The first accounts of DOMESTIC SPYING surfaced when Corporate Media reported:

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks suspicious' domestic groups.

By Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella and the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period.

"This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible," says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

Continue reading at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

PEANUT-BUTTER and JELLY TERRORISTS

The Other Big Brother
The Pentagon has its own domestic spying program. Even its leaders say the outfit may have gone too far.
By Michael Isikoff, Newsweek

Jan. 30, 2006 issue - The demonstration seemed harmless enough. Late on a June afternoon in 2004, a motley group of about 10 peace activists showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. They were there to protest the corporation's supposed "war profiteering." The demonstrators wore papier-mache masks and handed out free peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches to Halliburton employees as they left work. The idea, according to organizer Scott Parkin, was to call attention to allegations that the company was overcharging on a food contract for troops in Iraq. "It was tongue-in-street political theater," Parkin says.

But that's not how the Pentagon saw it. To U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security.

Continue reading at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/01/29/the-other-big-brother.html

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying - Post-9/11 Order Bypassed Special Court
By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night. Continue reading at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

THE pRESIDENT: Yes, Ed.

Question: Mr. President, with this program, though, what can you say to those members of the public that are worried about violations of their privacy?

THE pRESIDENT: Ed, I can say that if somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat, limited. And it's limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But they are of known -- numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that's what we're doing.

We're at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment's notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing. It's a program that's been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials, a program to which the Congress has been briefed, and a program that is, in my judgment, necessary to win this war and to protect the American people. Continue reading at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060101.html - Link removed by the Republican Criminal Bush Administration

The United States Government Protects War Criminals
Remember the U.S.S. Liberty

'I'm Scott Brown. I drive a truck'

Steve Bell - Healthcare My Ass, Let'em eat beefcake - Me and My Waterboard

If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will
The Wheel by the Grateful Dead

What could have been - Steve Bell
Reflecting on George W Bush and Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq

NY Fed Used National Security To Keep Bailout Details Secret From The Public
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Is United States Government Criminal
Because It Protects War Criminals?

Wanted: Tony Blair for war crimes.
Arrest him and claim your reward

Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished

by George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 January 2010 19.30 GMT, Article history

The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.

But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: "Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don't want the answer."

Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal". In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law".

Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a solution by negotiation" (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only "if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.

We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war – "self-defence, ­humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.

As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office had "consistently" advised that an invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.

Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted.

There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has not been adopted.

Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder commissioned overseas.

All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.

But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.

So today I am launching a website:

- www.arrestblair.org -

whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the reward, the greater the number of people who are likely to try.

At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/bounty-blair-war-criminal-chilcot

Tony and George: a special relationship
Click Here to View: 8 Photographs via guardian.co.uk

Click Here to View: War Criminal Love a.k.a. Read My Lips

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

by Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
The Guardian, Saturday 25 September 2004 23.59 BST
Article history

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Tantalising

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

Red-handed

Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor". He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

Biography

Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? - Barbara Bush, 3/18/2003

War criminals must fear punishment.
That's why I went for John Bolton

As long as the greatest crime of the 21st century remains unprosecuted, we all have a duty to keep the truth alive

by George Monbiot, The Guardian, Tuesday 3 June 2008, Article history

I realise now that I didn't have a hope. I had almost reached the stage when two of the biggest gorillas I have ever seen swept me up and carried me out of the tent. It was humiliating, but it could have been worse. The guard on the other side of the stage, half hidden in the curtains, had spent the lecture touching something under his left armpit. Perhaps he had bubos.

I had no intention of arresting John Bolton, the former under-secretary of state at the US state department, when I arrived at the Hay festival. But during a panel discussion about the Iraq war, I remarked that the greatest crime of the 21st century had become so normalised that one of its authors was due to visit the festival to promote his book. I proposed that someone should attempt a citizens' arrest, in the hope of instilling a fear of punishment among those who plan illegal wars. After the session I realised that I couldn't call on other people to do something I wasn't prepared to do myself.

I knew that I was more likely to be arrested and charged than Mr Bolton. I had no intention of harming him, or of acting in any way that could be interpreted as aggressive, but had I sought only to steer him gently towards the police I might have faced a range of exotic charges, from false imprisonment to aggravated assault. I was prepared to take this risk. It is not enough to demand that other people act, knowing that they will not. If the police, the courts and the state fail to prosecute what the Nuremberg tribunal described as "the supreme international crime", I believe we have a duty to seek to advance the process.

The Nuremberg principles, which arose from the prosecution of Nazi war criminals, define as an international crime the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances". Bolton appears to have "participated in a common plan" to prepare for the war (also defined by the principles as a crime) by inserting the false claim that Iraq was seeking to procure uranium from Niger into a state department factsheet. He also organised the sacking of José Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, accusing him of bad management. Bustani had tried to broker a peaceful resolution of the dispute over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Some of the most pungent criticisms of my feeble attempt to bring this man to justice have come from other writers for the Guardian. Michael White took a position of extraordinary generosity towards the instigators of the war. There are "arguments on both sides", he contended on the Guardian politics blog. Bustani might have received compensation after his sacking by Bolton, "but Bolton says that does not mean much". In fact, Bustani was not only compensated at his tribunal, he was completely exonerated of Bolton's accusations and his employers were obliged to pay special damages.

White suggested that Iraq might indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger, on the grounds of a conversation he once had with an MI6 officer. Alongside the British government's 45-minute claim, this must be the best-documented of all the false justifications for the war with Iraq. In 2002, the United States government sent three senior officials to Niger to investigate the claim. All reported that it was without foundation. The International Atomic Energy Agency discovered that it was based on crude forgeries. This assessment was confirmed by the state department's official Greg Thielmann, who reported directly to John Bolton. No evidence beyond the forged documents has been provided by either the US or the UK governments to support their allegation.

White also gives credence to Bolton's claims that the war in 2003 was justified by two UN resolutions - 678 and 687 - which were approved in 1990 and 1991, and that it was permitted by article 51 of the UN charter. The attempt to revive resolutions 678 and 687 was the last, desperate throw of the dice by the Blair government when all else had failed. When it became clear that it could not obtain a new UN resolution authorising force against Iraq, the government dusted down the old ones, which had been drafted in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

This revival formed the basis of Lord Goldsmith's published advice on March 17 2003. It was described as "risible" and "scrap[ing] the bottom of the legal barrel" by Lord Alexander. After the first Gulf war, Colin Powell, General Sir Peter de la Billiere and John Major all stated that the UN's resolutions permitted them only to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait, and not to overthrow the Iraqi government. Lord Goldsmith himself, in the summer of 2002, advised Tony Blair that resolutions 678 and 687 could not be used to justify a new war with Iraq.

Article 51 of the UN charter is comprehensible to anyone but the lawyers employed by the Bush administration. States have a right to self-defence "if an armed attack occurs against" them, and then only until the UN security council can intervene. On what occasion did Iraq attack the United States? Is there any claim made by the Blair and Bush governments that Michael White is not prepared to believe?

Conor Foley, writing on Comment is free, suggested that my action "completely trivialises the serious case" against the Iraq war and claimed that I was seeking to "imprison ... people because of their political opinions", as if Bolton were simply a commentator on the war, and not an agent. Does he really believe that the former under-secretary did not "participate in a common plan" to initiate the war with Iraq? What other conceivable purpose might the state department's misleading factsheet have served? And what more serious action can someone who is neither a law lord nor a legislator take? Bolton himself maintains that my attempt to bring him to justice reflects a "move towards lawlessness and fascism". This is an interesting commentary on an attempt to uphold a law which arose from the prosecution of fascists.

But there is one charge I do accept: that my chances of success were very slight. Apart from the 300-pound gorillas, the main obstacle I faced was that although the crime of aggression, as defined by the Nuremberg principles, has been incorporated into the legislation of many countries, it has not been assimilated into the laws of England and Wales. This does not lessen the crime but it means that it cannot yet be tried here. This merely highlights another injustice: while the British state is prepared to punish petty misdemeanours with vindictive ferocity, it will not legislate against the greatest crime of all, lest it expose itself to prosecution.

But demonstration has two meanings. Non-violent direct action is both a protest and an exposition. It seeks to demonstrate truths which have been overlooked or forgotten. I sought to remind people that the greatest crime of the 21st century remains unprosecuted, and remains a great crime. If you have read this far, I have succeeded.

monbiot.com

· This article was amended on Wednesday June 4 2008. We were wrong to describe the late Robert Scott Alexander QC, Lord Alexander of Weedon, as a law lord. The advocate and banker was a lord because he was given a peerage in 1998. He was not a member of the judiciary. This has been corrected.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/03/usforeignpolicy.usa

Anti-Blair protests at the Chilcot Iraq inquiry - 16 Photographs

No stages, this is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now. - Richard Perle, National Security Council, War Criminal

Chris Riddell

Chris Riddell cartoon, where Tony Blair says, "I solemnly swear to tell the selfserving TRUTH, the partial TRUTH, and everything but the TRUTH, so help ME GEORGE [W. Bush]."

Martin Rowson

Righteous, responsible but no regrets: Tony Blair's day in the dock == Martin Rowson cartoon of Blair... The 2010 Question: Just imagine him still being in power today...

Steve Bell - Blair faces judgment day on Iraq

[Contains strong language - Not Work Safe]
http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/endofworld.html

No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on. - George Monbiot