Home  Downtime upprevious next

Welcome to my Note Book 1 2 3 4 5 6
Big Index
John Heartfield1 (artist)
Israeli Factoids Jun 2003
Old Example SUB-PROP  Gov. Requisitions
Lord Vishnu CIA mystery man.

 Date:  Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:35:22 EDT
   From: @aol.com To:  undisclosed-recipients:;
here's some reality tv for your consideration...
  Forged Evidence
 By Rep. Henry Waxman

  Tuesday 10 June 2003

  The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
  Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
  The White House
  Washington, DC 20500

  Dear Dr. Rice:

  Since March 17, 2003, I have been trying without success to get a direct
answer to one simple question: Why did President Bush cite forged evidence about
Iraq's nuclear capabilities in his State of the Union address?

  Although you addressed this issue on Sunday on both Meet the Press and This
Week with George Stephanopoulos, your comments did nothing to clarify this
issue. In fact, your responses contradicted other known facts and raised a host
of new questions.

  During your interviews, you said the Bush Administration welcomes inquiries
into this matter. Yesterday, The Washington Post also reported that Director
of Central Intelligence George Tenet has agreed to provide "full documentation"
of the intelligence information "in regards to Secretary Powell's comments,
the president's comments and anybody else's comments." Consistent with these
sentiments, I am writing to seek further information about this important

  Bush Administration Knowledge of Forgeries

  The forged documents in question describe efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium
from an African country, Niger. During your interviews over the weekend, you
asserted that no doubts or suspicions about these efforts or the underlying
documents were communicated to senior officials in the Bush Administration
before the President's State of the Union address. For example, when you were
 asked about this issue on Meet the Press, you made the following statement:

  We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles --
maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles
knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.
 Of course, it was information that was mistaken.

  Similarly, when you appeared on This Week, you repeated this statement,
claiming that you made multiple inquiries of the intelligence agencies regarding
the allegation that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. You

  George, somebody, somebody down may have known. But I will tell you that
when this issue was raised with the intelligence community... the intelligence
community did not know at that time, or at levels that got to us, that this,
that there were serious questions about this report.

  Your claims, however, are directly contradicted by other evidence.

 Contrary to your assertion, senior Administration officials had serious doubts about
the forged evidence well before the President's State of the Union address.

For example, Greg Thielmann, Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation,
and Military Issues in the State Department, told Newsweek last week that the
State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had concluded the
documents were "garbage." As you surely know, INR is part of what you call
"the intelligence community." It is headed by an Assistant Secretary of State,
Carl Ford; it reports directly to the Secretary of State; and it was a full
participant in the debate over Iraq's nuclear capabilities.

According to Newsweek:  "When I saw that, it really blew me away," Thielmann
 told Newsweek.

Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation.

 The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had
 attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger.

INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible - and made that point clear
 to Powell's office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents
 to report to the nation, he thought, "Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was,
how did that get into the speech?"

  Moreover, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has reported that
the Vice President's office was aware of the fraudulent nature of the evidence
as early as February 2002 - nearly a year before the President gave his State
of the Union address. In his column, Mr. Kristof reported:

  I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago
the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so
a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002,
according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the
C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that
the documents had been forged.

  The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose
 signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of
 office for more than a decade....
 The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the
administration and seemed to be accepted - except that President
 Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

  "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were
bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

  When you were asked about Mr. Kristof's account, you did not deny his
reporting. Instead, you conceded that "the Vice President's office may have
 asked for that report."

  It is also clear that CIA officials doubted the evidence. The Washington
Post reported on March 22 that CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to
the administration about the evidence." The Los Angeles Times reported on
March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from
Niger in late 2001," when "the existence of the documents was reported to
[the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quoted a CIA official as
saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all
caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."

  With all respect, this is not a situation like the pre-9/11 evidence that
al-Qaeda was planning to hijack planes and crash them into buildings.
 When you were asked about this on May 17, 2002, you said:

  As you might imagine... a lot of things are prepared within agencies.
They're distributed internally, they're worked internally. It's unusual that
anything like that would get to the president. He doesn't recall seeing anything.
 I don't recall seeing anything of this kind.

  That answer may be given more deference when the evidence in question is
known only by a field agent in an FBI bureau in Phoenix, Arizona, whose
suspicions are not adequately understood by officials in Washington. But it
is simply not credible here. Contrary to your public statements, senior officials
 in the intelligence community in Washington knew the forged evidence was
unreliable before the President used the evidence in the State of the Union

  Other Evidence

  In addition to denying that senior officials were aware that the President
was citing forged evidence, you also claimed (1) "there were also other
sources that said that there were, the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake - uranium
oxide - from Africa" and (2) "there were other attempts to get yellowcake from

  This answer does not explain the President's statement in the State of the
Union address. In his State of the Union address, the President referred
specifically to the evidence from the British. He stated: "The British government
has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa." Presumably, the President would use the best available
evidence in his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. It would make
no sense for him to cite forged evidence obtained from the British if, in
fact, the United States had other reliable evidence that he could have cited.

  Moreover, contrary to your assertion, there does not appear to be any other
specific and credible evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an
African country. The Administration has not provided any such evidence to me or
my staff despite our repeated requests. To the contrary, the State Department
wrote me that the "other source" of this claim was another Western European
ally. But as the State Department acknowledged in its letter, "the second Western
European government had based its assessment on the evidence already
available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited."

  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also found no other evidence
indicating that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Niger. The evidence in U.S.
possession that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger was transmitted
to the IAEA. After reviewing all the evidence provided by the United States,
the IAEA reported: "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication
of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Ultimately, the IAEA
concluded: "these specific allegations are unfounded."


  As the discussion above indicates, your answers on the Sunday talk shows
conflict with other reports and raise many new issues. To help address these
issues, I request answers to the following questions:

  1. On Meet the Press, you said that "maybe someone knew down in the bowels
of the agency" that the evidence cited by the President about Iraq's attempts
to obtain uranium from Africa was suspect. Please identify the individual or
individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the
Union address, had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the
credibility of the claim.

  2. Please identify any individuals in the Administration who, prior to the
President's State of the Union address, were briefed or otherwise made aware
that an individual or individuals in the Administration had expressed doubts
about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim.

  3. On This Week, you said there was other evidence besides the forged ev
idence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa. Please provide this
other evidence.

  4. When you were asked about reports that Vice President Cheney sent a
former ambassador to Niger to investigate the evidence, you stated "the Vice
President's office may have asked for that report." In light of this comment,
please address:

  (a) Whether Vice President Cheney or his office requested an investigation
into claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from
Africa, and when any such request was made;

  (b) Whether a current or former U.S. ambassador to Africa, or any other
current or former government official or agent, traveled to Niger or otherwise
investigated claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from
Niger; and

  (c) What conclusions or findings, if any, were reported to the Vice
President, his office, or other U.S. officials as a result of the investigation, and
when any such conclusions or findings were reported.


  On Sunday, you stated that "there is now a lot of revisionism that says,
there was disagreement on this data point, or disagreement on that data point."
I disagree strongly with this characterization. I am not raising questions
about the validity of an isolated "data point," and the issue is not whether the
war in Iraq was justified or not.

  What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why
did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union
 address? This is a question that bears directly on the credibility
of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and
forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts.

  Thank you for your assistance in this matter.


  Henry A. Waxman
  Ranking Minority Member

  New Questions on President's Use of Forged Nuclear Evidence

  Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
  Ranking Minority Member
  House Committee on Government Reform

  Thursday 12 June 2003

  For nearly three months, I have been asking a simple question: Why did
President Bush cite forged evidence about Iraqâ™s nuclear capabilities in his State
of the Union address? The first response from the Administration, which was
provided to the Washington Post, was that "we fell for it."'

  The second response was that everything the White House said was closely
vetted by the intelligence agencies.   2

  Now we learn through the Washington Post that the Administration has a
third explanation: The CIA knew as early as the beginning of 2002 that the
documents were forged, but actively misled the White House.

  According to the Post, the "decision to send an emissary to Niger was
triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency
briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to
acquire the uranium." Although "Cheney and his staff continued to get intelligence
on the matter," the Administration claims now that "the CIA did not pass on
the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other
government agencies."                         4

  Based on what is known publicly, it is apparent that this new story from
the White House omits key facts and conflicts with others. Based on all the
information that I have received, including from nonpublic sources, the new
account is clearly incomplete.

 The new White House account is that only the CIA knew the documents were
unreliable. This is obviously untrue. Greg Thielmann, the former director of the
Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State
Department, recently told Newsweek that the State Department's Bureau of I
ntelligence and Research (INR) had concluded the documents were "garbage"
before the President used this evidence in his State of the Union address. INR reports
directly to the Secretary of State and was a full participant in the debate regarding
Iraq's nuclear capabilities. According to Newsweek, "the CIA had come up with
some documents purporting show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of
uranium oxide from the African country Niger. INR had concluded that the
purchases were implausible and made that point clear Powell's office."

  Another problem with the new White House account is that it does not
explain the December 19 fact sheet released by the Administration. This fact sheet
is entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to
the United Nations Security Council." Under the heading "Nuclear Weapons," the
fact sheet states: "The Declaration ignores efforts procure uranium from
Niger."                                                       6

  We know that the CIA helped put this fact sheet together. A letter I
received from the State Department on April 29 says: "The December
 19 fact sheet was a product developed jointly by the CIA and the State

  What this means â“ if the new White House account is true â“ is that the CIA
did not commit an act of omission. It affirmatively prepared a document that
contained information knew to be false. In other words, it actively tried to
mislead the public and the President. This fact sheet, by the way, was a
significant document. Its claims were covered on national network news and the front
pages of national newspapers. For example, NBC Nightly News reported: "What
could Iraq be hiding? . . . U.S. officials say that Iraq . . . attempted
uranium from Africa to produce nuclear weapons."
The New York Times used Iraq's efforts procure uranium from Africa as the lead
of its page one reporting.                            

  Another question that is still unanswered is how the forged evidence ended
up in the State of the Union address. National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice and others have said that the CIA gave President Bush the lines he could
use in his State of the Union address.

 If that account is true, the CIA affirmatively told President Bush to cite evidence
that the CIA new was forged.
And if that is true, this is a scandal of considerable consequence.

  Moreover, there has been reporting that the CIA actually did convey its
doubts about forged evidence. For example, the Washington Post reported on March
22, 2003: CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the
administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase
uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into
President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and
public remarks by numerous senior officials.

  A March 15, 2003, Los Angeles Times article reported that the CIA "first
heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001." The
article continued: "Initially, the existence of the documents â˜was reported to
us second- or third- hand, the official said. We included that in some of
our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the
accuracy of that information.                        

  If the White House account is true, all of this reporting is wrong.

  And I have one final question. There has been considerable reporting about
how deeply the Vice President was involved in the intelligence. According to
the Washington Post, "Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made
multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's
weapons programs." The Vice President was reportedly "taking the lead in the
Administration" and had an "unusual hands-on role."

We need to square the Vice President's detailed involvement in the intelligence
on Iraq with today's claim that the Vice President didn't know about the forged
evidence. Today's story presents us with an unavoidable obligation. We must
find out whether the CIA deceived the President as he was developing his Iraq
policy or whether it is deceiving the public now to protect the President and the
 Vice President.

And the only way to answer this question is by un overing and disclosing all
the relevant facts.

  1 Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake; U.N. Inspector Says Documents on
Purchases Were Forged, Washington Post (Mar. 8, 2003).

  2 See, e.g., CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore, Washington
Post (Mar. 22, 2003) (quoting a White House spokesman as saying, "all
presidential speeches are fully vetted by the White House staff and relevant U.S.
government agencies for factual

  3 CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,
Washington Post (June 12, 2003).

  4 Id.

  5 (Over)selling the World on War, Newsweek (June 9, 2003).

  6 United States Department of State, Fact Sheet, Illustrative Examples of
Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council
(Dec. 19, 2002).

  7 Letter from Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative
Affairs, to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Apr. 29, 2003).

  8 U.S. Accuses Iraqi Weapons Report of Failing To Meet U.N.'s Demands, NBC
Nightly News (Dec. 19, 2002).

  9 Iraq Arms Report Has Big Omissions, U.S. Officials Say, New York Times
(Dec. 13, 2002).

  10 See, e.g., This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News (June 8, 2003)
(quoting National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as saying: "I am telling
you that when this was raised with the intelligence community, they said what
we could say" and "we actually do gothrough the process of asking the intelligence
 community, can you say this? Can you say that? Can you say this?").

  11 CIA Questioned Documents, supra note 2.

  12 Italy May Have Been Misled by Fake Iraq Arms Papers, U.S. Says, Los
Angeles Times (Mar. 15, 2003).

  13 Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits, Washington Post
(June 5, 2003).


s b

has served to raise a deeper issue still.  An internet search of Randall Kennedy reveals that
every single mention of this white man's trusty ne'er-do-well is appended to an equally
prominent mention of his affiliation with Harvard - an inferential certification of
 Kennedy as a racial authority.
A study of early Black nomenclature reveals that emerging from the American slave
 system, Blacks often took the name of the white man who had enslaved them as their
 new surname. Thus, the former "Toby, President Washington's nigger" became Toby
       Washington, and so forth. Kennedy has linked himself to Harvard - and they to him -
       in precisely the same way, making themselves just as responsible for Nigger:
Click on the Strom Thumond picture for the funny bit  wax ironic or feature film?
this guy is like on another plane like he was from out of space

      So, what is Harvard University to Black folks? And why have so many Blacks with
       suspect motives, and having no organic relationship to any Black institution, been
       placed in front of Blacks to speak on Blacks' behalf? Maybe it is time to examine the
       legacy of this institution to understand the nature of those Blacks who so proudly wear
       its brand. Such Blacks continue to be given extraordinary access to public airwaves to
       opine on and interpret the Black condition for white America. More than a generation
       ago Adam Clayton Powell confidently asserted that Harvard has "ruined more negroes
       than bad whiskey." A brief racial history of America's intellectual Vatican puts its
       special role, and Powell's biting assessment, in proper context.

       Harvard College was founded in 1636 (just six years after the settlement of Boston)
       with the intent of academically assisting the clergy in their attempts to brainwash the
       Massachusetts Indians into accepting white European customs and religious beliefs.
       In this they were wholly unsuccessful, having only graduated one Indian, who died just
       a year later. Once conversion failed, the ol' Pilgrim/Puritan standby of massacres and
       mayhem was employed, and the Red man was no longer welcome at Harvard. Thus, in
       1698 Harvard tore down its "Indian College" and used the bricks to construct the new
       Stoughton College--named for the family of the man who has been "credited" with the
       annihilation of the Pequot Indians in 1637.

       Quiet as it's kept, the slave trade was the primary economic force in the development
       of Boston's elite, and most of that class were trained at Harvard. Puritan minister and
       president of Harvard (1685-1701) Increase Mather held African slaves. Benjamin
       Wadsworth, president from 1725-1737, was a member of one of the leading
       slaveholding families in New England. "Servants are very Wicked," he once wrote,
       "when they are LAZY and IDLE in their Masters Service. The Slothful Servant is justly
       called Wicked..." In 1756, the First Parish Church at Cambridge was made off-limits to
       Blacks when Harvard officials objected to their sitting in the gallery. In 1773 Harvard
       hosted a debate in which Blacks were defined as "a conglomerate of child, idiot and
       madman." Many of the early ship-owning slave traders of New England sent their
       children to Harvard, as did many of the Southern plantation owners. The grand wizard
       of the Massachusetts Ku Klux Klan graduated from Harvard in 1853. One of the most
       viciously anti-Black newspapers in Boston history was run by a Harvard graduate.

A host of paragons of race hate acquired their intellectual bearings at this Cambridge
center of white supremacy, including many icons of American history. John Adams,
Samuel Adams, Josiah Quincy, Theodore Roosevelt, to name a few, have proudly
ascended to the upper echelon of America's racial villainy. John Adams "shuddered at
 the doctrine" of racial equality and spoke in Hitlerian terms of "quieting the Indians
forever." Samuel Adams and Josiah Quincy both enslaved Black Africans.

 Roosevelt voiced the common Harvard creed that Blacks were backward savages
who needed strong white rule to bring them into civilization. The Africans, this
Harvard-trained American president believed, were "ape-like, naked savages, who
 dwell in the woods and prey on creatures not much wilder or lower than themselves."

Divinity school graduate Ralph Waldo Emerson asserted matter-of-factly that
"it is better to hold the negro one inch below water than one inch above it."

       Harvard, a pillar of the Brahmin establishment, "did its best to stifle anti-slavery
       [legislation]." When expelled German scholar Charles Follen sought refuge in
       America, he found it on the Harvard faculty. But when he became an abolitionist in
       1833, he was immediately fired. When Harvard graduate Charles Sumner criticized
       slavery in a speech to the student body in 1848, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
       recorded the reaction: "the shouts and hisses and the vulgar interruptions grated on
       my ears." Two of the college's honorable presidents, Jared Sparks and Cornelius
       Felton, were strong supporters of the notorious Fugitive Slave Bill, which aligned the
       northern "free states" with the Southern slave-owners in apprehending runaway Black
       slaves. When a Southern slaveholder came up to a Boston court to use the fugitive
       slave law to reclaim "his slave" Anthony Burns, Harvard students acted as the
       slaveholder's bodyguards.

       Distinguished Harvard graduate Lemuel Shaw was considered to be the most
       influential state judge in American history. Shaw considered Blacks who escaped from
       chattel slavery to be "fugitives from labor" and ordered their immediate return. When
       two Black women were arrested in 1836 as escaped slaves, Shaw allowed the slave
       catchers to correct their warrant so that they could re-arrest the Black women right in
       his courtroom. The Blacks who came to court refused to stand by and allow for this
       outrage and attempted to rescue the women. Shaw himself tried to stop them before
       he was knocked to the floor during the successful escape.

       As chief justice the Harvard-trained Shaw delivered the unanimous opinion of the
       Massachusetts Supreme Court which upheld the legality of school segregation,
       providing the basis for the doctrine of "separate but equal" - America's official racial
       policy until 1954. Between 1872 and 1949 at least eleven state courts cited Shaw's
       opinion to justify their own state's segregationist policies. (In 1956, when Virginia
       Senator Robert Byrd read his infamous "Defiance: The Southern Manifesto" he was
       joined by 19 Southern Senators and 70 Representatives, including J. William Fulbright
       and Strom Thurmond. Byrd cited Shaw's opinion to buttress his last stand against the
       Supreme Court's desegregation order.)

       The many well-to-do Harvard students from Southern plantation families did not have to
       long for the amenities of their beloved slavocracy; upon their arrival at the University
       each cracker was given a Black servant they euphemistically called a "scout." All the
       while Blacks served Harvard's white faculty and enrollees as janitors, custodians, and
       waiters. The first record of these "scouts" at Harvard is noted by Samuel F.  Batchelder,
      in Bits of Harvard History, as he contemptuously recounts the tribulation of these unpaid,
 overworked Harvard slaves:

 What ebony face with rolling white eyeballs grins sheepishly at us
from this mildewed page? Who was this blackamoor who surreptitiously
helped himself to beer and (possibly under its influence) made so free
of little Sam Hough's bed? Have we not here the first darkey "scout"
of Harvard, progenitor of the whole tribe of college coons and great-
grandfather of all Memorial Hall waiters? What fluky breeze of
fortune wafted this dusky child of nature from a languorous coral
strand to the grim confines of Calvinistic Cambridge? Were colored
brethren already hanging round the Square looking for odd jobs ere
that classic forum had become clearly distinguishable from the
encircling wilderness?

      But always, Blacks seeking to better themselves attempted to break through Harvard's
       rigid racial barriers. When three Black men attended lectures at the Medical School in
       1850, groups of white students protested their presence and prevailed upon the faculty
       to expel them. Harvard president Charles Eliot (term 1869-1909) stated his belief in
       separate educational facilities for Blacks and whites and suggested that Harvard may
       implement such a policy. He maintained - quite accurately - that the white man in the
       North is no less averse to the mingling of races than his Southern counterpart.

Race hater Louis Agassiz, the dean of the Nazi-approved philosophy of scientific
racism, and for whom a Harvard campus building is currently named, warned fellow
whites, "Let us beware of granting too much to the negro race...lest it become
necessary hereafter to deprive them of some of the privileges which they may use to
their own and our detriment." Agassiz found his views of the Black man warmly
received and echoed by Harvard deans Henry Eustis, who considered Blacks "little
above beasts," and Nathaniel Shaler, who believed Blacks "unfit for an independent
place in a civilized state." In 1922-23, President A. Lawrence Lowell barred Blacks
from living in the freshman dormitories saying, "We have not thought it possible to
compel men of different races to reside together."

Around that time, Harvard's venerable newspaper, the Crimson, excitedly
announced the presence of the school's very own Ku Klux Klan chapter.
 Without a trace of indignation, it trumpeted the KKK's campus membership drive.
The paper even promised to respect the secret identities of the KKK leaders, and
announced the possibility of the establishment of the branch of the KKK called
 Kamelia, the female KKK, at Radcliffe. By 1960 Harvard was writing letters to
 white students asking if they had problems with being assigned a Black roommate.
(Black students received no such "courtesy.") In the '80s, Bell Curve author, the now
 dead Richard Herrnstein, successfully restored Harvard's white-hooded
intellectual tradition, which seemed tohave been usurped briefly by some loud
but ineffectual liberal '70s campus activism.

So, here comes Randall Kennedy, bookending this tradition to
 the proud nods of his white campus puppeteers. Ultimately, those
Blacks who seek to append themselves to this corrupt legacy will
 suffer a shameful disgrace. For increasing numbers of Blacks
today are in complete agreement with the great "uneducated"
freedom fighter Fannie Lou Hamer, who could not have been
 clearer when recounting the battles she fought for political
representation and justice:

   Everybody that would compromise
 in five minutes was the people with
 a real good education. I don't understand
 that - I really don't to save my  life.
 Them folks will sell you -they will sell
your mama, their mama,  anybody else
 for a dollar.
--Fannie Lou Hamerback
  Shelton Amstrod is a researcher and editor at CBIA Publishing in Detroit.


          Your comments are welcome. Visit the Contact Us
page for E-mail or Feedback.


  this is e-drum, a listserv providing information of interests to black
  writers and diverse supporters worldwide. e-drum is moderated by
 kalamu ya salaam (kalamu@aol.com).
  to subscribe to e-drum send a blank email to:
Editors Note this is not the White nigger or "white Nigger" by  Eastern Europen
 jewish author Norman Maler  or that Niggers crazo or nigger from Heavard or even
 the white Keffer or desendant of  mythical "Quean of Sheba" turned  lumpin proll
darkeyover night  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2944922.stm  but she can
still earn some money for any white willing to exploite her.
 This should be called a white nicer as the name is not what they called them selvse.

Shortcut to Mind Control The Ultimate Terror

  > http://www.homosapiens.net/
  > http://www.konformist.com/related_links.htm

Book Review Sex and Racism in America
Book Review. Sex and Racism in America by Calvin C. Hernton. I've
always been very curious why some people are against interracial ...
about time for a redo
  Subject:   FW: About the white nigger
Date:  Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:40:01 -0500
   From:  <M@.net>
     To:  C <@.net>
From: D <@.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:47:09 +0000

To: <@.net>

You might like this oldy but goody

@aol.com wrote:

  This is really pretty funny. Actually, try it right now, before it goes
  > {snip} Try this when you have a moment:
  >In Google Home Page (www.google.com), type in the phrase
"weapons of mass destruction"  and hit the  <I'm feeling lucky> option.
JULY 4 on the $

America's Extremist Center

Abbie Hoffman.
Black helicopters
We now pause for the really good stuff: black helicopters. You
see, we are told, not only does the paranoid right believe in the
Tenth Amendment and jury rights: it believes in black helicopters.
The greatest power of the mass media is the power to ignore. As
angst mounts in the heartland,  however, and as alternative mass
media like the Internet gain significance, the elites are losing their
ability to decide what exists and what is merely a fiction of our
imagination. Implicit in the mass media ridicule is a rising anger
over its loss of control of the agenda. In the old days, issues like
proportional representation, the fully informed jury movement, or
the shorter work-week would never see the light of day. Now,
however, whole movements can arise without the assistance of the
Post or the Times, something that is regarded in establishment
circles as truly aggravating. I suspect, in fact, that much of the
media's angst about sex on the Internet is really little more than a
foil for a far deeper concern: massive competition.
The black helicopters are a trivial but interesting case in point. It is
standard fare for journalists to make fun of the idea of unmarked
black helicopters. Yet there is evidence -- newspaper accounts,
intelligence sources and so forth -- that such craft do exist. In all
probability their ubiquity -- although not necessarily details of
color and markings -- can be explained by this country's growing
assumption that it can conduct surveillance on anyone it pleases,
especially those who might be engaged in growing marijuana.
Certainly a federal judge in California thought so; he found
helicopter surveillance so intrusive and harassing that he enjoined
its continued routine use.
And just one day after I had been jousting on such matters at lunch
with a British journalist, and while engaged in giving him a tour of
the city, he suddenly cried, "Look, a black helicopter!" To be sure,
flying low above us was a dark whirlybird. Given the direction of
the sun, I couldn't swear the craft was not dark green but it
certainly was unmarked. I might, perhaps incorrectly (but without
an iota of paranoia), have described it as black.
The whole business reminds me of James Thurber's fable about the
unicorn in the garden. Upon informing his wife that he had seen a
unicorn in the garden, his spouse calls the police to have her
husband dispatched to the booby hatch. When the cops arrive,
however, the husband denies ever having seen a unicorn in the
garden and has his wife locked up instead. And lives happily
thereafter. Thurber's moral could well apply to today's discussions
of black helicopters and political paranoia. "Don't," he warned,
"count your boobies until they are hatched."
To be sure there are those who see more than black helicopters,
who believe that these craft are the advance troops of a UN
invasion. But what service is provided to reason by the media
pretending that they don't exist at all? Why not determine their
America's Extremist Center function, color and so forth and
point out that the UN is unlikely to invade with a staff and budget
only slightly larger than that of the DC government, What's really
going on here, Paranoiac co-dependence, Or are we seeing a
 more generic version of what often happens when government
or defense contractor whistle-blowers speak out -- namely that
they are sent to see a psychiatrist,

The myth-killers

 One of the greatest myths of America's elite is that it functions by
logic and reason and that it is devoid of myth. In truth, elites
function like other people; they choose their gods and worship
them. The gods, to be sure, are different. For example, many in
Washington believe fervently in the sanctity of data, the Ivy
League, the New York Times op pages and the Calvinist notion
that their power is a outer, visible sign of an inner, invisible grace.
And some, even while professing to be without myth, spend their
lives creating myths for others.

We call them political consultants and ghostwriters.

There is no consistency to all this. The Pope's disastrous myths
concerning birth control are treated with deference while domestic
fundamentalism is ridiculed.

Similarly, politicians and media created an instant mythology around
 the deaths of 15 children in Oklahoma City, but tend -- as did the
Washington Post recently --

to lump the 22 children who died in Waco as among "80 group
members," apparently as deserving of their end as was David

What makes those in power different from other Americans is not
the absence of myth but their denial of it. In refusing to allow
room for the unknown, for faith, for those temporary fillers called
theories that slip into the empty spaces of our knowledge, those in
charge of America ultimately separate themselves from such
natural human phenomena as myth.

As less of what should be known in our society is allowed to be
known, the distance widens between those who have the
knowledge and those who do not. To have any sort of decent
relations with those Americans not professionally trained to
suppress belief and imagination, we would need en elite with more
poets and fewer economists. The poet understands that a myth is
not a lie but the soul's version of the truth. One of the reasons so
many stories are mangled by the media these days is because
journalists have become unable to deal with the non-literal.
America's Extremist Center

Consider the mythic underpinnings of the OJ Simpson saga. The
average white lawyer or reporter sees it only as a murder case. But
to many blacks, Simpson is carrying the mythic weight of decades
of ethnic abuse under the justice system. In a column for Pacific
News Service, a black journalist, Dennis Schatzman, outlined
some of the black context for the Simpson trial:
Just last year, Olympic long jumper and track coach Al Joyner was
handcuffed and harassed in a LAPD traffic incident. He has settled
out of court for $250,000.

A few years earlier, former baseball Hall of Famer Joe Morgan
was "handcuffed and arrested at the Los Angeles airport because
police believed that Morgan 'fit the profile of a drug dealer.'" He
also got a settlement of $250,000.

Before that, former LA Laker forward Jamal Wilkes was stopped
by the police, handcuffed and thrown to the pavement.
A black man was recently given a 25-year to life sentence for
stealing a slice of pizza from a young white boy.

In 1992, a mentally troubled black man was shot and killed by LA
sheriff's deputies while causing a disturbance in front of his
mother's house. Neighbors say they saw a deputy plant a weapon
by the body.

Simpson case detective Mark Fuhrman was accused of planting a
weapon at the side of a robbery suspect back in 1988. The LAPD
recently settled for an undisclosed amount.

In North Carolina, Daryl Hunt still languishes in jail for the 1984
rape and murder of a white newspaper reporter, even though DNA
tests say it was not possible.

These examples would be rejected as irrelevant by the average
lawyer or journalist in New York or Washington. What do they
have to do with Simpson?

Only this. OJ Simpson's case serves as the mythic translation of
stories never allowed to be told. The stories that should have been
on CNN but weren't.

Everything is true except the names, times and places. In Washington,
 they do something similar when stories can't be told; they write a novel.

Something parallel takes place when a militia member imagines
that the Bloods & Crips are being armed by the US government or
when blacks believe the same thing about the militias. Or when the
UN is thought to on the verge of invasion.

Like urban blacks considering the justice system, the rural right
has seen things the elite would prefer to ignore. It has observed
correctly phenomena indicating loss of sovereignty for themselves,
their states and their country. They have seen treaties replaced by
fast-track agreements and national powers surrendered to remote
and unaccountable trade tribunals. And they have seen a
multi-decade assault by the federal government on the powers of
states and localities.

Like urban blacks, they have not been paranoid in this observation,
merely perceptive. But because the story could not be told, could
not become part of the national agenda, they have turned, as
people in trouble often do, to a myth -- and, yes, sometimes a
violent myth -- that will carry the story.

The tragedy is that the American center has not responded to these
myths by confronting their causes but rather with ridicule and
repression. And by creating its own myths. In fact, to the
American center, the militias serve much the same purposes as the
United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations do for the
right. Just as once the establishment tried to define the civil rights
movement by the Symbionese Liberation Army and the cause of
North Ireland by the IRA, so Americans' concern over the
usurpation of sovereignty at every level is being defined primarily
by its most exaggerated manifestations. There is no wisdom and
much danger in this.

As author Walker puts it, "We've haven't seen a great peacemaker
step forward to quell the fears and uncertainties. Instead we've
seen a strong effort demonize people and polarize thought. Where
is the person who can rise up and say, 'My fellow Americans' and
truly be including all Americans. He's not out there, and she's not
out there, and that's who we need to hear from."
In the meantime, when someone tells you about a some Americans
who are paranoid or crazy, be sure to count the bodies. -- July

America's Extremist Center http://prorev.com/center.htm
T H E  P R O G R E S S I V E  R E V I E W  

pep muz

  West African Chocolate Firms Agree to Fight Child Slavery


  New California Media Content
  ... West African Chocolate Firms Agree to Fight Child Slavery
  Inter Press Service, By Jim Lobe, October 30, 2001. ...

  C)  VIP

  A taste of slavery: How your chocolate may be tainted
  ... you baked, the candy bars your children ... this poor West African country. And on ...
 boys who were sold or tricked ... made into chocolate treats for ... Europe and America. ...

  JS Online: Slaves feed world's taste for chocolate
  ... you baked, the candy bars your children ... this poor West African country. And ...
who were sold or tricked ... a pound of chocolate, the boys ... journey to America or Europe ...

  Child slavery and the chocolate trade (6/23/2001)
  ... you baked, the candy bars your ... this poor West African country. And ...
   consumers in America or Europe ... know which chocolate products are ...
  the children sold or tricked ...

     Repeat after me ! Nestle's! Hershey's  Belgian Chocolate!
  I will buy a product that does not kill by obfuscation oppression
   and brain washing.
   I will put my money where my mouth is !

        European Colonialism Redux
  Extracted from the Seeker, PO Box 458, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1UL, UK
  African Colonialism is Alive and Well

  Just in case you thought colonialism had come to an end in Africa, think again, it has simply changed its
  name. In a sense the leopard has changed its spots Instead of being ruled by the former colonial powers
  Africa is now effectively owned and controlled by the Transnational corperations; in much the same way
  that the Dutch East India company once owned and controlled a large part of the British Empires
  dominion in India.

  A few years ago South Africa’s Anglo American corporation owned
   or effectively controlled over 80% of the companies on the Joburg stock exchange. Even before the transition to
  majority rule Anglo American played a key role in South Africa’s affairs. Today its role is even more pronounced.
  South Africa’s premier Thabo Mbeki may be black and talk about ‘his people’ but underneath it all he is very much
 an Anglo American man. During my time in South Africa he was a frequent visitor to Anglo’s operations head Bobby
  Godsell’s residence in Hyde Park, Joburg.The two would often go off on fishing trips together; in effect Mbeki was
being groomed for his current position.

  Mandela on the other hand was simply a puppet figure. I knew an Indian there who in turn knew two of Mandela’s
senior advisor’s; according to him they described Mandela as a ‘dom kop’, literally a thick head who could be easily
manipulated and beguiled.
 He was simply used to pave the way for someone who would obediently do the Transnationals bidding, a company
  man, likeThabo Mbeki.

Elsewhere in Africa the fundamentals are the same even though the names, personalities and circumstances may
differ somewhat, outwardly at least. Effectively the Transnationals rule through corrupt despots, brutal but easily
beguiled tyrants or through the discrete manipulation of humanitarian tragedy’s and conflicts.

One such is the ongoing humanitarian tragedy in Angola.
The current crisis has its origins over thirty years ago when Angola was still a Portugese colony. At the forefront of
 the fight to rid Angola of its colonial rulers were two movements, Unita and the MPLA. Whilst Jonas Savimbi’s Unita
 was backed by Western powers the MPLA was armed and equipped by the former Soviet Union; although both were
 fighting the Portugese colonials they remained at odds with each other. Thirty years on and nothing has changed.
UNITA and the MPLA government are still at odds and currently engaged in their third civil war in as many decades.
 Hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee their homes as of December 1998 there were an estimated 600,000
 internally displaced people in Angola and at the last count that figure had swollen to 1.7 million.

Indeed the figures themselves make extremely sombre reading;1/3 of all children in Angola die before the age of 5.
Every day around 200 people die of starvation. Angola now has the lowest life expectancy in the world at around 42.

There is however one critical difference to the situation, with the demise of the former Soviet Union there is no longer
 any super power involvement. Instead the Transnationals have stepped into the fray. In spite of the ongoing horrors
and humanitarian tragedy Angola itself is phenomenally rich in mineral deposits, particularly oil and diamonds.

And it is this that largely accounts for the involvement of the Transnational corporations.

On the one hand UNITA supplies diamonds to De Beers which in turn controls over 80% of the world’s
 diamond market.

 Of course De Beers says it will not buy any diamonds from UNITA but on the diamond market there
is no way that De Beers would know where the diamonds it buys come from with any certainty.
In turn UNITA uses the money from its diamond sales for weapons purchases and such like.

On the other hand Angola has substantial oil reserves, particularly offshore and in the northern Cabinda
 province, both of which are firmly in the hands of the ruling MPLA. Security around the oil installations
is further boosted by the oil companies themselves which employ the likes of London based Sandline
 Security as ‘security consultants’,in plain language hired guns.

Mobil, Elf, Shell, Texaco and Chevron are amongst a few of the major oil companies actively engaged
in operations in Angola; in effect they are helping to finance the MPLA’s war efforts.

  "We always take losses, then recover," one Angolan General told the BBC last year..
"If we lose a tank we pick up the phone and order another one."

Elsewhere in Africa a similar situation prevails.

Earlier last year oil companies in Niger delta were accused of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses.
"The oil companies can’t pretend they don’t know what is happening around them," said Kenneth Roth,
executive director of Human Rights Watch, an international monitoring group based in New York.

In one particular incident in January 1999, soldiers using Chevron boats and Chevron helicopters
attacked villages in two small communities in Delta State, killing villagers and burning most of
the villages to the ground.

A Human Rights Watch report describes numerous such incidents where Nigerian security forces have beaten,
 detained or even killed those involved in protests over oil company activity or called for compensation for
 environmental damage.

So just remember that when you next fill up at your local petrol station; the petrol you are buying has already
 been paid for, literally with ‘blood money.’

However it is not simply the Transnational Corporations that have embarked on policies
that are little short of imperialistic. Zimbabwe, for example, now has around 11,000 troops
stationed in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to John Makumbe, a political scientist at the University of Zimbabwe and a fierce critic
 of the government, "Zimbabwe seems intent on raiding the Congo and making it an economic colony."

According to him: "It won’t be Zimbabwe as a nation that benefits. Instead a number of individuals in the
 political elite will enrich themselves."

Indeed Zimbabwe’s army has now embarked on a joint business venture with the Congolese army to
buy and sell diamonds and gold.

  However Zimbabwe’s involvement in the war in the Congo is deeply unpopular at home,
  not least because of mounting domestic problems; inflation stands at 70%, health services
  are in chaos.

  Finally, it should be noted that Ian Smith one time premier of the rebel state Rhodesia, recently
addressed students at the University of Zimbabwe.

Significantly prehaps, he was removed from power in a deal arranged by Illuminati front men Lord
Carrington and Henry Kissinger. Now in his eighties and a little frail he received a standing ovation
 from a packed hall of largely black students.

As journalist Russell Miller pointed out it is now not unusual to hear what would have once been
unthinkable from many blacks in Zimbabwe: namely that life was actually better under Ian Smith
than Zimbabwe’s present rulers.

It is difficult to overestimate the power of this company;
they negotiate with nations, in fact one of the worlds biggest.
For most of this century they had an agreement with Russia
 whereby they bought all of Russia’s uncut diamonds.
 Naturally this deal had to be renegotiated with thefall of
communism, accordingly it was and the deal still holds.
Thus De Beers has a monopoly over the world’s diamond

Kind of makes you wonder why Terrorist only attacked the
USA and not say  somebody that the real terroresr might
attack the like De Beers which in turn controls over 80%
of the world’s diamond market. largly from Slave Labor.