Home     |     home   weapons of mass deception previousnextdown
Please use  the mouse back button &  or arrows to  navigate   

Dajavoo all over again
 December 16, 1998 Web posted at: 6:39
 p.m. EST (2339 GMT)

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- A second
round of explosions were seen
and heard over Baghdad at 2:30
 a.m. Thursday. The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced
 he had ordered a "strong, sustained" series of airstrikes
on military and security forces
 in Iraq,
designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The first anti-aircraft blasts were reported over Baghdad at about 1 a.m.
 local time (5 p.m. EST Wednesday). CNN nightscope video showed
 specks of white light flashing through the air, as explosions thundered
in the distance.

In a televised address, Clinton accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein
of failing to live up to his commitment to allow unrestricted access to U.N. weapons inspectors.

                  "We had to act, and act now," he said.

 "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with
nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from
 the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein
one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector
 Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in
fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the attack, named Operation
Desert Fox, was necessary because Hussein never intended to abide
by his pledge to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to
determine if Iraq has dismantled its biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons programs.

Pilger claims White House
 knew Saddam was no threat
 September 23, 2003 -2:33PM
Copyright  © 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Australian investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war
against Iraq was based on a lie which could cost George W Bush and Tony Blair
 their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.
A television report by Pilger aired on British screens last night said US Secretary
 of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed
in early 2001that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no

But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11
 that year,Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new today's edition: opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying,
 "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect
to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

  Two months later, Rice reportedly said,
  "We are able to keep his arms from him.
  His military forces have not been rebuilt."
  Powell boasted this was because
  America's policy of containment and it's
  sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.
Pilger claims this confirms that the decisionof US President George W Bush -
with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington but
said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.
"I think it's very serious for Howard. Howard has followed the Americans and to
a lesser degree Blair almost word for word," Pilgertold AAP before his program
was screened on ITV tonight.

"All Howard does is say 'well it's not true' and never explains himself.
"I just don't believe you can be seen to be party to such a big lie, such a big
deception and endure that politically.

"It simply can't be shrugged off and that's Howard's response.

"Blair has shrugged it off but Blair is deeply damaged. It's far from over here,
there's a lot

l Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat - www.smh.com.au
wash onto Howard.

"And it's unravelling in America and Bush could lose the election next year.
"I've not seen political leaders survive when they've been complicit in such
 an open deception for so long."

Howard last week dismissed an accusation from Opposition Leader Simon
Crean that he hid a warning from British intelligence that war against Iraq would
heighten the terrorist threat to Australia.

In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and
friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.McGovern told

Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass destruction
"was 95 per cent charade."

Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit"
Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people would
not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted to invade
Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.

Pilger claimed war was set in train on September 17, 2001 when Bush signed a
paper directing the Pentagon to explore the military options for an attack on Iraq.

Copyright  © 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat - www.smh.com.au      

 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 address.

  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 Department."

  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 go
through 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

comming soon the  VIP 911 editorial   


Recombinant DNA technology immunology  molecular structural engineering genomics
  proteomics Project BioShield will allow the government to buy improved vaccines or drugs
for  smallpox, anthrax, and botulinum toxin. Use of this authority is currently estimated to
  be $6 billion over ten years. Funds would also be available to buy countermeasures to protect
against other  dangerous pathogens, such as Ebola and plague, as soon as scientists verify
the safety and effectiveness of these products.

  The President proposed the creation of a permanent indefinite funding authority to spur
  development of medical countermeasures.  

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

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.

George W. Bush, Skull & Bones occultists and the Mausoleum
they're based in at Yale University
Other Western Élites
The Skull and Bones - Yale University The occult Bush family 'dossier'

When Saddam Hussein talked of 'the devil Bush' he may not have been so
far from the truth. U.S. president George W. Bush, his father and grandfather
are proven initiates of this multi-generational occult lodge.

George W. was tapped (initiated) in 1968 at the group's Yale University HQ, a
mausoleum known as 'the tomb'. Adolf Hitler was also obsessed with the occult,
in his case the Thule Society. The Jolly Roger "der Todtenkopf" was an emblem
of Hitler's SS. If the Nazis' occult lodges had been exposed and shut down, not
treated as a taboo, millions of lives could have been saved. The secondworld
war need never have happened. Unless you want this occult order running a
totalitarian West and their 'New World Order' - please - do your bit to expose
 the George W. Bush and the bonesmen...

web hosting, domain name, free web site, email address web ...
... sounds are piped into the left and right ear respectively ... for the chosen White kids
in the 4H club only ... Delusions can be tricky that's why I have a single page ...

There is another way
Why is $65 million going to The Museum of Modern Art?
Some facts on the Rockerfeller empire
David Rockefeller (right) and bodyguard James Ford - southern end of
Petit Allee Saint-Antoine,Versailles - 17th May 2003.

David Rockefeller's ho ho homepage -
a few japes at the expense of a powerful man -
 addicted to money as if it were heroin
Now, please ask yourself, "Why the heck are my New York City
tax dollarsto the tune of $65 million going to The Museum of Modern
Art, a private organization that can't even pay its workers properly?"
[Visitors to the city take note: you are paying New York City sales tax
Because, folks, It's the....DAVID ROCKEFELLER SHOW. ...David is MOMA's Chairman Emeritus. Hey,MOMA even gives out a David Rockefeller Award every year. Awards to David's buddies, Like Katherine Graham of Washington Post fame and Edgar Bronfman of Seagrams Ltd.....He gives awards to powerful people to ingratiate them to himself, using public money such as the $65 million YOU are giving him. He knows how to network your dough into his coffers in a flash. You all know the Rockefeller family, don't you? Right, the oil and bank people. Well, David has his fingers in more pies than you can count. But besides getting public funding for HIS idea of art, but not paying the staff of his MOMA clubhouse properly, here's what else David is up to. THE NEW YORK CITY PARTNERSHIP-OUT TO KILL THE COMMUNITY GARDENS:
 Formed in 1979 by ...guess who? Go ahead, guess. You were right. DAVID is the god of this little-known organization. However,when supporters of the Community Gardens found out that the Partnership wanted to take the gardens over and turn them into condominiums, they launched a protest in front of New York City Partnership headquarters, bringing the Partnership unwanted publicity. The Partnership is David's little unofficial mayor's office in the Wall Street district. It also poses as a chamber of commerce, since it stole New York's. Quite frankly, nobody can really figure out what this org is all about. Basically, it's another one of David's big-wig networking schemes. He had about 60 of them cough up a million each not too long ago for one of his pet projects.

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Yes, this is another one of David's babies. Located on Park Ave and 68th Street, the Council's members include most of Clinton's cabinet, among a multitude of current and former government officials. This org claims not to take a stand on issues, but with War-Monger In ChiefMadeline Albright one of its shining stars, one would guess that it is for a few things, like, say, bombing of women and children crossing bridges in Montenegro on shopping trips. As a matter of fact, the Council regularly places opinion pieces in the New York Times. They were big time for the Mexican bailout in '95-were hoping to loot us of $40 billion for it via the Clinton White House, but our own Al D'Amato stopped 'em in their tracks.
Dubbed the "Park Avenue State Department" by New York Magazine. Uh, they're non-profits, and get a nice tax break so you can slave for their idea of a better world [for them]. And guess who is Honorary Chairman...just take one guess...oh no, not ....DAVID?!!! You got it.
THE POPULATION COUNCIL: Founded by John D. Rockefeller III. Oh, sorry, you may not have known it, but all those pro-abortion people are not interested in your right to have an abortion; no, they just want to make sure you don't have any babies, cuz they have decided that THERE ARE TOO MANY OF YOU. [Hey, are you getting this?] It may not mean a lot to you folks, but isn't it funny that the AIDS epidemic is such a nice way to pare down the populations of the less-developed nations? Why, the Population Council must be having a dang party over it (even though there's a lot about fighting AIDS on their web site. Guilty conscience?). THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION A nice little organization. An outgoing official  of this org was quoted by the NYTimes as saying that guns, drugs, and people crossing borders are among our biggest. problems....Hey...people crossing borders...that's as bad as drugs and guns, isn't it?... people--always getting in the way...someone stop them! Oh David...oh David!!!!!
 For more info, contact The Ad Hoc Committee to Restructure America at ahcra@yahoo.com
By Peter Duveen <pduveen@yahoo.com>
Back to reality for a moment
David Rockefeller Sr. and family
$1.4 billion Inheritance.
New York City. 81
Widowed, 6 children
Grandson of John D. Rockefeller; youngest of 5 brothers (see Rockefeller family, Laurance, Winthrop). Ph.D.economics. Became international statesman, banker, philanthropist [allegedly ed.]. Founded the Council of the Americas; helped establish the Trilateral Commission, latest favorite
target of conspiracy buffs.Led Chase into  global expansion; aided the Thais in setting up
 National Institute for Development Administration; active in mobilizing business behind NAFTA.
Turned over Rockefeller Financial Services to son David 1992. Still has small piece of RockefellCenter through Goldman Sachs group that bought it. While not the end of the
saga, sale of this family landmark is perhaps the end of an age.

The real David. Madman or philanthropist?
 What kind of stuff does he talk about, what's
 he into, and what vision (if any) does he have?

The following little gem was sitting there on the internet at http://web.bu.edu/ISCIP/content/digest/ed7.html
ISCIP: Editorial Digest
Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology, and Policy.
Editorial Digest Volume II Number 7 (April 23, 1997)
. . . while Zyuganov thunders about Western threat to Russia Apparently weary from moderating
 his tone on his January tour of the United States, National  Patriotic Front leader Gennadi
Zyuganov blasted the current Russian leadership for having "sufficient will only to starve the
country for the sake of their personal, selfish interests and in response to the diktat of  the International Monetary Fund."

"We should have no illusions," Zyuganov wrote in Sovetskaya Rossiya on April 10. "The West
sees Russia as its most dangerous opponent. An opponent who has been weakened, bloodied,
 and bowed, but not beaten once and for all and who is capable of recovery."

David Rockefeller's ho ho homepage - a few japes at the expense of a powerful man - addicted to money as if it were heroin
.Zyuganov alleged that the collapse of the USSR had been preceded by a meeting of the Bilderberg
Club at which "David Rockefeller, a very powerful American banker and head of the highly influential Trilateral Commission" purportedly called for the establishment of a "single world government." "A supranational government of the intellectual elite and world bankers," Zyuganov reported
 that Rockefeller said, "is preferable to the right of peoples to self-determination." (Sovetskaya
 Rossiya, 10 Apr 97)

Scary Stuff:

(quoting Mr. Rockefeller):
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of
discretion for almost 40 years........It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for
 the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is
more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the  national
autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

New Dawn Magazine: The Rockefeller Syndicate http://www.afn.org/~govern/rockfeller.html
Bankwatch - who are these Rockefeller Brothers fund guys? http://www.zpok.hu/mirror/bankwatch/
A history of the Rockefeller family http://members.tripod.com/~JakeHollin/Wealth/Rock.html
Tony's index Page
David Rockefeller's ho ho homepage - a few japes at the expense of a powerful man - addicted to money as if it were heroin...