hcigAmbush666 Home HCIG0 | HCIG.01-911 | hcigAmbush666 | HCIG2 | HCIG3 | HCIG4 | HCIG HidenFacts5
Please use the mouse back button & or arrows to navigate back to top
hcigAmbush666 The Geezer Friendly page on President George Bush
© 2003 Scripps Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
Home and Garden Television:
Seeds Water Features Woodland Other Lawns Perennials
Seasonal Soil Water Tools Equipment Vegetables Wildlife
Fake Turf a Real Faux Pas
By Mary Winter
Scripps Howard News Service
I have no problem with artificial turf.
It's a fine covering for pee-wee golf courses, football stadiums
and retirees' patios in Florida and Arizona.
A cousin of faux grass faux parsley is helpful in grocery
meat cases by forming little hedgerows so pork chops don't mix
it up with the ground round and the rib roasts.
And one can hardly overstate the ongoing contribution of plastic
grass to Easter baskets.
But there is one place artificial turf should never, ever venture,
and that's around a house, posing as grass.
This should be obvious, but unfortunately, we saw it with our
own eyes. On the front page of the newspaper recently was a
five-column, color photo of a man dragging artificial turf onto a
yard as if he were putting down a braided area rug.
All I could think was, "Say it ain't so, Paw."
Tell me green polyethylene won't become the front-yard kudzu
of the 21st century.
Tell me we won't be seeing I Can't Believe It's Not Bluegrass!
franchises selling lawns by the square foot in shag, sculptured
and popular berber styles.
Promise me our kids' generation will expose this ersatz slice of
nature for the chemical imposter that it is.
Because if pretend grass takes off, what's to stop plastic trees,
plastic shrubs and entire petroleum-based public parks?
Oh yes. I know the arguments for pretend grass.
It saves the environment because it doesn't need water, fertilizer
It doesn't need mowing or raking.
It doesn't get brown patches, weeds or dandelions.
At Christmas, your little spread can be greener than Coors Field
on the Fourth of July.
Some of it is guaranteed for 12 to 15 years, so you can leave it
to your kids in your will.
But logic cannot be denied. In the final analysis, artificial turf is
like all cosmetic enhancements fleeting, uncomfortable and
Toupees, instant coffee, acrylic covers on sofas and books about
virtue by William "Slots" Bennett share the same fatal flaw
they ain't the real thing.
Whether grass, hair or character, there is no substitute for
Think about that the next time you barbecue in the back yard
and a greasy hot dog rolls off the grill. You certainly won't need
a rag and a bottle of 409 to clean it up.
Think about it the next time you run outside barefoot and feel
the cool grass under your feet, or breathe in the glorious lilac
bushes or the earthiness of a fat green lawn after a rain.
Or listen to the songbirds. They visit you for your worms and
bugs, you know, and they live only in real turf, not manmade.
So Aurora officials, as you weigh whether to allow artificial turf
as a lawn substitute in your city, consider all the above.
For further inspiration, grab a copy of that great American
classic by Walt Whitman, "Leaves of Grass," or is that "Blades
of Polyethylene" (Contact Mary Winter of the Rocky Mountain
News at www.rockymountainnews.com )
© 2003 Scripps Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
Home and Garden Television:
Prescott Bush (President's Grandfather) financed Hitler into
power from 1922 onwards and had his assets confiscated by the
US Government in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
That was Prescott Bush's contribution to 54 million deaths.
There are similarities between Hitler invading Poland and Bush invading Iraq:
1. Each happened simply because just one warmonger politician decided to invade.
2. Both events had the Bushes behind it (Hitler had Prescott Bush from 1922)
3. Hitler only invaded Poland once, and killed less Poles than Dad Bush killed Iraqis. (Dad killed 200,000 in the war, 1.5million with sanctions - UNICEF)
4. Both Hitler and Bush chose a defencess nation to attack.
(The Iraqis could never attack America, can't and never have killed
5. Both Bush and Hitler own the world's biggest military machines.
(There over 1,000 times more Weapons of Mass Destruction in the
USA; isn't that where the Weapons Inspectors should be sent?)
6. Both Hilter and Bush seized power by usurping the electoral process.
(Bush brothers destroyed 250,000 Democratic votes in 4 electoral frauds
in Florida, declared "W" the winner by 537 votes.)
7. Hitler and Bush gave fake reasons to invade. (Saddam Hussein has never been in partnership with bin Laden).
But the Bushes and bin Ladens have been business
partners for 24 years.
The bin Ladens were the first investors in GW Bush's first company,
Arbusto in 1978 and are still joint owners of The Carlyle Group, a
multi billion dollar weapons company which the Bushes built up
with corrupt government contacts.
8. Freedom in Germany and the USA had been denied before the attack (This time it's Bush's cynically
named USA Patriot Act which nullifies the Bill of Rights of 1791. Both Hitler and Bush imprison people
9. Both Hitler and the Bushes show stunning cruelty. (Dad Bush dropped depleted
uranium "dirty bombs;" now thousands of Iraqis are dying horrible deaths of radiation poisoning.)
10. The populations of both Germany and the USA were indoctrinated by the
govenment (Carl Rove with 24/7 "news" has duped Americans into believing they
are "under threat" and war is "inevitable")
11. Hitler and Bush both keep their populations subdued with brutality. (GW Bush
faced 7 legal cases (eventual impeachment?) for electoral fraud in Florida. That
was Bush's motive to bring down the World Trade on 9/11. He said his junior
business partner Osama did it, which is unbelievable - he should have resigned
at that point if only for his connections to Osama.)
12. Both wars could have been prevented simply by arresting the President of
the invading country and prosecuting him for election fraud and war crimes.
(G W Bush has killed 10,000 innocent Afghans).
War is only inevitable while Bush is President. We will be at war for as long
as Bush is President. If Carl Rove continues to fool the American people
and Bush serves two terms, he will destroy the foreign-debt ridden Aerican economy for
all time. (He will probably also kill more than the total of 4.73 million people
his Dad did, but Americans don't know about that - their press is censored for foreign news.)
And remember the USA orgainsed the 1963 coup which put Saddam Hussein's
brutal Bathist party in power, and the USA and Britain financed and armed
Hussein every step of the way. All the killing around Iraq has been done
by the USA or is the responsibility of the USA. It is up to the USA to
remove Bush first, as Dubya is the real threat and killer, then remove Saddam
the way it put him in, ie a coup, not a war.
If you want more proof, see bushfraud.blogspot.com.
Related link: http://bushfraud.blogspot.com
Some ones Home Town
Brit's collide with truth!
Subject: top 40 lies about the war on terror
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 05:03:07 EDT From:
Bring 'em On! The Bush administration's
top 40 lies about war and terrorism
By Steve Perry City Pages
Wednesday 30 July 2003
Author's note: In the interest of relative brevity I've stinted on citing and quoting
sources in some of the items below. You can find links to news stories that elaborate
on each of these items at my online Bush Wars column,
1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.
Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the
U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that
Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a U.S. invasion.
The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the
president's own mouth.
According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security
adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions
Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her,
"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."
Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently
lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and
Blair \made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade
Iraq in either February or March of this year.
Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on
the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the
"best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time.
Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual light, has
long been rabid on the subject of Iraq.
He reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he
believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the
1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or
terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for U.S. control
of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the
first Bush presidency.
Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document
known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that took advantage
of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both
militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably
hope to challenge the U.S.
Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the
[ Will none of these casseroles EVER say that "preemptive"
strike is Adolph Hitler's policy and Isrials too!ED]
After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent drafts
were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never changed.
In1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle, William Kristol, Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization called Project for the New American Century
to carry their cause forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration
from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left
him casting around for a foreign policy plan.
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed
weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported
by available intelligence evidence.
Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction
were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight
weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in
Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important
factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.
We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set
out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything
that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et
al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence
Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on
the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors.
(See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the
defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting
The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between
Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi
defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would
Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State
Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide
an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq.
This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the
answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has
been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the
nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials
to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."
Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is
W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue
a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African
uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the
administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim
was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph
Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the
claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims
at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be
groundless, describes what followed this way: "Although I did not file a written
report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives
confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report
of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA
report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office
of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen
any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this
is standard operating procedure."
The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as
egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation.
"Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these
materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent
it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength
aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium
for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency
said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed
El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even
suitable for centrifuges." [emphasis added]
Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.
Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the
administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not
a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.
The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors
or distortions regarding Iraq.
Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken the
fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As the
journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as it
prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second
front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing
relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more
supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus
is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify
the push for war."
In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted Bush's State of the Union
yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on it again.
An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as
little as six months from making nuclear weapons.
Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no
such report existed.
Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of
9/11. One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs,
this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads imaginable: first,
anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi defectors that there was
an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim CIA analysts did not corroborate
and that postwar U.S. military inspectors conceded did not exist; and second,
old intelligence accounts of a 1991 meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden
emissary and officers from Saddam's intelligence service, which did not lead
to any subsequent contact that U.S. or UK spies have ever managed to turn up.
According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman,
the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that
"there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda
The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.
Democracy is the last thing the U.S. can afford in Iraq, as anyone who has
paid attention to the state of Arab popular sentiment already realizes.
Representative government in Iraq would mean the rapid expulsion of U.S.
Rather, the U.S. wants westernized, secular leadership regimes that willstay
in pocket and work to neutralize the politically ambitious anti-Western
religious sects popping up everywhere. If a little brutality and graft are
required to do the job, it has never troubled the U.S. in the past. Ironically,
these standards describe someone more or less like Saddam Hussein.
Judging from the state of civil affairs in Iraq now, the Bush administration
will no doubt be looking for a strongman again, if and when they are finally
compelled to install anyone at all.
Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress are a homegrown Iraqi
political force, not a U.S.-sponsored front.
Chalabi is a more important bit player in the Iraq war than most people
realize, and not because he was the U.S.'s failed choice to lead a post-Saddam
government. It was Chalabi and his INC that funneled compliant defectors
to the Bush administration, where they attested to everything the Bushmen wanted
to believe about Saddam and Iraq (meaning, mainly, al Qaeda connections and
WMD programs). The administration proceeded to take their dubious word over
that of the combined intelligence of the CIA and DIA, which indicated that Saddam
was not in the business of sponsoring foreign terrorism and posed no imminent
threat to anyone.
Naturally Chalabi is despised nowadays round the halls of Langley, but it wasn't
always so. The CIA built the Iraqi National Congress and installed Chalabi at the
helm back in the days following Gulf War I, when the thought was to topple Saddam
by whipping up and sponsoring an internal opposition. It didn't work; from the start
Iraqis have disliked and distrusted Chalabi.Moreover, his erratic and duplicitous
ways have alienated practically everyone in the U.S. foreign policy establishment as
well--except for Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, and therefore the White House.
11) The United States is waging a war on terror.
Practically any school child could recite the terms of the Bush Doctrine, and
may have to before the Ashcroft Justice Department is finished: The global war
on terror is about confronting terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them.
The United States does not make deals with terrorists or nations where they
find safe lodging.
Leave aside the blind eye that the U.S. has always cast toward
Israel's actions in the territories.
How are the Bushmen doing elsewhere vis-à-vis their announced principles?
We can start with their fabrications and manipulations of Iraqi WMD
evidence--which, in the eyes of weapons inspectors, the UN Security
Council, American intelligence analysts, and the world at large, did
not pose any imminent threat.
The events of recent months have underscored a couple more gaping
violations of W's cardinal anti-terror rules. In April the Pentagon made a
cooperation pact with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian
terrorist group based in Iraq. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, American
intelligence blamed it for the death of several U.S. nationals in Iran.
Most glaring of all is the Bush administration's remarkable treatment of
Saudi Arabia. Consider: Eleven of the nineteen September 11
hijackers wer Saudis. The ruling House of Saud has longstanding
and well-known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits, which
it funds (read protection money) to keep them from making mischief
at home. The May issue of Atlantic Monthly had a nice piece on the
House of Saud that recounts these connections.
Yet the Bush government has never said boo regarding the Saudis and
international terrorism. In fact, when terror bombers struck Riyadh in
May, hitting compounds that housed American workers as well, Colin Powell
went out of his way to avoid tarring the House of Saud: "Terrorism strikes
everywhere and everyone. It is a threat to the civilized world. We will commit
ourselves again to redouble our efforts to work closely with our Saudi friends
and friends all around the world to go after al Qaeda." Later it was alleged that the
Riyadh bombers purchased some of their ordnance from the Saudi National Guard,
but neither Powell nor anyone else saw fit to revise their statements about
"our Saudi friends."
Why do the Bushmen give a pass to the Saudi terror hotbed?
Because the House of Saud controls a lot of oil, and they are still
(however tenuously) on our side. And that, not terrorism, is what matters
most in Bush's foreign policy calculus.
While the bomb craters in Riyadh were still smoking, W held a meeting
with Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Speaking publicly
afterward,he outlined a deal for U.S. military aid to the Philippines in
exchange for greater "cooperation" in getting American hands round the
throats ofFilipino terrorists. He mentioned in particular the U.S.'s longtime
nemesis Abu Sayyaf--and he also singled out the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front, a small faction based on Mindanao, the southernmost big island in the
Of course it's by purest coincidence that Mindanao is the location of
Asia's richest oil reserves.
12) The U.S. has made progress against world terrorist elements, in
particular by crippling al Qaeda.
A resurgent al Qaeda has been making international news since around the
time of the Saudi Arabia bombings in May. The best coverage by far is that
of Asia Times correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad. According to Shahzad's
detailed accounts, al Qaeda has reorganized itself along leaner, more diffuse
lines, effectively dissolving itself into a coalition of localized units that
mean to strike frequently, on a small scale, and in multiple locales around the
Since claiming responsibility for the May Riyadh bombings, alleged al
Qaeda communiqués have also claimed credit for some of the strikes at U.S.
troops in Iraq.
13) The Bush administration has made Americans safer from terror on U.S.
Like the Pentagon "plan" for occupying postwar Iraq, the Department
of Homeland Security is mainly a Bush administration PR dirigible
untethered to anything of substance.
It's a scandal waiting to happen, and the only good news for W is that it's near
the back of a fairly long line of scandals waiting to happen.
On May 26 the trade magazine Federal Computer Week published a report on
DHS's first 100 days. At that point the nerve center of Bush's domestic
war on terror had only recently gotten e-mail service. As for the larger matter
of creating a functioning organizational grid and, more important, a software
architecture plan for integrating the enormous mass of data that DHS is
supposed to process--nada. In the nearly two years since the administration
announced its intention to create a cabinet-level homeland security office,
nothing meaningful has been accomplished. And there are no funds to
implement a network plan if they had one. According to the magazine,
"Robert David Steele, an author and former intelligence officer, points out
that there are at least 30 separate intelligence systems [theoretically feeding
into DHS] and no money to connect them to one another or make them
interoperable. 'There is nothing in the president's homeland security program
that makes America safer,' he said."
14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide concerning the events
of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence collected prior to that
First Dick Cheney personally intervened to scuttle a broad congressional
investigation of the day's events and their origins. And for the past
several months the administration has fought a quiet rear-guard action culminating
in last week's delayed release of Congress's more modest 9/11 report.
The White House even went so far as to classify after the fact materials that had
already been presented in public hearing.
What were they trying to keep under wraps? The Saudi connection, mostly,
and though 27 pages of the details have been excised from the public
report, there is still plenty of evidence lurking in its extensively massaged
text. (When you see the phrase "foreign nation" substituted in brackets, it's
nearly always Saudi Arabia.) The report documents repeated signs that there
was a major attack in the works with extensive help from Saudi nationals and
apparently also at least one member of the government. It also suggests that
is one reason intel operatives didn't chase the story harder: Saudi Arabia was
by policy fiat a "friendly" nation and therefore no threat. The report does not
explore the administration's response to the intelligence briefings it got; its
purview is strictly the performance of intelligence agencies. All other questions
now fall to the independent 9/11 commission, whose work is presently being
slowed by the White House's foot-dragging in turning over evidence.
15) U.S. air defenses functioned according to
protocols on September 11,2001.
Old questions abound here. The central mystery, of how U.S. air defenses
could have responded so poorly on that day, is fairly easy to grasp. A cursory
look at that morning's timeline of events is enough. In very short strokes:
8:13 Flight 11 disobeys air traffic instructions and turns off its transponder.
8:40 NORAD command center claims first notification of likely Flight 11 hijacking.
8:42 Flight 175 veers off course and shuts down its transponder.
8:43 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 175 hijacking.
8:46 Flight 11 hits the World Trade Center north tower.
8:46 Flight 77 goes off course.
9:03 Flight 175 hits the WTC south tower.
9:16 Flight 93 goes off course.
9:16 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 93 hijacking.
9:24 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 77 hijacking.
9:37 Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.
10:06 Flight 93 crashes in a Pennsylvania field.
The open secret here is that stateside U.S. air defenses had been
reduced to paltry levels since the end of the Cold War. According to a report by
Paul Thompson published at the endlessly informative Center for
Cooperative Research website (www.cooperativeresearch.org), "[O] nly two
air force bases in the Northeast region... were formally part of NORAD's
defensive system. One was Otis Air National Guard Base, on Massachusetts's
Cape Cod peninsula and about 188 miles east of New York City. The other was
Langley Air Force Base near Norfolk, Virginia, and
about 129 miles south of Washington.
During the Cold War, the U.S. had literally thousands of fighters on alert. But as
the Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it reached only 14
fighters in the continental U.S. by 9/11."
But even an underpowered air defense system on slow-response status
(15 minutes, officially, on 9/11) does not explain the magnitude of NORAD's
apparent failures that day.
Start with the discrepancy in the times at which NORAD commanders claim to
have learned of the various hijackings. By 8:43 a.m., NORAD had been notified
of two probable hijackings in the previous five minutes.
If there was such a thing as a system-wide air defense crisis plan, it should
have kicked in at that moment. Three minutes later, at 8:46, Flight 11 crashed
into the first WTC tower. By then alerts should have been going out to all
regional air traffic centers of apparent coordinated hijackings in
Yet when Flight 77, which eventually crashed into the Pentagon, was hijacked
three minutes later, at 8:46, NORAD claims not to have learned of it until 9:24,
38 minutes after the fact and just 13 minutes before it crashed into the
The professed lag in reacting to the hijacking of Flight 93 is just as
striking. NORAD acknowledged learning of the hijacking at 9:16, yet the
Pentagon's position is that it had not yet intercepted the plane when it
crashed in a Pennsylvania field just minutes away from Washington, D.C.
at 10:06, a full 50 minutes later.
In fact, there are a couple of other circumstantial details of the
crash, discussed mostly in Pennsylvania newspapers and barely noted in
national wire stories, that suggest Flight 93 may have been shot down after all.
First, officials never disputed reports that there was a secondary debris field
six miles from the main crash site, and a few press accounts said that it included
one of the plane's engines. A secondary debris field points to an explosion on
board, from one of two probable causes--a terrorist bomb carried on board
or an Air Force missile.
And no investigation has ever intimated that any of the four terror crews were
They kept to simple tools like the box cutters, for ease in passing security.
Second, a handful of eyewitnesses in the rural
area around the crash site did report seeing
low-flying U.S. military jets around the time of
Which only raises another question. Shooting down Flight 93 would have
been incontestably the right thing to do under the circumstances. More than
that, it would have constituted the only evidence of anything NORAD and the
Pentagon had done right that whole morning. So why deny it? Conversely,
if fighter jets really were not on the scene when 93 crashed, why weren't they?
How could that possibly be?
16) The Bush administration had a plan for restoring essential services
and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure after the shooting war ended.
The question of what the U.S. would do to rebuild Iraq was raised before
the shooting started. I remember reading a press briefing in which a
Pentagon official boasted that at the time, the American reconstruction team
had already spent three weeks planning the postwar world! The Pentagon's
first word was that the essentials of rebuilding the country would take about
$10 billion and three months; this stood in fairly stark contrast to UN estimates
that an aggressive rebuilding program could cost up to $100 billion a year for a
minimum of three years.
After the shooting stopped it was evident the U.S. had no plan for
keeping order in the streets, much less commencing to rebuild.
(They are upgrading certain oil facilities, but that's another matter.)
There are two ways to read this. The popular version is that it proves
what bumblers Bush and his crew really are. And it's certainly true that
where the details of their grand designs are concerned, the administration
tends to have postures rather than plans.
But this ignores the strategic advantages the U.S. stands to reap by leaving
Iraqi domestic affairs in a chronic state of (managed, they hope) chaos.
Most important, it provides an excuse for the continued presence of a large
U.S. force, which ensures that America will call the shots in putting Iraqi oil
back on the world market and seeing to it that the Iraqis don't fall in with the
wrong sort of oil company partners. A long military occupation is also a
practical means of accomplishing something the U.S. cannot do officially,
which is to maintain air bases in Iraq indefinitely. (This became necessary
after the U.S. agreed to vacate its bases in Saudi Arabia earlier this year to
try to defuse anti-U.S. political tensions there.)
Meanwhile, the U.S. plans to pay for whatever rebuilding it gets around to
doing with the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales, an enormous cash box the U.S. will
oversee for the good of the Iraqi people.
In other words, "no plan" may have been the plan the Bushmen were intent
on pursuing all along.
17) The U.S. has made a good-faith effort at peacekeeping in Iraq during
the postwar period.
"Some [looters] shot big grins at American soldiers and Marines or put
down their prizes to offer a thumbs-up or a quick finger across the throat
and a whispered word--Saddam--before grabbing their loot and vanishing."
--Robert Fisk, London Independent, 4/11/03
Despite the many clashes between U.S. troops and Iraqis in the three
months since the heavy artillery fell silent, the postwar performance of U.S.
forces has been more remarkable for the things they have not done--their
failure to intervene in civil chaos or to begin reestablishing basic civil procedures.
It isn't the soldiers' fault. Traditionally an occupation force isheaded up by military
police units schooled to interact with the natives and oversee the restoration of
goods and services. But Rumsfeld has repeatedly declined advice to rotate out
the combat troops sooner rather than later and replace some of them with an MP
force. Lately this has been a source of escalating criticism within military ranks.
18) Despite vocal international opposition, the U.S. was backed by most
of the world, as evidenced by the 40-plus-member Coalition of the Willing.
When the whole world opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the outcry was
so loud that it briefly pierced the slumber of the American public, which
poured out its angst in poll numbers that bespoke little taste for a war without
the UN's blessing. So it became necessary to assure the folks at home that the
whole world was in fact for the invasion. Thus was born the Coalition of
the Willing, consisting of the U.S. and UK, with Australia caddying--and
40-some additional co-champions of U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East,
whose ranks included such titans of diplomacy and pillars of representative
government as Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Eritrea, and Micronesia. If the
American public noticed the ruse, all was nonetheless forgotten when Baghdad
fell.Everybody loves a winner.
19) This war was notable for its protection of civilians.
This from the Herald of Scotland, May 23: "American guns, bombs, and missiles
killed more civilians in the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam,
according to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid
agencies, and independent study groups. Despite U.S. boasts this was the fastest,
most clinical campaign in military history, a first snapshot
of 'collateral damage' indicates that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi
non-combatants died in the course of the hi-tech blitzkrieg."
20) The looting of archaeological and historic sites in Baghdad was
General Jay Garner himself, then the head man for postwar Iraq, told the
Washington Times that he had put the Iraqi National Museum second on a
list of sites requiring protection after the fall of the Saddam
government, and he had no idea why the recommendation was ignored. It's
also a matter of record that the administration had met in January with a group
of U.S. scholars concerned with the preservation of Iraq's fabulous Sumerian
antiquities. So the war planners were aware of the riches at stake.
According to Scotland's Sunday Herald, the Pentagon took at least one other
meeting as well:
"[A] coalition of antiquities collectors and arts lawyers, calling itself
the American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP), met with U.S. Defense
and State department officials prior to the start of military action to offer its
assistance.... The group is known to consist of a number of influential
dealers who favor a relaxation of Iraq's tight restrictions on the ownership and
export of antiquities.... [Archaeological Institute of America] president Patty
Gerstenblith said: 'The ACCP's agenda is to encourage the collecting of
antiquities through weakening the laws of archaeologically rich nations and
eliminate national ownership of antiquities to allow for easier export.'"
21) Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist groups.
This is very concisely debunked in Walter Pincus's July 21 Washington
Post story, so I'll quote him: "'Iraq could decide on any given day to provide
a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual
terrorists,' President Bush said in Cincinnati on October 7.... But declassified
portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday
by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S.
intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE,
which began circulating October 2, shows the intelligence services were much
more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were
facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack
by the United States."
Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes.
Again the WashPost wraps it up nicely: "The 45-minute claim is at the
center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday
of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the
allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the
British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute
claim was added to Britain's public 'dossier' on Iraq in September at the
insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair--and against the wishes of
British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was
23) The Bush administration is seeking to create a viable Palestinian state.
The interests of the U.S. toward the Palestinians have not changed--not
yet, at least. Israel's "security needs" are still the U.S.'s sturdiest
pretext for its military role in policing the Middle East and arming its Israeli
proxies. But the U.S.'s immediate needs have tilted since the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the Bushmen need a fig leaf--to confuse, if not
exactly cover, their designs, and to give shaky pro-U.S. governments in the
region some scrap to hold out to their own restive peoples. Bush's roadmap
has scared the hell out of the Israeli right, but they have little reason to worry.
Press reports in the U.S. and Israel have repeatedly telegraphed the assurance
that Bush won't try to push Ariel Sharon any further than he's comfortable going.
24) People detained by the U.S. after 9/11 were legitimate terror
Quite the contrary, as disclosed officially in last month's critical
report on U.S. detainees from the Justice Department's own Office of Inspector
General. A summary analysis of post-9/11 detentions posted at the UC-Davis
website states, "None of the 1,200 foreigners arrested and detained in secret
after September 11 was charged with an act of terrorism. Instead, after periods
of detention that ranged from weeks to months, most were deported for violating
immigration laws. The government said that 752 of 1,200 foreigners arrested
after September 11 were in custody in May 2002, but only 81 were still in
custody in September 2002."
25) The U.S. is obeying the Geneva conventions in its treatment of
terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.
The entire mumbo-jumbo about "unlawful combatants" was conceived to
skirt the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners by making them out to
be something other than POWs. Here is the actual wording of Donald Rumsfeld's
pledge, freighted with enough qualifiers to make it absolutely meaningless:
"We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that
is reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions to the extent they are
appropriate." Meanwhile the administration has treated its prisoners--many of whom,
as we are nowseeing confirmed in legal hearings, have no plausible connection
to terrorist enterprises--in a manner that blatantly violates several key Geneva
provisions regarding humane treatment and housing.
26) Shots rang out from the Palestine hotel, directed at U.S. soldiers,
just before a U.S. tank fired on the hotel, killing two journalists.
Eyewitnesses to the April 8 attack uniformly denied any gunfire from the
hotel. And just two hours prior to firing on the hotel, U.S. forces had
bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing a Jordanian reporter.
Taken together, and considering the timing, they were deemed a warning to
unembedded journalists covering the fall of Baghdad around them.
The day's events seem to have been an extreme instance of a more surreptitious
pattern of hostility demonstrated by U.S. and UK forces toward foreign journalists
and those non-attached Western reporters who moved around the country at will.
(One of them,Terry Lloyd of Britain's ITN, was shot to death by UK troops at a
checkpoint in late March under circumstances the British government has refused
Some days after firing on the Palestine Hotel, the U.S. sent in a commando
unit to raid select floors of the hotel that were known to be occupied by
journalists, and the news gatherers were held on the floor at gunpoint while
their rooms were searched. A Centcom spokesman later explained cryptically
that intelligence reports suggested there were people "not friendly to the
U.S." staying at the hotel. Allied forces also bombed the headquarters of Abu
Dhabi TV, injuring several.
27) U.S. troops "rescued" Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital.
If I had wanted to run up the tally of administration lies, the Lynch
episode alone could be parsed into several more. Officials claimed that
Lynch and her comrades were taken after a firefight in which Lynch battled
Later they announced with great fanfare that U.S. Special Forces had
rescued Lynch from her captors. They reported that she had been shot
and stabbed. Later yet, they reported that the recuperating Lynch had no
memory of the events.
Bit by bit it all proved false. Lynch's injuries occurred when the vehicle she was
riding in crashed. She did not fire on anybody and she was not shot or stabbed.
The Iraqi soldiers who had been holding her had abandoned the hospital where
she was staying the night before U.S. troops came to get her--a development her
"rescuers" were aware of. In fact her doctor had tried to return her to the
Americans the previous evening after the Iraqi soldiers left.
But he was forced to turn back when U.S. troops fired on the approaching
As for Lynch's amnesia, her family has told reporters her memory is
28) The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq generally turned out en masse to
greet U.S. troops as liberators.
There were indeed scattered expressions of thanks when U.S. divisions
rolled in, but they were neither as extensive nor as enthusiastic as Bush
image-makers pretended. Within a day or two of the Saddam government's
fall, the scene in the Baghdad streets turned to wholesale ransacking and
Within the week, large-scale protests of the U.S. occupation had already begun
occurring in every major Iraqi city.
29) A spontaneous crowd of cheering Iraqis showed up in a Baghdad square
to celebrate the toppling of Saddam's statue.
A long-distance shot of the same scene that was widely posted on the
internet shows that the teeming mob consisted of only one or two hundred
souls, contrary to the impression given by all the close-up TV news shots of
what appeared to be a massive gathering. It was later reported that members
of Ahmed Chalabi's local entourage made up most of the throng.
30) No major figure in the Bush administration said that the Iraqi
populace would turn out en masse to welcome the U.S. military as
When confronted with--oh, call them reality deficits--one habit of the
Bushmen is to deny that they made erroneous or misleading statements to
begin with, secure in the knowledge that the media will rarely muster the energy
to look it up and call them on it. They did it when their bold prewar WMD
predictions failed to pan out (We never said it would be easy! No, they only
implied it), and they did it when the "jubilant Iraqis" who took to the streets after
the fall of Saddam turned out to be anything but (We never promised they would
welcome us with open arms!).
But they did. March 16, Dick Cheney, Meet the Press: The Iraqis are
desperate "to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as
liberators the United States when we come to do that.... [T]he vast
majority of them would turn on [Saddam] in a minute if, in fact, they
thought they could do so safely").
31) The U.S. achieved its stated objectives in Afghanistan, and
vanquished the Taliban.
According to accounts in the Asia Times of Hong Kong, the U.S. held a
secret meeting earlier this year with Taliban leaders and Pakistani
intelligence officials to offer a deal to the Taliban for inclusion in the Afghan
(Main condition: Dump Mullah Omar.) As Michael Tomasky commented in
The American Prospect, "The first thing you may be wondering: Why is there
a possible role for the Taliban in a future government? Isn't that fellow Hamid
Karzai running things, and isn't it all going basically okay? As it turns out,
not really and not at all.... The reality... is an escalating guerilla war in which '
small hit-and-run attacks are a daily feature in most parts of the country, while
face-to-face skirmishes are common in the former Taliban stronghold around
Kandahar in the south.'"
32) Careful science demonstrates that depleted uranium is no big risk to the
Pure nonsense. While the government has trotted out expert after expert
to debunk the dangers of depleted uranium, DU has been implicated in health
troubles experienced both by Iraqis and by U.S. and allied soldiers in the
first Gulf War. Unexploded DU shells are not a grave danger, but detonated ones
release particles that eventually find their way into air, soil, water,and food.
While we're on the subject, the BBC reported a couple of months ago that
recent tests of Afghani civilians have turned up with unusually high concentrations
of non-depleted uranium isotopes in their urine. International monitors have
called it almost conclusive evidence that the U.S. used a new kind of uranium-
laced bomb in the Afghan war.
33) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities presented no big risk to the
Commanders on the scene, and Rumsfeld back in Washington, immediately
assured everyone that the looting of a facility where raw uranium powder (so-called
"yellowcake") and several other radioactive isotopes were stored was no serious
danger to the populace--yet the looting of the facility came to light in part because,
as the Washington Times noted, "U.S. and British newspaper reports have suggested
that residents of the area were suffering from severe ill health after tipping out
yellowcake powder from barrels and using them to store food."
U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon a crowd of civilian protesters
April 15: U.S. troops fire into a crowd of protesters when it grows angry at the
pro-Western speech being given by the town's new mayor, Mashaan al-Juburi.
Seven are killed and dozens injured. Eyewitness accounts say the soldiers
spirit Juburi away as he is pelted with objects by the crowd, then take sniper
positions and begin firing on the crowd.
U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon two separate
crowds of civilian protesters in Fallujah.
American troops fire into a crowd of demonstrators gathered on
Saddam's birthday, killing 13 and injuring 75. U.S. commanders claim the
troops had come under fire, but eyewitnesses contradict the account, saying
the troops started shooting after they were spooked by warning shots fired
over the crowd by one of the Americans' own Humvees. Two days later U.S.
soldiers fired on another crowd in Fallujah, killing three more.
The Iraqis fighting occupation forces consist almost entirely of
"Saddam supporters" or "Ba'ath remnants."
This has been the subject of considerable spin on the Bushmen's part in
the past month, since they launched Operation Sidewinder to capture or kill
remaining opponents of the U.S. occupation. It's true that the most fierce
(but by no means all) of the recent guerrilla opposition has been concentrated
in the Sunni-dominated areas that were Saddam's stronghold, and there is no
question that Saddam partisans are numerous there. But, perhaps for that reason,
many other guerrilla fighters have flocked there to wage jihad, both from within
and without Iraq. Around the time of the U.S. invasion, some 10,000 or so
foreign fighters had crossed into Iraq, and I've seen no informed estimate of
how many more may have joined them since.
(No room here, but if you check the online version of this story,
there's a footnote regarding one less-than-obvious reason former
Republican Guard personnel may be fighting mad at this point.)
37) The bidding process for Iraq rebuilding contracts displayed no
favoritism toward Bush and Cheney's oil/gas cronies.
Most notoriously, Dick Cheney's former energy-sector employer,
Halliburton, was all over the press dispatches about the first round of
rebuilding contracts. So much so that they were eventually obliged to bow
out of the running for a $1 billion reconstruction contract for the sake of their
own PR profile. But Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root still received
the first major plum in the form of a $7 billion contract to tend to oil field
fires and (the real purpose) to do any retooling necessary to get the oil
pumping at a decent rate, a deal that allows them a cool $500 million in profit.
The fact that Dick Cheney's office is still fighting tooth and nail to block
any disclosure of the individuals and companies with whom his energy task
force consulted tells everything you need to know.
38) "We found the WMDs!"
There have been at least half a dozen junctures at which the Bushmen
have breathlessly informed the press that allied troops had found the WMD
smoking gun, including the president himself, who on June 1 told
reporters, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing
devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Shouldn't these quickly falsified statements be counted as errors rather
than lies? Under the circumstances, no. First, there is just too
voluminous a record of the administration going on the media offensive to
tout lines they know to be flimsy. This appears to be more of same.
Second, if the great genius Karl Rove and the rest of the Bushmen have
demonstrated that they understand anything about the propaganda potential
of the historical moment they've inherited, they surely understand that
repetition is everything.
Get your message out regularly, and even if it's false a good many people will
Finally, we don't have to speculate about whether the administration
would really plant bogus WMD evidence in the American media, because
they have already done it, most visibly in the case of Judith Miller of the
New York Times and the Iraqi defector "scientist" she wrote about at the
military's behest on April 21. Miller did not even get to speak with the purported
scientist, but she graciously passed on several things American commanders
claimed he said: that Iraq only destroyed its chemical weapons days before
the war, that WMD materiel had been shipped to Syria, and that Iraq had ties
to al Qaeda. As Slate media critic Jack Shafer told WNYC Radio's On the
Media program, "When you... look at [her story], you find that it's gas, it's air.
There's no way to judge the value of her information, because it comes from
an unnamed source that won't let her verify any aspect of it.
And if you dig into the story... you'll find out that the only thing that Miller has
independently observed is a man that the military says is the scientist, wearing
a baseball cap, pointing at mounds in the dirt."
39) "The Iraqi people are now free."
So says the current U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, in a
recent New York Times op-ed. He failed to add that disagreeing can get
you shot or arrested under the terms of the Pentagon's latest plan for pacifying
Iraq,Operation Sidewinder (see #36), a military op launched last month to wipe
out all remaining Ba'athists and Saddam partisans--meaning, in practice, anyone
who resists the U.S. occupation too zealously.
40) God told Bush to invade Iraq.
Not long after the September 11 attacks, neoconservative high priest
Norman Podhoretz wrote: "One hears that Bush, who entered the White
House without a clear sense of what he wanted to do there, now feels there
was a purpose behind his election all along; as a born-again Christian, it is
said, he believes he was chosen by God to eradicate the evil of terrorism
from the world."
No, he really believes it, or so he would like us to think. ThePalestinian prime
minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that Bush made
the following pronouncement during a recent meeting between the two: "God
told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in
the Middle East."
Oddly, it never got much play back home.
$10 to listen to the sermon - as long as you're white
Gary Younge Friday August 1, 200 The Guardian
It's a special offer for this month only: a race-based bonus in the name
of integration, diversity and the good Lord himself. A church in Louisiana
will pay white people to attend its services, offering $5 per hour for those
who attend its Sunday services and $10 for anyone who comes on Thursday.
"Our churches are too segregated and the Lord never intended for that to
happen. It's time to do something radical," said Bishop Fred Caldwell, of
the Greenwood Acres Full Gospel church in Shreveport.
Religion is more racially segregated than anything else in America,
including housing and socialising, and nowhere more so than in the south,
where 11 o'clock on a Sunday morning is said to be the most segregated
hour of the week.
Under Mr Caldwell's scheme white visitors will have to register when they
arrive at the service after which he will pay them from his own pocket,
calling on the congregation for help if he needs it.
He says he has had so many positive responses from white parishioners in
the town that he is already planning to put out extra chairs this Sunday. One
man called to thank him for the invitation even though he didn't want the
Chris Williams, one of the few white members of the congregation, supports
"I don't see it as any different than a lot of the churches that have
different social functions to attract visitors. Bishop just kind of cut to
the chase and went to the money," she said. "I don't know where people get
the impression that he doesn't love white people. I know he loves me."
The chairman of the religion department of the local college, Professor
Peter Huff, says Mr Caldwell has identified a serious problem.
"He's hit on the problem. All of the best motives have not been able to
overcome the racial divide," he says. "Just showing people that racism
conflicts with the gospel seems not to be enough."
But Mr Caldwell hopes the lesson will stick long after the cash runs out.
"I just want the kingdom of God to look like it's supposed to. There ain't
going to be ghettos in heaven."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
America is a religion US leaders now
see themselves as priests of a divine
mission to rid the world of it's demons...
Tuesday July 29, 2003
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
"The death of Uday and Qusay," the commander of the ground forces in
Iraq told reporters on Wednesday, "is definitely going to be a turning point for
" Well, it was a turning point, but unfortunately not of the kind he envisaged. On the
day he made his announcement, Iraqi insurgents killed one US soldier and wounded
six others. On the following day, they killed another three; over the weekend they
assassinated five and injured seven. Yesterday they slaughtered one more and
wounded three. This has been the worst week for US soldiers in Iraq since George
Bush declared that the war there was over.
Few people believe that the resistance in that country is being coordinated by
Saddam Hussein and his noxious family, or that it will come to an end when those
people are killed. But the few appear to include the military and civilian command
of the United States armed forces. For the hundredth time since the US invaded
Iraq, the predictions made by those with access to intelligence have proved less
reliable than the predictions made by those without. And, for the hundredth time,
the inaccuracy of the official forecasts has been blamed on "intelligence failures".
The explanation is wearing a little thin. Are we really expected to believe that the
members of the US security services are the only people who cannot see that many
Iraqis wish to rid themselves of the US army as fervently as they wished to rid
themselves of Saddam Hussein? What is lacking in the Pentagon and the White
House is not intelligence (or not, at any rate, of the kind we are considering here),
but receptivity. Theirs is not a failure of information, but a failure of ideology.
To understand why this failure persists, we must first grasp a reality which has
seldom been discussed in print. The United States is no longer just a nation. It is
now a religion.
Its soldiers have entered Iraq to liberate its people not only from their dictator, their
oil and their sovereignty, but also from their darkness. As George Bush told his
troops on the day he announced victory: "Wherever you go, you carry a message
of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah,
'To the captives, "come out," and to those in darkness, "be free".'"
So American soldiers are no longer merely terrestrial combatants; they have
They are no longer simply killing enemies; they are casting out demons.
The people who reconstructed the faces of Uday and Qusay Hussein carelessly
forgot to restore the pair of little horns on each brow, but the understanding that
these were opponents from a different realm was transmitted nonetheless. Like all those who send missionaries abroad, the high priests of America cannot conceive
that the infidels might resist through their own free will; if they refuse to convert, it
is the work of the devil, in his current guise as the former dictator of Iraq.
As Clifford Longley shows in his fascinating book Chosen People, published last
year, the founding fathers of the USA, though they sometimes professed otherwise, sensed that they were guided by a divine purpose. Thomas Jefferson argued that
the Great Seal of the United States should depict the Israelites, "led by a cloud by
day and a pillar of fire by night". George Washington claimed, in his inaugural address, that every step towards independence was"distinguished by some token of
Longley argues that the formation of the American identity was part of a process of
The Roman Catholic church claimed that it had supplanted the Jews as
the elect, as the Jews had been repudiated by God.
The English Protestants accused the Catholics of breaking faith, and
claimed that they had become the beloved of God.
The American revolutionaries believed that the English, in turn, had
broken their covenant: the Americans had now become the chosen
people, with a divine duty to deliver the world to God's dominion.
Six weeks ago, as if to show that this belief persists, George Bush
recalled a remark of Woodrow Wilson's. "America," he quoted, "has
a spiritual energy in her which no other nation can contribute to the
liberation of mankind."
Gradually this notion of election has been conflated with another,
still more dangerous idea.
It is not just that the Americans are God's chosen people; America
itself is now perceived as a divine project.
In his farewell presidential address, Ronald Reagan spoke of his country as a
"shining city on a hill", a reference to the Sermon on the Mount. But what Jesus
was describing was not a temporal Jerusalem, but the kingdom of heaven.
Not only, in Reagan's account, was God's kingdom to be found in the United States
of America, but the kingdom of hell could also now be located on earth: the
"evil empire" of the Soviet Union, against which His holy warriors were pitched.
Since the attacks on New York, this notion of America the divine has been extended
In December 2001, Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of that city, delivered his last mayoral
speech in S Paul's Chapel, close to the site of the shattered twin towers.
"All that matters," he claimed, "is that you embrace America and understand its
ideals and what it's all about.
Abraham Lincoln used to say that the test of your Americanism was ... how much
you believed in America.
Because we're like a religion really. A secular religion." The chapel in which he
spoke had been consecrated not just by God, but by the fact that George
Washington had once prayed there.
It was, he said, now "sacred ground to people who feel what America is all about".
The United States of America no longer needs to call upon God; it is God, and
those who go abroad to spread the light do so in the name of a celestial domain.
The flag has become as sacred as the Bible; the name of the nation as holy as the
name of God. The presidency is turning into a priesthood.
So those who question George Bush's foreign policy are no longer merely critics;
they are blasphemers, or "anti-Americans". Those foreign states which seek to
change this policy are wasting their time: you can negotiate with politicians; you
cannot negotiate with priests. The US has a divine mission, as Bush suggested in January: "to defend ...
the hopes of all mankind", and woe betide those who hope for something other
than the American way of life.
The dangers of national divinity scarcely require explanation.
Japan went to war in the 1930s convinced, like George Bush, that it possessed
a heaven-sent mission to "liberate" Asia and extend the realm of its divine imperium.
It would, the fascist theoretician Kita Ikki predicted: "light the darkness of the
entire world". Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined only
to engineer a hell.
George Monbiot's books Poisoned Arrows and No Man's Land are republished
this week by Green Books.
Special report United States of America </usa/0,12271,759893,00.html>
World news guide
North American media </worldnewsguide/northamerica/0,11376,618255,00.html>
New York Times <http://nytimes.com>
Washington Post <http://washingtonpost.com>
US government portal <http://www.firstgov.gov/>
White House <http://www.whitehouse.gov/>
House of Representatives <http://www.house.gov>
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Related link: http://bushfraud.blogspot.com
Friday, February 07, 2003 The George W Bush Interview
The questions the Media omitted to ask Index
1. Texas: Executing all the innocent, sparing only a guilty Satanist.
2. Bush the anti abortion campaigner, and your illegal abortion.
1970, before Roe v Wade.
3. Drug use, drug dealing, cheating your 15 and 30 year prison
4. Dodging Vietnam, one year AWOL from the Texas National Guard
5. Foul language. Who's worse, you or President Nixon?
6. Lying under oath, lying to cover your DWI. 1976, 1978 An
alcoholic for 20 years.
7. Lying about adultery 1999. Tammy Phillips, the Texas stripper.
8. Business failure and Corporate fraud. 1978 - 91
9. Billionaires' bribes and their enormous paybacks at taxpayer
10. The 26 year Bush - bin Laden Business partnership.
11. Your scorn for human beings and human rights.
12. Your Satanic Society membership since 1968, confirmed 2000.
13. Neil Bush's $1 billion Silverado S&L Fraud, Jeb Bush only $8m
14. An Illegitimate President: Florida: your 4 electoral frauds on
15. Your devastation of the US economy.
16. Didn't you have the strongest motive to bring down the World
17. Indicators of your involvment with the destruction of the World
18. Would bin Laden have dared to act on 9/11 without his senior
19. Overseas killings organised by the Bush family - the cause of
20. Your real motive for the Iraq war.
21. The Bush Body count - 30 people - please Mr. President, don't
have me murdered too.
The GW Bush interview:
The questions the Media omitted to ask
Mr President, it seems the standard of journalism in the USA has
fallen hopelessly. As a result, during your campaign the Press failed
to subject you to a serious investigation or a proper background
check; you didn't even get an in depth interview. May we make up
for that failure now? Thank you.
1). While you were Governor of Texas 130 people were
executed. You spared no one (except the Satanist and child
molester Henry Lee Lukas who had murdered around 200 people).
Some of those executed were mentally retarded, some had
incompetent or corrupt state defence lawyers. Several had
evidence to prove their innocence, DNA in one case; some were
foreigners and had their right of consular access denied, appeals
from the governments of Europe, Canada and Mexico went unheard.
You even ignored appeals from His Holiness the Pope in the Vatican.
No more striking evidence of your lack of compassion can be
illustrated than in matters of life and death. In the light of this, isn't
your platform of "Compassionate" Conservatism just hypocrisy?
You have made it clear in a number of television interviews that you
regard executions as somewhere between funny and enjoyable. On
Talk Magazine you mocked Karla Faye Tucker, with the sarcastic
words "Please don't kill me". You also laughed as you gloated over
your executions on your first TV debate; your own Republican
election staff quickly stopped you after that one.
Isn't the right to life the most fundamental American freedom? Is a
man who regards execution so cynically fit to be entrusted with the
Presidency and the defence of individual freedom? Isn't a State
that executes people when there is proof of their innocence close
to committing murder? Isn't the truth that you just don't care one
way or another?
You are recorded in 1968 as joining the Chapter 332 Order, a
satanic society known as "The Skulls". Is this why you released
2. Bush the anti abortion campaigner, and your illegal
abortion. Early 1970.
President Bush, are you opposed to abortion? Yes?
On October 20th 2000 CNN interviewed Larry Flynt w ho said he
had affadavits from five women who were connected with your
early 1970 illegal abortion in Houston (While you were working on
your Dad's campaign, before Roe v Wade). Isn't it an abhorrent
hypocrisy for you to be so anti abortion when you have arranged at
least one yourself?
3. Drug use, drug dealing, cheating your 15 and 30 year prison
President Bush, weren't you arrested in 1972 for possessing a large
quantity of Cocaine and its use, and didn't you then spend some
time in Harris County Jail? Don't many people get 15 years in prison
for this? Who secretly commuted your sentence to a year's PULL
community service in Houston and covered it up as "work for the
disadvantaged"? Was it your Dad's or your Skull and Bones
contacts? Who? Why didn't the Press sing it from the rooftops?
Until you were 40 years old weren't you a selfish playboy who didn't
care for the disadvantaged?
According to Reed's book, "Compromised" published by Penmarin
Books, the DEA set up a drugs sting in 1985 with FBI information
and the help of Barry Seal (a CIA agent who smuggled drugs for the
CIA). At Tamiami airport in Florida they filmed the transfer of
several kilos of cocaine from Beech N6308F into a Beech King Air,
whose co- pilot was Terry Reed. Didn't they cancel the arrest when
they realised the drug buyers they were filming were you and your
brother, ie Jeb and George W Bush? Is it appropriate for a President
to have been dealing in Cocaine by the kilo? Barry Seal was
murdered soon after, the investigation into his death quashed. Did
you or one of the government departments over which your family
has private influence or control order his murder to cover up your
Isn't it cynical hypocrisy for you to press for the hardest possible
sentence on first time drug offenders when you dealt in kilos
yourself? Others who dealt in kilos got 30 years in prison. Isn't it
unfair you get off scot free?
4. Dodging Vietnam, one year AWOL from the Texas National
Guard 1972-3 You were due to be drafted to Vietnam in 1969,
when some of the heaviest fighting was taking place. But
according to the Dallas Morning News, September 28 & October
30, 1999, didn't your business associate Sid Adger get the Speaker
of the Texas House of Representative to contact General James
Rose, and get you into the Texas National Guard? Didn't you dodge
General William Turnipseed and his aide Kenneth Lott both flatly
deny that you ever appeared for duty for your service in Alabama.
(The Boston Globe, May 23, 1999.) Didn't your two superior officers
at Ellington Air Force Base, Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr.
and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, effectively declare you
missing from duty.
Weren't you AWOL from the Texas National Guard from May 1972 to
April 73? Why is all this reported in detail in the local newspapers
but not in the National media? What power does the Republican
party possess to keep it hidden?
5. Foul language. Who's worse, you or President Nixon?
Do you think President Nixon's "expletive deleted" language on the
famous Watergate tapes a disgrace to America?
You do? Then why do you use the same language in private? Just
to quote three examples among the many: "Asshole" about a
reporter to Dick Cheney when you thought the microphones were
off; the F-word to your mother while arguing, "You F- son of a
bitch" to Al Hunt, a Wall St Journal reporter, in front of Hunt's wife
and 4 year old son in a Dallas restaurant. If we were to listen to
tapes of you talking in private, who would sound the worst, you or
6. Lying under oath, lying to cover your DWI. 1976, 1978 An
alcoholic for 20 years.
Mr President Bush, it appears President Clinton lied under oath. Do
you condone his actions? No?
Then why did you lie under oath to avoid testifying in a July 20th
1999 affidavit: that as Governor you had not spoken to SCI Funeral
Homes representatives? They were a big Bush contributor who were
under investigation and there are records of you speaking to them
on six occasions. Soon, you got the investigator, Eliza May and her
6 staff, fired. Why didn't the Press hound you to death over this
matter as they did President Clinton? What power do you, your
family, the Republican Party or your organisations have over the
Did you lie about your DWI to cover it up? No?
In court in 1978, to get your license back, you said you rarely
drank, but later you admitted you had a drink problem at that time.
You lied to the Dallas Morning news saying you hadn't been
arrested (your DWI arrest was in 1976). How many other times did
you lie about just that issue alone? Do you think a US President
should be a liar on the public record?
After you became Governor of Texas, your Texas driving record was
mysteriously erased "for security reasons". Was there more we
don't know about? Or was this just a cynical abuse of power?
Isn't it true that for 20 years you were a rich, hard drinking playboy
with a control problem; indulging in sex orgies, frequent drug usage;
to overcome your drink problem you admit you were forced to
become teetotal at age 40. By every definition of the term, you
were an alcoholic. Is this appropriate for a President? If things get
tough in the White House and you have a drink to cope with the
stress, will you, like many alcoholics, revert uncontrollably to being
an alcoholic again? But this time, you'd be an alcoholic in The White
House. Didn't you consider, before you ran, of the damage your
background could do to America? Or do you just want the power,
and don't care about America or Americans?
On 14th January 2002 we saw your bruised, and apparently
hung-over face on the cover of the world's newspapers. The spin
was you had choked on a pretzel, fallen down and smashed your
face. Isn't the truth that your're drunk again?
7. Lying about adultery. The Texas stripper, 1999.
In your campaign you claimed you have been faithful to your wife,
yet Tammy Phillips of Carrolton, Texas, states you had an 18 month
sexual affair with her which the Republican party forced you to
finish in June 1999. It was published in The National Enquirer, the
New York Post, Fox News, and Slate magazine. If this had been
Clinton, proven or not, the coverage would have been nauseating
and unending. President Bush, what power did you have over the
Press that you could have the whole story instantly squashed?
In your election campaign you said "I trust the people" then got
your lawyers to stop the people's votes being counted in Florida.
Was this another lie?
Is it fair to say you do not see yourself so much as a liar as unable
to see any point in telling the truth? Do you understand or care
which is which?
You piously say you are a Christian, isn't this a revolting hypocrisy
on the basis of your actions?
8. Business failure and Corporate fraud. 1978 - 91
Like your father, you were a Director of three front "Oil" companies
that failed miserably but provided cover for your other activities. At
Arbusto Energy your investors lost $4.7 million, then when the next
company, Spectrum 7, bought the remains of Arbusto, you arranged
to pay yourself in full for your share but not the other shareholders.
Isn't that illegal?
The failed remains of Spectrum were bought by Harken Energy.
Again you got on the board of directors. Didn't you introduce the
corrupt BCCI bank, soon liquidated for its frauds, and put one of
their directors on Harken's board? Didn't you then sell 60% of your
Harken shares one week before the company revealed disasterous
earnings? The company's stock then plunged 25%, soon 75%.
Again, didn't you lose investors' money?
You violated another SEC rule. You had to register the stock sale
as an insider trade by July 10, 1990, but didn't until March 1991,
after the Gulf War was over. Why weren't you prosecuted?
Weren't your dealings with the Texas Rangers another fraud? Didn't
you make $15 million, by getting your political friends to write down
Arlington Texas City land so your company could buy it cheap, then
getting a $135 million subsidy from the city on top? Again you had
directors from the fraudulent BCCI on the board. Didn't the
taxpayers of Arlington have to suffer a higher tax rate, just to pay
for the frauds you had perpetrated on them?
What other drug related dealing did you do with BCCI, who dealt in
drugs on a massive scale?
When you became Governor of Texas didn't you use state funds
from UTIMCO – the Texas State Investment Company – to pay
back those investors in your failed companies who were your
cronies? Haven't you made a practice of using Government funds to
pay back those who supported your private life? Didn't UTIMCO
"invest" $1.7 billion, mainly in Bush crony companies? Have you no
concern that is fraud on taxpayers? Are you really wholly
uninterested in taxpayers unless they are forced to finance your
own illegal dealings?
Is it fair to sum up your business career as failure, insider trading
and fraud? Why did the Republican Party fail to act on this after a
background check before you ran? Why didn't the Press pick this up
and stop your Presidential candidacy as they should have done with
this information, which was and still is in the record for all to see?
9. Billionaires' bribes and their enormous paybacks at
Isn't the $1.6 trillion tax cut for the rich another payback for the
wealthy backers of your private life, aren't some of them going to
get over $1 million in rebates each, again at the public expense?
Aren't we paying high gas prices so you can pay back your
commitments to Big Oil, who are now making record profits in return
for their support of your private life? Don't you dislike individual
business people, non-employees, or personal independence – isn't
this crony capitalism again?
Aren't you bought and paid for by big oil and big corporations like
Enron? How much of Enron's policy did your administration
implement? Didn't your friend "Kenny Boy" – Mr Lay the CEO, put
half a million into you? Why did you lie you had only met Mr Lay
recently, when you have known him for 20 years? Aren't you pro big
corporations, particularly the corrupt ones? Weren't Ashcroft and
Dick Cheney deep into Enron? Didn't you hold Enron up for three
months while 35 White House Republicans milked it of $1.38 billion
and left ordinary Americans to lose their shirts? Clifford Baxter was
one of the few honest Enron board members. Clifford said he
needed a bodyguard as he would be testifying. How deeply would
he have incriminated you? Did Kenny Boy ask your government to
fix his murder or did you make that decision all on your own? Will
honest witnesses keep being killed until Enron dies down?
10). The 26 year Bush - bin Laden partnership
Wasn't James Bath, the Bin Laden family's US representative, on
your Governor's campaign in 1978 and didn't he front Salem Bin
Laden's investment of $50,000 for 5% of your Arbusto 1978
In 1979 didn't your father begin funnelling money to Osama bin
Laden, under the guise of fighting the Russians?
Between 1978 and 1992 when your Dad left office, didn't he put at
least $6 billion into Afghanistan for weapons, and didn't Osama bin
Laden get hundreds of millions of that US taxpayers cash?
Your father is both a shareholder and the senior consultant in the
Carlyle group; the bin Ladens are the biggest shareholders. Is it just
coincidence that your Dad is working for the bin Ladens? Haven't
you and your Dad, by awarding it huge US contracts at the
expense of the American taxpayer, taken it from nowhere to the
world's 11th leargest defense contractor? Didn't Carlyle back you
heavily in your election campaigns and weren't you paid to sit on
one of their boards (Caterair 1990).
Your Dad met bin Laden's family as recently as 1998 and 2000 (Wall
St Journal Sept 27 2001).
11. Your scorn for human beings and human rights.
You cancelled the Bill of Rights which has been in the Constitution
since 1791 on 26th October 2001 with your cynically named "USA
Patriot Act." Don't you get a smirk out of that one? Now at your
personal edict any government department can seize and imprison
Americans, who then have no rights. No right to trial or even a
phone call, no right to ever be released. Foreigners don't even
require an edict. You have already seized and are holding over
1,000 people under this act, some US citizens. We don't have the
right to know how many. How do you prevent the press from
blasting your abuse of the Constitution from the rooftops?
Although we lost less people in the World Trade (2,990) than
Ireland lost to the American financed IRA terrorists (3,700), you
used the WTC as the excuse for this cynical Act, which abolished
habeus corpus, the right to trial, and a string of other freedoms.
Britain lost 200,000 Londoners to the blitz and 15% of its buildings
but reacted less cruelly to its own citizens. Isn't your attitude to
ordinary people's lives and freedom as cynical as Andropov or
"People shouldn't have that much freedom" That was your comment
about an anti-Bush web site, gwbush.com. Isn't that a dangerous
view for freedom of speech, particularly when so many Bush private
enemies have "disappeared" – I have a list of 30 here. Will you
restrict web freedoms to stop continuing exposure of your
dishonesty, under the pretence of something else? Wasn't Steve
Kangas murdered because his "Liberalism Resurgent" website knew
too much about you and your cronies?
Don't your election-count court cases in Florida tell us again and
again it is the System and the State that count, not the individual
or their vote? Together with many other rich and powerful
Republicans, isn't your attitude to the private individual in tune with
that of Soviet Communists?
You classed Afghan prisoners of war who defended their
government against the USA, a foreign aggressor, as "unlawful
combatants" instead of prisoners of war, denying them POW rights,
and kept them off US soil in Cuba so they have no US rights. You
snatched them out of their own country, where you had no right to
be. You kept them in open cages wrapped in thick hot red suits
with blacked out goggles, earmuffs and surgical masks, with their
arms tied straightjacket style, legs manacled together, forced to
kneel for 12 hours a day. The 100 degree heat must have been
unbearably higher in the suits.
The sweat must have run down inside their goggles, possibly filling
them up, the damp in the masks make every breath feel like
suffocation. Isn't that a cruel torture? Sensory deprivation is
torture, and they had that on top. Isn't this just wholly
unnecessary pure unfettered evil on your part?
Don't you give a damn about "innocent until proved guilty"? We
haven't seen treatment like this in the Western world since the
Gestapo. Is there no end to your disdain for human rights?
Wasn't America an Unlawful Combatant in its illegal bombing of
Afghanistan? Your only right was that the WTC attacks may have
been financed from there. Under your rules, doesn't Britain have the
right to carpet bomb the US because the IRA was definitely
financed from there? And wouldn't you, Mr Bush, under your own
rules, be an unlawful combatant if you tried to defend your
government, as the Afghanis did? And isn't your government as
illegitimate as the Taliban's?
Your family was devastated when your Dad didn't serve a second
term and is determined you will. You will lose the election next time
with far larger numbers than can be fiddled in Florida. When your
re-election comes up in 2 years, will you conveniently cause
another war so you can cancel the elections?
You have carpet bombed Afghanistan, murdering perhaps 10,000
people, not one of whom could possibly have any connection to the
Twin Towers terrorism -they are innocent. All with the excuse of
searching for a man we now know is your associate and is almost
certainly not in that country. Do you have no genuine regret for
your part in this, or is it just too minor a genocide by comparison
with your Dad's efforts?
President Clinton was a stong supporter of the International Criminal
court in the Hague where Mr Milosevic is being tried. You have
reversed US policy and are strongly against this court and have
tried to frustrate its progress. Are you concerned you and your
Dad, who is responsible for 4.73 million middle east deaths against
Milosevic's 500,000, might be prosecuted there, or do you associate
the methods of the accused closely with your own?
12). You confirmed on 7th August 2000 your satanic society
membership since 1968.
Like your father, while at Yale you became a lifetime member of the
satanic and secretive " Chapter 322 Order" (known as the Skulls) in
1968 and admit it (eg your interview Time Magazine August 7th
2000). You are listed in "The Russel Trust Association" - the Skull's
business corporation, as a member. Isn't it true that graduates of
this club are in positions of power throughout the US government,
and use this power to corruptly aid other members at the expense
of the people they purport to represent? How many times have you
used Skull and Bones members to pervert the actions of
government departments for your private use? Weren't you
inducted at the Skull's "temple" at 59 High St New Haven
Connecticut? (100 yards North, left hand side, from the junction
with Chapel Street)
In 1968 didn't your initiation ritual into the occult Skull and Bones
involve you climbing into a coffin and taking the oath that you were
dead to yourself, dead to the world, and born again in Lucifer?
Wasn't your second oath that you would not abide by any other
oath you took in the future (ie including the oath of Presidential
office)? Didn't Hitler go through the same ritual in the Thule society,
parent society to the Skull and Bones?
When you say you are born again, isn't this what you're referring
to? Isn't your deepest cynicysim really reserved for the Christian
religion? Is that why you spared only the Satanist Henry Lee Lucas,
because he was one of you? Is that why you, a dimwit, have been
able to become President, because you sold yourself to the devil?
Wasn't your smirking, gloating mocking of your Texan executed
victims on television typical behaviour for a satanist?
Aren't you much more powerful in the Satanic world than your Dad,
because your election was illegitimate? Should we fear more
destruction from you than him?
More Yale Skull and bones graduates join the CIA than any other
branch of government. Isn't the CIA controlled by the Skull and
Bones? Isn't the Skull's aim confusion, war and death? Aren't the
Bushes the most powerful family in the Skulls, and haven't you
controlled the CIA since 1976, whether in power or not?
Isn't the Skull's main aim the same as the Thule Society's - the
reduction of the world's population to 2 billion, which now entails
the murder of 4.5 billion people with atomic weapons? And aren't
you the only guy in the world with sufficient nuclear weapons to
achieve it? Isn't that why your Dad said, in 1976 "Nuclear War is
winnable"? Isn't this why you're trying to start a war in Iraq, which
will appear to go wrong, so you have an excuse to fire these
weapons and achieve the Skull's goal?
Or is this, best case, all a childish prank? In which case is it proper
for a President to have been dabbling in the occult? Why, when
asked, have you never denounced this ritual or the Skull and
Bones? Why have you never renounced your membership of an
13. Neil Bush's $1 billion Silverado S&L Fraud, Jeb Bush only
Do you remember Broward Federal Savings and Loan? It went
belly-up in 1988, thanks in great part to the $4.6 million default by
your brother Jeb Bush and his business partner Armando Codina on
a loan they had taken out to buy a Miami office tower. The
taxpayers absorbed over $4 million of that debt, while Jeb and his
partner ended up paying only half a million. Amazingly, they had
sufficient influence to keep the building, which they later sold for
$8.7 million, (although Jeb denies making any money on this deal!!)
Jeb Bush dishonestly described himself as a "Realator licensed by
the state of Florida". He didn't have a license at the time as the
State was investigating him for fraud.
And your brother Neil Bush was on the Board of Silverado Savings
and Loan. The Houston Post says "Silverado was part of an
intricate web of federally insured financial institutions that had
business links to organized crime". Two of Neil's associates
(directors of his own company, JNB) alone received $130 million
from that S&L which they never returned. It finally went bust for a
billion dollars, and the taxpayers footed the bill. Wasn't that
massive fraud again?
Are these the family ethics that your brother Jeb used to get you
the Presidency in Florida?
14. Illegitimate President: Florida: 250,000 votes stolen in
your 4 electoral frauds.
Mr President, Al Gore had a 600,000 vote lead over you across the
nation. Mr Gore was also well ahead (22 electoral college votes)
before Florida was counted. You were well behind and you had to
have Florida to overtake Gore. The voting in Florida under Jeb Bush
seemed to be about even and one hell of a mess. The State
rejected a total of 180,000 ballots in the 67 counties. The
manufacturers of the voting machines themselves confirm they
have a two to five percent error rate. Taking the middle figure of 3
1/2 % errors and 6 million Florida voters, we know who won Florida
to the nearest 210,000 votes. And yet your brother's organisation
managed to declare you the winner by a figure of 537 votes.
Doesn't the fact that your brother is Governor of the state with the
corrupted election system compromise both him and you, and make
America look like a Third World Country?
Do you know how that looks to the outside world?
Does it bother you that your 537 vote lead was officially certified
on behalf of the State of Florida by none other than the
co-chairman of your own "Bush for President Campaign", Kathleen
Harris? Wouldn't that abject lack of electoral independence be
banned in most Third World countries?
What should an honourable presidential candidate have done, if he
had America's best interests at heart? Wouldn't an honourable man
have conceeded, to protect his brother's reputation, the voting
system's integrity, his own reputation and his country's reputation?
On the announcement of the closeness of the voting your Brother
Jeb Bush honourably "Recused" himself from the election count
process, properly promising to have nothing to do with it, because
of the conflict of interest, ie, brotherhood versus the fairness of
The New York Times detailed how Jeb then worked furiously behind
the scenes and successfully ensured the count went in your favour.
Does it bother you that your brother firstly lied, and then interfered
with the counting process, to get you elected President?
Now Florida has been recounted by hand it is confirmed Al Gore won
by all of the six counting methods employed, and by thousands of
votes. But the Florida Ballots Project run by the National Opinion
Research Council were frightened to publish the results; which we
only know because staff leaked the results. How have you managed
to keep the fact that your Presidency is entirely fraudulent out of
the US press?
The American press has totally failed as the watch dog of our
freedom and it was the BBC who reported that Jeb Bush, 18 months
before the election, instructed Kathleen Harris, to remove 173,000
black Americans from the Florida electoral role. 90% of blacks vote
democrat. Wern't you involved too? And didn't she declare you the
winner by just 537 votes?
Weren't you guilty of destroying 250,000 Democratic votes in 4
Isn't your presidency entirely illegitimate?
15. Your devastation of the US economy.
Under your governorship, Texas sank to the bottom of more
achievement tables than any other state. Does this bother you, or
not? How did you prevent the Press reporting these failures in your
election campaign? If you were an economic disaster in Texas,
weren't you bound to be a bigger disaster as President?
On the 29th December the New York Times reported 43 occasions
when you had talked down the economy so you could push through
your 1.6 trillion tax cut for your billionaire bakers. You hadn't even
taken the oath of office. As President if you talk recession you will
get a recession – and you got one.
Your own campaign said you "don't understand the details" - you
will rely on the advocacy of one man for an idea, rather than
understand the idea. What do you do when you get bad ideas
presented well? The nation gets stuck with bad policy because you
can't analyse it?
You talked war from the moment you took office, and the firings
were numbering tens of thousands a month every time you spoke
as companies closed projects purely because of the uncertainty
and the threat of war that you alone created.
The day of the WTC attack you allowed the Government to close.
What message does that send to a potential enemy? "Attack here,
we just go home?" You forced the airlines and Wall St to shut down
for 4 days, doing 5 World Trade Centres-worth of economic damage
each day. You allowed Congress to close for a week. Didn't you
make a minor economic impact become a large impact because of
your bad leadership? Why didn't you take examples from other
countries of fortitude under attack and a "carry on regardless"
Or was your talk of war, the closing of the government on 11th
September, the closing of the airlines, Stock Exchanges and half of
Manhattan for six days, and your massive exaggeration of this issue
self aggrandisement of your role as Commander in Chief? Yes, it did
wonders in the polls, but half the nation is sitting on its hands: you
have made Americans scared to fly, scared to go to work, scared
to go out to dinner. Have you deliberately turned "The land of the
free and the home of the brave" into a nation of cowards? Haven't
you most definitely done 100 times more economic damage to the
USA than the terrorists?
Haven't you now created a massive recession? Don't you
understand the damage you have already done, or don't you care
as long as you look good? Or was it deliberate?
16. Didn't you have the strongest motive to bring down the
By July 2001 were you running scared? Your popularity had fallen to
an all time low due to your attacks on the economy, which was
sinking fast, and your Florida election frauds were becomming more
and more difficult to conceal. Wern't you in danger of being
impeached for election fraud and losing your Presidency?
Bringing down the World Trade on 9/11 solved all your problems
beautifully - your approval rating went up to 90%, you became
unassailably established as President and the legal cases that were
being prepared against you for election fraud were droppped.
Weren't you the only beneficiary of the destruction of the World
Isn't it a fact that if your family hadn't perverted the election
result, and Al Gore was President, the World Trade towers would
still be standing today?
17. Indicators of your involvment with the destruction
of the World Trade.
Two combat ready squadrons are kept at Andrews Air Force
Base10 miles away to protect Washington from rogue civil
aircraft; they can be airborne in less than 5 minutes; it was automatic, and they didn't need government authorisation
to take off. Didn't you stand them down for that one day, 9/11?.
US forces around the world were put on Defcon3 alert
immediately - but not Andrews.
For 75 minutes after it is known that 4 airlines have been hijacked
simultaneously, your government didn't scramble one fighter aircraft
- therefore allowing the attack on the Pentagon to succeed.
UA Flight 93 crashed in Pensylvania. Why are you concealling the
contents of the Cockpit Voice Recorder and the Black box, and the
flight path of the plane for the 9 minutes after the passengers
stormed the cockpit? Is it because they found out your government
was controlling the plane and not terrorists? Did you order the F16
that was shadowing it to shoot it down at 10.03am for that reason?
Is that why one engine was found a mile away, proving it blew up in
You were safely in Florida as the planes struck, 1,000 miles away,
on a long scheduled school visit. When told about the WTC instead
of looking shocked, you looked guilty. You were an obvious target
at a well publicised venu but you stayed at the school and didn't go
into hiding - didn't you know perfectly well you were completely
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and CIA Director
George Tenet visited General Pervez Musharraf and General Mahmud
Ahmad, head of the Pakistani ISI. [Source The Indian SAPRA news
agency, May 22, 2001.] Then Mahamud Ahmad transferred
$100,000 to Mohammad Atta, leader of the Twin Towers terrorists.
(The Times of India, October 11, 2001). The FBI forced Mahamud
to resign because of the transfer. Was that just to make you look
June 2001 – German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel
that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial
aircraft to use as weapons." [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
September 14, 2001.] You weren't interested. Was that because
you already knew?
Summer 2001 – An Iranian man phones U.S. law enforcement to
warn of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center in the week
of September 9th. German police confirm the calls but state that
the U.S. Secret Service would not reveal any further information.
[Source: German news agency "online.ie", September 14, 2001.]
You did nothing.
August 2001 – The FBI arrests an Islamic militant linked to bin
Laden in Boston. French intelligence sources confirm that the man
is a key member of bin Laden's network and the FBI learns that he
has been taking flying lessons. At the time of his arrest the man is
in possession of technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight
manuals. [Source: Reuters, September 13.] You weren't interested.
Summer 2001 – Russian intelligence notifies the CIA that 25
terrorist pilots have been specifically training for suicide missions.
This is reported in the Russian press and news stories are
translated for FTW by a retired CIA officer. You did nothing.
July 4-14, 2001 – Osama bin Laden receives treatments for kidney
disease at the American hospital in Dubai, is seen by his family
often and has several meetings with a CIA official who returns to
CIA headquarters on July 15th. [ Le Figaro, October 31st, 2001.]
August 2001 – Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian
intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible
terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings.
[Source: MS-NBC interview with Putin, September 15.] You did
September 6-10, 2001 Over 9,000 put options are purchased on
United Air Lines and American Airlines stock as opposed to only
1,100 call options This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales
of put options, many of them through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a
firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive Director of the
CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. [Source: The Herzliyya International
Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, September 21; The New York
Times; The Wall Street Journal.] More abnormal puts are bought on
companies with offices in the twin Towers. $2.5 million of the 15
million profits are still unclaimed because the identity of the owners
of the options would now be traced. Obviously CIA staff knew
about the World Trade attacks in advance and made millions out of
At best Mr Bush, didn't you know about the Twin Towers attacks
months in advance? Russia, France and Germany warned you and
you did nothing. At worst, did you have a hand in their
organisation? Didn't the attack suit you, because it allows you to
wage war without end?
18. Would bin Laden dare to act on 9/11 without his senior
The bin Laden family made millions out of their corrupt partnership
with the Bush family; Osama bin Laden seems to have made the
most, almost certainly over a hundred million dollars. As the junior
partner in this Bush relationship, isn't it inconceivable Osama would
have attack the World Trade without your consent?
If Osama is guilty as you say shouldn't you resign anyway for your
close ties with America's enemy? Just like your grandfather
You seized upon Osma Bin Laden as the culprit without proof. Why?
Could it be because of the Bush family's 24 year business
relationship with Osma and the bin Laden family (documented in
Newsweek and the New York Times in Februrary 2002)? While your
Dad was in charge of the CIA, didn't he train, finance and arm bin
Laden to fight a proxy war on the CIA's behalf against the Russians
in Afghanistan? Didn't GHW Bush help create and finance Al Qaeda?
Wasn't Bin Laden almost the only CIA success story, ie he drove
the Russians out with Taliban and other help? Didn't your Dad and
the CIA continue to have meetings with Bin Laden right through
Salem bin Laden, your business partner from 1978, died in an
inexplicable and uninvestigated microlight aircraft crash in San
Antonio, Texas, in 1988. Did you fall out with him? Thirty people
who knew too much about the Bushes have been murdered. Was he
one of them?
Did you seize on Osama bin Laden as the culprit because you alone
know he is dead? Doesn't this allow your "war on terror" to continue
for as long as you want, because America will never find Osama?
And the next obvious question is: did the Bush family order Osama's
death and the hiding of his body?
Your abysmal handling of 9/11. Was it deliberate?
The first plane hit the WTC at 8:45am. People were trapped on the
upper floors, yet no one in your government scrambled military
helicopters to get them off. They all died after an hour and a half.
Why no attempt at helicopters?
Have you thought of the futility and stupidity of starting a war
against the perpetrators? They are all dead, all 19 of them You
can't have a war against dead people. A war against their
financiers? You can't have a war against individuals. You can only
declare war against a country.
19. Wars and killings organised by the Bush family - the cause
of most terrorism?
Your Grandfather, Prescott Bush, had his assets confiscated by the
US Government on 20th October 1942 for trading with the enemy
(Vesting Orders 248, 259,261,370). Hitler was a member of the
Satanic Thule Society, Prescott Bush was a member of the Thule's
first daughter society, the Skull and Bones.
As fellow satanists with the same objectives - death, confusion and
war, wasn't it natural for Prescott Bush to help Hitler? The Union
Banking Corporation of which Prescott Bush was both CEO and a
shareholder with the Harrimans, George Herbert Walker and the
Thyssens was set up to finance Hitler from 1922.
Bush was also a Director of Brown Brothers Harriman. Consolidated
Silesian Steel Corporation of Oswiecim, Poland was one of 15
subsidiaries. Prescott Bush was the CEO, and he empoyed slave
labor from Auschwitz. In a subsidiary, the German Steel Trust, they
also manufacturered 35% of Germany's explosives.
Prescott received $1.5 million (worth $100 million today) for his
share in UBC in 1951, with which he financed his son, GHW Bush.
And aren't you very well aware that you are financed by profits
Are you proud that your Grandfather helped make Hitler the most
successful Satanist of all time with 54 million deaths to his name?
In the 1980's didn't GHW Bush put $3 billion in finance for weapons
into Afghanistan? Didn't the largest shares go to the Taliban, Al
Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden? Didn't the Taliban take control of
Afghanistan as a result of your Dad, isn't most of the $200 million
thought be in Al qaeda's bank accounts American taxpayer's money
he put there? Didn't Osama Bin laden get at least $100 million from
Two million Afhghanis died at the wrong end of these US financed
weapons and 6 million were made homeless by your father's
The awful American press doesn't report this, but John Simpson of
the BBC has.
Wasn't it GHW Bush that cooerced Saddam Hussein into war against
Iran to try to regain control after the Shah was deposed?
(See John Pilger's article on "Black propaganda"). One million Arabs
Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, President Bush sent Ambassador
April Glaspie to Saddam with a letter and a "wink and a nod" telling
the Iraqi leader that it was OK to invade Kuwait.
GHW Bush, as President, in a typical Skull and Bones doublecross,
then carpet bombed 200,000 Iraqi soldiers (whose only wish was to
surrender and get away from Saddam) to death.
Dad Bush encouraged a rebellion against Saddam in the south which
grew to 30,000 strong. He then refused to allow the rebels fuel, or
access to the arms they had captured, and turned them out to be
murdered by the Republican army. American helicopters watched as
they were mowed down. Bush had no intention of removing
Saddam, his ally.
Your Dad delibertely dropped depleted
Uranium "dirty bombs" inDesert Storm.
Now thousands of Southern Iraqis are
dying ghastly deaths of radiation
poisoning. Isn't this worse than
anything Saddam Hussein did?
Aren't you a cruel and evil family?
Bush's sanctions have now killed another 1.5 million Iraqis, most of
them children according to UNESCO.
That's 4.83 million deaths your Dad organised. Is that good for a
Satanist? Wasn't George HW Bush responsible for more genocide
than Slobbodan Milosevic?
What plans do you have in this direction? Will you be copying your
Dad? So far you've carpet bombed a mere 10,000 innocent Afghanis
to death, at least 3,500 of whom are women, children or civilians.
Isn't it a fact Mr President, that because of your Dad's millions of
killings, the USA is the most hated country in the world today?
Don't many Arabs want to get back as the Bushes, still the most
powerful family in the CIA?
Now as President you are inventing a war. Aren't you determined to
get one? More than one?
In 1976 your Dad said "Nuclear war is winnable". You've just
announced a $48 billion increase to your war budget that totals
$379 billion. That's seven times more military might than the next
biggest country, 36% of the entire world's warchest. Never in the
history of warfare has one nation been so militarily invincible. Even
the brutal Romans had less of the total. The USA could probably
declare war on all the other 235 countries of the world at once and
So why the $48 Billion increase? To fight the "tens of thousands" of
AlQueda guerrillas you invented in your State of the Union speech?
You've already got enough weapons to take out 2 billion people,
tens of thousands are just a piece of cake. To combat the knives
and pepper spray the 19 terrorists used? Or is war just the only
agenda for the Bushes and the Skull and Bones?
Aren't these weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a Skull
and Bonesman, who's aim is to nuke 4.5 billion, the real threat? Isn't
Saddam Hussein, although your family's long standing ally, just your
You may well unite a billion Arabs against the US, who could cut off
our oil supplies and force a world war. Haven't you given Ariel
Sharon a free hand to provoke just that? Is this incompetence or
Wouldn't a better plan be to formulate a new American Foreign
Policy without bloodshed, and abolish the CIA? Then, at last, no
one would have any reason to hate the USA. And bring in stringent
retrospective death penalties for government employees who cause
bloodshed overseas to stop it happening again. Isn't that the only
long term solution? Why aren't you interested?
Instead aren't we going to war just to preserve your Dad's existing
bloodthirsty policies, which have lead to 9.5 million CIA inspired
deaths in 50 countries around the world? Aren't the CIA the worlds
largest state sponsored terrorists?
In the light of the 4.83 million dead Muslims who would still be alive
but for George Bush and the CIA, isn't any Bush the most unsuitable
person to be leading the USA right now? Shouldn't you resign for
your country's sake?
You've easily fooled the naive Mr. Blair into taking Britain into
Afghanistan. But what has this private war started by the CIA, and
the business only of Bush, the CIA and the Taliban, got to do with
Britain? What if the Taliban explode a breifcase nuclear bomb in
London in retailiation? What if half a million uninvolved and innocent
British people die? Will this merely please you as it will enhance your
Commander In Chief status and confirm Britain as your ally?
Given the history and connections of the Bushes wouldn't it pay
you to ask the CIA to explode that bomb for you? Has the CIA
spread the Anthrax to give you more support (90% for your
Commander in Chief role in the polls)? It is precisely the sort of
operation they are famous for. And isn't it now proved it's American
made anthrax spores?
In your State of the Union address of 29th January 2002 the first
half of your speech was devoted to war. Will you be at war
throughout your presidency? Can you fool all the Americans all the
Isn't it a fact that the combination of the Bush family, the Skull and
Bones, and the CIA are the most powerful anti-American forces on
the face of this planet?
You called Iran and Iraq the "Axis of evil". 819 of iraq's 821 missiles
are destroyed, its nuclear program 93% destroyed according to the
UN weapons inspectors who WERE allowed in January 2002;
600,000 children have died because the US isn't letting
humanitarian aid into the country. By contrast the USA is now the
most powerful military nation the world. Doesn't the real "Axis of
evil" control the White House?
Unlike other Western nations, American television "news" is almost
entirely given over to war, 24 hours a day, on all channels. Are you
deliberately brainwashing Americans to expect war?
You have already been an economic disaster to the USA but you
are good at war. It raises your poll ratings and enables you to
suppress criticism by jailing without trial those who are a problem to
you. Where will your next war be?
20. Your real motive for the Iraq war.
As a Satanist, don't you just have to carpet bomb another 200,000
Iraqis to death? Won't you ensure, like your Dad, that not one hair
of Saddam's head is touched?
After this carnage will you then sleep the sound sleep of the
successful Satanist? Or will you contrive for the war to go wrong so
you can fire some of your massive atomic arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction, to fulfill the Skull's aims of reducing the the
world's population to 2 billion?
21. The Bush Body count - 30 - please Mr. President, don't
have me murdered too.
Turning again to your family's personal life, a number of people who
were about to give testimony that could damage the Bushes have
been murdered, and investigations in to their death suddenly
terminated. Some are included in the enclosed "Bush body count" of
thirty people. Does it bother you that, when your reputation is
threatened, people often die?
Are you plainly too stupid for the job, and most of your schemes
organised by cronies? Or are you so cunningly devious you have
been able to wear a mask of stupidity your entire life?
Wouldn't your crimes would suit a gangster? Why have you been
elected to serve a 4 year Presidential term when you should be
serving a 30 year prison term for drug dealing alone?
In view of the fraud, deaths, lies, insider trading, drug dealing, drug
use, and alcoholism, was it fair for you to enter the residential race
at all? You don't care? What if the Press finally decides to do their
job, and exposes all this? Your impeachment would make Nixon and
Clinton look like saints.
Who would replace you after impeachment Cheney His
background (eg with $3.8 billion corrupt government contracts,
Haliburton/Brown and Root's billion dollar drug smuggling) also won't
stand close scrutiny. Who in your government is honest enough to
replace you without getting impeached? Did you not bother to
calculate the damage this could do to America before you started
If the full extent of the activities of you and many of your
associates in your government were widely published it could affect
confidence and the stockmarket even more. Doesn't that worry
Do you think the American Press is so awful they just
won't bother to expose you? Or do you believe you
have Soviet style control of the National Press and
knowledge of your criminal activities will always remain
at the local level?
I apologise if you feel these questions are severe, but in free
countries and given your background these are the questions that
would be asked today. There is now less personal freedom in the
USA than in Europe; can we assume it doesn't bother you in the
least that American freedom is very second rate, and declining
every day under your regime? Does it not bother you that the verse
"the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave" is now a
dishonest statement compared to many Western nations?
Mr President, I would like to thank you for your time as this
interview draws to a close. But may I please take the opportunity
to ask you for one Presidential favour?
As we have seen, many people have died because they knew too
much about your activities. Can you please grant me the favour of
not adding me to the list?
Thank you and goodbye. posted by Alison at 7:34 PM
Please use the mouse back button & or arrows to navigate back to top