http://tinyurl.com/cwxm3

crossposted to LiveJournal:
http://tinyurl.com/bzojt


© Virginia Metze

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9283


Informant: NHNE

The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11090.htm

THE mysterious source who gave America’s foremost journalist, Bob Woodward, a tip-off about the CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to lawyers close to the investigation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11087.htm

It was the first time the three Bahrainis have spoken publicly about their incarceration since they arrived back in Bahrain on November 5.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?sub=1617


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

The U.S. Army needed them, and it invoked the once rare policy it calls "stop loss," though others call it a "backdoor draft."

http://tinyurl.com/aa3qk


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

British-trained police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11084.htm

Peter Beaumont, reports on a brutal campaign of political 'disappearances'.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11085.htm

Col Collins' tactics mirror the United States army "shake and bake" technique which involves forcing troops out of cover with white phosphorus and then killing them with artillery rounds.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11086.htm

[ please forward widely ]

McKinney: Republicans seek to silence dissent on Iraq war

By Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.)
-Guest Columnist-
Updated Nov 18, 2005, 09:49 pm

Rep. Cynthia McKinney's Statement on "Murtha" War Resolution

The Republicans in this House have done a heinous thing: they have insulted one of the deans of this House in an unthinkable and unconscionable way.

They took his words and contorted them; they took his heartfelt sentiments and spun them. They took his resolution and deformed it: in a cheap effort to silence dissent in the House of Representatives.

The Republicans should be roundly criticized for this reprehensible act. They have perpetrated a fraud on the House of Representatives just as they have defrauded the American people.

By twisting the issue around, the Republicans are trying to set a trap for the Democrats. A "no" vote for this Resolution will obscure the fact that there is strong support for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. I am voting "yes" on this Resolution for an orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq despite the convoluted motives behind the Republican Resolution. I am voting to support our troops by bringing them home now in an orderly withdrawal.

Sadly, if we call for an end to the occupation, some say that we have no love for the Iraqi people, that we would abandon them to tyrants and thugs.

Let us consider some history.

The Republicans make great hay about Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. But when that attack was made in 1988, it was Democrats who moved a resolution to condemn those attacks, and the Reagan White House quashed the bill in the Senate, because at that time the Republicans considered Saddam one of our own.

So in 1988, who abandoned the Iraqi people to tyrants and a thugs?

In voting for this bill, let me be perfectly clear that I am not saying the United States should exit Iraq without a plan. I agree with Mr. Murtha that security and stability in Iraq should be pursued through diplomacy. I simply want to vote yes to an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. And let me explain why.

Prior to its invasion, Iraq had not one (not one!) instance of suicide attacks in its history. Research shows a 100% correlation between suicide attacks and the presence of foreign combat troops in a host country. And experience also shows that suicide attacks abate when foreign occupation troops are withdrawn. The US invasion and occupation has destabilized Iraq and Iraq will only return to stability once this occupation ends.

We must be willing to face the fact that the presence of US combat troops is itself a major inspiration to the forces attacking our troops.

Moreover, we must be willing to acknowledge that the forces attacking our troops are able to recruit suicide attackers because suicide attacks are largely motivated by revenge for the loss of loved ones. And Iraqis have lost so many loved ones as a result of America's two wars against Iraq.

In 1996, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on CBS that the lives of 500,000 children dead from sanctions were "worth the price" of containing Saddam Hussein. When pressed to defend this reprehensible position she went on to explain that she did not want US Troops to have to fight the Gulf War again. Nor did I. But what happened? We fought a second gulf war. And now over 2,000 American soldiers lie dead. And I expect the voices of concern for Iraqi civilian casualties, whose deaths the Pentagon likes to brush aside as "collateral damage" are too few, indeed.

A report from Johns Hopkins suggests that over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, most of them violent deaths and most as "collateral damage" from US forces. The accuracy of the 100,000 can and should be debated. Yet our media, while quick to cover attacks on civilians by insurgent forces in Iraq, have given us a blackout on Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of US combat forces.

Yet let us remember that the United States and its allies imposed a severe policy of sanctions on the people of Iraq from 1990 to 2003.

UNICEF and World Health Organization studies based on infant mortality studies showed a 500,000 increase in mortality of Iraqi children under 5 over trends that existed before sanctions. From this, it was widely assumed that over 1 million Iraqi deaths for all age groups could be attributed to sanctions between 1990 and 1998. And not only were there 5 more years of sanctions before the invasion, but the war since the invasion caused most aid groups to leave Iraq. So for areas not touched by reconstruction efforts, the humanitarian situation has deteriorated further. How many more Iraqi lives have been lost through hunger and deprivation since the occupation?

And what kind of an occupier have we been? We have all seen the photos of victims of US torture in Abu Ghraib prison. That's where Saddam used to send his political enemies to be tortured, and now many Iraqis quietly, cautiously ask: "So what has changed?"

A recent video documentary confirms that US forces used white phosphorous against civilian neighborhoods in the US attack on Fallujah. Civilians and insurgents were burned alive by these weapons. We also now know that US forces have used MK77, a napalm-like incendiary weapon, even though napalm has been outlawed by the United Nations.

With the images of tortured detainees, and the images of Iraqi civilians burned alive by US incendiary weapons now circulating the globe, our reputation on the world stage has been severely damaged.

If America wants to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we as a people must be willing to face the pain and death and suffering we have brought to the Iraqi people with bombs, sanctions and ccupation, even if we believe our actions were driven by the most altruistic of reasons. We must acknowledge our role in enforcing the policy of sanctions for 12 years after the extensive 1991 bombing in which we bombed infrastructure targets in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

We must also be ready to face the fact that the United States once provided support for the tyrant we deposed in the name of liberating the Iraqi people. These are events that our soldiers are too young to remember. I believe our young men and women in uniform are very sincere in their belief that their sacrifice is made in the name of helping the Iraqi people. But it is not they who set the policy.

They take orders from the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress. It is we who bear the responsibility of weighing our decisions in a historical context, and it is we who must consider the gravest decision of whether or not to go to war based upon the history, the facts, and the truth.

Sadly, however, our country is at war in Iraq based on a lie told to the American people. The entire war was based premised on a sales pitch—that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction menacing the United States—that turned out to be a lie.

I have too many dead soldiers in my district; too many from my home state. Too many homeless veterans on our streets and in our neighborhoods.

America has sacrificed too many young soldiers' lives, too many young soldiers' mangled bodies, to the Bush war machine.

I will not vote to give one more soldier to the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney war machine. I will not give one more dollar for a war riddled with conspicuous profiteering.

Tonight I speak as one who has at times been the only Member of this Body at antiwar demonstrations calling for withdrawal. And I won't stop calling for withdrawal.

I was opposed to this war before there was a war; I was opposed to thewar during the war; and I am opposed to this war now--even though it's supposed to be over.

A vote on war is the single most important vote we can make in this House. I understand the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who might be severely conflicted by the decision we have to make here tonight. But the facts of US occupation of Iraq are also very clear. The occupation is headed down a dead end because so long as US combat forces patrol Iraq, there will be an Iraqi insurgency against it.

I urge that we pursue an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and pursue, along with our allies, a diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq, supporting the aspirations of the Iraqi people through support for democratic processes.

On the web:
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com

© Copyright 2005 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/printer_2282.shtml


Informant: John Calvert

[ PLEASE FORWARD WIDLEY ]

Korean War and Vietnam veteran and former colonel, Representative John Murtha (D-PA), recipient of the American Spirit Honor Medal, Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal... introduced a resolution ( H.J.RES.73) to the House of Representatives on Nov. 17th (see below).

Who is better able to judge the administration's policies and planning in Iraq? Dick Cheney who got five deferrments and never served in the armed forces? George W. Bush who was missing without leave? Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld, who flew planes for the Navy for three years and gave us NutriSweet? Or Condoleeza Rice, who had an oil tanker named after her by Chevron?


Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) News Conference on U.S. Policy in Iraq (11/17/2005)

VIDEO:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq111705_murth.rm

IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, DO THIS:

USE REALPLAYER

1) If you don't have RealPlayer, get it here: http://www.real.com/freeplayer/?rppr=rnwk

2) Run RealPlaye. From the "File" menu, select "Open Location".
Copy this URL and paste into RealPlayer then click on Open:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq111705_murth.rm


Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) House Speech (11/17/2005)

The candor and heartfelt sincerity of this decorated veteran on the
House floor is simply awe inspiring ...

[requires Windows Media Player]

VIDEO IN FOUR PARTS:

http://dailydissent.org/video/murthahouse11180501.wmv
http://dailydissent.org/video/murthahouse11180502.wmv
http://dailydissent.org/video/murthahouse11180503.wmv
http://dailydissent.org/video/murthahouse11180504.wmv

Source:
http://dissent.blogspot.com/2005/11/murthas-house-speech.html


Who Is John Murtha?
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha ]

He left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marines during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal. He rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, then Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in Vietnam in 1966-67, receiving the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He remained in the Reserves until his retirement as a colonel, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Murtha has been known as a hawkish Democrat, who supported the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. However, he has become increasingly critical of the war effort. On March 17, 2004, he called for a recorded vote on the "War in Iraq Anniversary resolution" then voted against it. The Republican sponsored resolution "affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq." Later that year, in May, he proclaimed the Iraq War problems are due to a "lack of planning" by Pentagon chiefs and "the direction has got be changed or it is unwinnable."

Resolution on removing American Armed Forces from Iraq

On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, the creation of a quick reaction force in the region, the creation of an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. Murtha then submitted the following resolution in the House of Representatives:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.


MURTHA'S RESOLUTION: H.J.RES.73

Title: To redeploy U. S. Forces from Iraq

Sponsor: Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] (introduced 11/17/2005) Cosponsors (13)

Latest Major Action: 11/17/2005 Referred to House committee.

Status: Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

COSPONSORS (13) [AS OF 11/20/05]

Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 11/18/2005
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 11/18/2005
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 11/18/2005
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 11/18/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 11/18/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 11/18/2005
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 11/18/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 11/18/2005
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 11/18/2005
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 11/18/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 11/18/2005
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 11/18/2005
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 11/18/2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:2:./temp/~bdmG1T::|/bss/d109query.html|


TAKE ACTION ~ CALL, WRITE, EMAIL, FAX YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

Representative Offices:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Toll Free number for House of Representatives: 1-888-818-6641

How to FAX to your representative via Email

To send an email-to-FAX to a Congress Member, use this format:
To:

remote-printer.congressman_waxman/us_congress@12022254099.iddd.tpc.int
(Just replace waxman and the FAX number with your chosen name and number.)

The Limit is 6 faxes/day - don't abuse it!


NOV. 17 PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
November 17, 2005

The Honorable John P. Murtha

War in Iraq

(Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.”

For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.

IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html


Informant: John Calvert

The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told US officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005X.shtml



Germans: Bush misused data to justify Iraq war

Informant's handlers say they repeatedly warned of unreliability.

By Bob Drogin and John Goetz
Special to The Morning Call

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims before the Iraq war.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11089.htm

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/11/18/news/tamiflu.php


Informant: NHNE

Informationen von CIA-Mitarbeitern geben einen genaueren, wenn auch geschönten Einblick in den CIA-Umgang mit Gefangenen.

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21393/1.html Neue

Ck out... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Avian2005/

"Scientific knowledge filtration" usually takes the form of making it impossible to properly evaluate evidence because of strongly held theoretical preconceptions. Our extended pharma/medical complex has plenty of (profitable) preconceptions in place, and because they control purse strings on Research, fund the D.C. paid for whores, and maintain a tight grip over doctors through an army of well paid young Drug company sales reps(drug dealers..or spies?)--whose only job is dropping off latest samples and monitoring their Dr.'s list for prescriptions volume- it has little trouble maintaining these preconceptions as "gospel"...disagree like geniuses Royal Rife or Wilhelm Reich, and be blackballed, even prison could await.

BUT what to do with the top guys who won't follow the line. What to do with the Ft. Detrick trained guys who know of real possible motives for a laundry list of murder and scams?

I can imagine being at P-T-B "board meeting' ..."But what will we do with Dr.Smith..or Dr. Kelly, Mr. R,..they know this and could be a problem?" "Get rid of 'em; I assure you there will be no repercussions...may sound heartless, but I've just finished my Bohemian Grove 'END To GUILT' owl ritual...and the Kol Nidre says..and besides THIS IS FOR the GOOD of HUMANITY... (don't worry, I'm not nuts..I don't subscribe to such....drastic over simplification, for sure...but then again, wouldn't surprise me..)

(my feeling, case you're interested is that Pasteur's "germ theory" has only partial validity; easily engineered and almost indestructible prions /microplasm are the real culprits; soon add nanotech to this short list. the human body of a normal 200# man contains over 50 Trillion cells..and a similarly large number of "germs".)

The Dead Microbiloogists Club includes only those that have reached the status of "Master" of their profession; usually helps if your background and research is military and/or DNA./gene or pandemic disease related. (No non-Ph.D or inexperienced allowed.) Think about it a second..if the most talented pianists/composers of the 18/19th century..or the world class artists of the Renaissance, or the proctologists in 1963 D.C...were to ALL die under strange circumstances (eg. hit-run in okra field/gothic sword/pizza delivery/nitrogen asphyxiation/mugged on street w/o theft/"blown" off bridge into river ) within a few years, wouldn't you know about it? (total is between 45-100 deaths; creme de la creme) I've talked to Doctors/Dentists/microbiologists in training..NONE have been aware of what's going on.....right before their eyes. But, if you're reading this, I bet YOU get my drift.

This Dead Microbiologists Club has bothered me for years, and it keeps growing; some label me an intolerable conspiracy theorist. But now the pieces may be coming together. Probably no connection ...but it does not hurt to "entertain" the possibilities, after all, this is AMERICA and we're looking at legalizing torture/ trashing Posse Commitatus/7th amendment/marshall law over a non-existant "flu"..(more people have choked on birds than been infected by them. )

If you've never heard of the Georgia Guidestones (likely they are just coincidence, thank GOODNESS)...ck
http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/ or http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm If you are unfamilar with the microbiologist club..ck Steve Quayle News Alerts Dead Microbiologists Linked to Ethno-Specific BioWeapons. August 10,
2003 ... Microbiologists With Link to Race-Based Weapon Turning Up Dead More on Kelly. ...
http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/03_Disease/030811.dead.microbiol.html
or
http://911review.org/Wiki/DeadMicrobiologists.shtml
or
http://www.rense.com/general62/list.htm

PLEASE..don't blindly line up because innoculation is "mandatory" and you are threatened with quarantine. Instead, relax, wash your hands, have some red wine and dark chocolate, be happy and take lots of "C"...and

THINK...WHY?.... Take care, "Shaaag"

Someone, kindly show me these are merely thought experiments..I have a very open mind...and 'll feel better.

Prince Philip's Malthusians Launch New Age Killer Cults ... ``We would welcome the escape of any new anti-Human viruses--such as the ... http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/killer.htm - 27k - Nov 8, 2005


Informant: Scott Munson



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Dead+Microbiologists

[ please forward widely ]

'L.A. Times' Report Adds Fuel to 'War Manipulation' Debate

Editor & Publisher November 20, 2005 10:30 AM ET

NEW YORK A massive report in the Los Angeles Times today appears to add further evidence to critics charging the Bush administration with manipulating evidence to promote the Iraq invasion in 2003. Once again the Iraqi defector known as "Curveball" takes front and center.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525270


THE CURVEBALL SAGA
How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball' The Iraqi informant's

German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.

By Bob Drogin and John Goetz, Special to The Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Take bad intel, twist it, and run with it. An administration eager to attack Iraq tapped a pipeline of bad information. Now the White House and the CIA are trying to avoid blame.

LA Times Op-Ed, by David Wise

LIKE AN ALBATROSS that castaways hope will not alight on their raft, the question of who misled America into the war in Iraq hovers above Washington, flapping its wings, but so far choosing not to land on either CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., or the White House.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-intelwar20nov20,0,2737932.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


GOOGLE http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/iraq_conflict/article/0,1406,KNS_9217_4252766,00.html


Informant: John Calvert

Frank Rich foresees the beginning to the end of war in Iraq. He references the multitude of Republican congressmen who are beginning to lighten their defense of the Bush Administration and cautiously question Iraq's progress, out of placating their constituents, rather than the president.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005Y.shtml

The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111905G.shtml

Capping another tough week for President Bush and top Republicans in Congress, a bipartisan backlash yesterday forced congressional leaders to shelve a bill to extend provisions of the USA Patriot Act that expire at the end of the year.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111905F.shtml

Senate and House Democrats focused their attention yesterday on the highly classified intelligence provided in the President's Daily Brief, as they continued to challenge White House statements that members of Congress saw the same intelligence on prewar Iraq that President Bush saw.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111905E.shtml

Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha on Thursday issued a dramatic call for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. And on Friday, in interviews with about two dozen of his Johnstown constituents, reaction was vigorous - much of it approving.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111905C.shtml

Thousands will gather at Fort Benning's main gate this weekend to call for the closing of a military school they blame for human rights abuses in Latin America.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111905A.shtml

Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) continues to ask about the past and how the Bush administration was able to create/corrupt intelligence to convey a false picture of the need for war on Iraq in the first place.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005Z.shtml

With each decision made by this White House, this country is being taken further and further away from all that it stands for. People who support Mr Bush should read the speech below and think about how their continued support of Mr Bush and his decisions has led America to where we stand now. If America is no-longer stands as the beacon for Freedom, Truth, Liberty and Justice for all.....What have we become?

Jackie


Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address
January 17, 1961

Dwight D. Eisenhauer

Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle--with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties, A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research--these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs--balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages--balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual---is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war--as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years--I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So--in this my last good night to you as your President--I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I--my fellow citizens--need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and, good night.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Library & Museum
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu
Library@eisenhower.nara.gov

Though you will not hear about it on TV or the newspapers, ‘Direct Action’ is a tactic increasingly now being used against the Telcos in many nations by communities fed up with being treated with a level of corporate arrogance at total odds with fundamental principles of democracy. Note what Repacholi says below about public opposition in Spain. I get the distinct impression that the Telcos are worried.

When community rights are sacrificed in the call for total exemptions from local planning what are communities to do? One option has been to resort to the use of bolt cutters, or in one drastic case in Northern Ireland, AK-47s and balaclavas - and you didn’t hear of that one as well.

Although the only solution to this unfortunate situation is to end the exemptions now enjoyed by the Telcos and let local authorities and communities have the final say in where antennas should be sited, the industry has predictably called out its Top Gun, Michael Repacholi to issue more of his PR spin doctor expert statements to try to deflect the heat, as seen in the below AAP release.

Now the mighty Repacholi launches us into an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world where if there is a danger it would be from our TV’s and radios and not from mobile phones and base stations! But very revealing he adds the qualifier: “at least for adults” and further on: “where more science is needed to rule out concerns”(for children).

A ‘Freudian slip’? Note Reppy doesn’t call for research to determine if there is a health hazard but simply to “rule out concerns”. That is the goal of “science” in Reppy’s fantasy world. So if you are a researcher wanting funding from the industry to conduct research you know what the criteria is right up front. Research that will rule out concerns - that’s where the real money is.

Who does Repacholi think will believe this crap?

Don Maisch


TV poses more risk than mobile phone

Saturday Nov 19 06:43 AEST

The World Health Organisation (WHO) says there’s been a global over-reaction to modern mobile communications technology and its possible threat of health risk.

Coordinator of the WHO’s Radiation and Environmental Health Unit, Dr Mike Repacholi, says televisions and radios pose more of a health risk than mobile phones or mobile phone base stations - at least for adults.

He says, however, more study is needed to determine whether there is a risk for children and their developing nervous systems.

“The signals from (mobile phone) base stations are generally less than for the TV and radio, which we’ve all been subjected to for 50 to 60 years,” Dr Repacholi said.

“People are generally scared by new technology … but after $250 million in research over ten years we still haven’t found any (reason for health concerns).”

But, Dr Repacholi says there is one area where more science is needed to rule out concerns. That is, the effect today’s rising levels of electromagnetic transmissions might have on children.

“Kids are going to be exposed to these fields for much longer now, children as young as five have got mobile phones,” Dr Repacholi said.

“We don’t think they have any extra sensitivity but we do need to do the studies.”

He said it was particularly relevant as wireless internet was rolled out across schools in the western world.

Generally, Dr Repacholi said, wireless internet resulted in less electromagnetic transmissions than mobile phones and, therefore, less than television and radio.

“They are also of no health concern,” he said.

Dr Repacholi was in Melbourne this week for a two-day WHO and Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) regional workshop, which also included researchers and scientists from Thailand to New Zealand.

The workshop discussed the latest scientific findings relating to radio frequency fields.

He said efforts would continue to dispel myths surrounding the technology.

The suspicion of electromagnetic transmissions - along with claims of related ill health including rashes, headaches and sleeplessness - remained a problem globally, he said.

Public outcry over mobile phone base stations in Spain had led to 300 being dismantled by the government, while there were more than 1,000 related cases before that country’s courts, he said.

“The only people who win out of that is the lawyers,” Dr Repacholi said.

“The purpose of this is to tell people what the real situation is, what the science is saying … It’s no use perpetuating a myth.”

©AAP 2005

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=315

--------

Petition to remove Dr. Mike Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/877606/

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051117-090928-6137r


Informant: Zany Mystic

GOP Leaders to Bush: 'Your Presidency is Effectively Over'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 4, 2005, 08:13
Capitol Hill Blue
http://tinyurl.com/dpgf4

If Not Now... When?
Barbra Streisand
Posted on October 26, 2005

If there was ever a time in history to impeach a President of the United States, it would be now. In my opinion, it is two years too late. We should have done this before the election to spare the country the misjudgment, the incompetence and the malfeasance of this administration. Let us remember that UN weapons inspectors asked for more time to search Iraq for WMDs. Two months into their search, the Director General of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program since its elimination in the 1990s. And Saddam Hussein had begun to comply with the administration's demands. Why would you invade a country if there was still a chance for peace? Shouldn't war be an absolute last resort? We went to war because we were misled. And we should be angry because of the 2,000 American soldiers and the 200 armed coalition forces that have died. We should be livid because of the 15,000 American soldiers that have been horribly maimed and wounded. We should be disgusted because of the 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed and the 20,000 that are wounded after administration officials claimed that the US was going to liberate the Iraqi people. [...] Read the rest on Ms Streisand's web site: http://tinyurl.com/tt68

© Virginia Metze



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

One of the most recent Democrat.com newsletters was especially good. That site has really grown larger and larger, with more and more services. Check it out! Right now they are actively pursuing impeachment, Dick Cheney's resignation, and the rejection of Sam Alito. Here are the relevant URLs for the petitions, etc.:

Impeachment of Bush
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/65

Resignation of Cheney
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73

Rejection of Sam Alito
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/74


© Virginia Metze



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

By DOUGLAS WALLER
Monday, Nov. 07, 2005
TIME magazine

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA was eager to whisk captured terrorists off to secret locations around the world where its operatives could interrogate them out of the reach of the U.S. legal system and human-rights organizations. But four years later, with about three dozen of al-Qaeda's most hard-core agents in CIA custody, America's new spy chief seems less enthusiastic about the leeway his operatives have had. At a secret briefing for U.S. Senators on Oct. 26, a senior U.S. intelligence official tells TIME, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte was pointedly neutral on Vice President Dick Cheney's Capitol Hill lobbying to have the CIA exempted from legislation banning mistreatment of detainees. "It's above my pay grade," the spymaster said, then artfully dodged another question about whether the harsher interrogation tactics Cheney wants the agency to be free to use actually produce valuable intelligence.

Negroponte's surprising hedge comes at a time when the once dominant Bush hard-liners, including the Vice President, appear increasingly isolated within the Administration. An intense internal debate has erupted over whether new Pentagon procedures for handling captured terrorists should adopt the Geneva Conventions' ban on cruel and degrading treatment. A senior Administration source says National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top military officers favor including the Geneva standards, while Cheney has managed to round up only a few senior Pentagon civilians, such as Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Cambone, to back his opposition to them. Adding to the pressure is the growing international controversy over what amounts to a clandestine CIA prison system. The Washington Post reported last week that the agency at different times has had top al-Qaeda detainees stashed at "black sites" in several East European countries, as well as in Thailand, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. [...] Read the rest at: http://tinyurl.com/78dch Kind of nice to see the mainstream media (those MSM initials you see bandied about) beginning to do some actual reporting...


© Virginia Metze

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dick-durbin-tees-off_b_10317.html


© Virginia Metze

http://www.ifcongress.org/English/News/oct/us-visit.htm

We, the undersigned, hereby announce the formation of the Iraq Freedom Congress.

IFC is a broad organisation committed to establishing a free, secular and non-ethnic government in Iraq – a government based on direct sovereignty of people of Iraq, and committed to guarantying their right to freely and consciously determine the system of governance in Iraq.

IFC is independent, democratic, non-religious and non-ethnic.

IFC has been formed to encounter the civil abyss in Iraq. Presently, the fabric of the civil society in Iraq has been torn apart under the US occupation and the domination of the Islamic, tribal and political gangsters. People of Iraq have been caught between the two poles of world terrorism of our time- the US state terrorism and the political Islam – forcing their mental and physical well-being to the verge of destruction.

IFC strives to establish the sovereignty of people of Iraq. The only way out of this abyss is to mobilise people to take the country, to whatever extent possible, out of the sphere of control of both the US occupiers and the Islamic currents, and establish their sovereignty.

IFC mobilises and organises people within its local and district organisations to establish the control and sovereignty of the people at every level and to any extent possible. IFC safeguards this sovereignty against any aggression. The sovereignty of the people in this context is the implementation of the demands stated in the manifesto of IFC as legislations.

Individuals as well as organisations (including political parties, trade unions, people's councils, associations and institutions) who share the aims and objectives of IFC may join IFC, as stated in the IFC's constitution, provided their programmes and policies do not breach that of IFC.

IFC's operations and organisation are not restricted to Iraq. IFC endeavours to gain the support of all free-minded individuals, progressive organisations and institutions worldwide, whom share its aims.

IFC calls on all humanitarians to join its ranks.


18 March 2005.

Signatories:

Ali Abas (Secretary of the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Basra), Professor Amer Fayad (Political Science University of Baghdad), Amjad Ghafoor (Secretary of the Congress for the Referendum for the Independence of Kurdistan), Arman Farakish (Chair of Iranian Civil Rights Committee), Asai Kenji (Chair of International Solidarity Committee of Movement for Democratic Socialism – Japan), Aso Jabbar (Representative Abroad of Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq),Falah Alwan (Secretary of the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq), Faris Mahmood (Politburo Member of Worker-communist Party of Iraq), Fateh Sheikh (Chair of Worker-communist Party of Iran – Hekmatist Politburo), Hosein Haref (Secretary of Visual Artists Centre of Iraq),Houzan Mahmoud (Women's Movement Activist – Iraq)Javad Aslani (Iranian Civil Rights activist), Kazem Aniran (Chair of the Democratic Al-Ahwar of Iraq), Koorosh Modarresi (Leader of Worker-communist Party of Iran – Hekmatist), Mazloom Abas (Communist Activist), Professor Meqdam Abdul Jabbar (University of Basra), Moayed Ahmad (Politburo Member of Worker-communist Party of Iraq), Mohamad Hassan Saleh (Chair of Organization for Social Equality – Iraq) Nadia Mahmood (Founder and Co-ordinator of Middle East Centre for Women's Rights) Professor Namir Al-Khayat (University of Basra), Nasrin Jalali (Iranian Civil Right activist), Osama Ghaem (Literary Critique) Qasem Hadi (General Secretary of Union of Unemployed in Iraq), Rebwar Ahmad (Leader of Worker-communist Party of Iraq) Professor Riad Al-Asadi (Political Science Basra University) Salam Mansoor (Playwright and Artist), Sami Hassan (Deputy Secretary of Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Basra), Samir Adel (Chair of the Executive Office of Worker-communist Party of Iraq) Sato Kazuyoshi (President of Movement for Democratic Socialism – Japan), Shamal Ali (Politburo Member of Worker-communist Party of Iraq) Yanar Mohammad (Chair of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq) Yasn Taha Yasen (Chair of Education Now Centre in Iraq) Dr Yusam Shakir


Informant: Michael Pugliese


UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545


From ufpj-news

BY BEN MURCH
Bath Chronicle

11:00 - 19 November 2005

Campaigners fighting plans to put mobile phone masts near their homes will soon have another weapon in their arsenal. In response to a series of high profile battles to block masts, Bath and North East Somerset Council is spending £10,000 to create a supplementary planning document (SPD), which will give its decisions added weight in appeals.

It could prevent a repeat of the situation where phone company O2's application for a mast at Bear Flat was approved on appeal after being opposed by the council.

The council opted for the SPD over a planning guidance note, which is quicker and - at £3,000 - cheaper to produce, because it puts them in a much stronger position legally.

Cllr Colin Darracott, (Lib Dem, Walcot), the council's executive member for economic development, said the new powers were vital to protecting the unique beauty of the World Heritage Site, and the surrounding countryside.

He said: "We need the strongest possible planning tool that we have to try and control the proliferation of telecommunications masts through the city.

"Most of us, in most wards, have a problem finding the least objectionable place to put these masts. The planning system at the moment is against us. We lose on appeal."

Cllr Darracott said the strongest objection to masts in Bath was that they looked ugly and that there were ongoing concerns over the potential health risk they posed.

To combat this, he said that as well as having stronger powers to say masts should be placed, the council should consider adopting powers to demand attractive architectural features, such as gargoyles, to be created to hide masts.

He added that although there was no firm evidence proving masts were harmful to health, he personally believed people should be more concerned about children actually using mobile phones than living near masts.

Omega is firm evidence proving masts arre harmful to health. See under: http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

The exact terms of the new document will be drawn up by council officers and presented to executive member for sustainability Cllr Gerry Curran (Lib Dem, Twerton) for formal adoption in a year.

It will include demands that phone companies examine all possibilities for mast sharing, that steps are taken to minimise the aesthetic impact of masts and equipment cabinets on the environment, and that residents are properly consulted.

Cllr David Bellotti, above, (Lib Dem, Lyncombe), who has been heavily involved in the anti-mast campaigns near his Bear Flat home, said: "We want the strongest planning guidance we can possibly have.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article328217.ece


Informant: Teresa Binstock

It was nice to see this Illinois newspaper (RockRiver Times) article being passed around on the internet! What I don't understand is why no one is saying, "Get out of office, George; Kerry won."

GAO report upholds Ohio vote fraud claims

By Joe Baker, Senior Editor
From the Nov. 2-8, 2005, issue

As if the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby wasn’t enough to give the White House some heavy concerns, a report from the Government Accounting Office takes a big bite out of the Bush clique’s pretense of legitimacy.

This powerful and probing report takes a hard look at the election of 2004 and supports the contention that the election was stolen. The report has received almost no coverage in the national media.

The GAO is the government’s lead investigative agency, and is known for rock-solid integrity and its penetrating and thorough analysis. The agency’s agreement with what have been brushed aside as “conspiracy theories” adds even more weight to the conclusion that the Bush regime has no business in the White House whatever. [...] AMEN! Read the rest at: http://tinyurl.com/8ouor


© Virginia Metze

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=33201


© Virginia Metze

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511140009


© Virginia Metze

Although some insiders believe a majority of House Democrats ultimately might endorse Murtha's proposal to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, only 13 so far have co-sponsored the resolution embodying it.

John Calvert


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess20nov20,0,1051267.story?coll=la-home-headlines

NEWS ANALYSIS
As War Debate Ignites, Democrats Seek a Unified Message
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

6:27 PM PST, November 19, 2005

WASHINGTON — Last week's emotional congressional debates over Iraq demonstrated both the rise of anti-war sentiment among Democrats -- and the challenge the party faces in converting that impulse into a unified alternative to President Bush.

Twin confrontations over Iraq in the House and Senate -- highlighted by a ferocious House debate that followed a call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to begin removing U.S. troops immediately -- showed the center of gravity among Democrats is rapidly moving toward proposals to accelerate the withdrawal of American troops from the war.

"The last week has changed everything," said Tom Matzzie, Washington, D.C., director of MoveOn.org, a liberal group opposing the war. "The whole debate just jumped ahead six months."

But while the week's events demonstrated rising Democratic hostility to the war, they also underscored the party's continuing divisions over what alternative to offer -- and whether even to present a specific alternative at all.

Although some insiders believe a majority of House Democrats ultimately might endorse Murtha's proposal to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, only 13 so far have co-sponsored the resolution embodying it. When House Republicans on Friday forced a vote Friday on a resolution urging immediate withdrawal, only three Democrats voted yes after a ferociously bitter floor debate.

One Democratic source said that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has dropped plans to seek a vote in early December on adopting a Democratic Conference position in support of Murtha's plan, which Murtha has said could lead to a complete withdrawal of American troops in about six months and the establish of a "quick reaction force in the region." Fearful that the proposal would generate too much opposition among moderate Democrats, Pelosi now plans for the conference only to discuss and debate it, the source said.

Meanwhile, the plan Senate Democrats offered last week during that chamber's debate over the war did not seek to change policy nearly as sharply as Murtha did. Instead, that proposal, which was rejected on a near party-line vote, asked Bush to set estimated timetables for withdrawing American troops as benchmarks of progress in Iraq are reached.

Jim Manley, the press spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that based on the conversations that produced that proposal, he believes hardly any Senate Democrats would sign onto Murtha's approach today.

Yet both supporters and opponents of the war agree that the cry of opposition from Murtha -- a leading hawk during his three decades in Congress -- is likely to mark a milestone in the war debate. "Clearly it was a bombshell and it does shift the debate quite dramatically," said Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former National Security Council aide under President Clinton.

Many Democratic political strategists and foreign policy analysts have long believed the party can benefit more from criticizing Bush's handling of the war than specifying its own alternative. While Democrats might split on Murtha's specific proposal, his call for such a clear break from Bush's policy probably will strengthen those who want the party to offer more concrete alternatives, many observers believe.

Many Republicans also see last week as a turning point. Bush allies believe that Murtha's declaration -- following the Democratic call for estimated timetables in the Senate debate -- will identify Democrats with a policy of "cut and run."

"I don't think the country has any doubt there are two positions: one is to stay and fight and the other is to leave," said one Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking.

As public opinion has soured on the war, support for withdrawing American troops has grown in recent surveys. While only 19 percent of people surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll last week supported an immediate withdrawal, another 33 percent said that all American troops should be pulled out within a year -- meaning that a majority wants all troops home by the end of 2006. Among independents, 56 percent want all troops home within a year; among Democrats, 67 percent, the poll found.

Yet a broad range of GOP strategists remain confident the party will benefit as more Democrats push to end America's involvement in the war. "As long as the Bush administration was in the position of having to debate events in Iraq, it hurt us," said the GOP strategist. "When we are in the position of having to debate the Democratic Party on this, it helps us. That's what happened in the 2004 election."

Adds Cliff May, president of the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies: "Democrats can certainly reinforce their brand identification as the party that cannot be trusted in the midst of a national security crisis. That is a real danger for them."

Largely accepting that logic, almost all centrist Democrats -- and much of the party's foreign policy establishment -- believe that a specific timeline or deadline for removing American troops would undermine stability in Iraq and hurt the party politically at home. During last week's debate, Democratic foreign policy leaders including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., repeatedly insisted that the party's proposal did not establish a timeline for removing American troops.

Even Democrats urging more rapid withdrawal are split between a wide range of specific ideas.

Until Murtha unveiled his proposal Thursday, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., a possible 2008 presidential contender, had adopted the most aggressive position among elected officials: Feingold has urged Bush to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2006, although he softened his demand somewhat by describing that as a "target date."

Beyond Feingold, several Democratic challengers seeking party nominations in 2006 Senate races have also called for complete withdrawal by the end of next year. They include Patty Wetterling in Minnesota, Matt Brown in Rhode Island and Kweisi Mfume in Maryland.

In the House, war opponents have rallied behind a resolution from Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., and Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii. That plan -- which has drawn about 60 co-sponsors, almost all of them Democrats -- would require Bush to formulate a plan by the end of this year for removing American troops from Iraq and to begin that withdrawal no later than Oct. 1, 2006.

Last month, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the party's 2004 presidential nominee who is considering another run in 2008, offered a competing plan.

Kerry proposed a phased withdrawal "linked to specific, responsible benchmarks" of progress with Iraq. As a first step, he says the U.S. should withdraw 20,000 troops if December's Iraqi election goes well; this approach, he says, could allow the U.S. "to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, has proposed the inverse approach. Levin says the U.S. should pressure the contending Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish forces in the Iraqi government to resolve their differences by threatening to accelerate the withdrawal of American troops if they don't.

Murtha's plan leapt so far over all of these ideas in pushing to end America's involvement in Iraq that it might be compared to the Bob Beamon long jump in the 1968 Olympics that smashed the previous records.

It's not clear how many other Democrats will reach quite so far in the weeks ahead. But in both parties there seems little doubt that Murtha has pointed the direction his party is heading.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess20nov20,0,1051267.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Kritische Artikel zum Wundermittel gegen Vogelgrippe: Mögen Sie TAMIFLU? http://ecolog.twoday.net/stories/1171255/

--------

Rätselhafte Todesfälle nach Einnahme von TAMIFLU

TAMIFLU gilt als das eines der effektivsten Medikamente bei einer akuten Influenzainfektion. Es wird derzeit von vielen Regierungen in großem Stil angeschafft, um für eine mögliche Influenza-Pandemie vorzusorgen. Doch jetzt sind etliche rätselhafte Todesfälle im engen zeitlichen Zusammenhang mit einer vorherigen TAMIFLU-Einnahme bekannt geworden und die Gesundheitsbehörden mehrerer Länder stellten das Medikament unter besondere Beobachtung. Zunächst war von zwei Todesfällen die Rede, später von bis zu 34 Toten.

Pressemeldungen und Links zum Thema finden Sie unter:
http://www.impfkritik.de/forum/showthread.php?t=531

15.11.2005

Erstmals weltweit ist es der österreichischen Plattform "ProLeben - AntiGentechnik" gelungen, die Gentechnik in Landwirtschaft und Nahrungsmittelproduktion als Menschenrechtsverletzung vor den UN-Menschenrechtsausschuss in Genf zu bringen.

http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4053

--------

Österreich: Gentechnik vor dem UN-Menschenrechtsausschuss!

Österreich hat wie rund 150 Länder weltweit den Internationalen Pakt für wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte ratifiziert, und ist damit verpflichtet, alle 5 Jahre dem UN-Ausschuss für wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Menschenrechte in Genf in einem Staatenbericht die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte in Österreich darzulegen.

Nichtregierungsorganisationen wie die internationale Menschenrechtsorganisation FIAN (für das Recht auf Nahrung, http://www.fian.de ) erstellen dann dazu einen Gegenbericht, genannt "Parallelbericht", indem sie darlegen, wo Menschenrechtsverletzungen in den jeweiligen Ländern stattfinden. In Genf kommt es dann zu einer Anhörung der Nichtregierungsorganisationen und Vertretern des Staates, dann entscheidet der Ausschuss in einer internen Sitzung, welche Auflagen er der Regierung erteilt, um die Menschenrechtsverletzungen schnellst möglich abzustellen.

Die Österreichische Antigentechnikplattform Proleben ( http://www.proleben.at ) hat nun einen Parallelbericht zum Thema Menschenrechtsverletzungen in der Landwirtschaft und bei den VerbraucherInnen durch die Einführung der "Grünen Gentechnik" beim UN-Ausschuss in Genf eingereicht (Download:
http://www.proleben.at/Parallelbericht_ProLeben.pdf .

Mit dem Parallelbericht für Österreich ist es erstmals gelungen die Einführung der "Grünen Gentechnik" als Menschenrechtsverletzungen vor dem UN-Menschenrechtsausschuss in Genf einzuklagen.

Es wird deutlich aufgezeigt, dass Menschenrechte wie z. B. das Recht auf körperliche und geistige Gesundheit, das Recht auf Zugang zu gesunder Nahrung "ohne gesundheitsbedenkliche Stoffe", das Recht auf freie Verfügung über die natürlichen Reichtümer und Mittel, das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung, das Recht auf eine gesunde Umwelt usw., durch die Einführung der Gentechnik massiv gefährdet sind, was bis hin zur Existenzvernichtung bei den Landwirten führt.

"Allein durch den Genmais kommen zwei hochwirksame Gifte und ein Antibiotikum in unsere Nahrung und den Boden ... ein Insektengift und ein Pflanzengift.

Die Einmischung von Giften und Antibiotikum in Lebensmittel verstößt gegen die Menschenrechte"

(Die Plattform hat bereits vorher zweimal auf Nichtigkeit eingeklagt! Diese wurde jedoch, wegen "Einspruchsfrist" zurück geschmettert, wie eben jetzt die Klage vom Land Oberösterreich)! Deshalb ist dies eigentlich die einzige Chance gegen den bisher größten Wahnsinn, der jemals auf die Menschheit losgelassen wurde!

Omega: so eine Aktion müsste doch bei dem gepulsten Mobilfunk auch möglich sein?!

16.11.2005

Seit einiger Zeit kursiert auch in Deutschland ein sich hartnäckig haltendes Gerücht: Sprühen US-Flugzeuge, wenn man Kondensstreifen sieht, eine gefährliche Aluminiummischung in den Himmel, welche die die Ozonschicht sanieren sollen?

http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4024

18.11.2005

Tief enttäuscht zeigt sich der Verbraucherzentrale Bundesband (vzbv) vom Abstimmungsverhalten der Europaparlamentarier zu REACH. Die jetzt beschlossene weitere Verwässerung ist inakzeptabel und führt das Ziel der Verordnung, Mensch und Umwelt zu schützen, ad absurdum."

http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4082

20.11.2005

Die Wissenschaftszeitschrift "Nature" hat soeben eine Studie der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) publiziert, wonach jedes Jahr schon heute etwa 150.000 Todesfälle auf den Klimawandel zurückzuführen seien.

http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4085

...Murtha was the one-man tipping point. Initially a strong supporter of the conflict, he had voted for it and the money to pay for it. But on his last trip to Iraq, he had become convinced not only that the war was unwinnable, but that the continued American military presence was making matters far worse. "We're the target, we're part of the problem," he told news-week. Back in Washington, he resumed his weekly pilgrimage to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, visiting severely wounded casualties in rehab and agonizing over what he saw there. "I think those visits affected him deeply," said DeLauro. In a long chat with an Irish colleague, he talked about his congressional hero and mentor, another blue-collar Irishman, Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill. No liberal on defense, in 1967 O'Neill had stunned President Lyndon B. Johnson by telling him that the Vietnam War had become a lost cause. Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths....


Bush at the Tipping Point A hawkish Democrat calls for an Iraq withdrawal, setting off a bitter fight in Washington over how, and when, the troops should come home.

By Howard Fineman
Newsweek

Nov. 28, 2005 issue

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10118733/site/newsweek


Informant: John Calvert

Please go to the below link and watch carnage not thought by normal human beings. AND REMEMBER...this is also sponsered by WAL-MART.

http://www.jcruel.com/?c=post1116

Thanks, Lowell


Janet Potter wrote:
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:55:56 -0500
Subject: Boycott J Crew - Animal Cruelty and Cheap Imports

If you buy animal products (clothing) from China, you may well be supporting the torture and butchery of dogs and cats. Boycott J Crew. See why - http://www.jcruel.com/?c=posts1116