There was no doubt Sunday they were still there: more than 15,000 SOA Watch protesters gathered outside the main gate of Fort Benning. For the 16th consecutive year, the protesters demanded the closing of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105P.shtml

Tom Engelhardt writes that it's finally Wizard of Oz time in America. You know - that moment when the curtains are pulled back, the fearsome-looking wizard wreathed in all that billowing smoke turns out to be some pitiful little guy, and everybody looks around sheepishly, wondering why they acted as they did for so long.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105O.shtml

A growing dispute over the future division of authority at the United Nations has prompted showdown talk among diplomats and a warning from John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, that the United States may look elsewhere to settle international problems.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105M.shtml

Paul Krugman writes that President Bush and his apologists speak in vague generalities about staying the course and finishing the job. But Mr. Murtha spoke of mounting casualties and lagging recruiting, the rising frequency of insurgent attacks, stagnant oil production and lack of clean water.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105J.shtml

Thanksgiving Day 2005

Kelpie Wilson writes that peak oil and Thanksgiving Day are now linked. Geologist Kenneth Deffeyes predicted two years ago that the peak moment of world oil production would occur on Thanksgiving Day 2005.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105I.shtml

http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/smears_lies_videotape_medium.320.240.mov.html

Pass It On: Smears, Lies And Videotape
by ThinkProgress

Match White House spin about the CIA leak against the facts in this new video.

http://tompaine.com/#passiton

Watch ThinkProgress' video compilation of the facts and players in the Plamegate scandal.

Just as it's become cool on the Hill to denounce the war in Iraq, the intrusive PATRIOT Act is attracting more critics, too.

http://tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#6793

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

by Bob Graham, The Washington Post

The former chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence explains how the administration manipulated Congress.

http://www.tompaine.com/

by Russ Baker, TomPaine.com

The famed reporter's knack for making nice with powerful insiders is evidence anew that journalism must be reformed.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051121/woodwards_weakness.php

by Ray McGovern, TomPaine.com

The gentleman from Pennsylvania has galvanized the Dems. But it was the colonels that may undermine the hawks.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051121/murtha_and_the_colonels.php

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/repacholi_news.htm



Email 11-21-05 to Joanne Mueller from Assoc. Prof. Olle Johansson:

Dear Joanne,

The "Microwave News"-article is so very important! And, your comment: "As Iris points out, "industry" is still very much in control!!! There is a price to pay for dishonesty, greed and deception so the truth continues to come out........." definitely should be included in all future textbooks in science philosophy!


Olle Johansson,
assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden)

--------

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

President Bush, in defense of his decision to use force in Iraq, lasciviously and falsely contends that the Congress supported the decision and that it had access to the same intelligence available to the White House.

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

16,000 protesters gathered Saturday near the main gate of Fort Benning to protest the US Army's Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

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

Jaun Cole's Iraq withdraw method is mirrored by Murtha's called for an end to US military "action" in Iraq, as in, presumably, the counter-productive destruction of cities and practical "redeployment" of US ground troops.

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

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 super-lobbyist 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.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005A.shtml

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described; Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1119-05.htm

This article is written by Bob Graham, Democratic head of the Senate Intelligence committee to refute Bush's claim that the Democrats had the same intelligence he did when they voted for war. Instead Graham proves that he knew the war rationale was bs... (and he voted no) but he wouldn't share that information with his Democratic colleagues (or even warn them off the record that the war was bs...), so it was OK that they voted for war.

This still leaves aside, of course, the fact that millions around the world with NO classified information at our fingertips knew the Republicans AND Democrats were bs...us.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Via NY Transfer News Collective
* All the News that Doesn't Fit

The Washington Post - Nov 20, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

What I Knew Before the Invasion

By Bob Graham

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "[M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

[The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.]

© 2005 The Washington Post Company


Informant: acpollack2

From ufpj-news

„Derzeit findet in den USA eine Aktionswoche gegen die Unternehmenspraxis der Wal-Mart-Kette statt. Gewerkschafterinnen und Mitarbeiter protestieren dort gegen die neue Strategie des Konzerns, seine Sozialausgaben in den USA zu senken. Wal-Mart versichert ohnehin nur weniger als die Hälfte seiner Angestellten, die restlichen sind im Krankheitsfall zumeist auf die Armenfürsorge angewiesen, in den USA sind die wenigsten kranken- und rentenversichert. Nun wurde ein betriebsinternes Memorandum bekannt, das besagt, dass in Zukunft alle kranken und schwächeren Wal-Mart-Angestellte durch harte körperliche Arbeit für möglichst alle Beschäftigten "abgeschreckt“ werden sollen. Außerdem sei eine billige Krankenversicherung mit hohen Zuzahlungen im Krankheitsfall wünschenswert…“ Flugblatt (pdf), das am 16.11.05 anlässlich des Buss- und Bettages vor der Hauptzentrale von Walmart in Wuppertal unter Beteiligung von etwa dreißig Personen verteilt wurde.

http://www.labournet.de/branchen/dienstleistung/eh/wal_busse.pdf


Aus: LabourNet, 21. November 2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4454738.stm


Informant: Russ Ferriday

Sehr geehrter Herr Hüppe,

am 11.11.2005 um 21.03 haben Sie in der Sendung "Quergefragt" im Fernsehprogramm "Eins Extra" an der Diskussion über aktive Sterbehilfe teilgenommen. Sie, stellvertretender Vorsitzender der Ethik-Kommission des deutschen Bundestags, haben sich sehr aggressiv gegen die aktive Sterbehilfe ausgesprochen! Es ist ja verständlich, dass Sie - aus Gewissensgründen und als CDU-Abgeordneter - die aktive Sterbehilfe ablehnen.

Wie ist es mit Ihren christlichen Moralvorstellungen vereinbar, dass vielen Menschen aktive Sterbehilfe geleistet wird, die überhaupt nicht sterben wollen? Man kann das auch Massenmord nennen! Das ist unglaublich, leider aber wahr, nämlich beim Mobilfunk!!

Die Grenzwerte für die Mobilfunksenderstrahlung wurden grob fahrlässig - zur Gewinnmaximierung bei den Betreibern eventuell sogar absichtlich - so hoch festgelegt, dass Gesundheitsschäden wie z.B. Krebs und Leukämie (speziell bei Kindern) auftreten! Zusätzlich beziehen sich die Grenzwerte nur auf den harmlosesten Teil der Strahlung, nämlich die Wärmestrahlung. Die Strahlung ist leider auch noch so gepulst, dass sie die im Menschen selbst vorhandenen elektrischen Signale stört und so zu Krankheiten führt! Warum setzen sich denn viele Ärzteinitiativen für einen gesundheitsverträglichen Mobilfunk ein? Sie können die kritiklose Hinnahme von Krankheit und Tod ihrer Patienten durch die gepulste und millionenfach überhöhte Mobilfunksenderstrahlung nicht mit ihrem hippokratischen Eid vereinbaren!

Es ist die Pflicht der Ethik-Kommission des deutschen Bundestags, jetzt endlich die Erfahrungen dieser Ärzte zu nutzen und entsprechende Gesetze anzuregen und durchzusetzen!!

Wenn die Ethik-Kommission gefordert ist, dann jetzt. Sie wollen doch nicht in die Moralvorstellungen der Zeit zwischen 1933 und 1945 zurückfallen!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Bürgerinitiative Icking zum Schutz vor Strahlenbelastung
G. Pischeltsrieder

http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/ARCHIV/ZF_135b/T03.HTM


Quelle: http://www.impf-report.de/jahrgang/2005/25.htm

http://www.medizinauskunft.de/artikel/aktuell/17_11_massentierhaltung.php


Quelle: http://www.impf-report.de/jahrgang/2005/25.htm

http://www.welt.de/data/2005/11/15/803649.html


Quelle: http://www.impf-report.de/jahrgang/2005/25.htm

Ein Überblick über 9 Übersichtstudien zum Erfolg von Impfungen und Behandlungsmethoden bei Influenza ergab in weiten Bereichen einen eklatanten Mangel an beweiskräftigen Daten:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16112852&query_hl=2


Quelle: http://www.impf-report.de/jahrgang/2005/25.htm

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722259.php


Informant: Milo

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722086.php


Informant: Milo

In a bombshell that reverberated throughout the country, Congressman John Murtha called Thursday for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. "The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha said. "It is time to bring [the troops] home.... They have become the enemy." Phillis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies says there is a civil war raging in Iraq, but not a conflict between Sunni and Shi'a. It is a clash between those who support the occupation and those who oppose it. She estimates there are only about 1,000 armed terrorists that target civilians. If the US ended its occupation, the Iraqi resistance forces would continue to fight each other for a while, but they would isolate the hardcore terrorists.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105Z.shtml

Fox News
by Andrew J. Coulson

11/19/05

Supporters of the theory of human origins known as 'intelligent design' want it taught alongside the theory of evolution. Opponents will do anything to keep it out of science classrooms. The disagreement is clear. But why does everyone assume that we must settle it through an ideological death-match in the town square? Intelligent design contends that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved naturally, and so must be the product of an unspecified intelligent designer. Most adherents of this idea would undoubtedly be happy just to have it taught to their own children, and most of my fellow evolutionists presumably believe they should have that right. So why are we fighting? We’re fighting because the institution of public schooling forces us to, by permitting only one government-sanctioned explanation of human origins...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176081,00.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Boston Globe
by Derrick Z. Jackson

11/19/05

The White House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, 'It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.' Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention...

http://tinyurl.com/8cka7


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Christian Science Monitor
by Daniel Schorr

11/18/05

A CIA leak to be investigated and maybe punished ... What! Not again! Now, as with the leak of the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame, the offense is the leak, not what was leaked. In the case of Valerie Plame, the news was that her husband, Joseph Wilson, had been sent to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium to make a nuclear weapon, and had returned with word that there was no evidence of this. This was embarrassing to a White House, which had taken America to war on the assertion that we were in imminent danger from unconventional, possibly nuclear, arms. But that issue was buried in the quest to find out who had leaked...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1118/p09s01-cods.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Forward Magazine
by Benjamin Ferencz

11/18/05

'We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow,' Chief Justice Robert Jackson warned at the opening session of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, on November 20, 1945. 'To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.' As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Nuremburg trials this week, it increasingly appears that Jackson's warning is falling on deaf ears in America...

http://www.forward.com/articles/6903


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

--------

Nuremberg: BBC and Supreme International Crime
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=96197;show_parent=1

WolfesBlog
by Silver

11/19/05

Reading Gibbon's masterpiece feels like being hit in the face with a 2x4 over and over again. The parallels of the decaying Roman empire with those of modern America are frequent, obvious, and always dismaying. It is simply astonishing that a work written in the 1770’s about events that occurred nearly 2,000 years ago should so frequently, and devastatingly, describe our plight. The passage I quoted above is not the best, it is simply the last one I read. It is rare to read as much as 10 pages without encountering something equally sobering. What I find remarkable is not the painful parallels, which many learned and eloquent writers have been pointing out for decades. My airport discussions have invariably turned to the subject of the declining American empire. When I mention the striking similarity of decaying Roman society to our own, the response is always: 'Yes, but the fall of the Roman empire took four hundred years'...

http://www.clairewolfe.com/wolfesblog/00001813.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Las Vegas Review Journal
by Vin Suprynowicz

11/20/05

It's widely asserted we're fighting a 'war on terror.' But that's absurd. Terror is a tactic -- an attempt to undermine the morale of a much stronger foe, whom the 'terrorists' know they cannot defeat in traditional battle. ... Making war on a tactic is just silly. Imagine the New York Yankees taking the field against the Baltimore Orioles, and announcing their opponent this night was not the Orioles themselves, but that instead they were waging a 'battle against the bunt.' They could bring all of their players well inside the base paths and pretty successfully stop the bunt. Of course, the Orioles would circle the bases like merry-go-round ponies after hitting what would otherwise be easily-caught flies to the outfield. But darn it, the bunt would be defeated!...

http://tinyurl.com/7df2x


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Human Events
by Mac Johnson

11/21/05

Last week saw the most important development in Iraq since the invasion began. This momentous event is the beginning of the end of the American war in Iraq and will -- if not reversed -- lead to partial U.S. disengagement sooner rather than later. And, no, I am not talking about Rep. Jim Murtha's embarrassing pants-wetting session before the U.S. media, in which he declared defeat and retreat in the panicked, exaggerated tones of a paranoid chat room gasbag. As well publicized as Murtha's wobbly soliloquy was, it was of transient consequence. No, the event that could end the war was the discovery of a 'torture center' being run in an Iraqi government detention facility in Baghdad...

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10419


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

WorldNetDaily
by Pat Buchanan

11/21/05

We Americans are lousy imperialists. We lack the patience and perseverance. We will not support the daily loss of American lives, with pictures of the fallen on television every night and in the paper every day, unless we are persuaded something vital is at risk. And who rules Iraq is not something Americans are willing to bleed or die for indefinitely. But as the air is full of allegations of lying, we at least need to tell ourselves the truth about what we are inviting, what we are risking, if, as seems possible now, America should lose this war...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47506


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

LewRockwell.Com
by Paul Craig Roberts

11/21/05

Under the Nuremberg standard, it is a war crime to initiate military aggression. It is a criminal act both in the US and the UK to commit military forces to action under false pretenses. Many aspects of the conduct of the war are criminal. Torture, murder of civilians, corruption in contracts. Prosecutors could build a list of charges against President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Prime Minister Blair. In England it is not Blair who is on trial for participating in what he knew was a wrongful act that has resulted in thousands of deaths. It is not the crimes committed in secret that get punished. The people who are punished are the ones who leak memos that reveal wrongdoing has occurred. Blair may escape punishment for his treachery to the British and Iraqi people. Bush, however, may not...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts132.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Reason
by Julian Sanchez

11/18/05

The man with graying hair had 'blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration,' the result of a synthetic hood placed over his head during interrogation by Navy Seals and 'Other Government Agency,' which typically means the CIA. The obese 56-year-old died of 'asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression;' the circumstances surrounding his death are classified. The 47-year-old died gagged and shackled to a door frame; his autopsy revealed numerous rib fractures and lung contusions. These are a few of the findings from 44 reports of autopsies on U.S. detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last month under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Eight of the 21 deaths classed as homicides, the ACLU concluded, appeared to have resulted from abusive interrogation tactics, with strangulation, asphyxiation, and blunt force injuries listed as causes of death. Because the documents sought by the ACLU are trickling out slowly, month by month, it is unclear how many more such reports remain to be uncovered...

http://www.reason.com/links/links111805.shtml


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

AntiWar.Com
by Justin Raimondo

11/21/05

Murtha made a trenchant point when he said that the American people are 'way ahead' of their government on this issue -- and one can only wonder how long this yawning gap can be maintained. The elites are committed to a foreign policy that assumes American hegemony and the ever-present possibility of a U.S. military strike somewhere in the world, at any given moment. To any half-normal, ordinary American, such a foreign policy is just asking for trouble. So far, the War Party has managed to keep a lid on the debate by controlling both parties and never letting anyone of consequence step out of line. Murtha, however, has defied them and must either be humbled or appeased. There can be no middle ground...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8093


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Guardian [UK]

11/21/05

Tony Blair warned the House of Lords last night not to defy public opinion by moving to wreck the government's terror bill today as further objections to the measures emerged from chief police officers and the civil liberty lobby. On the eve of the second reading in the Lords, leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties gave Downing Street notice that they would give the bill 'a thorough going-over' and scrutinise its provisions line-by-line before sending it back to the Commons. After a revolt by 49 Labour backbenchers, MPs have already modified a central clause of the bill. It would now permit the police to hold terrorist suspects for 28 days without charge pending further investigation -- instead of the current 14 and the 90 days initially proposed. But the much-trumpeted support senior police officers gave that clause does not extend to the entire bill, the Guardian has learned...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1647283,00.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Independent [UK]

11/21/05

Tony Blair is facing fresh fury over the use of controversial munitions in the Iraq war. Campaigners lambasted the Ministry of Defence over its use of deadly cluster bombs and shells during the invasion, warning that they could contravene international law. MPs are to table a raft of new questions today over the affair amid fears that thousands of bomblets released during the war will leave a deadly legacy for Iraqi civilians. They warned that any unexploded bomblets could kill or maim civilians for years to come. The dispute over British use of cluster bombs will be intensify this week with the publication of a report by the pressure group Landmine Action, which raises questions over the efforts made to ensure that the weapons did not harm civilians...

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article328300.ece


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

CNN

11/20/05

Doubts are being cast on the guilt of a Texas man executed more than a dozen years ago after the crime's lone witness recanted and a co-defendant said he allowed his friend to be falsely accused under police pressure, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday. Ruben Cantu was 17 in 1984 when he was charged with capital murder in the fatal shooting of a man during an attempted robbery in San Antonio. The victim was shot nine times with a rifle before the gunman unloaded more rounds into the only eyewitness...

http://tinyurl.com/bqwr5


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

CNN

11/20/05

A former top State Department official said Sunday that Vice President Dick Cheney provided the 'philosophical guidance' and 'flexibility' that led to the torture of detainees in U.S. facilities. Retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told CNN that the practice of torture may be continuing in U.S.-run facilities. 'There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it,' Wilkerson said on CNN's 'Late Edition'...

http://tinyurl.com/bnhzw


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Houston Chronicle

11/20/05

The Rev. Jerry Zawada has already served a federal prison term for trespassing on government property to protest a Fort Benning school he blames for human rights abuses in Latin America. On Sunday, the 68-year-old Catholic priest risked another one. Zawada was among at least 41 protesters arrested during an annual protest calling for the closing of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Corporation, formerly known as the Army's School of the Americas, organizers said Sunday...

http://tinyurl.com/duzfp


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Indianapolis Star

11/20/05

The U.S. is unprepared for the next flu pandemic, lacking the manufacturing capacity to provide 300 million doses of a vaccine for three to five more years, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Sunday. 'What we all learned from (Hurricane) Katrina is that sometimes we have to think very clearly about the unthinkable,' Leavitt said. 'We're not as prepared as we need to be. ...We will not have enough for everyone.' A strain of a bird flu that has killed 67 people in Asia has sparked concerns of a super-flu that could kill millions worldwide, and U.S. officials acknowledge that the strain in its current form could reach here through a migratory bird...

http://tinyurl.com/7opcy



Pandemic panic

Washington Times
by Michael Fumento

11/20/05

'The indication is that we will see a return of the 1918 flu virus,' warns the nation's top health official. 'The projections are that this virus will kill 1 million Americans.' A quote ripped from today's headlines about an impending 'bird flu' pandemic? No, the year was 1976 and the prediction regarding the 'swine flu' fell 999,999 deaths short. That's something to remember as we endure the current hysteria. Another is that we've been here before with the same virus everybody is currently squawking about -- avian influenza type H5N1 -- which hit Hong Kong in 1997. Typical headline: 'Race to prevent world epidemic of lethal 'bird flu.'' I was there too, with a piece that was antihysteria (therefore grossly irresponsible). The world death toll from that 'wave?' Six. … But the best prediction is no avian flu pandemic at all, especially in the short period before we have stockpiles of effective vaccines and drugs...

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20051119-111342-5884r.htm



Informant: Thomas L. Knapp


http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Vaccines/

Mercury News

11/18/05

A near-agreement to extend the controversial Patriot Act was blocked Friday by an odd-bedfellows coalition of liberals and conservatives who protested that it did too little to protect Americans' civil liberties. The Patriot Act, which gives law-enforcement officials significant power to wiretap and search suspects in the United States, was Congress' main response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But critics have always complained about the powers it gives police to invade the privacy of citizens, including the right to examine library records and search homes without residents knowing it. As a result of such continuing concerns, an unusual coalition of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and House was sufficiently upset at the latest proposed revisions in the Patriot Act that leaders Friday agreed to drop the immediate consideration of it, partly to avoid a threatened filibuster in the Senate over the weekend. Congressional leaders still plan to finalize reauthorization of the Patriot Act by year's end, but the delay was a disappointment to the White House and at least a temporary victory for civil libertarians on the right and left...

http://tinyurl.com/aauvk


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

HLV INFO 178/AT

21-11-2005

Nachtrag zu HLV INFO 177/AT vom 17-11-2005

Dr. Claus Scheingraber 19-11-05

Heute erhielt ich die ergänzende Auskunft zur Wertminderung durch Mobilfunkbasisstationen in Frankreich! Bitte noch mal bringen! Ich halte das Urteil schlichtweg für eine Sensation !!! In Deutschland wird so ein Urteil noch lange auf sich warten lassen, denn die Feigheit deutscher Richter sich hinter dem Gesetz zu verstecken hat in unserem Land ja eine lange Tradition.


Herzliche Grüße aus München

Claus Scheingraber


Von: Marion DUPUIS
Gesendet: Samstag, 19. November 2005 00:47
An: Claus.Scheingraber
Betreff: Wertminderung durch Mobilfunk in Frankreich!

Lieber Claus, salut !

Um auf Deine Frage (und die Deines Kollegen zu antworten), habe ich folgende Antwort von Priartem aus Paris erfahren, ich übersetze sie Dir :

Dans le Jugement du Tribunal de grande instance de Bordeaux la Société BOUYGUES TELECOM a été condamnée à payer aux époux verdeau/pinsard les sommes suivantes:

- la somme de 8 000 euros au titre du trouble de jouissance

- la somme de 30 490 euros du fait de la dépréciation de leur maison

- la somme de 2 500 euros au titre de l'article 700 du Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile

BOUYGUES TELECOME a été condamnée également aux entiers dépens avec application des dispositions de l'article 699 du Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile.

Übersetzung:

Im Urteil des Oberen Landgerichts (Tibunal de Grande Instance) von Bordeaux wurde die Firma Bouygues Telecom (einer unserer drei Mobilfunkbetreiber) angewiesen, dem Ehepaar V .... folgende Summen auszuzahlen :

* den Betrag von 8 000 Euros wegen Einschränkung der Nutznießung ihres Besitzes ( = trouble de jouissance: ich kenne den deutschen Ausdruck dafür nicht)

* den Betrag von 30.490 Euros für den Wertverlust ihres Hauses

* den Betrag von 2.500 Euros in Anwendung des Absatzes 700 des Neuen Zivilrechts

Bouygues Telecom wurde außerdem zur Zahlung aller Prozedurkosten in Anwendung der Verfügungen des Absatzes 699 des Neuen Zivilrechts verurteilt.


Tschüss, mach's gut !

Deine Marion

--------

HLV INFO 41/AT

31-03-2006

Dr. Claus Scheingraber

30-03-06

Schadenersatz


Liebe Freunde,
sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

vor etlichen Wochen habe ich von meiner Informantin aus Frankreich bereichtet, dass ein Gericht in Bordeaux einen Mobilfunkbetreiber zu Schadenersatz an eine benachbarte Familie verurteilt hat. Nach einigen Bemühungen ist es meiner französischen Partnerin gelungen das Aktenzeichen des Urteil zu erhalten.

Zur Erinnerung die Sachlage:

Das Tribunal de Grande Instance ( Oberes Landgericht, als Berufungsgericht) von Bordeaux hat die Mobilfunkbetreiberfirma Bouygues Telecom am 20. Sept. 2005 verurteilt, der klagenden Partei nachstehende Geldbeträge zu erstatten:

€ 30.490,-- wg. Wertverlust des Anwesens

€ 8.000,-- wg. Nutzungsschwierigkeiten bzw. -einschränkungen

€ 2.500,-- wg. rechtlicher Ansprüche aus Art. 700 des Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile

Des Weiteren wurde Bouygues Telecom zur Übernahme der Gerichtskosten, nach Art. 699 des Nouveau Code de Procédure verurteilt.

Hier jetzt endlich die Details betreffend des Gerichtsurteils von Bordeaux:

Arrêt rendu par la cour d'appel de Bordeaux / Berufungsgericht von Bordeaux le 20 Septembre 2005 Cinquième chambre / 5. Kammer

Numéro de rôle 04/01348 / Nr. des Gerichtsurteils

betreffend : Monsieur Serge Verdeau Madame Maryse Pinsard épouse Verdeau c/ SA Bouygues Télécom

Nature de la décision : Au fond

Grosse délivrée le 23/9/05 à avoués

Priartem ist bereit, das ganze Urteil schriftlich (auf frz.) zu übermitteln, wenn Interesse besteht !

Ich hoffe vor allen den Anwälten geholfen zu haben, vielleicht kann man ja auf europäischer Ebene mehr Recht bekommen als in Deutschland!?

Herzliche Grüße

Dr. Claus Scheingraber - Arbeitskreis Elektro-Biologie e.V.
Taubenstr. 14

--------

Dazu auch: Arbeitskreis Elektrobiologie e.V. neues Mobilfunkurteil aus Frankreich, kurz zusammengefassst: der Besitzer einer Villa hat den Nachbarn, der einen Mobilfunkbestandsvertrag abgeschlossen hat, und den Mobilfunkbetreiber geklagt: - Entfernen der Antenne - Schadenersatzzahlung von 70.000 Euro

Die Gerichtsentscheidung lautet: Der Sender muss entfernt werden! Die 70.000,-- Euro erhält der Kläger nicht.

Begründung: Im Rapport des Gesundheitsministers ZMIROU 2001 wurden Kinderkrippen, Schulen, Spitäler ... als sensible Zonen ausgewiesen, die nicht direkt vom Hauptsendestrahl getroffen werden sollen, wenn sie näher als 100 m beim Sender sind. Begründung: das Vorsorgeprinzip. Nachdem heute kein Beweis der Risikofreiheit des Mobilfunks vorliegt, und mit der Erfahrung betr. Asbest, wo etliche Jahre vergangen sind, bis die Gefahr für die menschliche Gesundheit erkannt worden ist, obwohl eine kleine Gruppe von Personen die Gefahr schon viel früher vermutet hatte, und die bekämpften Mobilfunksender in einem Wohngebiet errichtet wurden, in welchem Familien mit Kindern sowie ältere Menschen und Kranke leben, und dies nur wenige Meter vom Kläger entfernt, so kann einem Nachbarn nicht aufgezwungen werden, gegen seinen Willen, sich einem hypothetischen Risiko auszusetzen mit der einzigen Alternative, ausziehen zu müssen, um dieses Risiko zu vermeiden.

Es handelt sich daher um eine Beeinträchtigung der Nachbarschaft und nur die Wiederherstellung des ursprünglichen Zustandes kann dem ein Ende setzen. Es wird daher entschieden, den Nachbarn und die Mobilfunkfirma zum Abbau der Sender zu verurteilen.

Die Kläger stellen keinen sicheren Zusammenhang her zwischen: den physischen Befindlichkeitsstörungen, unter denen sie leiden, und einem Zusammenhang mit den Mobilfunksendern, selbiges für ihren Überseeaufenthalt und die zeitweise Vermietung ihrer Villa anstelle eines üblichen 3-Jahres-Mietvertrages.

Der Sender ist innerhalb eines Monats abzubauen, sollte diese Frist nicht eingehalten werden, sind für jeden Tag der Verzögerung 100,-- Euro zu bezahlen.


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Demande N°2 Datum:
Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:56:39 -0500
Von: Richard

Claus.Scheingraber
85649 Brunnthal
Tel: 08102-4420 ab 19 Uhr,
tags: 089-9038020
Fax: 089-9045360


Nachricht von

Michael Meyer
michael_meyer@aon.at
Risiko Mobilfunk Österreich
Plattform Sozialstaat Österreich - Netzwerk Zivilcourage
A - 5165 Berndorf, Stadl 4
Tel/Fax 0043 - 6217 - 8576

http://www.zeit.de/zeit-wissen/2005/05/Groenland.xml


Nachricht von der BI Bad Dürkheim

--------

Grönland bald ohne Eis?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1083512/

Grönland Eis schmilzt schneller als erwartet
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/869813/

Grönland eisfrei - Holland verschwunden
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/192702/

Mobilfunk und Klimawandel - Globale Erwärmung
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/365607/

Der Mensch verwandelt die Erde in einen Mikrowellen–Ofen
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/189709/

Ursache der globalen Klimaerwärmung: Elektromagnetische Welle erzeugen Schwingungen und erwärmen die Luftmolekühle
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/155035/

Waldsterben und Elektrosmog
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/365522/

Baumsterben : Versauerung der Waldböden gefährdet Trinkwasser
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/426647/



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Klima+und+Mobilfunk

From Sylvia

Mike Clark, presenting at the TETRA Conference in Dorset, said it was unlawful to experiment on children:


Three years to see if mobiles hurt kids

November 20, 2005

A world-first study will begin in Australia this week to find out if mobile phones are damaging the health of children.

The study of 12- and 13-year-olds will measure if mobile-phone use affects factors such as hearing, memory, sleep and ability to concentrate.

It follows recommendations by the World Health Organisation that more research be urgently done on whether children's central nervous systems are more vulnerable than adults' to the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Australian children have one of the highest rates of mobile-phone ownership in the world - almost half of those aged 13 to 15 and a third of those aged 10 to 13 own one.

The National Health and Medical Research Centre study, which will follow 300 Melbourne children over three years, is being conducted by the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research.

The children will have their cognitive functions, hearing and blood pressure tested at regular intervals, ACRBR executive director Dr Rodney Croft said. "These are areas that are likely to be affected, if there are any effects," he said.

Several studies have shown EMR exposure causes no harm to the physical development of children over age two or a higher likelihood of cancer.

Dr Croft said the research was a response to community concerns about children and mobile phones.

"What we are working on is the precautionary principle," he said.

WHO radiation program coordinator Dr Mike Repacholi, who was in Australia last week as part of a workshop on EMR and health effects at Melbourne's Swinburne University, said filling the gaps in research was a high priority because of the increasing number of children using mobile phones.

"Children as young as five are using mobile phones," Dr Repacholi said. "Yet international standards on exposure [to EMR] are the same for children and adults."

He said children absorbed more radiation because of their smaller heads and thinner skulls. This could possibly cause behaviour, learning and concentration problems.

"So the net result is that children do receive higher exposures," he said. "We could see some subtle effects on the central nervous system."

In January, the British Government's chief adviser on mobile phones, Sir William Stewart, said children aged three to eight should not use mobiles and older children should strictly limit their use until more research had been done.

Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association spokesman Randal Markey said new research was welcome but more than 400 studies on mobile phones had already shown no health consequences, either for adults or children.

Mr Markey said advice from the WHO, the Health Council of the Netherlands and the US Food and Drug Administration was that limiting the use of mobile phones by children was unnecessary.

"The present information does not support that mobile phones for children should be limited," he said.

Omega this is not true. 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

Children and mobile phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1063256/

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

--------

Three years to see if mobiles hurt kids

In the USA last year, The EPA came under fire because of its proposed “Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study” (CHEERS) that proposed exposing children to household chemicals that are known to be toxic to see the health effects on the kids over a two year span. I believe that proposal was finally cancelled due to much opposition. It was seen as like using children as lab rats in a study organised by the chemical industry that now is the EPA biggest “partner” in research. Ethical considerations aside, a mere two years is nowhere long enough to pick up long term health problems, such as cancer. The study would have run the two years, no increase in cancer rates would have been the likely outcome with the predictable headlines “Chemical cancer risk for children disproven” appearing nationally.

Now we have an Australian study (below) that claims to be be working on the precautionary principle by using 12-13 year olds to function as lab rats for testing effects of their mobile phone use. Will the researchers first be advising the kids of the possible consequences of their cell phone use? Will they be advicing them to limit their use, following Sir William Stewart’s recommendation? Will the study exclude kids who just text message and thus do not get the exposure that one gets when the phone is held against the head? This study has NOTHING to do with the precautionary principle. It also only runs for three years which is far too short to pick up any increased cancer or acoustic neuroma risk that it is known to take at least 10 years to be apparent. Three years is simply not long enough to determine if there is a long-term health hazard but that won’t stop the “Study finds kid’s use of cell phones safe” headlines if they fail to find anything.

Remember Michael Repacholi’s criteria for children and cell phone studies: “where more science is needed to rule out concerns” and that is where this study is likely headed.

Don Maisch


Three years to see if mobiles hurt kids

The Sidney Morning Herald
Date: November 20 2005

By Danielle Teutsch

A world-first study will begin in Australia this week to find out if mobile phones are damaging the health of children. Go to full article at:

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/11/19/1132017024221.html

Source: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=320

From mast-victims.org:

Sounding Circle: Canada Health Official Warns Consumers to Limit Cell Phone Use

http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000804.htm

Canada Health Official Warns Consumers to Limit Cell Phone USe 0 comments

16 Jul 2005 @ 06:32,
by Raymond Powers

Canada Health Official Warns Consumers to “Limit Cell Phone Use” Especially by Children

The Toronto Star July 12, 2005

Limit cell use: Health officer

Long-term phone risks aren’t yet known, says agency head WHO conference looking at global `precautionary’ approach By TYLER HAMILTON AND ROB CRIBB STAFF REPORTERS

The country’s top public health officer says Canadians should consider moderating their use of cellphones - and their children’s - until science overcomes nagging uncertainties about long-term health effects.

Dr. David Butler-Jones, in opening remarks yesterday to a three-day conference hosted by the World Health Organization, told more than 100 academics, public health officials and scientists from around the world that constantly changing technology has created a moving target, leaving scientists playing a game of catch-up.

“Our technology has passed our ability to understand what biological effects are positive or negative,” said Butler-Jones, who heads the new Public Health Agency of Canada, often described as the Canadian equivalent to the United States Surgeon General.

“What would be the message? The message would be that moderation is a good thing,” he said in an interview after his presentation. “Talking for two hours every night on cellphones, would I advise that? No.” Butler-Jones said use of the devices in childhood could also have an impact on obesity and the way children interact socially with family and friends.

His comments, the first he has publicly made on possible health risks related to cellphones, follow a weekend Toronto Star investigation into the wireless industry’s new marketing focus on children and what some scientists view as potential health effects that might take decades to prove or disprove as a problem.

Among the new crop of child-targeted phones already on store shelves or on their way are devices branded with such popular images as Barbie, Disney characters and Hilary Duff.

The conference, held in partnership with the University of Ottawa, is looking at the merits of what’s often called a “precautionary approach” to public health policy.

The idea is to develop an international framework that member countries can adopt in cases of scientific uncertainty about potential health risks, such as cellphone frequencies or radiation from power lines.

“It’s just good public hygiene to be precautionary,” said Dr. Michael Repacholi, head of the radiation and environmental health unit of the World Health Organization. “Is there something we should be saying that we’re not?”

Health Canada has remained quiet on the issue of children and the potential health risks of cellphones even as several European health experts and authorities have issued precautionary statements and messages to parents.Magda Havas, a professor of environmental studies at Trent University who has studied the impact of low frequencies on human health, said many in the scientific community outright dismiss studies that have shown biological effects on lab animals and cell cultures, effects that may hint at possible health risks.

“I think once again the health authorities aren’t looking at the science, the same way they didn’t with tobacco and asbestos,” she said at the conference yesterday. “My concern is that this is actually going to hurt the cellphone industry. If they don’t clean up their act …, they’re going to produce a generation that’s so sensitive to these frequencies they won’t be able to use the product.”

She said evidence is already growing that certain people have “electrical hypersensitivity.”

Joel Tickner, a research professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and an international expert on the precautionary approach, was scheduled to speak at the conference but backed out, saying the agenda has been watered down.

“Precaution is controversial; the cellphone industry doesn’t want to hear about it,” said Tickner, adding the industry doesn’t want to be constrained from marketing its products. “As long as there’s uncertainty in the science, we wait and don’t do anything, which is unfortunate.”

Peter Barnes, chief executive of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, says his industry’s products are safe, and no links have been proven between the devices and health effects. He says all cellphones sold in Canada “meet or exceed” all emission standards set by Industry Canada, which acts on the guidance of Health Canada experts.

The overwhelming majority of readers who contacted the Star in connection with the series said Health Canada should publicly state the potential risks to Canadians, and industry should back off from its new marketing focus on children.

“Health Canada’s minister and bureaucrats should be in the business of protecting the health of us taxpayers who pay their salaries rather than nesting in the hip pocket of the cellular communications industry, whose primary business is selling mobile phones,” said Jane Holmes, who lives in Brighton, Ont.

Peterborough resident Matt Keefer said the wireless industry is “crossing the line” by marketing to children.

“Government needs to step in and protect the interests of our youngsters by making it illegal for companies to qualify them as consumers.”

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=319

--------

Letter to Commission of Public Sector Integrity

Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: Letter to Commission of Public Sector Integrity

Dear Dr. Martin MP

Please find attached a letter I wrote to the Commissioner of Public Sector Integrity, who, I have been told, has the responsibility for overseeing public civil servants. As I said in the letter, I have received no adequate response to my petition to the Auditor General. Health Canada and Industry Canada have shown nothing but contempt to the public and for the public's health. I ask you to do whatever you can to ensure that the Commissioner follows through with a thorough investigation into these departments and their relationships with the telecommunications industry. It is long overdue.

Respectfully,
Sharon Noble


Victoria, BC V9C 3V5

December 2, 2008

Commissioner, Public Sector Integrity Canada
60 Queen Street, 7th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5Y7

Dear Sir or Madam,

In June of this year I submitted a petition to the Auditor General regarding Health Canada and Industry Canada, asking about Health Canada's use of industry-funded research regarding electromagnetic radiation from telecommunication transmitters. I have tried for more than 2 years to obtain information explaining why Health Canada's Safety Code 6, which regulates the amount of radiation to which the general public can be exposed, allows levels higher than those allowed in many other countries. Also, I have asked why independent studies from credible international scientists are not considered when establishing these levels.

In the petition, I provided evidence of direct associations between researchers both within Health Canada itself and the various professional panels, such as the Royal Society, and the telecommunications industry which they are authorized to monitor. I gave specific examples of industry funding for research used to justify the current public exposure limits. It is a widely acknowledged that funding can and often does influence the outcome of research. But Health Canada chose to ignore the evidence. It chose, instead, to respond, in virtually all instances, with the phrase "Safety Code 6 is safe."

Meanwhile, people are suffering the consequences with skin problems, neurological disorders including memory loss, and, even, cancer. These health disorders are shown in numerous studies to be the effect of prolonged exposure to non-thermal levels of radiation far below those allowed under Safety Code 6. Even though the WHO and ICNIRP, another investigative body, both acknowledge that Safety Code 6 standards are for thermal radiation only, and not non-thermal, Health Canada, for reasons of its own, maintains that they apply to non-thermal radiation as well.

As more cellular transmitters and Wi-Fi are being brought into schools and residential neighbourhoods, people, especially children, are being exposed to ever increasing amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Dr. Martin Blank, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, and co-author of the BioInitiative Report, 2007, has said this is a monumental epidemic waiting to happen.

And Industry Canada, which is empowered with enforcing the out-dated Safety Code 6, is not performing its job. In June, 2008, Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, measured radiation levels at my home and found that they exceeded Safety Code 6 maximum allowable limits by more than 200%. When, at Dr. Havas’s urging, I subsequently asked for a test of FM transmitters 100 meters from my home, I was told Industry Canada does not test the output of transmitters to determine if the level of radiation is within Safety Code 6, even though, under Industry Canada’s mandate, one of its prime responsibilities is the regular monitoring of telecommunication antennae. The explanation I was given by the Regional Director of Industry Canada on Vancouver Island was that there are too many transmitters so they only test if there is reason to suspect a transmitter of not being in compliance. When I asked what would cause a suspicion of non-compliance if no testing were done, the Director did not reply.

It appears as if no one is watching out for the public's welfare -- neither Health Canada which sets the regulations nor Industry Canada which is charged with enforcing them. Prior to the testing which was done on July 30 as a result of my request (the results of which are still being kept from us), the power of the transmitters was reduced drastically. This was confirmed by meters and by reduction in levels of harmful interference with telephones, electrical equipment, etc. experienced by neighbours as far away as 2 kilometres. Certainly it appears as if collusion between Industry Canada and the broadcasters is occurring, with the officials giving forewarning of testing to the very people they are supposed to be monitoring.

Many members of the public, including doctors and scientists, have been asking Health Canada and Industry Canada for years to reconsider the radiation levels, only to be ignored. Given the magnitude of evidence that Safety Code 6 levels of non-thermal radiation are dangerously high, and the fact that both Health Canada and Industry Canada are being negligent in performing their jobs, it is high time that action be taken. Could your department investigate the officials and researchers in these departments, including the members of the panels to whom they look for advice, for conflicts of interest?

My petition to the Auditor General contains over 20 pages of detailed evidence. If you feel that it might assist you in considering my plea, I would be most happy to send it to you.

Yours respectfully,

Sharon Noble


Informant: Martin Weatherall



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Martin+Blank
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Magda+Havas

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20051120&articleId=1296


Informant: Hopedance

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=96196;show_parent=1



Cindy Sheehan
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Sheehan

Glebelands Otterton EX9 7JJ

12th October 2005

Rep Nos. 3581.D4 & 3581.R1

Dear Mr Pritchard

Thank you for your letter of 26th September 2005. As explained in our recent telephone conversation, the enclosure that came with this letter, was unfortunately not as stated, but luckily Mrs Wright contacted me a few days ago about this matter, and kindly posted me a copy of the EDDC response.

This letter and all points raised in it, is in addition to the letter dated 12th October 2005 from my Solicitor, Mr Alan Meyer, and I wish to make the following supplementary statement on the EDDC Proof of Evidence:

1. In my original letter to Claire Rodway dated 24th October 2003, I brought up the issue of lawful mast/antenna heights for the purpose of GPDO applications. It is essential that detailed reference is made in the Local Plan Policy to clarify for all time, to the phone companies and their agents, the planning officers and the district councillors what the exact lawful measurements must be for any application made under GPDO. As a result of not properly determining lawful mast/antenna heights, there have already been serious, unpleasant and time-consuming planning administration problems arising, one example is the case at Beare Hamlet.

On 16th August 2005, the Planning Inspectorate issued Revised Guidance regarding the Telecoms Appeal Code - please see copy enclosed - which related to the need for Local Planning Authorities to check properly the height of 15 metre masts to see that they properly qualified as 'permitted development' if correctly measured as set out in the final paragraph of this Appeal Code to avoid applications submitted on 'a false basis'.

I understand this Guidance arose partially out of yet another Vodafone 'overheight' mast application and many Councils' wrong interpretation of mast/antenna height measurements allowed under GPDO, thereby disadvantaging the residents living near certain mast sites.

Please will the Inspector ensure that all the enclosed Inspectorate guidance that sets out what constitutes lawful GPDO mast/antenna heights is included in the Local Plan to ensure complete clarity? This will prevent any further applications being processed by East Devon District Council on a 'false basis'.

2. The EDDC Proof of Evidence seems to contradict itself regarding PPG8 and ICNIRP guidelines. The Proof does not take into account current High Court Decisions, i.e. the Skelt case and the Harrogate case which both clearly state that ICNIRP certification and guidelines are not by themselves sufficient consideration of health issues.

In the recent Harrogate Court of Appeal Judgment, it was determined that health concerns are relevant in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore essential that the Local Plan follows the law and includes health concerns because there may well be 'exceptional circumstances' present.

In the second Stewart Report issued on 11th January 2005, Paragraphs 62 - 64, Professor Stewart stated that an element of the population are Electro-Sensitive, and their well-being can be adversely affected by the insensitive siting of masts. Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB. Please refer to the NRPB Executive summary (Published 11th January 2005), Heading 'Sensitive groups', Paragraphs 62 - 64. I would also like to draw your attention to the enclosed Sunday Times report dated 11th September 2005, which states that "…The Health Protection Agency has now reviewed all scientific literature on electro-sensitivity and concluded that it is a real syndrome. The condition had previously been dismissed as psychological."

3. Obsolete technology/apparatus. The Telecommunications Paragraph 10.40 of the East Devon Local Plan - January 2002 states, "Telecommunications is a rapidly expanding and evolving technology. As this technology develops, existing infrastructure will become obsolete. It is a requirement under the 1984 Telecommunications Act for redundant apparatus to be removed."

This paragraph follows the law, is very clear and contains a safeguard against abuse or ignorance of planning procedures. The wording is pro-active, and allows for the removal of 'obsolete' masts/antenna equipment. The wording is up-to-date in its mention of the rapid evolution of new, less invasive and more efficient technology that is already available in this country. In view of the new technologies becoming available, i.e. fibre optic cabling, broad band, communications satellites, more efficient mobile phones, etc, that will lessen the need for masts, it would be wrong not to include the words 'obsolete' and 'redundant' apparatus in the new Local Plan Policy.

In EDDC's Proof of Evidence, the words, "Planning permission granted will be conditioned so as to require the demolition and removal of all works undertaken, both above and below ground, should or when any facility ceases to be used or falls into disrepair", are so unclear and loose they will create a loophole and create confusion. This loophole would effectively allow any phone operator to secretly replace 'obsolete apparatus/technology' with different, possibly more dangerous technology without anyone's knowledge or permission.

A further problem with the EDDC Proof is that as each type of technology, i.e. 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G etc, will have a different effect and impact on the local community and landscape, it would allow the original planning permission to be used as ongoing 'blanket cover' for any other type of technology. Change of technology does constitute change of use.

4. UK Acts of Parliament and PPG8 give legal protection to World Heritage sites, AONBs and other sensitive conservation areas and gives them priority over all other development, including telecommunications.

In the enclosed copy pages from Mr I C Clark of the DTLR on Page 2, paragraph 3, he states, " …. In view of our plan-led planning system of development control, a local planning authority should include in its development plan specific planning policies relating to a World Heritage Site in its area. This is so that the sites features of interest and importance and the need to protect them would be given due weight when a planning application is determined. Furthermore UNESCO now expects all nominations of sites for World Heritage status to be accompanied by managements plans".

As set out in the enclosed copy pages from the official guide to the Jurassic Coastline, World Heritage status means that Sites should be protected conserved presented and passed intact to future generations. It also means that this designated area recognises nationally important landscapes, conserving both the Site and the wider countryside that surrounds it." It is therefore essential that the EDDC Local Plan takes into account this exceptional area's needs, which by definition are to keep it natural, i.e. free of ugly, unnatural, inappropriate structures.

The Local Plan should accommodate the rapid advances that are constantly becoming available in telecommunications technology. There are now efficient alternatives to mast structures already in use, i.e. fibre optic cabling, communications satellites, more efficient phone antennas, all of which remove or lessen the need for masts. These advances together with new 'mast free' telecommunications technologies - make it possible to avoid siting any mast/antenna in sensitive and protected areas.

5. I attended and spoke at the Public Inquiry on the 18th May 2005 and some of the points I raised were agreed and were to be included in the Supplementary Planning Guidance as stated by Claire Rodway and this would be forthcoming. As yet, I have not seen the Supplementary Planning Guidance, as it has not been put out for public consultation. Please will the Inspector investigate at what stage of progress the work on the Supplementary Planning Guidance has reached and whether it has been completed yet?

As I cannot rely on the 'unseen' Supplementary Planning Guidance to include the points that were agreed at the Public Inquiry, I am extremely worried that the Inspector with the imminent closing of the Inquiry may not realise that my concerns (and other peoples concerns) addressed by him through the Public Inquiry route have not been recognised or implemented in the EDDC Supplementary Guidance.

There is a strong possibility that all these issues will be watered down by the phone companies, and this seems very wrong because myself and others did take the time and trouble to attend and speak at the Public Inquiry and go through all the proper democratic processes. It now seems that our only opportunity to have the matters already agreed at the Public Inquiry for inclusion in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, is for the Inspector to consider the points raised in this letter. I have to make sure that everything that I raised and was agreed at the Public Inquiry is in this letter and is now put to the Inspector for his opinion.

Please will the Inspector keep the Public Inquiry open until he has investigated why there no mention in the EDDC Supplementary Planning Guidance for a Policy specific for the first British natural World Heritage Site and its surrounds here in East Devon? Before the Public Inquiry is wound up, please will the Inspector ensure that such a Policy is prepared and the public given a sight of it, before and after, he accordingly makes his recommendations to modify the Local Plan Policy? Please will the Inspector investigate why this Government requirement has not been addressed before now?

Please may I have a copy of all the Inspector's recommendations on Telecommunications in the Local Plan Policy including the Supplementary Planning Guidance? Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

I have enclosed two other copies of this letter and its enclosures for your use.

Yours truly,

MRS J D LEE


Mr Peter Pritchard
Programme Officer East Devon Local Plan Public Inquiry
Royal Avenue
Exmouth Devon EX8 1EN

by George Soros

President George W. Bush's second inaugural address set forth an ambitious vision of the role of the United States in advancing the cause of freedom worldwide, fueling worldwide speculation over the course of American foreign policy during the next four years. The ideas expressed in Bush's speech thus deserve serious consideration.

"[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture," Bush declared, "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

There is a bow to diplomacy in the assurance that fulfilling this mission "is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend our friends and ourselves by force of arms when necessary." Similarly, Bush recognizes that outsiders cannot force liberty on people. Instead, "Freedom by its nature must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities."

Finally, there is acceptance of diversity, for "when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way."

I agree with this goal, and have devoted the last fifteen years of my life and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it. Yet I find myself in sharp disagreement with the Bush administration. It is not only that there is a large gap between official words and deeds; I find that the words sometimes directly contradict the deeds in a kind of Orwellian doublespeak.

When Bush declared war on terror, he used that war to invade Iraq. When no connection with Al Qaeda could be established and no weapons of mass destruction could be found, he declared that we invaded Iraq to introduce democracy. We are about to convert elections in Iraq into a civil war between a Shi'a-Kurd dominated government and a Sunni insurrection.

In Iraq and beyond, when Bush says that "freedom will prevail," many interpret him to mean that America will prevail. This has impugned our motives and deprived us of whatever moral authority we once had in intervening in other countries' domestic affairs. If, for example, we offer support to Iranian students who are genuinely striving for greater freedom, we are now more likely to endanger them and reinforce regime hardliners.

To explain what is wrong with the new Bush doctrine, I have to invoke the concept of open society. That is the concept that has guided me in my efforts to foster freedom around the world. The work has been carried out through foundations operating on the ground and led by citizens who understand the limits of the possible in their countries. Occasionally, when a repressive regime expels our foundation – as has happened in Belarus and Uzbekistan – we operate from the outside.

Paradoxically, the most successful open society in the world, the US, does not properly understand the first principles of an open society; indeed, its current leadership actively disavows them. The concept of open society is based on the recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, and that to claim otherwise leads to repression. In short, we may be wrong.

That is precisely the possibility that Bush refuses to acknowledge, and his denial appeals to a significant segment of the American public. An equally significant segment is appalled. This has left the US not only deeply divided, but also at loggerheads with much of the rest of the world, which considers our policies high-handed and arbitrary.

President Bush regards his reelection as an endorsement of his policies, and feels reinforced in his distorted view of the world. The "accountability moment" has passed, he claims, and he is ready to confront tyranny throughout the world according to his own lights.

But we cannot forego the critical process that is at the core of an open society – as we did for eighteen months after September 11, 2001. That is what has led us into the Iraq quagmire.

A better understanding of the concept of open society would require us to distinguish between promoting freedom and democracy and promoting American values and interests. If it is freedom and democracy that we want, we can foster it only by strengthening international law and international institutions.

Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty: what goes on inside tyrannies and failed states is of vital interest to the rest of the world. But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate, which requires clearly established rules.

As the dominant power in the world, America has a unique responsibility to provide leadership in international cooperation. America cannot do whatever it wants, as the Iraqi debacle has demonstrated; but, at the same time, nothing much can be achieved in the way of international cooperation without US leadership, or at least active participation. Only by taking these lessons to heart can progress be made towards the lofty goals that Bush has announced.

http://www.georgesoros.com/


Informant: Zany Mystic

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3657/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8089


Informant: Kev Hall

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20051120x1.htm


Informant: Davey Garland

From: Jim Stewart
Subject: URGENT: Diebold set to STEAL Certification Monday am Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:04:10 -0800

ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/diebold2.htm

The Secretary of State has scheduled a hearing for November 21, 2005 on the question of whether certain Diebold voting systems will should be certified before the end of the year. But "The Secretary of State has disbanded the Voting Systems Panel that's supposed to conduct these hearings and has replaced it with one person, a stenographer, and a tape recorder," said Sherry Healy, a steering committee member of the California Election Protection Network (CEPN), a non-partisan organization of over 25 groups across California who have come together to try and ensure the integrity of California's election systems.

The rally/protest is this Monday in Sacramento, we have ONLY Monday to voice our concerns so they go on the record.

Monday Nov. 21, 10 a.m. - May be your last chance to block Diebold Secretary of State's Office, 1500 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(Downtown Sacramento - 11th and "O" Streets) CONTACT: Dagmar Zakim (415) 389-0250 (there will be carpools)

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING URGENT APPEAL FROM SHERI MYERS

Believe me, I really don't want to ruin your day. But you need to hear this. This is an URGENT ACTION ALERT.

If you don't read this and take action, you are allowing your vote to be stolen. California will turn red.

If you read this and do nothing, you are giving up your rights as a citizen. Do it for your country. Your children. Our future.

All Californians who care about the sanctity of their vote must let Secretary of State McPherson know that they WILL NOT ALLOW him to certify Diebold machines, that they are OUTRAGED that he is undermining our democracy.

CALL OR FAX: Bruce McPherson, Secretary of State
916-653-6814 (main menu, press 6, then 3 - starting at 8:00 am Monday) 916-653-3214 (the FAX is on tis weekend)

McPherson was appointed by Schwarzenegger to replace Democrat Kevin Shelley. Folks, if they can't win legally, they WILL steal the votes they need. THAT'S YOUR VOTE.

This is a Republican coup, and they are counting on YOU, and ME to do NOTHING. Is it worth FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME to send a FAX, an email or make a call? PLEASE TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know. From Mimi Kennedy, PDA Chair ...

Trouble in election land!!!!!!!!!! The Sec of State is pulling a fast one. A hearing scheduled for Monday the 21st in Sacramento has been turned into a sham. See below. It looks like Diebold is going to be certified. The Sec of State is relying on no-one caring about this hearing so he can just certify Diebold more or less in secret. He didn't comply with state regs in publicizing this hearing with sufficient advance notice. And it's not going to be a full panel - it's going to be one man with a tape recorder. The tape may never be listened to! We are calling a demonstration. We need everyone who can make it to get to the street in front of the Secretary of State's office on Monday morning. See below. It is a long e-mail. If you can make it into something terser, please do! Send to everyone. It's urgent we have live bodies on the street. Contact Joan Quinn: 916-396-9714. She is the point person in Sacramento. P.S. PDA had a fanastic two days in Washington, D.C. More on that later - but if we lose CA to election machines, nothing grassroots do will be of much use!

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

CALIFORNIA ELECTION PROTECTION NETWORK a non-partisan organization of over 25 groups across California coming together to achieve our mutual election integrity goals

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 16, 2005

Contacts: Northern California: Dagmar Zakim (415) 389.0250 Southern California: Sarah Rath (310) 204.5674

California Election Protection Network Protests Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's Decision To Hold A "No Hearing Hearing"

On November 21, 2005, citizens may voice their concerns about what voting system will record their votes, but thanks to a decision by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, there's absolutely no guarantee that anyone with the authority to certify voting systems in California will hear those voices.

California law requires the Secretary of State to conduct a public hearing as a condition of certifying any voting systems in the state. The Secretary of State has scheduled a hearing for November 21, 2005 on the question of whether certain Diebold voting systems will should be certified before the end of the year.

"The Secretary of State has disbanded the Voting Systems Panel that's supposed to conduct these hearings and has replaced it with one person, a stenographer, and a tape recorder," said Sherry Healy, a steering committee member of the California Election Protection Network (CEPN), a non-partisan organization of over 25 groups across California who have come together to try and ensure the integrity of California's election systems. "How the Secretary of State can classify this as true 'public input' is beyond me. If he had any interest in what the public had to say about these Diebold systems, he would have joined the VSP panel at this public hearing instead of disbanding it and sending a tape recorder and a stenographer in its place."

"Doesn't this sound like a Dick Cheney-style closed-door public hearing?" asked Carole Mills, Co-Chair of the Marin Democracy For America (DFA) group.

Dagmar Zakim, another steering committee member of the CEPN, asked "Is this legally sufficient for a public hearing? I mean is this the new government trend for public hearings - just give the people a room and a tape recorder?"

Jody Holder, a long time election reform activist, summed his concerns up by saying "What Bruce McPherson, the chief elections officer of our state, is trying to do is to prevent people from using their right to influence the process for approving the voting systems. It's these people's votes these machines are counting! Time and time again, this administration has arbitrarily disregarded all established precedents on how public's voice can be heard.

"For two years, concerned voters of this state have been traveling to Sacramento to voice their concerns about 'faith-based' voting on electronic voting machines at public hearings," continued Holder. "Their concerns have been increasingly recognized by the Legislature, resulting in new laws requiring paper verification of their votes, and requiring that the paper record be used in the required manual audit and in any recount (SB 370 [Bowen]). Unfortunately, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson opposed using voter verified paper records for any audit and recount.

"Now, Secretary McPherson has made it virtually impossible for people to provide meaningful testimony, expert witnesses, and public comment on the proposal to certify the Diebold machines for use in California," continued Holder. "In June, over 200 people traveled to Sacramento to voice their concerns at a public hearing before a panel of advisors to the Secretary of State on voting systems. Since then, every scheduled meeting of the VSP has been cancelled, and now the Secretary has simply disbanded the VSP without notice, without hearings about what will replace it, without any type of due process."

The California Election Protection Network is calling on Secretary McPherson to reverse his arbitrary abandonment of established procedures and to allow people to provide meaningful input on the voting systems approved for use in this state. CEPN believes the voters of California are entitled to be able to choose their representatives with the confidence that their votes are recorded and counted accurately. It is the duty of the Secretary, as the chief elections officer of the state, to make sure voting systems are approved in the interests of Californians, not the voting system vendors or the local election officials. The most important duty of a Secretary of State is assuring the citizens that we can vote with confidence on the voting systems he approves.

Sarah Rath of CEPN and CitizensAct said, "Even if this turns out to be legal by some technicality, it illuminates for us all what Bruce McPherson stands for, and against."

For more information: http://www.califelectprotect.net.


What: "Early Turkey Monday" November 21, 2005

When: Meet in front of the Secretary of State's Building at 9:30 a.m.
(Hearing begins at 10 a.m.)

Where: Secretary of State's Office, 1500 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (Downtown Sacramento - 11th and "O" Streets)

Please sign up to speak your mind about Diebold-for up to two minutes. While many are a bit intimidated by the prospect of speaking at a podium for even a minute, this is really no big deal. It's remarkably easy and it feels great to muster the courage to speak your mind and make a difference. How it usually works is that you may sign up for each of the agenda items (wares to be discussed), as itemized on the "agenda" listed below. Just sign up a few minutes before the hearing by walking to the front of the auditorium and filling out a card. Usually the card requests that you specify which agenda item you plan to speak on. So, again, see the list below for the alphabetical letter correlating to a specific Diebold product. Choose one even if you want to speak generally about Diebold. If this doesn't make sense to you, no worries. Just show up a few minutes early and ask someone there for assistance.

Tentative Agenda (subject to change without notice):

1. Diebold Election Systems

a. GEMS Software version 1.18.24
b. AccuVote-TSX with Accuview Printer Module (AVPM) hardware
c. AccuVote-TSX Ballot Station firmware version 4.6.4
d. AccuVote-OS (model D) with firmware version 1.96.6
e. AccuVote-OS Central County firmware version 2.0.12
f. Voter Card Encoder Version 4.6.1
g. Key Card Tool software version 4.6.1
h. VC Programmer software version 4.6.1
i. AccuFeed


John Johnson
Change-Links Progressive Newspaper

--------

DIEBOLD Voting Machines

In a message dated 11/20/05 4:10:20 PM, marianshapiro:

For those of you who don't get PEN, the People's Email Network, thought you might be willing to take action with a call or FAX.

Cheers, Marian


ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/diebold2.htm

The Secretary of State has scheduled a hearing for November 21, 2005 on the question of whether certain Diebold voting systems will should be certified before the end of the year. But "The Secretary of State has disbanded the Voting Systems Panel that's supposed to conduct these hearings and has replaced it with one person, a stenographer, and a tape recorder," said Sherry Healy, a steering committee member of the California Election Protection Network (CEPN), a non-partisan organization of over 25 groups across California who have come together to try and ensure the integrity of California's election systems.

The rally/protest is this Monday in Sacramento, we have ONLY next week to voice our concerns so they go on the record.

Monday Nov. 21, 10 a.m. - May be your last chance to block Diebold Secretary of State's Office, 1500 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(Downtown Sacramento - 11th and "O" Streets) CONTACT: Dagmar Zakim (415) 389-0250 (there will be carpools)

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING URGENT APPEAL FROM SHERI MYERS

Believe me, I really don't want to ruin your day. But you need to hear this. This is an URGENT ACTION ALERT.

If you don't read this and take action, you are allowing your vote to be stolen. California will turn red.

If you read this and do nothing, you are giving up your rights as a citizen. Do it for your country. Your children. Our future.

All Californians who care about the sanctity of their vote must let Secretary of State McPherson know that they WILL NOT ALLOW him to certify Diebold machines, that they are OUTRAGED that he is undermining our democracy.

CALL OR FAX: Bruce McPherson, Secretary of State
916-653-6814 (main menu, press 6, then 3 - starting at 8:00 am Monday) 916-653-3214 (the FAX is on tis weekend)

McPherson was appointed by Schwarzenegger to replace Democrat Kevin Shelley. Folks, if they can't win legally, they WILL steal the votes they need. THAT'S YOUR VOTE.

This is a Republican coup, and they are counting on YOU, and ME to do NOTHING. Is it worth FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME to send a FAX, an email or make a call? PLEASE TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2005, Patent pending, All rights reserved


Informant: Hopedance

--------

Stop Diebold electronic voting! CA's Republican plans to STEAL YOUR VOTE

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/139654.php
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vst_summit.htm


Informant: Sasha Karlik

(excerpt)

http://www.iamthewitness.com/index.htm

Having listened to Daryl Smith´s interview with Christopher Bollyn, especially Hour 2, I see the world in a completely different way and what I see isn´t pretty. It´s ugly, evil, hellish and utterly depressing.

What can we tell our children and grandchildren? We are sorry that we give you hell and we understand that you are cursing us. We were so deceived, so stupid, so cowardly and so scared that we sacrified your lives to survive.

I am old and I hope I havn´t long left because I don´t want to live in a world like this. What advice can we give our kids (as you call them even if they are 25)? Well we could say: steal as much as you can, cheat as much as you can and see to it that you don´t have to give up anything. Because that is the new morality.

A completely disillusioned

Ulla.


http://www.iamthewitness.com/index.html -----
Original Message -----
From: Rory Winter
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:21 AM
Subject: Break Up Cheney's Cabal

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051205/cheney_cabal

Break Up Cheney's Cabal

*Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith*

Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq by nearly two to one, according to a new Gallop poll http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=19891 . A majority want US troops withdrawn from Iraq within twelve months--a higher proportion than wanted to withdraw from Vietnam in the summer of 1970. Catering to public sentiment, on November 15 the Senate voted 79 to 19 for a Republican resolution saying 2006 should be a year of "significant transition" for US withdrawal from Iraq.

But no transition, phased redeployment or any other change in Iraq policy is likely until the cabal that got us into this war is excised.

The word "cabal" was recently introduced to the ongoing debate on the war when Col. Lawrence Wilkinson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's top assistant, disclosed
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102505L.shtml what many had suspected: In the early days of the Bush Administration the US government was essentially hijacked by "a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld," supported by a handful of top staffers like I. Lewis Libby, John Bolton and David Addington. These men not only lied us into war in Iraq; they set the stage for torture at Abu Ghraib and encouraged the outing of Valerie Plame. Frighteningly, they still control US policy.

We don't yet know President Bush's relation to this shadowy group of decision-makers, who bypassed normal routes and made their own policy decisions in secret. Did he lead the cabal? Willingly participate? Encourage it with a wink and a nod? Regard it with indifference? Whatever Bush's involvement, one thing is clear: These men must now be repudiated by President Bush, Congress and the American people if we are to find our way out of the mess they've made in Iraq.

Cosmetic changes to the White House staff will achieve little for the Bush Administration and less for the country. As long as the perpetrators of the yellowcake uranium fraud
http://www.commondreams.org/%20views03/0706-02.htm and the abuse of terror suspects are in positions of power and honor, nothing will change.

Breaking the power of this cabal is the prerequisite to moving toward a solution in Iraq.

The first reason is obvious: Cheney and Rumsfeld still control the levers of power within the Administration. They are dedicated to imposing "regime change" throughout the Middle East to install governments subservient to the United States. They remain in a position to manipulate evidence and provoke incidents--even to entangle us in a new war with Syria or Iran.

The second reason is less obvious but perhaps even more important: The US government is unlikely to find partners for making peace as long as it is dominated by a clique that is perceived as having manufactured the case for war, encouraged torture and alienating the American people.

Indeed, the level of foreign distrust has risen so high that a senior Administration official recently told the /Washington Post/, "The debate in the world has become about whether the US complies with its legal obligations." The world won't cooperate with the United States to develop new solutions for Iraq until the cabal is removed and repudiated.

Any other President faced with policy failure and plummeting support would have brought in a new team long ago. As the stalemated war in Vietnam became increasingly unpopular, Lyndon Johnson replaced the war's architect, Robert McNamara, with Wall Street lawyer and Washington power broker Clark Clifford. When Ronald Reagan's popularity plummeted after the Iran//contra/ scandals, he brought in a new, more moderate team that pursued a whole new set of broadly popular policy initiatives.

Some Republican Congressional and party leaders urged George Bush to emulate Reagan's strategy
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-12-bush-%20comeback_x.htm in the aftermath of the Libby indictment. They were summarily rebuffed.

George Bush's bunker mentality is creating a nightmare for Republicans. They clearly perceive their defeats in the recent election as flowing from their identification in the public mind with the President and therefore with the Iraq debacle. And many believe they are already headed for personal and party defeat in 2006.

Republicans are now scrambling to put distance between themselves and the war and other presidential policies. But that is unlikely to cure their malady. After all, if people want to repudiate the President, voting against Republicans is the obvious way to do it.

Of course, Republicans could put plenty of distance between themselves and the President by initiating impeachment proceedings for using false intelligence to lead the country to war. But this is unlikely unless and until he is personally pinned with crimes so heinous that Republicans have no choice.

One possible way out for Republicans is to pressure Bush to purge those who have led him and the country into disaster--/a k a/ the cabal. A new team of moderates would be charged with /changing/ the course rather than /staying/ it.

If the past is any guide, President Bush is likely to hold out against such an action for as long as possible. But Republican critics of the Administration might find some interesting bedfellows.

Blame for a failed and unpopular war is not good for the military. Top military officials today are facing the same doom to their institution and careers that their predecessors faced as the prospects for military victory and popular support drained away during the Vietnam War. Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha's startling call for withdrawal from Iraq bears special significance, as he is an acknowledged ally and spokesman for military leaders on Capitol Hill. The cabal's efforts to promote war with Syria and Iran threaten the military with an even greater fiasco. They have a strong interest in putting the blame for America's catastrophe on the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Rumsfeld and Cheney have tried to blame the intelligence "failures" that they used to get us into Iraq on the CIA and other intelligence agencies. That gives these agencies a motive for putting the blame back where it primarily belongs--on the cabal. This week, sixteen former intelligence officials asked Bush for a pledge not to pardon anyone involved in the Plame leak. And former CIA director Adm. Stansfield Turner accused Cheney of overseeing policies that allowed torture of terror suspects and damaged the nation's credibility. Just as a top FBI official was the Deep Throat who secretly blew the whistle on Nixon in the Watergate scandals, so might intelligence officials have evidence that would be damning to Cheney, Rumsfeld and their advisers.

It is impossible to predict just what string of circumstances would lead these forces to act. It might be resistance to the Administration's next attempt to draw the United States into war in Syria or Iran. (Congress put its first serious constraints on President Nixon when he expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos.) It might be the release of still more evidence of criminality--more indictments from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, for example. It might be a dramatic surge in US deaths in Iraq--remember the Tet Offensive, Lebanon and Mogadishu. Or it might simply be the accumulation of failures--something reminiscent of the Politburo's removal of Khrushchev for "commandism and hare-brained schemes."

Though it may seem a liberal fantasy, a breakup of the cabal is already on the political radar screen. Libby, one of its top operatives, is under indictment. Cheney has isolated himself even from Republican senators by his outrageous defense of the right to torture, and conservative pundits are demanding that he reveal the truth about his involvement in the Plame outing. Rumors of Rumsfeld's future resignation have appeared in the press.

Most of these officials serve at the pleasure of the President. Republican Congressional and party leaders add their voices to those already calling for a Bush Administration house-cleaning. If the President continues to refuse, they have a wide range of hardball threats, ranging from investigations to defeats for his legislative programs. Such actions were almost unthinkable as long as they desired the President's support, but Republicans who fear being tarred along with the President have strong motivation to jump ship if he doesn't shape up.

Bush can't fire Cheney, but increasing attention to the evidence of Cheney's "high crimes and misdemeanors" is likely to grow if he won't leave voluntarily. And unlike a President, a Vice President can be prosecuted while in office.

A focus on the cabal can also help Democrats and progressives address the strategic dilemma they face. Obviously, Bush is ultimately responsible for the policies that have made him so unpopular with the American people. But it is hard to parlay his unpopularity into a force for change--at least until election time.

The President can be removed by impeachment, but that is unlikely unless Democrats control both houses of Congress. But by putting a big part of the blame for Bush's disastrous policies on Cheney and his henchmen, Democrats and progressives can help make the cabal such a liability to Bush and the Republican Party that they may have to excise it.

We're probably stuck with President Bush for the next three years. But leveraging Cheney, Rumsfeld and their advisers out of power could turn a new page in America's relations with the rest of the world. It would be possible to develop new roles in Iraq for US allies, Middle Eastern countries and the United Nations. And the embattled parties in Iraq could begin negotiating their own future, free from manipulation by a US leadership determined to impose its own vision on their country.

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