The Bulldog Manifesto

Today, President Bush nominated an Antonin Scalia clone to the Supreme Court.

This nomination is a shot across the bow.

It's time for a bloody war.

From Think Progress:

"ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

"ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

"ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

"ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

"ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

"ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]"

Typically, when we think of 9/11, we tend to think solely of the terrorist attack involving the alleged four hijacked planes. But there was another terrorist attack related to 9/11. This other "attack" was indisputably perpetrated by the government-- by deception.

The Lie
Seven days after the 9/11 attacks, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency declared to the people of New York City that "the air is safe to breathe." As it turns out, the EPA was lying. But worse, as revealed in an investigation, the White House pressured the EPA to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe. In an EPA watchdog report released in 2003, it was reported that "competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, played a role in EPA's air quality statements." (Emphasis Added.) (See, EPA Report, at page 17)

In other words, our beloved government knowingly lied to us, putting our citizens in danger, for "the desire to reopen Wall Street."

All of this is fact. (Check it out for yourself at Page 17)

If you still don't believe me, perhaps you will believe the EPA Ombudsman who investigated the matter. In February of 2003, EPA Ombudsman Robert Martin stated that the EPA intentionally utilized inferior testing methods in order to avoid finding evidence that environmental conditions threatened public health. "I believe the EPA did not do that because they knew it would come up not safe and so they are involved in providing knowingly false information to the public about safety."

The Danger
When the towers came down, they contained "approximately 50,000 computers each made with four to twelve pounds of lead." (This does not take into account the five other buildings that were destroyed.) "Tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs each contained enough mercury to contaminate a quarter of a city block." In the months following 9/11, PCB levels reached 75,000 times their previous record: "PCBs were detected at high concentrations. The Toxic Equivalency (TEQ)... is 151pg/L. In previous harbor work...the highest observed PCB TEQ was 0.002pg.L." (EPA Report), September 20, 2003)"

The thousands of smoke detectors within the twin towers each contained radioactive americium 241. (EPA Policy Analyst Hugh Kaufman). In early October, 2001, Dr. Thomas Cahill of the University of Davis at California found levels of very- and ultrafine particulates that were the highest he'd seen of 7000 samples taken around the world including at the burning Kuwaiti oil fields. Months after the disaster the EPA recorded hitherto unseen levels of dioxin.

When the towers exploded and came crashing down, along came 200,000 pounds of harmful asbestos, pulverized into fine dust, to be inhaled by all.

The Victims
On September 18, 2001, when the head of the EPA told the public that "the air is safe to breathe," people believed her. As a result, Ground Zero workers often labored without benefit of respiratory protection. At a hearing held by Ombudsman Robert Martin, Lieutenant Manuel Gomez testified that when he brought his own respirator he was instructed not to wear it for fear of frightening the public. New York City Transit worker Walter Jensen has stated that when he asked for a respirator he was threatened with disciplinary action and firing. He later suffered a heart attack and at the age of fifty-five. Scientists such as Dr. Cate Jenkins, Dr. Marjorie Clarke, Paul Bartlett and others warned of the consequences of inhaling the toxic dust and fumes but were ignored by the agencies in charge.

As it relates to Ground Zero workers, a federal screening program found that, within 10 to 11 months following 9/11:

"52 percent of workers suffered from ear, nose and throat ailments, 46 percent showed pulmonary symptoms and 52 percent reported such mental health problems as post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their work in and around the dusty, smoky rubble."

Meanwhile, the New York Fire Department says that first responders, on average, have lost 300 mililiters in breathing capacity, with the most symptomatic losing a liter. It is further reported that:

"Two and a half times as many firemen have retired on respiratory disability since 9/11 as did in the three years before the attacks. Their doctors have also seen twenty cases of the chronic lung disease sarcoidosis, as opposed to the usual rate of two per year; four bizarre cases of something akin to miner'’s lung; and a slight increase in thyroid cancer..."

Ground Zero workers have brought class action lawsuits against the EPA and Christie Whitman, the head of the EPA, for making "false and misleading" statements.

But firefighters and first responders aren't the only victims of the government's terrorism by deception. (Note: 14 Rescue dogs have died since 9/11) Children in nearby schools have also reportedly suffered from ear, nose, and throat problems. Additionally, another researcher, Dr. Sally Ann Lederman from Columbia University, studied pregnant women living within two miles of the World Trade Center in the four weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

She studied 300 women in the group, many in their first or second trimester. Lederman found that the babies tended to be lighter and shorter than other babies.

While Lederman said lower birth weight can sometimes translate into health problems, it's impossible to know whether those post-9/11 children would be more likely to have lower IQ's or development problems.

Now go ahead....make excuses for your government. Rationalize it. Tell me how it's perfectly okay for the White House to pressure the EPA into telling the public that the "air is safe to breathe". Tell me how the government didn't want to create a panic. Tell me how we should be lied to.

Can somebody please tell me why 3,200 American and Canadian churches agreed to screen the movie "Left Behind: World at War"?

Adapted from the "Left Behind" book series, the movies star Cameron, best known for the TV sitcom "Growing Pains," as a reporter investigating the rise to power of an anti-Christ figure and the coming battle between good and evil prophesied in the Bible.

Church should be a place to come together to speak of God and the Gospels. Church should not be a place for commercializing Armageddon movies based upon so-called "Christian" themes.

And look at the plot:

"A week after the rapture, grief-stricken survivors continue to search for the millions of people who vanished into thin air. Chaos engulfs the world as suicide rates skyrocket, businesses are looted, and martial law remains in effect. A desperate world turns to United Nations President Nicolae Carpathia for guidance and reassurance. But as global events begin to take on strange significance, signaling the oncoming terror of years to come, a small group of rebels known as the Tribulation Force embarks on a dangerous mission to open the eyes of the world to the truth--Nicolae Carpathia is the Antichrist!"

In other words, it's a movie propogandizing an evil United Nations.

Sounds like a movie that would make John Bolton happy.

Press Release:

Today, the ACLU made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.”

The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”

While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.

The records reveal the following facts:

* A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he “struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.” Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized “changes in environmental quality” in October 2003.)

* An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by “OGA.” He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.” (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)

* A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression” as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by MI, died during interrogation.”

* A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and “OGA.” A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was “blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.” New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.”

* An Afghan civilian died from “multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities” on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)

* A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)

The ACLU has previously released autopsy reports for two detainees who were tortured by U.S. forces in Bagram, Afghanistan, believed to be Mullah Habibullah and an Afghan man known as Dilawar.

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”

The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

As part of the FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge recently ordered the Defense Department to turn over photographs and videotapes depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the United States at Abu Ghraib. That decision has been stayed until October 26. The government has not yet indicated whether it is going to appeal the court's decision.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The documents released today are available online at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Yeah, I know. Who gives a shit about a bunch of Iraqis, right? After all, they were probably terrorists, eh? Aren't all Iraqi males terrorists? And heck, the United States is always on the side of truth and justice, right? No American soldier would ever commit a war crime. Nooooooo, we're too fucking superior to be commiting crimes! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, right? Turn Iraq into a parking lot! Fuck 'em all, eh?

Consider this.

Over the past 20 years, "non-state" and "jihadist" terrorists have killed approximately 5,000 Western civilians (this figure includes Israelis killed by terrorism, as well as the 2,752 people killed on 9/11). According to calculations, the average annual death rate of Western civilians (current population about 760 million) from non-state violence has been 0.00003 per 100 per year i.e. 0.00003% (over the last 20 years).

Now consider this.

As of October 2004, it was estimated that approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians had already been killed as a direct result of the American war and occupation in Iraq.

Can somebody please tell me why we are the ones living in fear?

10. Pat Robertson's Business Ties
You would think the media would investigate Pat Robertson's ties to the former ruthless dictator Charles Taylor of Liberia. After all, the media frequently seeks Pat Robertson's opinions as though his opinions are worthy of recognition. But the media completely fails to investigate the facts surrounding Robertson's $15 million investment in the Liberian gold mining venture known as Freedom Gold Limited-- allegedly negotiated between Robertson and Taylor. Taylor is only responsible for the deaths of over 200,000 Liberians.

The media might be interested in further investigating and reporting on the fact that Charles Taylor harbored key al-Qaeda operatives for months after September 11 in exchange for a payment of $1 million. In essence, Pat Robertson is doing business with an al-Qaeda supporter.

9. Halliburton and Bechtel
It sure would be nice if somebody in the media actually gave proper attention to Dick Cheney's Halliburton and George Schultz's Bechtel. After all, these two defense contractors have made a fortune from the War on Terror, as well as the War in Iraq.

According to a recent non-partisan congressional report, Vice President Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose in value by 3281% in one year.

An analysis released today by the Office of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reveals that Vice President Cheney's Halliburton stock options have increased in value 3,281 percent in one year. The stock options, which were worth $241,498 one year ago are now valued at $8,165,489.07. In light of the surging value of Vice President Cheney's holdings, Senator Lautenberg reiterated his call for the Vice President to forfeit his continuing financial interest in the Halliburton Co (HAL). Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options and receives almost $200,000 a year in deferred salary from Halliburton.

"As Halliburton's fortunes rise, so do the Vice President's, and that is wrong," said Senator Lautenberg. "Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all."

Considering the fact that Cheney is one of the architect's of the War in Iraq, it would be nice if the media spent some time shedding light on Cheney's blatant self-interest. Furthermore, in light of the fact that Halliburton is frequently given "no-bid contracts" it would be nice if the media illuminated the fiduciary breach involved with Cheney's obvious self-dealing.

8. War in Iraq
Sure, we hear about the War in Iraq, but do we ever get to SEE the War in Iraq? If you watch a PBS Frontline Special, you may see some real footage from Iraq. But you will rarely see any "war footage" on the nightly news. No caskets. No funerals. By omission, the media has tacitly supported the war the whole way through.


7. 52 Warnings
1. In the 105 days before 9/11, the FAA received 52 warnings that mentioned Osama Bin Laden. One of the warnings was a CD-ROM that discussed suicide hijackers.

2. President Bush decided to take a vacation for the month of August in 2001.

3. On August 6th Bush received the infamous memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US." Bush remained on vacation.

4. On the morning of 9/11, both Bush and Condi thought, "what a terrible accident."


6. The Downing Street Memo
What is the Downing Street Memo? Unless you are a blogger or a news junkie, you probably have never even heard of it. Yet it's only the smoking gun which shows that the Bush and Blair regimes fixed the intelligence and facts around the policy of going to war in Iraq. The memo conclusively shows that, as of eight months prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush and Blair regimes had already decided to invade. Our president lied to us to lead us to war. Apart from a few reports on the subject, the media has almost completely ignored the Downing Street Memo.

5. 9/11 Omissions and Distortions
Failing to realize that the government's version of the events of 9/11 are every bit as much a "conspiracy theory" as the alternate theories, the media has failed to objectively investigate the glaring omissions and distortions contained in the 9/11 Kean Commission Report. The media also failed to realize that the 9/11 Commission Report, at the outset, presumed the truth of the government conspiracy theory and merely cherry picked evidence that tended to support that theory while ignoring evidence which tended to contradict or impeach the government's version.

Just one example (there are so many more!), the media completely failed to investigate the facts surrounding the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad.

There are so many omissions and distortions. If only the media gave a shit.

4. Patriot Act II
Also known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, the act was written by John Ashcroft's Department of Justice. The draft version of the bill would greatly expand the powers of the United States government to unprecedented levels, while simultaneously eliminating or curtailing judicial review of these powers.

Provisions of the initial draft version included:

* Removal of court-ordered prohibitions against police agencies spying on domestic groups.

* The FBI would be granted powers to conduct searches and surveillance based on intelligence gathered in foreign countries, without first obtaining a court order.

* Creation of a DNA database of suspected terrorists.

* Prohibition of any public disclosure of the names of alleged terrorists, including those who have been arrested.

* Exemptions from civil liability for people and businesses who voluntarily turn private information over to the government.

* Criminalization of the use of encryption to conceal incriminating communications.

* Automatic denial of bail for persons accused of terrorism-related crimes, reversing the ordinary common law burden of proof principle. All alleged terrorists would be required to demonstrate why they should be released on bail, rather than the government being required to demonstrate why they should be held.

* Expansion of the list of crimes eligible for the death penalty.

* The Environmental Protection Agency would be prevented from releasing "worst case scenario" information to the public about chemical plants.

* United States citizens whom the government finds to be either members of or providing material support to terrorist groups could have their US citizenship revoked and be deported to foreign countries.

* Revokes portions of the Freedom of Information Act.

* Allows the Bush Administration to revoke your residency or U.S. citizenship.

And so much more!

It sure would be nice if the media informed the public that their liberties are about to be taken away like never before.

3. Connections between the Bushes, Bin Laden's, and the Carlyle Group
As reported once in the foreign newspaper-- The Guardian:

"For 14 years now, with almost no publicity, the [Carlyle Group] has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defense firms.

But since the start of the "war on terrorism", the firm - unofficially valued at $3.5bn - has taken on an added significance. Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president's father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.............What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and causes policy changes there? Or when James Baker helps argue the presidential election in the younger Bush's favor? It's a kitchen-cabinet situation, and the informality involved is precisely a mark of Carlyle's success" (Emphasis Added.)

2. Voting Irregularities
Voting is merely the foundation of a democracy. Far be it for the media to actually investigate the myriad examples of voting irregularities.

1. Anthrax
Does anybody else find this quite odd? One week after the 9-11 attacks, somebody or some group, mailed a bunch of letters containing lethal anthrax spores to two Democrat United States Senators, as well as, certain media outlets and anchormen who the ultra-right have repeatedly accused of being "too liberal," including Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and the New York Times.

Immediately after the attacks, the country was lead to believe that the anthrax attacks were possibly the work of Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. And while that perception existed, the Anthrax story was front page news.

Then, after an FBI investigation, it was learned that Anthrax spores came from a United States Army Laboratory. It was also learned that the suspect was most likely a "government insider". It was also learned, that the Anthrax attack must have been planned, to a large extent, prior to September 11!

But for some strange reason (or maybe not very strange at all!), the Anthrax story vanished from our radar.

We know a few things from the FBI investigations, however. One, the Anthrax spores were a strain that came from the United States, most likely from Fort Detrick (yes...the United States Army!). Two, the anthrax was mailed from the United States. Three, the anthrax was mailed to liberal/democrat Senators only. No conservative Senators were targeted. Four, anthrax was mailed to media parties who, prior to the attack, were accused of being "liberal" (e.g. Dan Rather, the New York Times) and media who were accused of being too hard on Bush's family (National Enquirer). For good measure, one hoax letter, however, was sent to Fox News. (a red herring?). Lastly, we know that the anthrax "attacks" had to be planned in advance of 9-11.

This story hasn't even been mentioned in the news in the past few years. How could that be possible? How can a terrorist attack originating at a United States Army Base against certain Liberal American figures be forgotten?

Was it a coincidence that the anthrax attacks took place within a week of 9-11?
And is it a coincidence that after 9-11 and the anthrax mailings, George W. Bush managed to take this country into war against Iraq? Is it surprising that most liberals were too weakened after 9-11 and the anthrax attacks to stand up to the president as he unveiled a ridiculously weak case for war against Iraq?

One last bit of news to make your head spin-- did you know that the White House (including Bush, Cheney, and the Cabinet) were given the antibiotic CIPRO on September 11, seven (7) days prior to the date the anthrax letters were even mailed? 9-11 didn't involve anthrax, it involved planes. Why would they do such a thing?

For more info and a timeline on the anthrax case, go HERE.

Just consider the effect the anthrax scare had on America's psyche back in 2001 and 2002. Consider how Colin Powell, on behalf of the Bush administration, used anthrax during the UN presentation prior to the lead up to the war in Iraq. Why didn't they mention that the anthrax used in September of 2001 originated from a US Army base?

With sharpshooter precision, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, gave an indicting speech to an audience at the New America think tank yesterday. In the speech, Colonel Wilkerson publicly indicted the Bush administration, making the following charges:

** The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”

** Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president.”

** The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel.”

** Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either.”

** “There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”

If you have the opportunity, I highly recommend you view the speech HERE. If you don't have time to watch it all, start at the 48 minute mark of the video and simply view the question and answer session.

Note: Colonel Wilkerson had previously stated that his involvement with Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

Yesterday, U.S. News reported on the potentiality of a Cheney resignation. If Cheney resigns, pursuant to the 25th Amendment, President Bush would be authorized to nominate a new Vice President. U.S. News is reporting the likely candidate would be Condoleeza Rice.

Now, I know we are getting far ahead of ourselves here, but this is a blog, so I'm allowed to get ahead. Thus....

Imagine Condi Rice becomes the new V.P. after Cheney resigns. Then in 2006, if present conditions remain or further deteriorate for the Republicans, it's certainly not unlikely that the Democrats would win back the House of Representatives. If that happens, it's rather certain that a Democratic House would move to impeach Bush immediately for the lies which took this country to war in Iraq.

Remember, by that time, Bush would be Roveless and Cheneyless-- perhaps sitting at a 30% approval rating....or worse! And much like President Nixon before him, it's certainly not hard to imagine that Bush would be forced into resignation.

Accordingly, Coni Rice would succeed Bush in the same fashion as unelected Vice President Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon in 1974 after the elected vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned in 1973. Just like Gerald Ford, Condi Rice would become president without ever having been elected to any executive office!

Who knows....maybe she would nominate Colin Powell as her Vice President?

Imagine how pissed off the Republicans would be if two African-Americans were in office. They would lose their racist base overnight!

The amazing thing is, none of this is too far-fetched (except maybe the Colin Powell appointment).

Recently, many bloggers have reminded us of President Eisenhower's 1961 speech wherein he presciently warned us of the need to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

But there is another speech by President Dwight D. Eisenhower that is just as timeless, and perhaps just as important. It is known as the Cross of Iron speech.

In that speech, delivered in 1953 to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower humanely set forth five precepts which the United States should be governed by:

"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations."

Today, as our military occupies Iraq, and as our government attempts to impose a form of government and economy on the people of Iraq, we must ask ourselves-- 'what happened to these precepts?' Why have they been so ignored?

Could it be that, as Eisenhower warned us, the military-industrial complex has "acquired unwarranted influence"? Examining current events in light of Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech, can there be any other explanation?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Now that we have already spent approximately $220 billion dollars on the war in Iraq, it bears asking-- 'How many schools could we have constructed?'

How many homes could we have built?

How many bushels of wheat could we have purchased to feed the hungry?

How many hospitals to aid the sick?

"This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.

It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?"

How do YOU respond? Is there no other way?

I'm pretty excited about this.... One of my all-time favorite bloggers, The Rude Pundit, has added this site to his blog roll.

The Rude Pundit is raw, exhilirating, entertaining, controversial, insightful, nasty, smart, and downright artistic. If you've never visited his blog, I strongly suggest you make your way over there.

I suppose most people might issue a warning along with this recommendation. After all, The Rude Pundit uses some "bad words." As a result, some might say that he is profane, or even obscene. I beg to differ. To me, CNN is profane. Fox News is obscene.

The Rude Pundit is liberating.

A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
- Lao Tzu

You area conspiracy theorist, and you probably don't even know it.

You read about conspiracy theories everyday in your newspaper. You hear about conspiracy theories everynight on the evening news telecast. You gather around office watercoolers, and you talk about conspiracy theories-- and most of the time, you believe in them without realizing that you have made a leap of faith to do so. You see, you believe in conspiracy theories in such instances where the conspiracy theory does not make you feel uncomfortable.

Then suddenly, along comes a well-supported, factually based conspiracy theory to make you feel squeemish. A conspiracy theory that challenges your beliefs. A theory that causes you to question your worldview, and perhaps even your identity. A conspiracy theory that would require you to make a paradigm shift just in order to examine it. And it is at this point that you "rationally" decide to denounce conspiracy theories. It is at this point where cognitive dissonance takes place, and you belittle the entire notion of conspiracy theories altogether (even though you believe in them elsewhere, perhaps unknowingly). It is at this point where you scoff and make references to "tin foil hats" and a living Elvis Presley.

It is only when a non-dominant, progressive, or controversial alternative theory or description of events is set forth, that you choose to backhandedly dismiss conspiracy theories with absolute finality. If a particular conspiracy theory illicits an uncomfortable feeling, beckons self-examination and/or a paradigm shift, more likely than not, you will deem that theory 'irrebuttably false.'

At the point where a conspiracy theory challenges your world view, you suddenly use the term "conspiracy theory" as a perjorative term.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

A "conspiracy" is defined as "an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action."

A "theory" is defined as, "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Let's look at a couple examples, shall we?

Story #1
First we have the following news item reported by Reuters today:

"HARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) -- President Robert Mugabe's guards briefly detained the U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe after he entered a restricted security zone near the African leader's residence, state television reported Thursday....[snip]....a calculated disregard of the rules governing relations between states ... clearly intended to provoke an unwarranted diplomatic incident."

In this story, Reuters is reporting that more than one guard calculatedly (e.g. by agreement, either expressed or implied) broke rules governing relations between states. This is a story about an alleged conspiracy-- a group of people coming together to break a rule or law.

Now, who would question this story's veracity? In my estimation, most people would likely accept this story without any extra scrutiny. After all, the story does not cause us any personal discomfort, nor does it provoke us to examine ourselves. The story does not challenge any of our world views. Yet this story is unquestionably a conspiracy theory.

Is the story true? We really do not know for certain, we are left to either trust the media's description of events or not.

Story #2
Next, on Aug. 5, 1964, American news media reported that North Vietnamese forces -- for the second time in three days -- had launched unprovoked (e.g. illegal) attacks on U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf. The New York Times claimed that the U.S. government was retaliating "after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin." The Washington Post's headline stated: "American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression."

Once again, here we have a conspiracy theory set forth by the news media. Similar to the present day Zimbabwe story, the Gulf of Tonkin story was, at that time, not too hard to swallow. In fact, the conspiracy theory was so believable when it was reported that, two days later, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress authorizing the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

Essentially, the public's unflinching acceptance of the government and media's "conspiracy theory" set the stage for America's entrance into what became known as the Vietnam War. How many Americans even realized, at the time, that they bought into a conspiracy theory?

In the Tonkin case, history now shows us that the government and media presented a false conspiracy theory to the American public. Little did most people know at the time, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as theorized in the newspapers, was a lie. Recently released tapes of White House phone conversations indicate the attack probably never happened.

Now consider this. What would have happened if, at that time, another newspaper (or alternative media source) reported that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie? What if somebody challenged the mainstream theory with credible evidence? In 1964, how many people would have considered the possibility that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a lie? In order to believe a "conspiracy theory" like that, one would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that the government or media was fabricating the truth. One would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that their country was capable of lying on a grand scale. Most likely, a person would have to experience a complete paradigm shift just to entertain critical examination of the alternate theory.

Essentailly, we would have two opposing conspiracy theories. Which one should we believe? The easiest theory to digest? The theory with the most evidence? The easiest theory to explain?

You see, this is where most people get a bit squeemish. This is where most people begin to invoke the "be rational" or "common sense" card. What many people do not realize though, is that they are invoking "rational thinking" and "common sense" not because they have suddenly partaken in critical examination, but merely because they are viscerally repugnant to the alternate theory. In essence, they are not being rational at all. They are being emotional.

Are conspiracy theories ever true? Of course. Generally speaking, preachers don't tell on preachers; soldiers don't tell on soldiers; cops don't tell on cops; doctors don't tell on doctors; and so on. Politicians will not turn on one another unless there is a greater goal to be gained. Conspiracies, for the most part, develop quite organically. Most of us don't tell on our friends, and from this, you can understand why we shouldn't just immediately shut ourselves off to the notion of a conspiracy.

Just look at the run up to the Iraq War. There may have been a conspiracy amongst the Neocons to take this country to war. Shouldn't we investigate it? Of course we should. We should investigate all colorable conspiracy theories, even the ones that make us feel squeemish. Even the ones that challenge popularly held theories of "facts."

Are conspiracy theories ever false? Of course. In fact, it's safe to say that they are false more often than they are not. But, we are not served by dismissing conspiracy altogether, we ARE served by investigating it. And by investigation, I mean critical investigation. The worst thing we could do is simply turn our attention away from conspiracy (or any other quest for knowledge, for that matter). By doing so, we allow them to go unchecked. We deny ourselves potential knowledge, and perhaps even justice.

This is why I laugh when I hear somebody use the term "conspiracy theory" as a perjorative term. I laugh because most people fail to recognize that conspiracy theories are everywhere, and more often than not, most people swallow conspiracy theories without recognizing that they have done so.

Gulp!

What we need is critical examination. What we need is an open mind. We need to examine theories, even when they make us feel sick to our stomach. And we need to dismiss theories only when they are no longer colorable. But so long as they are colorable, we must, at the minimum, keep our minds open to the possibility that they may be true.

As humans, we tend to seek absolute order. We crave answers. Generally speaking, we do not feel comfortable with the inherent insecurity of chaos. But it is from chaos that we may ultimately find knowledge and wisdom, even when we don't find absolute answers. It is the balance between order and chaos, knowing and not-knowing, believing and not believing, which brings us the greatest fruit. It is the marriage of doubt and faith which illuminates the never-ending path of knowledge.

It was a about a month ago that The Martian Anthropologist and I came up with the idea to start the Impeach Bush Coalition.

Oh, what a month it has been!

Considering the fact that both the Martian and Bulldog Manifesto blogs are relatively new to the blogosphere, our campaign to promote discussion about impeachment began truly as a grassroots effort.

On September 8, 2005, it began with A Call to All Blogs. Within days, Martian and I had designed a new blog and bloggers were sending in their requests to sign up.

Soon thereafter, a corner ribbon and graphic banners were designed. This helped spread the word around the blogosphere.

Thankfully, IBC members have graciously offered up their support. They have written well-researched articles related to impeachment (just to name a few-- 1, 2, and 3). They have participated in an email writing and letter writing campaign. They have chased pollsters, demanding more polling on impeachment.

It's been a wild month -- culminating with a fundraising drive to raise money so that we could hire an independent polling firm to survey the public re: impeachment. Initially organized and promoted by IBC member and blogger Luke Ryland of Wot is it Good 4, the IBC lent it's support, teaming up with Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.Org.

As a result of the fundraising drive, $10,446.00 has been raised so far (as of October 11), and the polling has already begun.

The After Downing Street Coalition hired independent polling firm Ipsos Public Affairs to conduct a poll during the period of October 6-9. By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq.

More polling is on the way (perhaps after some indictments are handed down?).

The impeachment movement has begun. As the topic of impeachment becomes more common in discussion, impeachment becomes more viable as an option. And regardless of whether or not you ultimately believe impeachment can be successful, it is a matter of justice which causes us to seek it. Success or failure be damned. We seek justice. Impeachment is just.

So this is our first month! Not bad considering it began with two relatively new bloggers.

But there is plenty of work to be done:

Tell every polling company to poll on impeachment! LINK

Tell Your Representatives to Impeach Bush! LINK

Tell the media to wake up! LINK

Please sign up with the Impeach Bush Coalition. (Email us at: prideof55@myway.com).

We don't sell anything on the IBC blog. We don't advertise on the blog. We want nothing from you other than your willingness to stand side-by-side with us for impeachment. Heck, we will even link to your blog. We all want a link, don't we? :-)

Last but not least: I want to thank everybody who has taken part this past month. I have been touched by the words of support we have received, and amazed by the offers from people around the world to pitch in and help. It has been quite a positive experience just to see how much some people care. Special thanks to all the IBC contributors The Brouhaha, Club Lefty, Democrats.com, L'esprit de Christophe, On The Left Tip (RenaRF), The Rudicus Report, Stinkin' Desert Post, The Truth is Out There, and last but certainly not least, Wot is it Good 4 by Luke Ryland.

On Sunday's episode of CNN's Late Edition, Pat Robertson said the following about Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez:

"He is negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material. And he also sent $1.2 million in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11."

First off, how would Pat Robertson know that Venezuela is negotiating with Iran for nuclear material when nobody else has reported this allegation? So far, Venezuela has merely endorsed Iran's nuclear aspirations. That's it. Is Pat Robertson privy to some sort of classified memo? My guess is, as usual, Pat Robertson is lying.

Second, even if we assume Pat's arguendo to be true, the Iranians don't even have weapon grade uranium (nor plutonium)! In the worst case scenario, it would take Iran ten years to make weapons grade uranium. So even if Chavez is trying to get on the "pre-order list," it's completely premature to turn this into an issue. But like I said, there is nothing on record even showing that President Chavez is actively trying to procure nuclear material from Iran.

Now, as it relates to Robertson's allegation that Chavez "sent $1.2 million in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11." Once again, there is nothing anywhere to substantiate this claim. Either Pat Robertson is privy to classified information, or he is simply lying again. What do you think is more likely?

The bogus Kean Commission Report on 9/11 fails to mention anything about Venezuela and Osama bin Laden, and God knows the Kean Commission lobbed plenty of softballs for the administration. [Then again, the Kean Commission failed to mention that Mahmood Ahmed, head of Pakistan's ISI (Pakistan's version of the CIA), wired $100,000.00 to alleged hijacker Mohamed Atta in August of 2001, and just so happened to meet with George Tenet (then head of the CIA) from September 4 through September 9, 2001....but I digress.]

Pat Robertson is crazy. It should be pretty clear to everyone by now. Surely even the media should be able to pick up on this fact by now. At what point will they stop pointing a camera at Pat Robertson? At what point will the media realize that Pat Robertson is simply an egomaniacally bold-faced liar? How many more times will they expose us to Pat Robertson's lunacy?

The U.S. economy faces utter collapse if OPEC and other oil-producing countries were to begin pricing their oil in euros rather than dollars. When Iraq tried to switch to euros in 2000, they were attacked by the USA soon thereafter.

Recently, Business Week reported that oil producer, Venezuela, "has moved its central bank foreign reserves out of U.S. banks, liquidated its investments in U.S. Treasury securities and placed the funds in Europe."

The importance of this news should not be underestimated.

Dollar Hegemony
Generally speaking, international trade has become a process in which the U.S. produces dollars and the rest of the world produces goods and/or services that dollars can buy. Nations trade to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to amass dollar reserves in order to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. As it currently stands, if a country wants to prevent damage to its currency, that nation's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in amounts corresponding to their own currencies in circulation. Fortunately for the U.S., this system (in place since WWII) creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold even more dollar reserves, making the dollar stronger still.

This phenomenon, known as "dollar hegemony," is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, such as oil, are denominated in dollars. And because oil is priced in "dollars" for the most part, everyone accepts dollars as the currency of choice.

The strength of the dollar since 1945 is a result, for the most part, of the dollar being the international reserve currency for global oil transactions (i.e., "petro-dollar"). As a result of the dollar being the standard denomination for oil transactions, the U.S. prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation states to purchase oil from the oil producing nations. These petro-dollars are subsequently recycled from the oil producing countries back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc.

Because of this system, dollar reserves must be invested in U.S. assets which produces a capital accounts surplus for the U.S. economy. Luckily for the United States, the U.S. capital account surplus finances the U.S. trade deficit to a certain extent. [But if the capital account surplus should diminish (as countries shift to euros rather than dollars) and the U.S. trade deficit continues to grow even wider, the American economy will rupture quickly.]

Since the U.S. prints the petro-dollars, for all intents and purposes, the U.S. controls the flow of oil. When oil is denominated in dollars as the only fiat currency for trading in oil, an argument can be made that the U.S. essentially owns the world's oil for free.

So what happens if the oil producing nations decide to suddenly begin trading oil on the euro standard? Without being dramatic, the United States would go into economic ruin. Oil-consuming nations would be forced to flush dollars out of their central bank reserves and replace them with euros. The dollar would crash in value and the consequences would be similar to the types of currency collapses we have seen in Mexico, Argentina, etc. Foreign investments would pour out of the U.S. securities markets. Similar to the 1930's, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, many banks would collapse overnight.

And that's just what would happen in this country. America's economic crash would result in the economic crash of many other nations. Most notably-- Japan.

We all know what happened to the last major oil producing country that shifted from dollars to euros. We also know what might happen to other major oil producing countries if they shift to euros.

As we have discussed at The Bulldog Manifesto (here and here), history is filled with examples where the United States has used military force to protect it's economic interests.

And now that Venezuela is shifting, what will happen to them?

Continued from yesterday's post.....

1961: Escalation of troops in Vietnam

1961: CIA involved in a plot to assassinate France's President Charles de Gaulle.

1961-64: CIA uses disgruntled Brazilian army colonels to overthrow President Koao Goulart. As a result of the ensuing coup d'etat, the new puppet regime in Brazil allows the CIA to set up a political police apparatus which ostensibly serves as the prototype for the U.S. "Office of Public Safety" (OPS), the mechanism through which death squads are created later in the decade within Latin America.

1962: Cuban Missile Crisis.

1962: The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Unit lands in Thailand to support the country "from communism."

1962-76: From October 1962 until 1976, the United States plays a role of "military support" in Laos.

1962-96: CIA launches its most sustained counterinsurgency campaign ever, lasting over thirty years, supporting the military dictatorship (including the use of torture) it installed in Guatemala after the 1954 coup. By 1994, over 200,000 would die, mostly Mayan Indians, at the hands of the dictatorship.

1963: Troops land in Haiti (again!) to protect American business interests.

1963-93: U.S. agrees to build nuclear reactors for India, allowing India to begin nuclear weapon production in 1974.

1964: U.S. provides airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.

1964-85: U.S. induces a rightwing coup d'etat in the Dominican Republic. A naval force is stationed in Panama to deteran initiative by Panama to nationalize the Canal. Military forces begin to move into Thailand, begining a twenty year long counterinsurgency campaign.

1964-72: The OPS created by the CIA in Brazil is used against Uruguay. During this period,approximately 20,000 Uruguayans are murdered and/or subjected to sophisticated torture. Thousands are wrongly jailed for indefinite periods. In 1972, the CIA finally overthrows the Uruguayan government.

1964-74: CIA sponsors a series of military plots against the democratic government. In 1967, a coup d'etat finally takes place, and the government is toppled. The US manages to put a military junta led by Georges Papadaopoulis into power. Over the next seven (7) years, hundreds of Greek opposition leaders are murdered, and thousands are tortured and imprisoned by the American-led junta.

1965: CIA uses the Indonesian military to overthrow the Sukarno government in Indonesia.

1965: The U.S. fabricates the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, using the fraudulent attack as justification to engage the North Vietnamese. This event sets off a chain of events which will evenetually lead to the death of 3.2 million Indochinese over the next ten years.

1965: 23,000 troops are used in the Dominican Republic to put down a popular revolt meant to restore democratic governance.

1965-73: Secret bombing of Laos begins. Two million tons of munitions are dropped on the tiny country by 1973.

1966: In Ghana, the CIA overthrows pan-Africanist president Kwame Nkruhama in a coup d'etat. A dictatorship is then established in Ghana with U.S. military and economic support.

1966-69: The U.S. unlawfuly and repeatedly encroaches upon North Korea with Naval vessels. As a result, in 1968, the North Koreans seize an American spy ship, the Pueblo, and intern her crew. War is narrowly averted.

1967: A combined CIA/Special Forces group in Bolivia operates with an elite Bolivian unit, destroying a guerilla unit led by Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Guevara is wounded, captured, and then executed.

1967: The United States sends three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.

1967: 4,000 troops are sent into Detroit to quell a rebellion in Detroit. MOre troops are sent later during a massive anti-Vietnam war protest.

1967-74: The Army Security Agency and other military intelligence units begin Operation Minaret, illegally surveilling the communications and activities of American citizens. Once the public finds out about it, the government shuts down Operation Minaret. But immediately thereafter, the CIA begins operations Chaos, Merimac, and Resistance-- all for the same purpose as Operation Minaret. The three programs continue until 1974.

1968: After Martin Luther King Jr's assassination, 70,000 troops are deployed nationwide to quell civil unrest.

1969: 40,000 troops are deployed to Washington D.C. during a huge protest against the Vietnam War.

1969-72: The CIA, with DoD cooperation, ushers LSD and methamphetamines into the cities. Vast amounts of heroine are also released in the African American and Latino communities.

1969-99: U.S. enters into a thirty (30) year agreement with Argentina to build nuclear plants in Argentina, resulting in Argentina attaining nuclear weapons production capability in 1985.

1970-71: The CIA arms rightwing insurgents in Costa Rica to bring about a coup d'etat of the liberal democratic government.

1971: U.S. and South Vietnamese forces invade Laos.

1972-2002: U.S. enters into a thirty (30) year agreement with Taiwan to build nuclear reactors resulting in a Taiwanese nuclear weapon program in 1979.

1973: Military airlift of advanced weaponry and other materials to bolster Israel for war against its Arab neighbors.

1973: Counterinsurgency specialists, FBI, and U.S. Marshals are used to put down a Native American "uprising" at Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

1973-76: The CIA sponsors a coup d'etat in Chile, resulting in the overthrow of democratically-elected President Salvadoe Allende. Allende is assassinated during the coup, as are other. U.S. military advisors then join the CIA in propping up military strongman Augustus Pinochet as Chile's new leader. Pinochet brutalizes the Chilean people over the course of the next 27 years.

1973-86: Despite "ironclad evidence" of its carcinogenic/mutogenic effects, the DoD denies any link between diseased veterans and Dioxin (aka "Agent Orange").

1973-2002: U.S. enters into an agreement with South Korea to build nuclear reactors for the South Koreans, resulting in South Koreas ability to produce nuclear weapons in 1985.

1974: Troops land in Cyprus to rptect American commercial interests

1974-2002: U.S. enters into a an agreement to build nuclear reactors for Portugal so that Portugal can attain nuclear weapons by 1984. However, due to a nuclear reactor problem, in 1981, Portugal shuts down its nuclear reactor.

1975: Marines land in Cambodia and engage in combat.

1975: The CIA, in conjuction with the Shah of Iran and the Mossad of Israel, establish a program to arm Kurdish guerillas in northern Iraq. Later, when American interests change, the U.S. abandon the Kurds, resulting in the death of 50,000 Kurds at the hands of Iraq and Turkey.

1975-78: CIA intervenes in Zaire to reinforce dictator Mobutu Seso Seko. Moroccan troops are used as proxies for Americans in Zaire. In exchange, theMoroccans receive military support from the U.S. in Morocco's war against guerillas at home.

1975-79: The CIA uses mercenaries to bolster the regime of Anastasio Somosa, a U.S. puppet in Nicaragua. The dicator is finally overthrown by Sandanista guerillas-- 60,000 die.

1975-91: The CIA and mercenaries sponsor and support prowestern factions within Angola. 60,000 people die in fighting as these factions try to seize power.

1976: Troops land in Lebanon during a civil war created, in part, by Israel's Mossad.

1976-80: CIA subverts military and police officials in Jamaica, using them to depose the liberal government of Michael Manley.

1977: Troops are sent to Uganda in a show of force against anti-Israel dictator, Idi Amin.

1978-80: Troops are sent to Iran as Iran collapses.

1979-81: The CIA employs mercenaries to stage a coup d'etat (unsuccessful) in the Seychelles Islands.

1979-91: CIA and Special Forces establish a counterinsurgency campaign in El Salvador, eventually costing the lives of over 150,000 Salvadorans.

1980-91: The CIA and Special Forces provide extensive training and support to MUjahadeen guerillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Among those trained, Ramsey Yousef (World Trade Center bomber in 1993) and Osama bin Laden.

1981: The U.S. shoots down Libyan planes in the Gulf of Sidra.

1981-91: The Iran-Contra covert operation takes place. In order to support Honduras, the CIA sells drugs to raise money, and sells weapons to Iran (in violation of an embargo). The money is used to fund a campaign against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua. The Sandanistats are eventually deposed at the cost of 85,000 lives. A U.S. puppet regime is installed in Nicaragua.

1982: Logistical support is provided to Great Britain in its war against Argentina over the Argentine Malvinas (Falkland) Islands.

1982-84: Marines land in Lebanon (again) to support and Israeli invasion and partial occupation. The CIA uses the threat of subversion to coerce the government of Surinam into refusing Cuban aid.

1982-96: Troops deployed to the Sinai to assist Israel.

1983: U.S. invades the tiny island of Grenada and topples the government there. A U.S.-friendly puppet is installed.

1983: The U.S. transfers sophisticated weaponry to the antidemocratic Saudi Arabian government.

1984-89: Special Forces and the CIA undertake a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in the Phillipines in order to defeat leftist guerillas. 30,000 die.

1985: The U.S. bombs Triploi and Benghazi in Libya, personally targeting the head of Libya, Muamar Qadaffi. The attack is made in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco, however, German intelligence had already concluded that Libya was not involved in the disco bombing.

1985: After the International Court of Justice enters an opinion declaring U.S. military operations in Nicaragua to be in violation of international law, the U.S. (under Reagan) pulls out of the ICJ and thereby repudiates the ICJ's jurisdiction.

1987-88: The U.S.S. Vincennes shoots down an unarmed and clearly identified Iranian commercial airliner flying over the Persian Gulf, killing 290. At the time, the U.S. happens to be supporting Iraq against Iran in the Iran/Iraq War. The captain of the Vincennes is decorated as a result of this incident, citing his "bravery" during the incident.

1989: The U.S. shoots down Libyan aircraft (again) as they fly over the Gulf of Sidra

1989: U.S. troops dispatched to the Phillippines to prevent a coup.

1989-90: The U.S. invades the tiny country of Panama with a massive force. As a result, the U.S. topples the government, installs a U.S.-friendly regime, and arrests Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega who was himself a former CIA "asset". Hundreds of Panamanians are killed.

1990: Troops are sent to Liberia to protect business assets.

1991-94: Troops are sent to Somalia to protect U.S. business interests in the Horn of Africa. Unsuccessful, the troops withdraw. But a smaller "peace keeping" force is kept behind to rid the country of its warlords. This plan results in the "Black Hawk Down" incident in which a few U.S. soldiers and thousands of Somalis are killed.

1991-2002: The U.S. assembles a coalition of countries to attack Iraq after the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait. Known as "Operation Desert Storm," Iraq's military and civilians infrastructure is pulverized as a result of the war. Nevertheless, as a term of treaty, the U.S. imposes "no-fly zones" over most of the country in Iraq, and regularly takes part in bombing campaigns throughout the country over the course of over ten years. Simultaneously, the U.S. spearheads an economic embargo against Iraq, lasting over ten years, during which 1 million Iraqis die as a result of the embargo (half of them children).

1992: Troops sent to Los Angeles after riots break out due to the Rodney King case.

1992-99: U.S. "peace keeping" forces sent into the former Yugoslavia in an effort to ensure that any government which emerges is pro-USA.

1992-2002: Just like the Agent Orange denials, the DoD denies, despite clear evidence, that there is any connection between depleted uranium usage in Iraq and what is known as "Gulf War Syndrome."

1993: Delta Force sniper teams are sent to assist the FBI in a protracted siege of the Branch Davidian Compund near Waco, Texas. By the end of it, 78 people, including 23 children, are massacred. Litigation reveals the existence of a highly classified "Praetor Protocol" under which the President is revealed to hold the authority to secretly "waive" Posse Comitatus constraints at his/her desire. In other words, the President may employ the military against the domestic population whenever and for whatever he/she so chooses.

1993-96: Troops sent to Haiti (again!) to establish U.S.-supported government. Troops are sent to Rwanda to evacuate Americans, but not interfere with the simultaneous genocide that is occuring there.

1995-2002: Federal troops are sent to take part in what are normally civilian operations, namely border patrol. In essence, this is another violation of Posse Comitatus.

1997: The U.S. bombs a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in Sudan, in an attempt to bomb an al-Qaeda base. It turns out, the factory was never used by al-Qaeda, but the U.S. tries to quash this revelation.

1998-2002: The U.S. refuses to conform to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

1999: Delta Force troops are used against World Trade Organization protesters in Seattle (another violation of Posse Comitatus).

1999-2001: The U.S. deploys air and naval units to fight against Yugoslavia. The U.S. bombs Belgrade, destroying (by mistake) the Chinese embassy.

2001-: After the September 11, 2001 "attacks" by CIA asset Osama bin Laden, the U.S. undertakes a "War on Terror" against whomever it so chooses to label as a "terrorist." At the outset, this results in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. installs former Unocal executive Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan and begins construction on the highly coveted natural gas and oil pipeline. Osama Bin Laden has never been captured, and it seems that his capture is no longer a high priority.

2002-03: Special Forces are sent to the Phillippines to destroy the Abu Sayyaf guerilla group whom the U.S. government claims is linked to al-Qaeda. (However, many Filipinos believe Abu Sayyaf is a CIA front)

2002-03: Special Forces are sent to Chechnya and the Republic of Georgia.

2002-03: President Bush designates Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as being a part of the "Axis of Evil." Although not linked to al-Qaeda or the September 11 incident, the U.S. prepares for an invasion of Iraq.

2002: The U.S. fired smart missiles into sovereign Yemen, killing alleged terrorists.

2002-03: Selected Afghanis and alleged al-Qaeda operatives captured in Afghanistan are drugged and brought to secret prisons in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. The prisoners are said to have no rights under internation law or otherwise, and are subsequently tortured.

2003-: Claiming that Iraq is an emminent danger to the U.S., and creating a justification for war based upon countless lies, the U.S. invades and occupies Iraq, toppling the Saddam Hussein government. Eventually Hussein is captured and imprisoned. Thousands of Iraqis are imprisoned, many of them tortured by American troops. Over 100,000 Iraqis have died in this war, to date. To date, nearly 2,000 American soldiers have died.

2003-: The U.S. has made numerous threats to the governments of Syria and Iran that 'they could be next.'

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson stated (without cracking a smile):

"We go to war but grudgingly and then only when compelled by the requirements of restoring peace, justice, and good order, for we among all the peoples of the world comprise the most peace-loving of nations."

Funny thing is, when President Wilson made that statement, he failed to mention that from the country's inception, the United States has been involved in some military conflict nearly each and every year.

Since 1917, little has changed. Here is a chronology of American conflicts since President Wilson made his speech. Tell me how "peace loving" we really are....

1917: Marines land in China to influence an American friendly outcome to a Chinese political crisis.

1917: U.S. enters the Great War (World War I)

1917-21: American troops are used to break up a mining strike in Butte, Montana.

1918-19: U.S. army invades Mexico a total of nine times.

1918-20: U.S. sends troops to Panama to oversee an election (This was about the fifth or sixth time the U.S. had sent troops to Panama).

1918-20: Marines land in Vladivostock, Soviet Union to support counter-revolutionary forces in Siberia. Soon, the marines are joined by 7,000 army personnel. Another 5,000 troops are sent to Archangel to combat the Soviet forces (500 Americans die). A separate marine unit participates in a Marine landing on the Murman Coast of the USSR.

1919: American troops land at Trau, in Dalamatia to "maintain order" during a dispute between Italians and Serbs because of the threat the dispute poses to American commercial interests.

1919: Marines land in Constantinople, Turkey during a Greek occupation.

1919: Marines land in Honduras (again!) during yet another attempted revolution there.

1919: Troops are used to put down an AFL general strike in Seattle. Martial law is used.

1920: Troops are sent to Guatemala to quell labor unrest.

1920: Marines land in Kiukang, China to put down a riot threatening American commercial interests.

1920-22: A marine garrison is set up near Vladivostock to protect a radio facility.

1920-1922: The army is used to break strikes in ten states.

1921: Naval forces are posted on both sides of the Panamanian isthmus to influence a border dispute between Panama and Costa Rica.

1922: Troops sent to the city of Smyrna to "preserve order."

1922-23: Marines go ashore five (5) times in China to protect American interests in China.

1924-25: Troops are sent to Honduras (again) to oversee elections.

1924-25: Marines land in Shanghai to settle political disputes.

1925: Marines land in Honduras (again) to counter popular rebellion against the outcome of the U.S. supervised national election held a year earlier.

1925: Army intervenes in Panama (again) to put down a national strike which threatens American interests.

1926: Forces are put ashore in Hankow and Kiukiang, China to protect American business interests.

1926-33: Marines are dispatched to Nicaragua to reinforce the pro-American government against a popular uprising and coup d'etat attempt.

1927: Increased naval forces are sent to numerous Chinese port cities. Americans fire upon Chinese troops.

1932: Marines land in Shanghai (again).

1932: 600 troops are used against impoverished American veterans of World War I (the "Bonus Army") peacefully encamped in Washington D.C. The veterans were seeking payment from the government for unpaid bonuses owed unto them.

1933: Naval forces dispatched to Cuba to help prop American puppet in Cuba, Gerardo Machado.

1934: Marines land in Foochow, China to protect American property.

1937: A U.S. gunboat is sunk by Japanese forces in China.

1940: "Lend Lease" air and naval bases are established in Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad and British Guayana.

1941: U.S. troops occupy Greenland, Iceland, and Dutch Guyana. Navy engages in antisubmarine operations against Germany even though the two nations are not at war.

1941: F.D.R. violates the Posse Comitatus Act by using federal troops at an aircraft plant in Los Angeles in order to break up a strike.

1941-45: U.S. participation in World War II.

1945: U.S. drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1945: U.S. troops occupy Trieste.

1945-46: Troops are garissoned in Iran and China to counter the Soviets.

1945-52: War Department (Department of Defense) arranges for impoverished Navajo Indians to receive small business loans to become self-employed uranium miners in New Mexico and Arizona. Information concerning the extreme health dangers associated with the radon gas naturally emitted by uranium ore is intentionally withheld from the Navajos. Lung cancer mortality among the miners eventually nears 100%.

1945-54: Military conducts radioactive tests in the atmosphere, harming the civilian downwind populations (cancer) Thousands of troops exposed to the direct radiation of nuclear blasts so that the DoD can assess the "effects on combat efficiency attending committment to the atomic battlefield."

1945-54: In Alaska, DoD researchers coerce indigenous Inuits to swallow capsules of pure uranium in order to "study the effects of massive contaminationon the human organism."

1945-58: Using the "trust authority" it had asserted over the Marshall Islands after World War II, the U.S. converts its "protectorate" into a test range for nuclear weaponry. The islands of Bikini, Kwaljalein, and Enewetak which had been inhabited were rendered uninhabitable thereafter. Moreover, residents of nearby islands Utirik and Rongelap are essentially used as human lab rats so that the DoD can study the fallout effects (horrific mutations occur in these islands as a result).

1945-2002: After what was supposed to be a temporary partition of Korea after WWII, America installs an American friendly regime in South Korea, backed with 50,000 troops. After numerous (2,617) troop incursions in the North, a war ensues when North Korea finally invades South Korea. A three year war takes place, ending in stalemate. American troops remain in South Korea to this day.

1946: U.S. deploys troops to Turkey.

1946-54: U.S. troops coordinate a counter-insurgency campaign in the Phillipines. U.S. gains 23 military bases in the Phillipines.

1946-73: The U.S. backs the army of Chaing Kai-shek with material assistance and 100,000 American troops. This army wages a bitter but unsuccessful counterinsurgency war against Chairman Mao's "people's liberation army." Chaing's forces take refuge on the island of Formosa (now Taiwan). Thereafter, CIA and American clandestine military forces conduct an array of operations against China, lasting until at least 1973.

1947-48: The CIA subverts free elections in Italy by threatening "another world war" if the communist party were to win at the Italian polls. The subversion results in the defeat of the communists, but vicotry for a corrupt anticommunist party.

1947-51: U.S. wages counterinsurgency campaign against Greek communists. Greece eventually is pushed into an anticommunist dictatorship.

1947-57: The CIA uses guerilla soldiers from Baltic states (many of them former nazis) to fight guerilla wars against Soviet troops. 80,000 Soviet troops are killed in these guerilla wars.

1948-49: U.S. deploys combat units to Berlin.

1950: Strategic planners prepare a secret study known as NSC-68, outlining the requirements for turning the U.S. into a fullblown "National Security State." The document calls for curtailment of political expression, comprehensive indoctrination of the general public against communism. NSC-68 shamelessly suggests falsifying data to serve its purpose.

1950-2002: The U.S. violates the Treaty of Ruby Valley with the Shoshone indians, thereby confiscating and using Shoshone land to detonate over 1,000 nuclear devices for testing purposes.

1953: The CIA overthrows the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in Iran and installs the anti-democratic Shah of Iran. Military is immediately sent into Iran to consolidate and control Iran's future as an American client state.

1953-54: CIA overthrows the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and replaces it with a military dictatorship "friendlier" to American business interests.

1953-54: Military airlift to supply French troops in Dien Bien Phu.

1954-55: CIA attempts overthrow in Costa Rica.

1954-55: U.S. military advisors sent to Laos. CIA personnel sent to South Vietnam.

1955-61: CIA and Special Forces troops create and lead and indigenous guerilla force in Tibet to liberate the country from China.

1956: Troops sent to Morocco.

1956: Troops sent to Egypt.

1956: CIA helps instigate an armed revolt in Hungary but then abandons the insurgents, resulting in the deaths of thousands.

1956-57: CIA attempts (and fails at) overthrowing Ba'athists in Syria.

1956-57: Military troops sent to Thailand and train Thai troops to invade Cambodian border areas.

1957-58: The CIA attempts eight (8) separate overthrows of the Nasser government in Egypt.

1957-58: The CIA sets out to assasinate the president of Indonesia, but fails. Then, the CIA supports a coup d'etat against the same government in Indonesia. That too fails.

1957-1988: The US government enters into an agreement to build nuclear reactors for the racist government of South Africa. South Africa finally begins production of nuclear weapons in 1979, thanks to American assistance. The US supports South Africa until the regimes collapse in 1988 despite a UN embargo.

1958: 14,000 marines land in Lebanon to "keep order" during the nation's civil war.

1958: The CIA coordinates a coup d'etat in Laos.

1959: Special Forces begin secret combat operations in Laos.

1959: Marines land in Haiti to prevent the overthrow of a ruthless and brutal (but American-freindly!) regime.

1959-79: The U.S. enters into an agreement to build nuclear reactors for the Shah of Iran. The reactors fall into the hands of the anti-American revolutionaries in 1979.

1959-2002: Troops land in Cuba to bolster a pro-American Cuban dictator. The dictator, however, is eventually overthrown in 1959 by Fidel Castro. CIA soon begins organizing what will become known as the Bay of Pigs invasion against Cuba. It fails. Over the years, the CIA attempts numerous assasinations of Castro. The CIA also uses bacteriological and chemical warfare against Cuba.

1960: CIA coordinates and backs a coup d'etat in Laos.

1960: The CIA leads, trains, and arms guerillas in Guatemala and puts down a popular insurrection meant to restore the democratically elected government.

1960-63: The CIA quells a leftist guerilla movement in Ecuador via a counterinsurgency campaign.

1960-64: The CIA deliberately causes a civil war in the Congo by exacerbating rivalries and ideological differences. the Congo's leader is assassinated.

(To be continued....from 1961...tomorrow)