1. “Governor Bush told Houston Journalist: If Elected. “I’m Going to Invade Iraq”
However, Baker says, when he approached The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times with the potentially devastating story to President Bush prior to the 2004 presidential election, they declined to publish it.
In a new book, “Media In Crisis”(Doukathsan), Baker quotes Herskowitz as telling him: “He (Bush) said he wanted to do it(invade Iraq), and the reason he wanted to do it is he had been led to understand that you could not really have a successful presidency unless you were seen as commander-in-chief, unless you were seen as waging a war.”
Bush told Herskowitz that his father (President George H.W. Bush) knew that from Panama and (President Ronald)Reagan knew that from Grenada and…(UK Prime Minister)Maggie Thatcher knew this from the Falklands.”
According to Baker, Bush told Herskowitz, “The ideal thing was a small war, and this is why Bush said nobody was going to be killed in Iraq because he thought it would be small war.”
…
On Cindy Sheehan’s Soap Box here:
http://sheehan.streamguys.org/SoapboxInternet05172009.mp3
He talks about his sessions with Herskowitz and this nasty planned Iraq war. Russ also mentions Bush admitted he had NO qualifications for being president and when asked what he wanted to accomplish, Bush said you’ll have to ask Karl Rove.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&articleId=13829
2. “Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories Article written by Gatecreepers
One of the best applications of Occam’s Razor is to the Pentagon building. When one finds little or no aircraft related wreckage in front of the Pentagon on 9-11, the best explanation is that a large airliner did not crash into it, whatever else one may have happened there.”
http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/exclusive-debunking-myths-on-conspiracy-theorie/
3. “While introducing an interview that appeared on NBC-TV on September 11, 2001, Tom Brokaw referred to Hyman Brown as the “architect” of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers.[i]
Hyman Brown was not the architect of the Twin Towers.
…
The question is, why was NBC News interviewing Hyman Brown in the first place, on the very day of the 9-11 disaster, when he
. . . wasn’t the architect (although Tom Brokaw claimed he was)?
. . . wasn’t the project engineer (although NBC correspondent Roger O’Neal claimed he was)?
. . . wasn’t even living in New York when the Twin Towers were built?
Why did NBC call him? Or did he call them? But if they called him, why? Where did they get his name? He isn’t mentioned in any book I have read about the construction of the Twin Towers. His own resume places him in California during the years when the Twin Towers were built. Why call him when people who played key roles in the project were available? Was his name on a list? And if so, where did that list come from? Who compiled it? Was the Bush administration involved? Why call him when five minutes of fact-checking would have revealed that he was neither “architect” nor “construction manager”? Why did NBC fail to do that fact-checking? And if he called them, why? Was it ego? Was it delusions of grandeur? Was he seeking his 15 minutes of fame? Or was he on the payroll of the Bush administration? Was it Hyman Brown’s job to spread disinformation? And why did NBC bite? Were they merely incompetent or were they actively seeking an “expert” to lend credence to the Official Myth?
I don’t know the answers to those questions. All I know is, something fishy is going on.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20261
4. “War With Iran: Has It Already Begun?
In public, when it comes to the Iranian question, President Obama is all sweet reason and kissy-face. His recent video message to the Iranian people was just what the doctor ordered. However, this public performance is severely undercut by an ongoing covert program aimed at regime-change in Tehran – or, at least, at undermining the Iranian regime to such an extent that it must respond in some way.
This covert action program, reported by Seymour Hersh last year, was started by the Bush administration and funded to the tune of $400 million. The U.S. is, in effect, conducting a secret war against Tehran, a covert campaign aimed at recruiting Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities – who make up the majority of the population in certain regions, such as in the southeast borderlands near Pakistan – into a movement to topple the government in Tehran, or, at least, to create so much instability that U.S. intervention to “keep order” in the region is justified. Given recent events in Iran – a suicide bombing in the southeast province of Sistan-Baluchistan and at least two other incidents – the effort is apparently ongoing.
A suicide-bomber blast, which occurred inside a mosque in the city of Zahedan, killed at least 30 people: a rebel Sunni group with reported links to the U.S. claimed responsibility. The Iranian government immediately accused the U.S. and Israel of being behind the attack. The violence was very shortly followed up by attacks on banks, water-treatment facilities, and other key installations in and around Zahedan, including a strike against the local campaign headquarters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Add to this an attempted bombing of an Iranian airliner, which took off from the southwestern city of Ahvaz, and you have a small-scale insurgency arising on Iran’s eastern frontier.
The Iranians, confronted with peace overtures from Washington, can be blamed for wondering if the war against them has already begun.
…
What’s going on in Iran today – a sustained campaign of terrorism directed against civilians and government installations alike – is proof positive that nothing has really changed much in Washington, as far as U.S. policy toward Iran is concerned. We are on a collision course with Tehran, and both sides know it. Obama’s public “reaching out” to the Iranians is a fraud of epic proportions. While it’s true that our covert terrorist attacks on Iran were initiated under the Bush regime, under Obama we’re seeing no letup in these sorts of incidents; if anything, they’ve increased in frequency and severity.
Of course, we hear nothing about this from the U.S. media, Seymour Hersh excepted. All we get from them, and from the “progressive” community, for that matter, is cheerleading for the administration. Every time he betrays them, the limousine liberals and their media amen corner blame it on bad advisers, the Republicans, or the iron necessity of “moderating” his liberal politics in the name of “pragmatism.” Yet in a situation such as this, when the first shots of a war against Iran are being fired, one has to ask: doesn’t the president know about this – and, if so, does he approve?
Well, of course he knows, you dummy – it wouldn’t be happening if he didn’t give the green light, now would it?
Those who dread the prospect of war with Iran and hope to avoid it are a bit tardy in their concerns. I have news for these people: we’re already at war with Iran, and have been for quite a while. It’s only a matter of time, and circumstance, before it becomes official.”
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/02/war-with-iran-has-it-already-begun/
5. Stop Letting Cheney Frame the Torture Debate
The military theory that allows us to see this is the work of Col. John Boyd, USAF. Boyd argued that war is fought on three levels: the moral, the mental, and the physical. Of the three, the moral level is the most powerful, the physical level is the least powerful, and the mental level lies between the other two.
Cheney argued that we should sacrifice the moral level to the physical. We should engage in torture because it may gain us information that could prevent another attack like 9/11. That could be the case.
But Boyd’s theory would respond that the defeat we suffer on the moral level by adopting a policy of torture will outweigh any benefits torture might bring us on the physical level of war. How so? By pumping up the terrorists’ will, cohesion, and ability to cooperate while diminishing our own.
In effect, both our enemies and our allies will come to see us as evil. That enables enemies to recruit, raise money, and generate new operations while we must focus internally on papering over cracks in our coalitions. They gain greater harmony while we face increased friction, Boyd’s dread “many non-cooperative centers of gravity.” They pull together, we are pulled apart.
For President Obama and other opponents of torture, the important fact here is that, if we understand what Boyd is saying, we no longer face the choice Cheney offered. We need not choose between doing what military necessity commands and acting morally. Military necessity itself demands that we act morally. The real choice is between doing what wins wars and loses wars, with Cheney arguing for the latter. Suddenly, it is the Republicans who are on the wrong side of the “national security” issue.”
http://original.antiwar.com/lind/2009/06/02/stop-letting-cheney/
6. Loving Freedom While Destroying It
Libertarians, like conservatives, favor “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, and traditional values.” What distinguishes us from conservatives, however, is that we will don’t endorse governmental policies that destroy what we support. That’s why, unlike conservatives, we oppose a foreign policy of empire and intervention and favor the restoration of a constitutional republic to our land.”
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-06-01.asp
7. “This year, a few scholars are commemorating the 400th anniversary of one of the darkest episodes in history, an event that should be widely known and discussed, but which, alas, has remained buried in the archives of memory. In April 1609, King Philip III of Spain and his royal council made the fateful decision to expel all Spaniards of Muslim descent (known, pejoratively, as Moriscos, or little Moors) from his domains. This royal decree, not proclaimed publicly until months later, was, in essence, a final declaration of war on Islam. Since Granada, the last Islamic kingdom in the Iberian peninsula, had surrendered in 1492, Muslims, or Moors, had been steadily subjected to harassment and pressure to convert. But conversion, which turned Moors into Moriscos, was not enough.
A purity-of-blood edict, eventually upheld by the Inquisition, turned Catholicism into a racial matter, thereby making it impossible for Muslims and Jews to claim full membership in the emerging nation. So, in 1609, when Spain was entering a period of decline and diminished glory, Catholic purists prevailed on their monarch to deport all the Moriscos—at least 300,000 people, or about five percent of the country’s population—and cleanse their nation of Muslim impurities. Spain’s entire military force, with help from other European nations, was marshaled for this gigantic undertaking. This forced exodus took five years and most of the Moriscos perished in the process. Even when the surviving deportees reached the safety of alien shores, including those of Muslim nations, they were subjected to unremitting degradation.
The culmination of what one prominent scholar has termed “the biggest ethnic cleansing to have been carried out in western history” before the 20th century was greeted with joy and prayers. It was, in the words of a Dominican friar, an “agreeable holocaust” that would ensure the unity of Spain and its purity of faith. The few liberals who had warned against such brutality had been drowned in the chorus of nationalist fervor. The great French statesman Cardinal Richelieu wrote in his memoirs that the expulsion of the Moriscos was “the boldest and most barbarous [act] recorded in human annals,” but such a measure was deemed justified for the benefit of the nation.
The French writer Voltaire, a champion of freedom, knew that Spain’s King Philip III used the Moriscos as scapegoats, just as Niccolò Machiavelli had known that Philip’s predecessor, King Ferdinand, when waging wars on Muslims more than a century earlier, was using a “policy of pious cruelty” to consolidate his power. Machiavelli knew that the war on the Moors was used to unify the nation, but even the shrewd Florentine realist found such opportunist behavior “despicable.”
The birth of modern nations around common ideologies, faiths, or races spelled disaster to those who didn’t fit the mold. Simultaneously condemned and needed, such hapless groups have remained in limbo, neither fully included nor fully discarded. The undesirables of the centuries that followed the expulsion of Moors and Moriscos from Spain—such as Jews, Africans, and immigrants—were indelibly associated with inferior traits. Spain’s medieval purity-of-blood statute would later turn into an iron scientific law justifying genocidal policies. The Holocaust of Nazi Germany would become the ultimate expression of this long, painful history of intolerance.”
Those trying to make torture into a partisan issue should look to the founding father of our country: George Washington.
Washington was president before political parties even existed.
As Scott Horton wrote in 2007:
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775…
After the battle [of Trenton, New Jersey on December 26, 1776.], the Continentals were preparing to run some of the British Empire’s German mercenaries through what they called the “gauntlet.” General Washington discovered this and intervened. As … explained in the Huffington Post, Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:
“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”
In the worst of times – when foreign troops literally occupied American soil, torturing and murdering American patriots – and few believed that the cause of the revolution could ultimately win against the might of the British Empire, the first Commander in Chief of the U.S.A. set the precedent that this society is to lead even our enemies by “benignant sympathy of [our] example.” To win the war against the occupying army of Redcoats, the American revolutionaries needed right on their side.
And it worked. Many of the German Hessians in fact joined the revolutionaries in their fight against the English and stayed here in America to be free when the war was won.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/torture-is-not-partisan-issue-george.html
9. “Sarkozy’s Secret Plan for Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccination
The French Government is developing secret plans to impose mandatory vaccination of the entire French population, allegedly against possible Swine Flu disease according to reports leaked in a French newspaper. The plan is without precedent and even defies recommended public health advice. Pharmaceutical giants benefit from the move, as the Swine Flu increases the trend to militarization of public health and use of needless population panic to advance the agenda.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13835
10. “Watching Obama Morph Into Dick Cheney
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13841
11. “Nader Offered Bribe to Drop Out of 19 Battleground States in ’04 Election
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, finally, your allegation that Terry McAuliffe, who’s running for governor of Virginia, primary next week, tried to bribe you to step out of the 2004 presidential race?
RALPH NADER: Clearly, in a telephone conversation in June 2004, he said, “If you stay out of my nineteen states”—“my nineteen states” meaning states that are close between Kerry and Bush—and just campaign in the thirty-one other states, that he, Terry McAuliffe, will support me and provide resources. He said that more than once: “Stay out of my nineteen states.” That was clearly an attempted bribe. And that is all detailed in Theresa Amato’s new book that’s coming out in three or four days called Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny by New Press.
And the reason why it’s important is that Terry McAuliffe is now going to retrace Clinton’s path to the White House. He wants to be elected governor of Virginia, which he’s running for now, and the primary is coming up in a week. And then he has a springboard to the White House. And somebody who is engaged in the kind of political sleaze and the kind of attempted bribery, not to mention his other dealings with fat cats and backdoor maneuverings, I don’t think can embody the trust that’s necessary to become governor of Virginia. And he—
AMY GOODMAN: Why wait ’til now to say this, Ralph Nader, five years later?
RALPH NADER: Well, actually, I said it on your program in 2004. ”
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22763.htm
12. “FBI: Terrorist Attack On Golden Gate Bridge May Have Been Green-Screened ”
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/fbi_terrorist_attack_on_golden?utm_source=a-section“
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
Leave a comment