Wednesday, February 28, 2007

US generals give 6 mos. to win in Iraq before US faces 'Vietnam-style collapse' of support

US generals give 6 mos. to win in Iraq before US faces 'Vietnam-style collapse' of support

Josh Catone
Published: Wednesday February 28, 2007

A team of military officers advising General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, have concluded that the United States has 6 months to win the war in Iraq or it will face a "Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat," reports Guardian Unlimited.

The officers that make up the elite team are combat veterans who are considered to be counter-insurgency experts, writes Simon Tisdall. They are charged with implementing President Bush's new plan for Iraq, which includes the controversial "surge."

A former senior Bush administration official tells the Guardian that the team does not even yet have a firm grasp of what the plan is. "The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do," the unnamed official is quoted.

The team also points to a 'disintegrating' international coalition, low troop morale, and potential increased Southern violence in the wake of the British pullout as obstacles to US success in Iraq.

Earlier, RAW STORY reported on a Pentagon document that suggested the war on terror, of which the Iraq war is a part, was too end just before the 2008 election.

Excerpts from the Guardian article follow...


The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are: · Insufficent numbers of troops on the ground · A "disintegrating" international coalition · An anticipated upsurge in violence in the south as the British leave · Morale problems as casualties rise · A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad

"The scene is very tense. They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis," the former senior administration official said. "But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do."

Their biggest headache was insufficient numbers of troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by Mr Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said.




Allen L Roland: *MISSION ACCOMPLISHED / WE GOT THE OIL The illegal war and occupation of Iraq was always about OIL and now the big sting is there for all the world to see ~ and Cheney, Bush and all their Big Oil cronies are grinning from ear to ear. The new Iraqi Oil Law, drafted ( behind closed doors ) by U.S big oil executives, and soon to be approved by the U.S controlled Iraqi parliament represents the blatant rape and plunder of a sovereign country's oil wealth by America.

Army patients told to keep quiet

Army patients told to keep quiet
Walter Reed patients silenced; 'Crisis' over flood of brain-injured soldiers.

CNN's Lou Dobbs reveals illegal political-military-industrial elite agenda to destroy Canada, the U.S., and Mexico

CNN's Lou Dobbs reveals illegal political-military-industrial elite agenda to destroy Canada, the U.S., and Mexico

by Traci Lawson

Lou Dobbs

Watch CNN's Lou Dobbs and his CNN colleagues provide a historical and general overview of the fascist North American Union agenda to destroy Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in favour of governance by military and Big Business elites.

Watch This Video

CNN's Lou Dobbs reports that newspapers and other media in Canada are referring to, as innocent on-going consultations to combat "terrorism" and promote "co-operation" among U.S., Canadian, and Mexican political elites, are actually not so innocent. Talks that are being officially labelled as "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP), are really aimed at destroying the independent sovereignty of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, under the cover provided by the "War on Terror".

Elites who are linked to a industrial-military complex, are seeking to further consolidate a "North American Union" that is to be run by them. The apparent clandestine nature of these "negotiations" in itself, CNN's Lou Dobbs further reports, reveals that their sought "North American Union" (NAU) will not be in the quality-of-living related interests of Canadians, Americans, or Mexicans. The NAU is a fascistic attempt to replace the democratic foundation of constitutions in Canada and the U.S., with what Mr. Dobbs reports as a "shadow government" of elites.

The SPP was not spawned with public involvement, but by the institutional convergence of Big Business-oriented economic policies associated with North American Free Trade (NAFTA), continentalist military elite interests associated with the U.S. headquarters based North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), and the political cover of initiated "War on Terrorism" legislation.

Former Prime Minister John Turner had led opponents against NAFTA in 1988. He charged that this Agreement which was championed by then Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, would eventually lead to the destruction of Canada, under auspices of a U.S.-based elitist political-military-industrial complex. Then Prime Minister Mulroney, who is now a principal advisor to the current Stephen Harper Conservative minority government, had denied this claim, saying that NAFTA would protect Canada's independence, and only lead to "prosperity". As it turns out, the "prosperity" in the form of the SPP would be for elites, and not for the general public which has experienced a significant undermining in quality-of-living indices. Indeed, Canada has been slipping from its former no. 1 position in quality off-living, as a result of worsening oppressive poverty in Canada.

Worsening poverty in the U.S. has also continued, as the rich become richer in that country. The U.S. has the worse gap between rich and poor of any country in the world, and the NAU agenda would further concentrate political economic power into a un-democratic fascistic elite complex.

Originally, these elites sought to take-over Canada, the United States, and Mexico, along with the Caribbean, Latin America, and South America, under the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). However, well organized pro-democratic opposition in parts of Latin America, and South America, led by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez stopped the FTAA.

As a result, in the absence of local democratic opposition as a result of a coordinated effort to maintain public ignorance, elites in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, have sought to continue to purse the "conquest of North America" as a consolation prize.

Latin and South American leaders who were presented with the FTAA sell-out of democracy, rejected it. However, in Canada, elites saw fit to sell out Canada, similarly as elites in the United States have sought to sell out without any Congressional scrutiny, American national public interests.

You see, these elites over the years have had enough of having to "share money that could as they see it, be exclusively going to support various elites purposes, instead of being "wasted" in such areas as universal public healthcare in Canada; environmental regulations; holding democratic elections; social policy areas from welfare, to education, to unemployment insurance; and other "budgetary inconveniences" associated with democracy. Frankly, they have had enough of what they see as certain "weak minded" politicians in the House of Commons in Ottawa, and in Congress in Washington D.C., who are holding up "true progress" in behalf of a New World Order where "only the fittest survive".

As far as these elites are concerned, "thankfully", the "War on Terrorism" has provided a "great opportunity" in which the diverse public in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, will, on seeing "acts of terrorism" will be "forced" into the NAU to "vanquish the terrorist enemy".

In Canada, the handful of elites who have succeeded in acquiring ownership to Canada's mass-media, and who are linked to the Stephen Harper government, and political elites from other political parties, have seen fit to put a "media block-out". An elite clique has placed an apparent "media block-out" on raising public awareness in Canada, on the "North American Union" (NAU) agenda. The Lou Dobbs presentation has provided the kind of critical exposure of the NAU, which has so far been sabotaged by mass-media elites in Canada, that are linked to NAU advocates in Canada. Silence on the NAU agenda in Canada, stands out as nothing short of the greatest political scandal and conspiracy in Canadian history, and is tantamount to high treason, as defined by Canadian constitutional law.

But in the U.S., where there are been some coverage by diverse media organization; some efforts are in play to fight the NAU. Jerome Corsi of the newly formed Coalition to Block North American Union said: “There’s hardly a major area of public policy where the Bush administration has not, through the SPP working groups, rewritten our administrative law and regulations from being U.S. in nature to being North American in nature.” The coalition to block the North American Union wants to defeat a proposed NAFTA superhighway that would stretch from Texas all the way to Canada.

Parliament in Canada, and Congress in the U.S., have been left largely out of the loop. Lawmakers in the U.S. who have heard, like Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA), are "hell bent" on keeping a North American Union from happening, “The interests of hard-working businesses in this country, hard-working workers in this country, and the average citizen in the United States should be placed ahead, in my opinion, of some international global theory that I think would harm the United States and most of its citizenry.”

UN: "Pretty Much All The Intelligence" On Iran's Nuclear Program Has Been Wrong

Los Angeles Times | Posted February 25, 2007 01:16 PM


The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-08

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.” (In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government”—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ ”—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,” the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,” specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.”

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. “The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,” he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?”

With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably expand. One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official, who is also an expert on war planning, told me that he would have vigorously argued against an air attack on Iran, because “Iran is a much tougher target” than Iraq. But, he added, “If you’re going to do any bombing to stop the nukes, you might as well improve your lie across the board. Maybe hit some training camps, and clear up a lot of other problems.”

The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that “ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who believe it’s the way to operate”—that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.

If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops “are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds,” the consultant said. One goal is to get “eyes on the ground”—quoting a line from “Othello,” he said, “Give me the ocular proof.” The broader aim, the consultant said, is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”

The President’s deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his determination to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by allegations that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of the Revolutionary Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad’s official biography in this period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who has been implicated in the deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of Hezbollah; he remains on the F.B.I.’s list of most-wanted terrorists.

Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government “are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They’re apocalyptic Shiites. If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there’s no reason to back off.”

Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power base throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they had replaced thousands of civil servants with their own members. One former senior United Nations official, who has extensive experience with Iran, depicted the turnover as “a white coup,” with ominous implications for the West. “Professionals in the Foreign Ministry are out; others are waiting to be kicked out,” he said. “We may be too late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever since the revolution.” He said that, particularly in consideration of China’s emergence as a superpower, Iran’s attitude was “To hell with the West. You can do as much as you like.”

Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered by many experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad. “Ahmadinejad is not in control,” one European diplomat told me. “Power is diffuse in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are among the key backers of the nuclear program, but, ultimately, I don’t think they are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has the casting vote on the nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action without his approval.”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that “allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous.” He added, “The whole internal debate is on which way to go”—in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the American action. “God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen.”

While almost no one disputes Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is intense debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do about that. Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, “Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away” from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Gallucci added, “If they had a covert nuclear program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I’d be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it”—bomb Iran—“without being able to show there’s a secret program, you’re in trouble.”

Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, told the Knesset last December that “Iran is one to two years away, at the latest, from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion of their nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter.” In a conversation with me, a senior Israeli intelligence official talked about what he said was Iran’s duplicity: “There are two parallel nuclear programs” inside Iran—the program declared to the I.A.E.A. and a separate operation, run by the military and the Revolutionary Guards. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this argument, but Israel has not produced public evidence to support it. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term, told me, “I think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program—I believe it, but I don’t know it.”

In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new access to A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic bomb. Khan, who is now living under house arrest in Islamabad, is accused of setting up a black market in nuclear materials; he made at least one clandestine visit to Tehran in the late nineteen-eighties. In the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on Iran’s weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. “The picture is of ‘unquestionable danger,’ ” the former senior intelligence official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that Khan has been “singing like a canary.”) The concern, the former senior official said, is that “Khan has credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he’s telling the neoconservatives what they want to hear”—or what might be useful to Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in the war on terror.

“I think Khan’s leading us on,” the former intelligence official said. “I don’t know anybody who says, ‘Here’s the smoking gun.’ But lights are beginning to blink. He’s feeding us information on the time line, and targeting information is coming in from our own sources— sensors and the covert teams. The C.I.A., which was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to the Pentagon and the Vice-President’s office saying, ‘It’s all new stuff.’ People in the Administration are saying, ‘We’ve got enough.’ ”

The Administration’s case against Iran is compromised by its history of promoting false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled “Fool Me Twice,” Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote, “The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war.” He noted several parallels:

The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism.

Cirincione called some of the Administration’s claims about Iran “questionable” or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, “What do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?” The answer, he said, “is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A.” (In August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)

Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what it said was new and alarming information about Iran’s weapons program which had been retrieved from an Iranian’s laptop. The new data included more than a thousand pages of technical drawings of weapons systems. The Washington Post reported that there were also designs for a small facility that could be used in the uranium-enrichment process. Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of stories in the Times and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note that the materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline in the Times’ account read, “RELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEKS TO PROVE IRAN’S NUCLEAR AIMS.”

I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence officials, however, that the laptop was more suspect and less revelatory than it had been depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop had initially been recruited by German and American intelligence operatives, working together. The Americans eventually lost interest in him. The Germans kept on, but the Iranian was seized by the Iranian counter-intelligence force. It is not known where he is today. Some family members managed to leave Iran with his laptop and handed it over at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a classic “walk-in.”

A European intelligence official said, “There was some hesitation on our side” about what the materials really proved, “and we are still not convinced.” The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper accounts suggested, “but had the character of sketches,” the European official said. “It was not a slam-dunk smoking gun.”

The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency’s officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but “nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran,” the high-ranking diplomat told me. The I.A.E.A.’s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away from building a nuclear bomb. “But, if the United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride,” the diplomat said. “The whole issue is America’s risk assessment of Iran’s future intentions, and they don’t trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy.”

In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.’s director-general, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. Joseph’s message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: “We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us. ”

Joseph’s heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since the I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against Iran. “All of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases—one hundred per cent totally certified nuts,” the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei’s overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders “want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side”—in Washington. “At the end of the day, it will work only if the United States agrees to talk to the Iranians.”

The central question—whether Iran will be able to proceed with its plans to enrich uranium—is now before the United Nations, with the Russians and the Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at this point, “there’s nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It’s a dead end.”

Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, “Why would the West take the risk of going to war against that kind of target without giving it to the I.A.E.A. to verify? We’re low-cost, and we can create a program that will force Iran to put its cards on the table.” A Western Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress at the White House’s dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, “If you don’t believe that the I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system—if you don’t trust them—you can only bomb.”

There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among its European allies. “We’re quite frustrated with the director-general,” the European diplomat told me. “His basic approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It’s not. We’re the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It’s not his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk.”

The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change. “Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change,” a European diplomatic adviser told me. He added, “The Europeans have a role to play as long as they don’t have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or going along with Washington on something they don’t want. Their policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can live with. It may be untenable.”

“The Brits think this is a very bad idea,” Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, told me, “but they’re really worried we’re going to do it.” The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, “short of a smoking gun, it’s going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran.” He said that the British “are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on the Iranians, with no compromise.”

The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its record, had admitted to everything it was doing, but “to the best of our knowledge the Iranian capability is not at the point where they could successfully run centrifuges” to enrich uranium in quantity. One reason for pursuing diplomacy was, he said, Iran’s essential pragmatism. “The regime acts in its best interests,” he said. Iran’s leaders “take a hard-line approach on the nuclear issue and they want to call the American bluff,” believing that “the tougher they are the more likely the West will fold.” But, he said, “From what we’ve seen with Iran, they will appear superconfident until the moment they back off.”

The diplomat went on, “You never reward bad behavior, and this is not the time to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose sufficient costs to bring the regime to its senses. It’s going to be a close call, but I think if there is unity in opposition and the price imposed”—in sanctions—“is sufficient, they may back down. It’s too early to give up on the U.N. route.” He added, “If the diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’ There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic.”

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush’s most dependable ally in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he and his party have been racked by a series of financial scandals, and his popularity is at a low point. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said last year that military action against Iran was “inconceivable.” Blair has been more circumspect, saying publicly that one should never take options off the table.

Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an American bombing campaign. “The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically,” the European intelligence official told me. “He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.” An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. “Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.”

Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington wanted action. “It’s always the same guys,” he said, with a resigned shrug. “There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is short.”

A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose leadership has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to begin enriching uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several officials that the White House’s interest in preventing an Israeli attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad’s hostility toward Israel as a “serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace.” He added, “I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel.”

Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to consider the following questions: “What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally—that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?”

Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day, would not have to cut off production to disrupt the world’s oil markets. It could blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the thirty-four-mile-wide passage through which Middle Eastern oil reaches the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the recently retired defense official dismissed the strategic consequences of such actions. He told me that the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting salvage missions and putting mine- sweepers to work. “It’s impossible to block passage,” he said. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed, pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep America running for sixty days. However, those in the oil business I spoke to were less optimistic; one industry expert estimated that the price per barrel would immediately spike, to anywhere from ninety to a hundred dollars per barrel, and could go higher, depending on the duration and scope of the conflict.

Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.”

Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks “is consuming a lot of time” at U.S. intelligence agencies. “The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah. “This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us.” (When I asked the government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, “Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off.”)

The adviser went on, “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle.” The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.”

“If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.”

The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He added, “The window of opportunity is now.”

Tuesday, February 27, 2007



By emily horswill

All these criminals who have seated themselves in the Oval Office, by devious and criminal actions, against the will of the people, all must be impeached, all must be incarcerated where they can do no more harm. And it must be done now. In the interest of justice to the injured we must also take back the wealth these criminals have stolen from us and from the world, for only with it can we hope to save the globe and repair its ability to host life. These are hardened criminals of the worst type. People who torture the helpless and the innocent are filth.

As a journalist, it was my job, and the duty of all journalists, to inform the people, to tell them the truth, all of the truth, and nothing but the truth. Shame to those who did and still do otherwise.

Each and all of us who took the creed and the way of the pen and plow, rather than that of the sword, we all know that only fully informed citizens who are reaching toward a democratic government can hope to achieve such governance of, by and for the people with the information we glean and deliver. We are responsible for the damage done.

Shame on the media that have, become as corrupt as the corporations to whom they toady, that have become a tool to corporate evil and corporate greed and by this shameful exhibition have criminalized the profession meant to rank as the highest and most honorable and that should exist as a tool of justice.

Shame on the media that have shamed all of us. We the world's writers, know that we are in a large proportion responsible for this world at war against the innocent, for the millions of horribly injured who will never walk again, see again or breath without pain again, for the thirsty and the hungry-shame on you.

Authors Website:

Sy Hersh: “…they are planning very seriously at the President’s request to attack Iran”

hersh-tsr.jpg Sy jumps into the Situation Room after appearing with Wolf on Sunday to discuss his New Yorker article and the Pentagon's response to him. Isn't it interesting that they always put out statements trying to debunk Hersh's articles….I'm just saying….

video_wmv Download (1893) | Play (1514) video_mov Download (1113) | Play (1116)

Hersh..inside the military, they are planning very seriously at the President's request to attack Iran

They aren't very happy about this getting out:

We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way

What was that Laura? Better ask Cheney

What was that Laura? Better ask Cheney

laurabush-lk.jpg On Larry King tonight, Laura Bush said:

video_wmv Download (24) | Play (5) video_mov Download (20) | Play (1)

Laura Bush: This is their opportunity to seize the moment—ahhh—to build a really good and stable country. And many parts of Iraq are stable But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody.

Cheney OK after Afghan blast:

A suicide bomber killed 19 people and wounded 11 outside the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, officials said. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney was the target..

Wow…And there is: "Iraq's Shiite vice president narrowly escaped assassination Monday as a blast ripped through a government meeting hall just hours after it was searched by U.S. teams with bomb-sniffing dogs. At least 10 people were killed."

That sure sounds stable to me….She actually had the nerve to say this:

Laura Bush:… Nobody wants war. No one's pro-war…

Really? Then why did we attack a country that didn't attack us? I'm just asking.

Monday, February 26, 2007

How to Beat the Psychopaths in Power at Their Own Game

February 26, 2007

How to Beat the Psychopaths in Power at Their Own Game

By Cathy Garger

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

From THE PSYCHOPATH - The Mask of Sanity

Almost any American over 5 years of age is aware that the United States is involved in war. Most, if asked the exact number of wars in which we are currently engaged, will say that two wars are underway. But how many Americans actually realize that greater than two nations are being bombarded by the United States with uranium weapons, illegal under international law?

Sometimes subtle wars are waged that go unreported and hidden from public view. These operations can even be domestic - that is, they do not always necessarily involve foreign enemies. Furthermore, such activities can go on indefinitely, and may be covered up under various project names, often with hidden agendas, carried out just under the radar, thus keeping the public in the dark for many years.

The two wars that most Americans can tell you about involve the use of radioactive uranium in weapons overseas in the Middle East. It is, in fact, common knowledge throughout the world that the United States military has been using uranium munitions in Iraq ever since 1991 and in Afghanistan since 2001 .

With regard to weapons containing Depleted Uranium (DU), in 1996 the United Nations called for the "need for their complete elimination".

Apparently, the UN position on the use of these weapons is of little concern to those who run the US federal government. It is abundantly clear that those in power do not concern themselves with such seemingly trifling, "quaint" and antiquated notions of what's legal - and what's not - with regard to international human rights and humanitarian law.

What many Americans - anti-war activists and war supporters alike - fail to realize is that Uncle Sam's widespread use of Depleted Uranium has not been merely limited to America's so-called "enemies" overseas. What does not yet appear to be common knowledge is the absolute fact that a radiological campaign is being waged in the more domestic, local "theatre"- the very place 300 million of us call "home".

Depleted Uranium (DU) is currently being used inside our own country, right outside in the very air where America's men, women, and children are trying hard to breathe. Those who previously had no clue about these "dirty deeds done dirt cheap" with this plentiful and inexpensive nuclear waste product are now starting to write and ask just how could it be that our own government shoots and explodes radioactive poison inside their own country - the very air that they and their families also breathe?

It is precisely at times like these when we, the sane, take a great big sigh and scratch our heads, look up into the polluted skies in the proximity of what many consider to be the heavens, and ask if someone - anyone - can please tell us exactly, precisely when did the good people of America become our nation's own enemy?

While recently writing about the serious matter of California's radioactive open air explosions, I reported that there are dozens of US military "test" firing ranges and National Laboratories where Depleted Uranium has been fired, exploded, and burned within the United States, right out into the open air. Some government "test" sites, in fact, such as the one in Livermore, California, near San Francisco, have been at it for over fifty years.

How many of us knew that we were using the same poison on the Middle Eastern "enemy" that we have been using right here, on our own people at home? Certainly this was a story I must have missed out of the mouths of Katie & Matt and Charlie & Joan all those years of watching what I thought was the morning "news" on TV.

At the Livermore National Laboratory, the radioactive, microscopic aerosolized particles from mock bomb blasts are photographed emanating from these explosive "shots." This term, however, serves to minimize what are actually colossal detonations of hundreds of pounds of radioactive materials. Examine this picture carefully, if you will, and see if this photograph taken way back in 1961 looks like a "shot" to you?

At other military "test" firing ranges and proving grounds, soldiers practice using these radioactive weapons in preparation for combat. Meanwhile, collective human "dose" information is meticulously captured through the use of sensitive special filters positioned at various distances from detonation sites. All of this data is carefully recorded and preserved so as to prove to those who might happen to be paying attention that the levels of radiation do not exceed "permissible" limits.

And while these elevated levels of radioactive poisons such as Tritium are captured in filters and measured in the wines grown from local vineyards in the valleys surrounding the Livermore Laboratory, so-called "acceptable" collective radiation doses are met with ho-hum blasé. What comes to mind are the words of the man called "the father of Health Physics", long-term Director of Health Physics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, who admitted, "There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero".

Certainly the US military and the Department of Energy must not have been listening to Dr. Morgan and others like Dr. John William Gofman, who had worked at the Livermore Laboratory and, at the request of J. Robert Oppenheimer, helped produce Plutonium for the Manhattan Project. In a 1994 interview with the University of California Medical Physics professor, Gofman was asked if the lowest doses [of radiation] will produce cancer? Gofman's response was clear, "The answer is this: ionizing radiation is not like a poison out of a bottle where you can dilute it and dilute it. The lowest dose of ionizing radiation is one nuclear track through one cell. You can't have a fraction of a dose of that sort. Either a track goes through the nucleus and affects it, or it doesn't."

Tragically, radioactive contamination from atomic bomb blasts, simulated mock bomb detonations, artillery "test" sites, proving grounds, and live-fire air-to-ground ranges
has built up inside America - in our atmosphere, our water, our earth, our vegetation, and in all living things. All these years of military and National Laboratory "experiments" and what are loosely termed "tests" have taken a toll both on our environment - and our health.

Perhaps the hardest pill to swallow, however, is the sobering reality that even in the most unlikely event that all weapons-related activities involving radioactive substances were to suddenly stop? Consider for a moment only one of the radioactive materials, Depleted Uranium, which has been used inside the United States for over sixty years. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, this means that the millions of tons of this radioactive poison and toxic contamination that the military and weapons "labs" have used through the current day will wreck havoc on our planet for more years into the future than the earth has even been around.

Since 1945, our citizens have been taking in this contamination by eating the food, drinking the water, and breathing the air. But sadly, these poisons will not go away when we have all left this earth. These military "tests" and National Laboratory
experiments - involving at least eighty (80) radioisotopes - contain some of the very deadliest substances in the world, which are even more hazardous to our environment and human health than Depleted Uranium alone. And worse yet, these toxic poisons are here to stay.

My God! We have wrecked this planet permanently - and there is no turning back.

It would be one thing if they did not realize and simply did not know what they were doing with the use of radioactive materials such as Depleted Uranium. But according to Dr. Doug Rokke, former U.S. Army's DU team health physicist and former U.S. Army's DU Project Director, "The primary U.S. Army training manual: STP 21-1-SMCT: Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks states "NOTE: (Depleted uranium) Contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

Today, virtually all fifty states are contaminated in one way or another by Depleted Uranium, either from wind currents that bring the Uranium aerosols into other areas of the country, or more directly, through mining, production, manufacture, storage, detonations, burnings, and/or "testing" - via artillery test ranges, air-to-ground drops, or ship-to-shore exercises.

Despite all this contamination, those in charge in America continue to use this material, often in increasing amounts, and conduct "testing" of it, as these activities are called, always working to devise more lethal weapons to more effectively do greater harm to increasing numbers of people. Americans are included in these hazards and forthright information is never given regarding the actual devastating health impacts these toxic, radiological munitions have on the unsuspecting population.

These radionuclides keep right on contaminating our air and environment and ensure deleterious health effects for multitudes of generations to come. Radiation wrecks havoc with DNA and causes permanent genetic cell mutation our descendents will pass down to future offspring - forever. Remarkably, even the EPA, the supposed protector of not the environment but, in actuality, grand defender of the aims of Empire, acknowledges on its website that: "Radiation can cause changes in DNA, the "blueprints" that ensure cell repair and replacement produces a perfect copy of the original cell. Changes in DNA are called mutations:"

DNA changes caused by radiation notwithstanding, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the maximum annual amount of radioactive materials, including Depleted Uranium and Tritium, that are permitted to be detonated in the densely populated greater San Francisco Bay/San Jose area was increased eight-fold on November 13, 2006 from 1,000 pounds to 8,000 pounds.

These now-larger explosions are being performed under the guise of "stockpile stewardship". What this boils down to is the simulation of various types of bombs through photographing, analyzing, and then recording the way that radionuclides travel through the air. The ultimate unstated goal, however, appears to be to harm as many humans as possible. Why else would such tests be conducted in the close proximity of ten million people?

This radiation is being exploded, shot, burned, and fired into our air on purpose, and even the EPA admits that the radiation harms cells and the genetic material of American babies yet to be born. Can there then be any doubt that those who use bombs, bullets, missiles, open air explosions and burnings as dispersal methods by which to blanket our atmosphere and radioactively contaminate our earth are entirely void of conscience? Admittedly, it is this psychopathic disdain for human life - and American ones at that - that is difficult for the normal mind to even comprehend.

Clearly, these "users" and "pushers" of Depleted Uranium are not like you and me. These psychopaths do not operate out of thought processes involved with customary rationality. They feel no remorse for their amoral and illegal actions. Nor do they exhibit compassion for those whose suffering they cause. And while the healthy among us shed tears when contemplating the vast amounts of pain and suffering experienced by foreigners and fellow citizens alike who become sick and die as a result of this radioactive poison gassing? Psychopaths can even find their health-destroying handiwork downright stimulating.

Since these creatures who masquerade as regular humans live and breathe this contaminated air, too, it's hard to grasp the twisted tendency that includes not only harming others with these munitions of death but also exposing their own selves to this devastating health risk in the process. Thus, these puppets who carry out these radioactive explosive "shots" and conduct these military burns and artillery tests carry out sacrificial Kamikaze missions where their own health and prospects for the enjoyment of longevity are apparently secondary to the mission of national "defense" by radiation at hand.

Perhaps they feel like martyrs or something, willingly exposing themselves to excess rems of radiation? These order-takers are clearly not only willing to harm others and themselves in the process, but most incredibly, like the dutiful military and non-military "soldiers" they are, sacrifice even their own families by living in these communities near radioactive "test" sites and passing down cell mutations and damaged DNA for their future generations to carry along to their offspring. Such is the passionate devotion and blind obedience to performing the mechanics of pre-calculated, permissible radiological "doses" as part of the radiation dispersers' daily workday regimen.

Those who perform this self-sacrificing work at these military "test" sites and national weapons laboratories as radiation-dispersers working under the cover of national "defense" are programmed by the psychopaths to accept as their patriotic duty the contamination by radiation of themselves, their families, and the communities in which they live. These tasks, of course, are rationalized by the radiation workers as loyal, nationalistic, patriotic gestures considered within the realm of protecting America's "freedom" and "liberty". For those firmly rooted in reality, however, one can clearly question how freedom or liberty can be experienced when one is being poisoned by the very same government that simultaneously feigns the role of benevolent father figure by pretending to care about its charges and giving assurances of its intent to safeguard the citizens' security and protection.

It is merely unthinkable for the average citizen to contemplate that its own government would seek purposely to do him harm. Thus, psychopaths in power have been allowed to get away with what is, in actuality, the most unthinkable of all crimes - that of harming one's own. So what us normal folk legitimately call "sick puppies" are good-to-go even with the prospect of their own potential early demise - as well as that of their family and friends.

It therefore comes as no surprise that the high level military and DOE supervisors who order these "tests", the scientists who develop them, and the order-takers who carry them out are fully aware of the effect that radiation has on humans and all living things. For many years, in fact, these quite literally "mad" scientists who worked in national weapons laboratories sacrificially subjected themselves to human experimentation for what they must have actually believed was in keeping with some great, worthy, "noble cause".

A college course in basic psychopathology tells us all we need to know about those who knowingly inflict physical harm on themselves and others. In addition to what is an intent to do harm, or, at the very least, blatant non-concern over inflicting personal damage upon their fellow man, the psychopathic mind that cares not one whit for others can also possess a blatant disregard himself, as well. And while the psychopaths' total disregard for the sanctity of life is understood within the context of serious mental illness, it is perhaps only mental health professionals who may be able to shed some light on why the rest of us, the 96% of American non-psychopaths, do not put an end to the radiation madness exhibited by these madmen?

Why do all of us, that is, those who can legitimately claim sanity, allow the four percent of the non-sane to desecrate, via radiation, not just our own country but all corners of the planet - and outer space too, for that matter? Why do we continue to allow these persons void of conscience to use their radioactive poison "toys" - these weapons of death - upon ourselves and citizens of other nations?

What is wrong with us - those who care about ourselves, our families, our fellow citizens, and human beings throughout the world - for continuing to allow such abuse at the hands of those who clearly do not care? Are "we the people" perhaps, as psychiatrist Carol Woman, MD, writes, "being abused by the members of the Executive Branch, whose job it is to carry out OUR will, the will of "we the people"? Is it possible that we, as Dr. Wolman states, are "like a wife trapped in an abusive marriage, who feels that duty and economics prevent her from leaving. Perhaps she still feels some love and loyalty to the husband who mistreats her. Perhaps she feels she deserves ill treatment, or that she's too weak and pitiful to do anything about it. She becomes depressed and resigned to a dismal life"?

And, on the topic of what to do, rather than become "depressed and resigned to a dismal life", Dr. Wolman offers, "When a woman is being abused by her husband, it is commonly accepted that he is committing criminal acts, and needs to be brought to justice." So with no serious actions on the part of Congress, our Courts, and certainly, least of all, on the part of our Executive Branch, what then, is exactly our problem?

It is merely common sense to realize that those who have no regard for the sanctity of human life require removal from their positions of "leadership". These individuals need to be sequestered away from civil society to a place where they can be prevented from doing any further harm to themselves or others. It is beyond the normal mind's capacity to even fathom how and why these psychopaths - the same ones that invaded, occupied, destroyed, and rendered uninhabitable two nations with the promiscuous use of tons of radioactive munitions - are still in power. It is further unfathomable to conceive why we continue to allow these humans-in-appearance-only to have any control whatsoever over our vast stores of lethal radioactive materials.

In studying child psychopathology, we learn of young children who actually enjoy torturing animals (such as exploding frogs) and setting ablaze structures like dog houses and backyard sheds merely for the kick they get from watching obliteration of life and conflagration. Not surprisingly, these sick boys and girls grow up to be sick men and women. Apparently, while their bodies grow into the outer casings of what passes as human adult personhood, the apparent thrill of witnessing painful and catastrophic devastation and grand, fiery displays of exploding Uranium-238 by these aberrations of humanity apparently never goes away.

Case in point. There exists one such "subject" in a high level of power in the country who the mentally ill have fashioned as their role model - a psychopath who is ultimately the person in charge of killing large numbers of people - who generally wears a facade of non-affect out of either disdain or disregard for life in general. Even more horrifying is when an actual smirk is worn that has been reported to chill non-psychopaths all the world over to the very bone. And while Christians "in the know" are often tempted to get close enough to take a peek at the scalp for the tell-tale triple 6 numbers, psychiatrists are instead tempted to perform a lobotomy to eliminate that portion of the brain where the mental process of contemplating the annihilation of other human beings takes place.

The rest of us, Americans of conscience with a normative intolerance for harming other innocent people, can immediately recognize mental illness for what it is. The poisoning of civilians in large numbers and then giving repeated advance broadcasts as to who the next nation of innocents might be on the list of contenders for receipt of future poison gas treatment is one glaring indicator of serious and severely abnormal cognitive functioning.

So the big question is, how can - and why do - the vast majority merely sit idly by while these madmen get to "act out" their pathological fantasies of death and destruction? With virtually all of Congress clearly acting like mind-controlled pod people in some "real world" invasion of body snatchers-type horror flick, are the rest of us too under-informed, too apathetic, too distracted, too un-empowered, too brainwashed in our "learned helplessness", and/or too depressed to do anything effective to stop the maniacal captains of America's radiological-powered ship in their tracks?

Does our nation's absolute obedience to authoritarian leadership, with its unprecedented ravenous appetite for death and destruction, dictate that we merely give up the fight for non-contaminated air, water, soil - and sanity? Are we so programmed to play follow the leader (even when that leader swats out human lives faster than at flies at a picnic) that we are conditioned to go about our everyday activities - that consist almost entirely of basic survival and mindless amusement - and completely ignore what is, most arguably, purposeful genocide both here and abroad?

Are we so blinded beyond all hope that, instead of educating our neighbors about the harm being committed even upon our own people, we continue to tune mindlessly into television programming that would have us contemplate nothing more significant than Britney's latest find-the-shaved-body-part photo? Have we been lulled mindlessly, through media distractions and what narrowly masquerades as "news" programs, to surrender any hope whatsoever of opposing the madmen in power with their focused, intense Lust To Maim, Harm, and Kill?

So far, the Psychotic Team in control of the United States government is way ahead in winning this twisted and pathetically sick and sad, life-destroying game. And as much as a crisis intervention of sorts might appear to be in order for the deranged psychopathic "users" and "pushers" of this deadly Depleted Uranium? Like the true blood-thirsty, "addicts" they are, no amount of reasoning with these life-sucking vampires will ever get them to regret the error of their ways and give up their killing "habit".

The non-rational who hold the keys to the inventory of radioactive materials are incapable of listening to reason. Their complete absence of conscience after committing horrific and unthinkable acts which would typically yield remorse in any normal human tells us that the power holders are simply incapable of stopping their pathological, genocidal, and suicidal ways on their own.

The only way to effectively beat those in control at their deadly games is to have equally brilliant and well-adjusted mental health professionals work together to out-intellectualize the pathological national controllers at their psychological warfare pursuits. It basically boils down to waging a battle of the best and the brightest of the non-psychotic minds versus the twisted, heartless ones in control who hold, with a vice-like grip, the reins of America's power that's gone astray much like a locomotive train that has jumped its tracks.

In this case, however, the train wreck of America's collective radiological poisoning was meticulously orchestrated and pre-calibrated by nuclear engineers and health physicists fully aware long ago that they were steering the freight train off course into an irreversible nightmare zone - a place where there would be no hope for remedial return - even before the train, chock full of uranium, ever left the station.

Contrary to popular misconception, curing the ills of the United States government is not an issue of the age old battle of good triumphing over evil. Instead, it is a matter of the sane taking back control of power from the insane. Admittedly, this is no easy task - when psychopathology has completely permeated all three branches of government and the mainstream media as well.

Never before has it, therefore, been so necessary to convene in magnificent, concerted effort the collective brainpower of the wide awake psychological experts from all over the world to figure out how to effect counter operations against the comparatively few homicidal controllers who use what the United Nations calls their "weapons of indiscriminate effects" upon both foreigners and their own citizens, too.

In order to make this happen, we each need to find a few mental health professionals and work to educate them around the sixty years of history of America's own radiation poison gas holocaust. Believe it or not, many Americans - even so-called "well educated" ones from the most prestigious universities - still do not know half of what is going on. Their university research centers, merely an offshoot of the federal government's tentacles of control, do not typically permit the truth to venture too far astray from the desired message of the Doctor Strangelove-types in control.

It is therefore imperative that we, those of sound mind who exhibit a heart, a conscience, and good mental health, come now to the rescue of our children's and grandchildren's future. With the issue of the well-being of our offspring and their descendents in precarious balance, we must quickly work to educate the non-aware around the use of radioactive substances that are permanently poisoning our air, earth, and water. This simple tool, education - if used liberally and quickly - is positively the most effective weapon we possess in order to stop the increasing radioactive contamination of America - and the rest of the world.

Getting the word out - that this radiation weakens, sickens, and kills all forms of life - is our greatest hope of effecting a successful strategy to stop the psychopaths in their tracks. With sheer numbers alone (Sane 96% vs. Killing Psychopaths 4%) on our side? What we need desperately is massive informational outreach to every sane man and woman around the globe.

Then and only then, together, we the people - or, rather, we the *sane* people - can put an end to the psychopathological radiation poisoning of our nation - and the rest of the world.


Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, antiwar and anti-radiation activist, and a certified personal coach. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation's capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week. Cathy can be contacted at .

AG Gonzales Terminates 8th U.S. Attorney

AG Gonzales Terminates 8th U.S. Attorney

Margaret Chiara of the Western District of Michigan is the latest U.S. Attorney to get the ax from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Chiara was praised by the Judges of the District.

"This is a very classy, distinguished, highly regarded public servant," said Bell, who was appointed to the bench during the Reagan administration. "She's one of the best United States attorneys we've had in this district, and all of my colleagues agree. . . . To have her suddenly disappear without warning catches us all flat-footed."

So, why are these U.S. Attorneys being fired?

Nearly all of the dismissed prosecutors had positive job reviews, but many had run into political trouble with Washington over immigration, capital punishment or other issues, according to prosecutors and others. At least four also were presiding over high-profile public corruption investigations when they were dismissed.

The prosecutors' views on the death penalty may be a factor:

Terrorist Attacks to Win Washington for Republicans in 2008?

Terrorist Attacks to Win Washington for Republicans in 2008?

By Dean Powers

To President Bush the 9/11 attacks are nothing less than a gift. He said as much when he referenced the event along with several other factors giddily as "trifecta."

His glee contrasts sharply with the feelings of 300 million Americans who witnessed the face of horror on that day, but it may help explain why he ignored the infamous August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing headlined: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

As Frank Rich pointed out in his column this weekend, intelligence and counterterrorism officials are once again desperately trying to get the Administration's attention.

First, as he noted, a front-page account in the New York Times detailed a resurgence of terrorist training camps and networks in Afghanistan. It characterized Al Qaeda's "hierarchy as intact and strengthening."

Then there is Michael Scheuer, the former head of the C.I.A., who told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann last week that Al Qaeda is "going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States."

Remember that August 6, 2001 daily presidential briefing? A transcript of the briefing on CNN's website shows Bush was warned that FBI surveilence "indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

Then there were the warnings prompted by the arrest of French nationalist Zacarias Moussaoui. A suspicious Minnesota flight instructor contacted the FBI when Moussaoui attempted to train on a 747 flight simulator without any previous flying experience.

The FBI contacted French authorities who warned them that Moussaoui had ties to Islamic millitants. The Minnesota bureau tried to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveilence Act (FISA) warrent to search his belongings, but FBI headquarters (manned by officials close to the Bush Administration) dismissed their concerns, and even went so far as to verbally reprimand a Minnesota agent for getting people "spun up" about Moussaoui.

The agent replied that he was worried Moussaoui would "take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center."

Then there was the "Phoenix Memo," sent on July 10, 2001 by Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams to two units at FBI headquarters describing 10 foreign students at aviation students with ties to Sunni extremists. Headquarters shelved the memo citing more important priorities.

Essentially, the men and women charged with protecting our lives were shut up and closed down by top Washington officials in the month leading up to 9/11.

A similar scenario is unfolding as terrorism officials are screaming warnings about an impending attack.

Consider the dark days that have fallen on this administration. Consider the soaring ascent of Bush's popularity after 9/11. Consider his wicked utterance of "trifecta" in the aftermath of all those deaths on American soil.

Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Rep. Nancy Pelosi(D-California), and Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) must do everything they can to protect us from a nuclear attack.

In the event that they fail, they must prepare for a day when Republicans will try to link an Al Qaeda attack in America to the Democrats' "cut-and-run" policy in Iraq--their sole objective being control of this country in 2008.

The time to set the record straight is now--before an attack takes place.

If the public is hearing about imminent nuclear attacks, Bush and his administration know far more. Democratic leaders must pre-emptively assail the Aministration for inaction in the face of a grave threat from Afghanistan.

It's quite possible that the only way Republicans will win in 2008 is if there is a major attack in the US, thousands of people are killed, and the Dems are saddled with the blame for pushing "cut-and-run" policies in Iraq.

Rue the day when of these pre-conditions Bush can say, "Trifecta."