9/11 Investigation - Conspiracy?

I don't think I've commented much about 9/11 myself, if at all. I've left it mostly for others since I have no concrete evidence or proof if anyone should ask. I've been reading some pretty good commentary on this lately though, not necessarily in the mainstream news, but on the internet. It would take more than one website at least to even attempt to cover it all, far too much to say here. But from what I've read, there are some seemingly plausible conspiracy theories that abound, speculating that it is possible that there were actually no accidental intelligence failures leading to the attacks on September 11th. Instead of incompetence, it is suggested that it was with foreknowledge, with complicity, enabling the terrorist's own plot, and then using the tragedy for political ends. Those plans to destroy the World Trade towers could have been facilitated and then even co-opted by some unscrupulous high command (possibly not even elected to office in our government) in order to create an atmosphere conducive to their plans for war, world conquest, and total control of the masses of humanity. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were just the beginnings of that plan for global domination - pick on the weakest parts first.

That is one theory then, that those in power not only wanted the attacks to happen, but they helped it along the way and made it happen. Was 9/11 a black covert operation by the CIA and others to hijack the hijackers and bring the twin towers down in order to prepare the way for an endless war in Asia and the Middle East to secure the valuable region for the oil industry? You can recall that this plan for "a new Pearl Harbor" and war for oil and global dominance was put forward some years ago by the leaders who are now in office, members of the PNAC who call for a new American empire.

The theory then is that the al-Qaeda threat wasn't totally neglected, but was perceived and even nurtured, used for the purposes of the military-industrial complex and Big Oil for a plan that had been standing by for years waiting for final implementation by Big Money. And so far the plans have been evolving somewhat along the order of the original plot which they have stated. And, these conflicts were designed and created toward the end of profiting from war and that the Illuminati should control everyone and everything on earth. Quite a conspiracy theory, eh? If it's true, then it is very worrisome indeed, is it not? It would also mean that we are in very serious danger from our own leaders. For what could they have in store for us next?

Have I driven home this point enough, that they do have the ability to do this in America? I doubt though somehow that their ambitions to rule the whole world can be fulfilled without nearly total destruction. But anyway, here are some other accusations of this theory:

* The planes could have been operated and flown by remote control into the twin towers. It is even possible that two sets of planes were used in the strategy and the ones that hit the tower were substitute planes.

* Flight 93 was probably shot down over Pennsylvania.

* It is more likely that a missile or a military jet struck the Pentagon than a jetliner.

* The World Trade Towers were demolished by explosives, which had been implanted in the buildings before the hijackings, and made sure the buildings would fall while the firefighters were called to action and the people in the towers sought to escape.

* The Air Force was ordered to not follow normal standard operating procedure and mandatory protocol but to "stand down" at the time of the hijackings.

Our Commander-in-Chief says, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, you might see what you don't want to see. But then, maybe it's something we should all think about some more.

Ephan Butz says "peace". Is he kidding or just being contrary?

There are some who might deride him and call him crazy, but if both the sides of conflict profit from the power of the violence of terror could it not then be in the same coin? And if slaughter is their business, why then would war ever stop? If war didn't make some people rich, would it still continue? That's not that big an if'n. The 'magic 8-ball says "all signs point to yes",' but hopefully maybe just for a short time.
Vote for Ephan Butz! :) Er, what? No *peace* candidate? No Ephans or Butz?

Blind Trust of Leaders

A judge in the state of Florida has recently declared that its voters have no right to verifiable votes on the new touch-screen voting machines. State election officials seem to be saying, "just trust us and have no concern whatsoever about verification." But should we just trust those who rigged the last presidential election by keeping registered voters from voting and refused to accept the mandatory recount?

Or, should we trust the US Supreme Court that stopped the state's right to count and verify the tally of its votes, and says that the American people have no constitutional right to vote? And based their decision on whether their favored candidate might lose?

One quarter of the nation's voters will be using unverifiable touch-screen voting machines this election year that are open to hacking, have been shown many times to have miscalculated ballots, and have no verifiable paper trail. Yet our election officials say the only recount for touch-screen ballots will be to add up the totals used in the precincts and see if they match what the total number of voters should be. What if the totals show a mathematical error and the numbers don't match? Will they then throw out all the votes of a precinct and start over, telling those voters to come back and vote again on many of the same machines? There's almost certainly going to be some discrepancy judging from the recent history of these electronic voting machines that have been foisted upon a generally unwilling public. My main question is, why can't we have a paper trail? Although no system is likely to completely eliminate the possibility of fraud, a paper trail should be mandatory on all voting machines. The whole process is worthless without validation of the results.

And what difference does voting make anyway, if the only choices you are allowed to make are between one elite Skull and Bones man and another? For this to happen, the entire system must surely be rigged and the American people just too dumb to care.

------

In other news, Bill O'Reilly has apologized for his Iraq pre-war stance on its WMD. Whoop-Tee-Doo! Does that mean it's alright to be a hate-spewing warmonger who urges this nation to invade and destroy another nation based on lies and innuendos without concern for world opinion as long as you just say "sorry" afterward? It's just a rhetorical question, that I ask generally, about anyone.

Mars' True Colors

I highly recommend visiting the European Space Agency's website for the latest high resolution true color photos of Mars. Maybe NASA doesn't feel it owes the people of the world very many true color photos because people just might think that those green areas are some sort of vegetation.

ESA - Mars Express - Reull Vallis - Mars Videos - Images From Mars Express
Gusev Crater - Spirit Landing Site - January 14, 2004 - 15° South and 323° East

Take a look around the site and enjoy the view.

You can compare them to some of the photos from NASA and JPL's Mars Global Surveyor Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) at Malin Space Science Systems here:
The Latest Pictures From MOC, here: Archive and here: Image Gallery

Musharraf's Nuclear Secret

Musharraf has pardoned A. Q. Khan for selling nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea, Iran and possibly Malaysia, and says there will be no investigation of his own or the military's role in the illegal transfer and proliferation. Khan has taken the full responsibility himself and has been pardoned. Well, that's all now conveniently swept under the rug. Be careful on your way out not to trip over that big lump on the floor. No need for nuclear inspectors in that rogue state. Don't look there because it would be rude. And, he's not REALLY protecting bin Laden, it just seems that way.

6-Way Talks On NKorea

China has helped set up another round of 6-way talks with North Korea, the US, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, scheduled to begin February 25th in Beijing. But has either of the two principals really changed their stance since the last round of talks that produced nothing but more bitterness? Will Bush negotiate with an "axis of evil"? Last December Vice President Cheney said in reference to North Korea, "I have been charged by the President with making sure that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated with. We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." And North Korea said it would never give up its "nuclear deterrent" unless its security was guaranteed and aid recommenced. I guess you can only hope that talking will in fact lead to an understanding that nuclear war isn't the only path that can be taken and some agreement can be reached.

Still, everyone knows that both the US and North Korea have enough nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Opportunistic Speculation

Russia is planning a test of their readiness for all-out nuclear war sometime in the middle of this month, and guess who the exercise targets. That's right, the USA. Is it just a coincidence or is it a little strange that Russia's largest military exercise in twenty years comes after the US warns them off the Caspian Sea region and insults their political system under Putin?

This exercise probably will occur as the talks with North Korea break down again because this administration refuses to negotiate with that rogue state about their nuclear missile capabilities. Bush appears unwilling to accept their offer to scrap their nuclear program in return for humanitarian aid for their beleaguered, desperate, hungry, and starving nation.

The anti-missile defense based in Alaska and California is about to be put in place after those few successful tests that were also rigged. Now all this administration has to do is to convince any potential adversary to put homing beacons on their ICBMs, not to use multiple warheads and decoys, and only send a few missiles at a time.

While the Russians say it's a test of their systems, militarily it would only make good strategic sense from their position to pretend and say it's a test and then use the exercise to make their own pre-emptive strike against the world's most threatening nation whose tentacles are ever encroaching on their influence and on the world's resources. They may now well believe, as the neo-cons do, that nuclear war is inevitable and strike while the iron is hot against an arrogant, decadent, and aggressive bully. It just makes sense to use an exercise as cover for an overt strike. Any attack works best when it comes as a surprise, and such an exercise would be excellent cover for a real attack. Possibly, now is their best opportunity not to become marginalized globally as the US increases its own military capabilities and bases around the world. The US could go from code yellow terrorist alert to defcon 1 in the blink of an eye.

Maybe not though. This is just speculation, and I hope I don't unnecessarily alarm anyone. I know it's probably just a preparation for the real thing which could possibly happen at any time.

Putin and Powell and Pervez

It looks as if Bush has sent Colin Powell to stir up a little more friction with Russia, telling them to shape up on the "democracy" thing. Powell has sent a message to Russia though, not to worry that the US will set up bases in Georgia. He says there is no plan for that. Sure, but what about the rest of those bases around the Caspian Sea and Eastern Europe, or the subtle threat that it also is on the list of the PNAC's nations subject to regime change?

And, is Pakistan ready now for US troops? Ready or not ...

Hey, guess what?

Here, I think I've found a solution to some of the world's problems. I say no one gets paid money anymore. Your money is now worthless. Every note in every nation no longer has any value. All banks go into default, and all deposits are void. So now, how will you get along? Or, will you or not? Such a simple solution. I should have thought of it before. :)

If the International Monetary Fund is worried, Bush's motto seems to be "What, me worry?" :) LOL

Opinion: My Pessimism and a Fragment of Hope

My interpretation of prophecy at this time is that the USA will be mainly embroiled in fighting Muslims in Central Asia and the Mideast until the Chinese get fed up with it and set out to kill 'em all who are in that area. But this interpretation is still open to revision. That is, I don't know for sure. :)

Sometimes I wish that I could change things. I'd love to change the world. But that's the way it goes, "first your money, then your clothes, then they break your f...ing nose." And that's not all folks...

I would think that there'd be a big fight over world-(and near earth orbit)-domination and oil. And, missile shields won't do much good at all. I could be wrong; most people would do a lot of backing down in order to avoid being nuked, almost anything maybe.

Much of it could be a surprise. But, is the present course of the human race sustainable? One surprise factor could be extraterrestrials. Anyway, we'll see ... possibly. But, I just don't see the situation improving. You got any other solutions? I don't see "preventative war" as a working model myself. Can we turn this ship around?

Saddam - bin Laden

* Or Here Comes Osama Claus

On 9/11/2001 after the planes hit the twin towers and the damage was done, the Bush administration ordered all planes grounded except one peculiar one, the plane carrying the members of the bin Laden family out of the US to safety far from these stricken shores.

Later, the US goes after Osama and his terrorist organization by sweeping over Afghanistan and bombing the Taliban and their children. Osama bin Laden they let escape.

Then instead of finishing the job, they determine to attack Iraq preemptively and depose Saddam Hussein who had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and was no particular threat to the USA.

So now they have Saddam, occupy Iraq, and have tentative control of its oil. But, that won't do them much good if Osama bin Laden and his followers are not prevented from acquiring the nuclear weapons currently in Pakistan.

And so, for Christmas this year you get continued cheap prices for oil and a terrorist threat at high alert.

Merry Christmas.

On Finding Osama

*
This is just my opinion but ...

Osama bin Laden has been living in the tribal regions of Pakistan near Afghanistan for the last two years, ever since he left his tunnels in the Tora Bora mountains riding on the back of a donkey.

The American people may want Bush to go after Osama now that they have Saddam Hussein in custody. But if he does, he risks exacerbating what is a huge problem and finding himself in something worse than the quagmire he created for the troops in Iraq.

Why do you think Osama hasn't been found yet? The tribal people aren't going to give him up. Osama is more popular in Pakistan than President Musharraf is.

If Osama is captured by the Pakistan or US military, the people of Pakistan will likely rise up against General Pervez Musharraf and his government in rebellion and overthrow him. And then, al Qaeda and the Taliban might gain control over the nuclear weapons and missiles of that country.

And that is why Musharraf hopes that the Sheik Osama dies from disease before he is caught.

Commentary*

*Right now I'll leave the commentary to others because I'm a little tired. Maybe the American people will listen and pay some attention to what Mr. Putin has to say, but probably not.

-------------

From AFP at Australian Broadcasting Corp.: Fri., Dec. 19, 2003 1:03am(AEDT)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1013128.htm

Iraq war was unjustified, Putin says

... "The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law," Mr Putin said in an annual live televised question-and-answer session. ... "I must say that in all times, great countries, empires, always suffered a series of problems that complicated their situation - this was a feeling of invulnerability, a feeling of grandeur, and a feeling that it never sins," ...

--------------------------

Commentary From Joe Vialls: 20 December 2003
http://www.joevialls.co.uk/subliminalsuggestion/whatshisname.html

America Commits Suicide in Iraq
They should have left bearded whatshisname in the hole
Copyright Joe Vialls

... "The bottom line is that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have taken the brakes off a giant million-man Shi'ite war machine called the Mehdi Army, and all Moqtada al-Sadr has to do now to start it rolling, is turn the ignition key. Remember, the Shi'ite Mehdi Army brackets all American exfiltration routes south towards Kuwait, which is the only way out for 110,000+ American servicemen." ... "Put simply, the U.S. political leadership is deliberately undermining the U.S. military, in order to assist in the subordination and partial destruction of the American people."

----------------------

What threat? Where? Oh, this one. "Say hello to my li'l friend."

*
See my post from Monday the 8th about this article:
From The San Francisco Chronicle: Sunday, December 7, 2003
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2003%2F12%2F07%2FMNG5Q3GH941.DTL
A new era of nuclear weapons: Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress
By James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
-------------

From the Lawyers' Commitee on Nuclear Policy, Inc.: December 9, 2003
http://lcnp.org/disarmament/usgarecord.htm
The Shameful U.S. Record in 2003: Disarmament Votes at the United Nations
By John Burroughs
"On December 8, 2003, the United Nations General Assembly voted on this year’s resolutions on disarmament and security. The United States consistently voted against the most important resolutions on nuclear and space disarmament:
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The United States cast the only vote against this resolution calling for bringing the CTBT into force. It was adopted by a vote of 173 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
Path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons: The United States and India were the only countries to vote against this resolution. Sponsored by Japan, it calls for compliance with the program for transparent, verified, and irreversible reduction and elimination of nuclear forces agreed by all states (including the United States) participating in the 2000 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference. It was adopted by a vote of 164 to 2, with 14 abstentions.
New Agenda for a nuclear-weapon-free world: Sponsored by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa, this resolution centers on a call for compliance with the 2000 NPT program and also addresses missile defenses, weaponization of outer space, and reduction of non-strategic weapons. It was adopted by a vote of 128 to 6, with 41 abstentions. The negative votes came from the United States, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom.
Obligation of nuclear disarmament: Paragraph one of the resolution on follow-up to the 1996 opinion of the International Court of Justice underlines the Court’s unanimous conclusion that there is an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. In a separate vote, the paragraph was approved by a vote of 165 to 4, with 3 abstentions. The four countries voting no were the United States, France, Israel, and Russia.
Prevention of an arms race in outer space: This resolution calling for negotiations to prevent the weaponization of space was overwhelmingly adopted by a vote of 174 to zero. Four countries abstained: the United States, Israel, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands."

--------------------------

From The Independent: 12 December 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=472441
Bush laughs off critics of 'spoils of war' bidding
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
George W. Bush: "International law? I'd better call my lawyer" ...

-----------------------------

*
Could it be that reason the US voted against these treaties is that
it is accelerating all their plans in these areas? Of course it could.
And, do you think the US will be the only one to enter the race? Of course not.
It says all these were adopted, doesn't the USA have veto power in the UN?
Treaties? We don't need no stinkin' treaties.
This is my cynical sarcasm of the PNAC cabal in office over this land.
Which state is the rogue again?
If the USA is the number one leader, who are the followers?
In the quest for global domination, the whole world is a battlefield.

Lessons on How To Oppress and Subjugate

-----------------------------------------

From The New York Times: December 7, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns
By DEXTER FILKINS
ABU HISHMA, Iraq, Dec. 6 — As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire. In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in. ... American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq. ...

From The New Yorker: Issue of 2003-12-15, Posted 2003-12-08
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact
MOVING TARGETS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
... An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, “The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.” ...

From The Guardian: Tuesday December 9, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html
Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq
By Julian Borger in Washington
Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has sent urban warfare specialists to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US special forces, and according to two sources, Israeli military "consultants" have also visited Iraq. ... US special forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria attempting to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border ...

------------------------------

At Asia Times: Nov 26, 2003
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EK26Dg01.html
Bush's North Korea policy still a shambles
(By Aidan Foster-Carter)
George W Bush:
"Not every situation needs to be resolved through military action. And I would cite to you North Korea and Iran," he told British newspapers.

..................

Also a comment I posted at Baltimore Independent Media:
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5735/index.php
Of the ways for Bush to retain his office, one is to rig the election again and another is an emergency that requires the implementation of martial law. and due to his policies he will have plenty of opportunities to enflame present crises. Here's just one (and another one could be a war for oil in the Caspian Sea arena with Russia as an opponent):
[I've been saying this for a long time - that I don't expect a fair election in 2004, or even any election at all. But, in other news today, Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean's campaign.]

From AP at Yahoo: Tue Dec 9, 7:16 AM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031209/ap_on_re_as/k
N. Korea Sets Condition for Halting Nukes
By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea said Tuesday it will freeze its nuclear weapons program if Washington takes the communist country off its list of terrorism-sponsoring nations and provides fuel aid. If this demand is met by the United States, North Korea also said it will join a second round of six-nation talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. North Korea would "freeze" its nuclear activities in exchange for "measures such as the U.S. delisting the DPRK as a 'terrorism sponsor,' lift of the political, economic and military sanctions and blockade and energy aid including the supply of heavy fuel oil and electricity by the U.S. and neighboring countries," a spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying by its official news agency, KCNA. ... "This would lay a foundation for furthering the six-way talks," the spokesman said. "What is clear is that in no case the DPRK would freeze its nuclear activities unless it is rewarded." ...

From AP at My Way News: Dec 9, 4:34 PM (ET)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031209/D7VB3VM00.html
U.S. Rejects New N. Korea Offer on Nukes
By SOO-JEONG LEE
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea announced Tuesday it would freeze its nuclear weapons projects in return for the United States providing energy aid and removing Pyongyang from a list of countries that sponsor terrorism. President Bush rejected the offer. ... "The goal of the United States is not for a freeze of the nuclear program," Bush said at a White House news conference with Premier Wen Jiabao of China, which is spearheading the drive to resume talks with North Korea. "The goal is to dismantle a nuclear weapons program in a verifiable and irreversible way," Bush said. "That is the clear message we are sending to the North Koreans." ... Under its initial proposal, North Korea would declare its willingness to give up nuclear development, allow nuclear inspections, give up missiles exports and finally dismantle its nuclear weapons facilities. In return, it demanded economic and humanitarian aid, security assurances, diplomatic ties and new power plants. ...

----------------------------------------------------

US troops are learning from the Israelis how to enrage and oppress people whose lands they occupy (not that they need any help), and Bush is showing NKorea what a tough negotiator and "diplomat" he is by accepting no terms and expecting to get whatever he wants for nothing. [I shouldn't say for nothing. It's the threat of nuclear war that he uses as a bargaining chip.]

Heads Up!

.
From The San Francisco Chronicle: Sunday, December 7, 2003
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2003%2F12%2F07%2FMNG5Q3GH941.DTL
A new era of nuclear weapons
Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress
By James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething. "This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the country's nuclear weapons arsenal. "I'm pretty happy we essentially got what we wanted." Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this year's increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry vehicles to deliver them. ...
... the administration is seeking a new stockpile of both some Cold War-era warheads and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks and for destroying caches of weapons of mass destruction, especially in buried bunkers, without causing indiscriminate destruction and loss of life. It has also proposed a policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states. A recent study entitled "Missiles of Empire: America's 21st Century Global Legions," by Lichterman of the Western States Legal Foundation highlights not only the administration's push for new kinds of warheads, but also the billions it is planning to spend on reducing the time it would take to launch a nuclear strike and on a new generation of missile re-entry vehicles, among other things. The re-entry vehicles would allow the military to steer warheads toward targets, even moving targets, entering the atmosphere from space. ...
... the administration succeeded in pushing through the repeal of the law banning the development of smaller, more usable low-yield warheads, and it got approval to begin research into advanced weapons concepts for the future. ...

---------------------

From AFP at SpaceWar: Nov 27, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zzr.html
Bombing Anywhere On Earth In Less Than Two Hours
Washington - The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the US Air Force share a vision of a new transformational capability that aims to provide a means of delivering a substantial payload from within the continental United States (CONUS) to anywhere on Earth in less than two hours. ...

-------------------------

From AFP: Tue Nov 4, 3:50 AM ET
Putin reaffirms Russia's right to preemptive strikes
MOSCOW (AFP) - President Vladimir Putin has reaffirmed his position that Russia can resort to preemptive military strikes because the policy is also practiced by the United States. "If the principle of preventive use of force continues to develop in international practice, then Russia reserves the right to act in an analogous manner to defend its national interests," Putin said in an interview whose transcript was released Tuesday. "All nuclear powers are improving their nuclear potential and Russia will do the same," Putin said in an interview with Italian journalists ahead of this week's visit to Rome, according to Interfax. ...

--------------------------------


Folks, this isn't really news anymore, but we're in an arms race kicked off by the Bush administration where anything goes. The weaponization of space has begun and the doctrine of pre-emptive nuclear strikes is now in force and being readied for use. They say "to the victor belong the spoils", but we will all be losers and the world will be what is spoiled. It seems American greed has no limit whatsoever, and there are no treaties to ward off self-destruction anymore. This comment is just a "heads up". Watch out for those nukes from space. You can look up, but all you can do when the time has come is to say your final prayers - that is if you see it coming in time.

Today's "Gag" - a miserable failure

OK, I'll go along with this one.

Search Google for "a miserable failure" and check the results. :-)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22miserable+failure%22

Due to search engines looking through pages on the internet, when enough people link the words
"a miserable failure" to George W. Bush's biography at the White House on their webpages, it rises
to the top of the list of search results for those words. I think someone started doing it on their blog
some time after this quote was made, and spread the word:

"This president is a miserable failure on foreign policy and on the economy and he's got to be replaced."
- Dick Gephardt at the DNC presidential debate in New Mexico, 9/4/03

http://www.amiserablefailure.com/plugin/template/gephardt/220/*

It's a technique called "Google bombing" from what I've heard.
Here's an explanation from Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog1206,0,2339508.story?coll=ny-business-headlines

Also check out the comment about Bush's real biography at this webpage:
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5686/index.php
(Under the title "Following the Leader...")

I also made some comments at that site on this page:
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5576/index.php
(About space bombers from the US, Stiletto missiles from Russia, and the non-start treaty)

So, When WILL Democracy Come To Iraq?

.
From The White House: November 6, 2003 11:05 A.M. EST
President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
George W. Bush:
"The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy" ...
"The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. ... the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. ... "

From The NYT: December 4, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/04/international/middleeast/04CENS.html?pagewanted=print&position=
U.S. Rejects Iraqi Plan to Hold Census by Summer, By JOEL BRINKLEY
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 3 — Iraqi census officials devised a detailed plan to count the country's entire population next summer and prepare a voter roll that would open the way to national elections in September. But American officials say they rejected the idea, and the Iraqi Governing Council members say they never saw the plan to consider it. The practicality of national elections is now the subject of intense debate among Iraqi and American officials, who are trying to move forward on a plan to give Iraqis sovereignty next summer. As the American occupation officials rejected the plan to compile a voter roll rapidly, they also argued to the Governing Council that the lack of a voter roll meant national elections were impractical. The American plan for Iraqi sovereignty proposes instead a series of caucus-style, indirect elections. ...

-------------------------

Bush chides Iran that it is not democratic and yet champions his own cause in saying that he is bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq? If Bush lets the Iraqi people vote, do you think that they will vote to let Bush keep their oil and let the troops stay?

For Today, a Little Irony

News from Iraq - Irony, or should I say "spin"? Provided by Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez and Reuters:


Seven Spaniards, Two Japanese Die in Iraq Attacks
By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Seven Spanish intelligence agents were killed in Iraq on Saturday in an attack on their unmarked vehicles south of Baghdad, Spanish Defense Minister Federico Trillo said, the latest assault on a close American ally.

In Japan, the Foreign Ministry said two Japanese diplomats were also killed in an apparent ambush near Tikrit, hometown of Iraq's ousted leader Saddam Hussein about 110 miles north of the capital.

Reports of the killings came hours after the top military commander in Iraq said attacks against U.S. forces had fallen sharply in recent weeks, despite figures showing November to be the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in March.

Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez said anti-American insurgents had struck fewer times in the past seven days than in the previous week and put the reduction down to more aggressive tactics by U.S. forces. ...

Iran nuclear report

From The BBC: Wednesday, 26 November, 2003, 20:25 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3241662.stm
US welcomes Iran nuclear report
The United States has voiced its support for a resolution by the United Nations nuclear watchdog censuring Iran for concealing its nuclear programme. But Iran also welcomed the resolution, saying the decision not to refer its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council represented a victory. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution stops short of recommending sanctions against Iran. It follows a compromise deal between the US and Europe. Britain, France and Germany had opposed a move by Washington to have Tehran face possible sanctions over its nuclear programme. The US accuses Iran of trying secretly to develop nuclear weapons - an allegation strongly denied by Tehran. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan told reporters: "We welcome that resolution and believe that it underscores the international community's serious concerns with Iran's nuclear activities and the urgent requirement of Iran to come into full compliance with nuclear non-proliferation obligations". ...
The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, warned that any further Iranian failure to co-operate would not be tolerated. ... Mr ElBaradei said he would report early next year on Iran's compliance. ... "It's a good day for peace, a good day for multilateralism and a good day for non-proliferation," he told a news conference after the vote. ... Although the IAEA says Tehran has breached nuclear safeguards for almost two decades, it also said there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

............................

IF what Joe Vialls says in this article is true, Iran may not at this time be in need of developing their own nuclear warheads:

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/sunburn.html
Russia Ready to Vaporize the Jewish State
And then kick America out of the Eastern Hemisphere’s oilfields
Copyright Joe Vialls, 28 October 2003
" ... About one month ago, Russia discreetly invoked MAD again, but this time in the Middle East in direct response to hysterical Israeli threats to nuke Iran with submarine-launched American Harpoon missiles. Quietly and with the minimum of fuss, Russia deployed its most advanced tactical nuclear missiles and crews to both Syria and Iran, thereby sending an unmistakable diplomatic signal that if Israel attacked Tehran or Damascus with nuclear weapons, Russia would in return instantly and anonymously vaporize the Jewish State. ... "

I still haven't heard any confirmation of this claim.