If you watch this and come away unmoved, you have no heart.

I will endeavour to write about some of them, even if it’s only a sentence.  Something is better than nothing. 

I will start with the decreasing access to information, another nail in the coffin of democracy in the USA.  Read this following article about Bush denying access to or destroying once public information.  The list of examples is a long one and continues.  Much of this information we can no longer access is very important.  If we don’t know about it, the government becomes a totalitarian regime, able to do anything it wants (as if it isn’t anyway), holding all relevant information for itself, so the public is ignorant of the truth.  To quote the title of an article about the importance of archives “No records, no access, no rights, no accountability” (no democracy).

It’s the US public who have to do something, who have the power to do something, before this madman influences the rest of the world with his version of ‘democracy’.  For a start, do something about the closures of the EPA libraries:

EPA closes down libraries

That is a link to the ‘take action’ page.  You can read more about the closures here.

Fare well.  I’ll try to return more regularly.

I’ve read a great many books by respected authors and experts who say the same things as the ‘conspiracy theorists’.  Here are just a sample.  Read any one of them or more than one and they all point to the same discrepancies, the same ‘coincidences’ the same facts that point to something fishy:

The War on Freedom

The War on Truth

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions

The Terror Conspiracy

Towers of Deception: the media coverup of 9/11

9/11 Synthetic Terror: made in USA

Waking up from our Nightmare: the 9/11/01 crimes in New York City

Inside Job: unmasking the 9/11 conspiracies

9/11 The Great Illusion

The New Pearl Harbor

9/11 Lies

and many many more.

As well as books there are papers produced by professors, physicists, experts in their field – financial, aviation, terrorism.  They all say the same.

And yet people continue to believe the “official” lies.  They refuse to believe their government is corrupt.  They refuse to believe their eyes (How did a plane cause such a small hole?  Where was the plane?  How could it simply disappear?  How could massive buildings fall in seconds?  How could an average pilot crash a big plane into the pentagon at such an angle?  Where’s the footage?  Why hasn’t Osama Bin Laden been caught?  Why were his entire family allowed to leave the country just 2 days after 9/11?)

Stop believing lies.  Start questioning.  Start finding answers.

And visit these two sites:

www.911truth.org

www.septembereleventh.org

Loose Change

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=27459&mode=nested&order=0

I would like, particularly, to quote the following:

In the years prior to Israel’s July 12 bombing of Lebanese cities, Hezbollah had become less and less of a threat. It had not killed any Israeli civilians for more than a decade (with the exception of one accidental fatality in 2003 caused by an anti-aircraft missile fired at an Israeli plane that violated Lebanese airspace). Investigations by the Congressional Research Service, the State Department, and independent think tanks failed to identify any major act of terrorism by Hezbollah for over a dozen years.

Prior to the attack, Hezbollah’s militia had dwindled to about 1000 men under arms–this number tripled after July 12 when reserves were called up–and a national dialogue was going on between Hezbollah and the government of pro-Western prime minister Fuad Siniora regarding disarmament. The majority of Lebanese opposed Hezbollah, both its reactionary fundamentalist social agenda as well as its insistence on maintaining an armed presence independent of the country’s elected government. Thanks to the U.S.-backed Israeli attacks on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, however, support for Hezbollah, according to polls, has grown to more than 80%, even within the Sunni Muslim and Christian communities.

Even Richard Armitage, a leading hawk and deputy secretary of state under President Bush during his first term, noted that “[T]he only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis.”

Fast-forward to 2002 and the push for a new war against Iraq.  Chalabi and his lies were still in the picture and the INC provided erroneous reports to support the war.  Their motivation had nothing to do with the welfare of the ordinary Iraqi – but over how Iraq’s oil riches should be handled.  The Pentagon brought relentless pressure to bear on the CIA to support a war with Iraq.  The CIA’s intelligence conflicted with the INC’s.  At the CIA, Chalabi was regarded as an “ineffectual head of a self-inflated and corrupt organisation”.  ‘”The [INC's] intelligence isn’t reliable at all” said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA senior official and counterterrorism expert. “Much of it is propaganda… telling the Defense Department what they want to hear.  And much of it is used to support Chalabi’s own presidential ambitions.”‘  In December 2002 Robert Dreyfuss reported that the Bush administration preferred INC-supplied analyses of Iraq over the analysis coming from the CIA.

Of course they did.  They wanted a reason to attack – any lies would do.  The Bush administration are, by now, experts at using lies for their own ends.

These lies, or “distortions” include the following:

September 7, 2002 – Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that he said proved that the Iraqis were on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.  No such report existed.  In 1998 the IAEA had issued a report saying “Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons..”.

September 12, 2002, Bush spoke of Iraq’s “continued appetite” for nuclear bombs, referring to the purchase of thousands of aluminum tubes which he said were “used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons”.  The IAEA said in a January 2003 assessment, the size of the tubes made them ill-suited for uranium enrichment, but were identical to tubes that Iraq had used to make conventional artillery rockets.  But Colin Powell repeated Bush’s lie in February 2003.

October 7, 2002 Bush warned that Iraq had a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used for “missions targeting the United States”.  The aircraft actually lacked the range to reach the United States.  He also said that “information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected” had said that Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue, implying that the information was current.  The nuclear defector, Khidhir Hamza, had retired in 1991 and defected in 1995.  UNSCOM investigators described Hamza as “a professional liar”.

Spring, 2003, Bush cited alleged documents showing that Iraq had attempted to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger.  IAEA looked at the documents and concluded they were crude fakes.  Forensic experts agreed.

The lies never stop issuing from Bush’s mouth.

More later, from “Weapons of Mass Deception”.

Wed, 2006-08-16 12:27. 

By Andrew Buncombe, Independent / UK

‘The Bush administration was informed in advance and gave the “green light” to Israel’s military strikes against Hizbollah ­ with plans drawn up months before two Israeli soldiers were seized ­it has been claimed.

The US reportedly considered Israel’s actions as a necessary prerequisite for a possible strike against Iran. A report by a leading investigative reporter says that earlier this summer Israeli officials visited Washington to brief the government on its plan to respond to any Hizbollah provocation and to “find out how much the US would bear”.

The officials apparently started their inquiries with Vice-President Dick Cheney, knowing that if they secured his support, obtaining the backing of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice would be easier.

The report by Seymour Hersh quotes an unidentified US government consultant with close ties to the Israelis who says: “The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits. Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”

A former intelligence officer, also quoted, says: “We told Israel,’Look, if you guys have to go, we’re behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office’.”

Both Israeli and US officials say that the Israeli military operation against Hizbollah was triggered by the seizing of two Israeli soldiers, apparently to be bargained with for a possible prisoner swap. But Hersh’s report, published in today’s issue of The New Yorker, adds to evidence that Israel had been anticipating a Hizbollah provocation for some time and planning its response ­ a response that was widely condemned for being disproportionate.

Last month the San Francisco Chronicle reported that “Israel’s military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hizbollah militants was unfolding according to a plan finalised more than a year ago”. The report said that a senior Israeli army officer had been briefing diplomats, journalists and think-tanks for more than a year about the plan and it quoted Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at [Israel's] Bar-Ilan University, who said: “Of all of Israel’s wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared.” Last week the New Statesman magazine reported that Britain had also been informed in advance of the military preparations and that the Prime Minister had chosen not to try to stop them “because he did not want to”.

This latest report is the first to tie the Israeli operation to a broader framework that includes a possible US strike against Iran.

Unidentified officials said a strike could “ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack”. Shabtai Shavit, a national security adviser to the Knesset, said: “We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America’s requirements, that’s just part of a relationship between two friends. Hizbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time.”

An anonymous Middle East expert claimed that while the State Department supported the plan because it believed it would help the Lebanese government assert control over the south, the White House was focussed on stripping Hizbollah of its missiles.

The expert added: “If there was to be a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hizbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the ‘axis of evil’, and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hizbollah as part of his interest in democratisation.”

Last night the White House denied the allegations contained in Hersh’s piece with a brief statement from the President describing it as “patently untrue”. Mr Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, added: ” The suggestion that the US and Israel planned and co-ordinated an attack on Hizbollah ­ and did so as a prelude to an attack on Iran ­ is just flat wrong.”‘

Sure, sure, like they tell the truth about anything.  I knew it all along.

Kidnapped in Israel or captured in Lebanon?

The article raises questions which need answers. I’m not satisfied with Israel’s official reasoning. Israel does not, after all, have a history of listening to its neighbours. It seems to be all part of the strategy of ensuring Western occupation of the Middle East.