BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

UK Agencies Deny Evidence of Widespread Illegal Aerosol Operations

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

Derbyshire, UK – Following the submission of a report, backed by over 20 signatories from diverse backgrounds, detailing widespread illegal and unacknowledged aerosol spraying from aircraft, UK agencies have ignored or denied the significant data it presented. Copies of the report were sent to UK Greenpeace, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), The Royal Air Force, DEFRA and, sometime after, to the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature, challenging them to investigate the data themselves. Four responses were received and all of them have denied the basic science presented in the report, which was backed up by the clear evidence.

(PR Leap) 5th July 2007 – An independent lay researcher, with a background in Software Engineering, from Derbyshire, UK, has continued to try and draw attention to the report he compiled which documents ongoing illegal aerosol spraying activities which could be affecting our climate, our health or both. In May 2007, a previous Press Release (http://www.prweb.com//releases/2007/5/prweb527358.htm) described how he had sent copies of this report to several UK Agencies.

Andrew Johnson said that, “It has been an interesting exercise. Though the responses from official bodies have been largely as expected, I have been gratified and surprised by the response of a number of people from all around the world.”

Since submitting the report in May 2007, Johnson said that he has received responses from DEFRA, The Department of Transport, the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). He said “The response from DEFRA was a 1-page flat denial, stating that what I was describing was ordinary contrails. They did not refer to any sections of the report, nor did they attempt to explain any of the data it presented. I had already included in the report that I would not accept such a flat denial and suggested that, if that was the sort of response they were intending to make, then they would be better sending nothing. This is another strong indication they did not even read the report.” The response came from the “Customer Contact Unit” and Johnson said “I wrote back to them explaining again that a simple ‘denial’ type of response was not acceptable. I also wrote that I did not consider myself a ‘customer’ of DEFRA – after all, I hadn’t bought anything from them.”

Johnson said that he was surprised to receive a response from The Department of Transport, “I did not send a copy to the Department of Transport (DoT), but in their response they said that the report had been forwarded to them for comment by DEFRA Ministers. The DoT response was by far the most comprehensive, and referenced one specific section of my report, so it seemed they had actually read it. They included reference to a Scientific Paper about Persistent Aircraft Trails, written in 2005 by Professor Ulrich Schumann of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics. I studied this report in some detail and could not really find anything that was specifically relevant to the data in my own report – such as how grids and parallel lines are formed. The Schumann Paper talks about contrail formation being possibly linked to cirrus cloud formation, but states there is no proven link between them. It does indeed discuss persistent “contrails” but does not explain why they form and the duration of their persistence is not discussed in detail or with any empirical data. In particular, my attention was drawn to 2 figures in the report: the standard contrail duration of maximum 2 minutes (with which I have no argument) and also the discussion of regions of ice supersaturation. It states that ice supersaturation in the atmosphere may be the cause of persistent contrail formation, but no firm link is documented or established. Indeed, a figure of 150 km is quoted for the maximum size of a region of ice supersaturation. However, I have measured chemtrails that are over 300 km long.”

Johnson explained that, after reviewing Prof Schumann’s Paper, “I e-mailed a copy of my report, along with these and other comments to Professor Schumann, but so far, I have received no response.”

Johnson responded to the DoT and CAA asking that, if their assertions were correct and the chemtrails were just contrails, it must mean that the picture of the “grid” he took in 2005 and the 42 aircraft he recorded leaving persistent trails over a period of 2½ hours on Feb 4th 2007 must be ordinary air traffic. He therefore asked if they could please supply flight data for these days? “As I have videoed the actual aircraft from 4th of Feb and have the files time-stamped on a disk, I can prove they flew over the place where I was. I have received no response to this request so far.”

There has been interest and support expressed from around the world, Johnson has found. “During the week after I first posted the report, I received a number of complimentary messages from around the world, which was a pleasant surprise. It seems that more people are aware of and concerned about this issue than I thought”.

Brian from Ontario, Canada also contacted Andrew with information regarding chemtrail identification, “I have put together this webpage http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spreading.html for people in the USA which helps them to identify Chemtrails. One important consideration, for example is that most commercial aircraft are tracked by the FAA within the U.S. Other countries may have similar tracking programs and in turn make that tracking data available to the public via tracking programs such as ‘FlightAware’ and ‘Flight Explorer’ in near real time. If the aircraft that you have observed do not show up on these tracking programs then you must assume that they are exempt from being tracked. Only military type aircraft, and some Government aircraft are exempt from tracking. That should cause many questions to be asked as it is against FAA regulations as well as military flight regulations for any large body jet aircraft to conduct operations, manoeuvres, or training exercises over populated civilian areas without notification by the Secretary of Defence ninety days prior to any such operation - and only then with the express permission of the Governor(s) of the affected state(s), unless National Security is at issue.”

Johnson said “I was grateful that Brian has contacted me with this information - I have come across a similar tracking system which is available in the UK called the SBS-1 but this is quite expensive to buy.”

John from Australia said “I have been following this issue for some time and have been videoing our local skies for 3 months… I think the Greens really need to look at this but so far here it has fallen on deaf ears and the other parties deny it.”

Susan from Arizona also contacted Johnson to say “I have tracked [chemtrails] here in northern Arizona for the past two years, where skies are normally a bright, clear blue (or at least they used to be) for most days of the year. The chemtrails have increased and become far worse over the past several years, along with extreme changes in local climate and environment. Respiratory problems are virtually epidemic and long-lasting.”

James from Exeter said “I agree 100% with your views and conclusions. I have taken digital camera pictures of these unmarked aircraft spraying overhead, sometimes as many as thirty or more aircraft in a very short time, spraying in a grid pattern it seems, and have looked up some mornings to find an X marks the spot in the sky overhead - looks like a St. Andrews cross. I have a large pair of binoculars 80 x 20’s , but even with these there are no markings on these aircraft. I have seen a couple of aircraft with what look like extra tanks under the fuselage. So, yes we are being sprayed. I’m so pleased to see someone that is voicing the concerns I’ve had for a while now.”

John from Kelso (Scotland) also wrote to say “Chemtrails first caught my attention after reading an article in about 1998/99, and to be honest at that time in the UK I was not seeing any, so I just dismissed the idea as something that was happening in the US. In 2002, I was leaving my nephew’s house in North Shields Tyne & Wear to come home and from the main road near the Tyne Tunnel and I could see in the distance a huge X in the sky. I have since taken many photos and videos of this phenomenon.”

Rosalind from California wrote “We believe, that the program here in Northern California and Arizona dates back to 1988 or 1989. We believe that there may have been experiments prior to this date… however, technology and funding became available on a massive scale in the late 1980s.”

Andrew Johnson added “Rosalind also kindly sent quite a few related documents that she has obtained, though I simply have not had chance to study them yet.”

Caroline, a Financial Consultant, from Surrey, UK also described her own thoughts and experiences, “I do not believe that any government-sponsored scientist has or will be sanctioned to look into all the evidence relating to chemtrails with the depth that you, I and many other private individuals have. Any scientists who may feel that chemtrails should be investigated would, I think, have to consider the 80 untimely and unexplained deaths of some of the world’s top scientists that have taken place since 1994. DEFRA has not and will not act impartially and has, I consider, erroneously decided to accept scientific discussion as fact rather than theory. One must wonder why there was not one time lapse experiment undertaken (or reported on if undertaken) when this economical way of confirming facts could quickly turn a theory into a proven point. I do feel that time is of the utmost importance with regards to halting these chemtrails, at least until a full and open public enquiry has taken place.”

Mark, a Rail Worker in the West Midlands, has recently written an article regarding his observations about the Chemtrailing activity in which he says, “During the summer of 2006, my attention was directed to unusual cloud formations that were becoming a frequent and alarming feature of the daytime skies over the Wolverhampton area of the West Midlands, UK where I live. On a sunny Saturday afternoon in July 2006, I actually witnessed the entire vista was filled with criss-crossed and checkerboard patterns constructed of thick, milky white lines of cloud. I have been an aviation enthusiast for as long as I can remember, and maintain what I consider to be a good working familiarity with most types of civilian and military aircraft. The aircraft I saw appeared to be of three types, two larger types of the KC-135 (a derivative of the Boeing 707) and Boeing KC 767 (the military tanker version of the Boeing 767) varieties, and a smaller and faster type which recalled the configuration of a McDonnell Douglas MD-80. These aircraft were all flying at high speed, and initially deposited thin, white trails in their wakes. It was also patently obvious that the patterns visible above were being constructed to some kind of design.”

It is therefore clear that a wide range of people are aware that the spraying is going on, and basic science proves it is really happening. The question has to be asked, then, how do we proceed and obtain answers to has authorised this spraying and what is its purpose?

In summary, Johnson comments, “I see this as a stage in the process of getting both Governmental Organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations to look at this issue realistically and responsibly. The research of many people and the report I compiled proves the issue is real, even though we don’t know who is responsible for the spraying. Anyone who has an interest in protecting our environment should be looking at this issue and asking questions. The official responses I have received so far have done nothing, realistically, to refute or correct any of the data or overall conclusions I included, disturbing though they are. Perhaps the main problem is that it is difficult for us all to accept, in the face of everything else we are told (about things like global warming, for example), that something like this is really going on. I think we must therefore continually apply pressure in various places so that we can get more answers. I strongly encourage everyone to try and do something to increase awareness of this. Write to government and environmental agencies (especially if you are a member) and send them copies of the report, or any other data on Chemtrailing which you feel is important.”

Most of the responses that Andrew Johnson has received, both official and unofficial, can be viewed online here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/Chemtrails/OfficialResponses/ or using this shorter link: http://tinyurl.com/yugavz

The original report submitted can be viewed, online at http://www.checktheevidence.com/Chemtrails/ or using this shorter link: http://tinyurl.com/2w8ytk/

Johnson actively encourages all interested parties to contact him for any required clarification or further information required.

Have Your Say: UK Agencies Deny Evidence of Widespread Illegal Aerosol Operations
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Cannabis laws set to be reviewed

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

Laws making possession of cannabis a largely non-arrestable offence could be reversed, Gordon Brown has said.

The prime minister told MPs a consultation on reclassifying cannabis will be launched next week as part of a review of the entire UK drugs strategy.

The drug was downgraded to class C - which includes things such as anabolic steroids - from class B, which includes things like amphetamines, in 2004.

But there are fears more harmful forms of the drug have become available.

A Home Office spokesman said the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) will be asked to review reports that danger from cannabis is increasing due to wider availability of more potent strains such as “skunk”.

There is concern stronger varieties of the drug can cause mental health problems.

Medicinal use

Mr Brown said the Cabinet had discussed the issue and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith would publish a consultation document next week about the UK drugs strategy.

Mr Brown told MPs at prime minister’s questions: “She will be asking the public to comment on new ways in which we can improve drugs education in the country, give support to people undergoing treatment… and give support for communities who want to chase out drug dealers from their communities.”

He was responding to a question from Labour MP Martin Salter who, referring to the medicinal use of cannabis, urged a drugs policy that did not “criminalise the sick but tackles the drugs that do the most harm”.

The issue of downgrading - or even decriminalising - cannabis - has proved controversial and has already been reviewed once by the Home Office.

Urgent research

The original move from Class B to Class C was made when David Blunkett was home secretary.

His successor Charles Clarke asked for a review in 2005.

At that time the ACMD said that while cannabis was undoubtedly harmful it was still less harmful than other drugs like amphetamines which are in Class B. It recommended no change.

But it also called for urgent further research on the potency and pattern of cannabis use.

If the ACMD were to back a change in classification and the Home Office accepted its recommendation, it would require agreement of both houses of Parliament to become law.

Potent varieties

A Home Office spokesman said: “We will be asking the ACMD to review the classification of cannabis, given the increase in strength of some cannabis strains and their potential harms.

“It would be wrong to prejudge that review which shows how seriously we take our priority of reducing drug-related harm.”

The Home Office’s drugs information website, Frank, includes details of new more potent varieties of cannabis.

It says: “Recently, there have been various forms of herbal or grass-type cannabis that are generally found to be stronger than ordinary ‘weed’, containing on average two to three times the amount of the active compound, THC.

“These include sinsemilla (a bud grown in the absence of male plants and which has no seeds), homegrown, skunk (which has a particular strong smell) and netherweed.”

BBC

Have Your Say: Cannabis laws set to be reviewed
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Flight 77 - The Flight Data Recorder Investigation + WTC Collapse DVD

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

Only from RINF

Pre-order your copy today for only $19.95

This new DVD with Calum Douglas presents a recent breakthrough for 9/11 truth. Using the “Freedom of Information” act he has gained access to raw Black Box data from the flight recorder of Flight 77, that allegedly struck the Pentagon. It has subsequently been decoded and analysed.

Order Now

Here Calum presents his findings which completely destroy the offical account of what happened on 9/11.

The DVD also includes a presentation from Gordon Ross, who explores the collapse the of the WTC buildings in New York on 9/11.

This contains some of the most powerful evidence to date exposing the mass cover-up.

Order Now

Have Your Say: Flight 77 - The Flight Data Recorder Investigation + WTC Collapse DVD
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Hunt For Life On Mars Goes Underground In New NASA Mission

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

By Jean-Louis Santini

The hunt for evidence of life on Mars will go underground next year when a NASA probe digs beneath the surface of the red planet’s arctic northern plains, US scientists revealed Monday. In a departure from previous missions — which have seen robotic vehicles explore the planet’s hills and craters — NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander will instead dig into Martian soil for conditions favorable to past or present life. US scientists want Phoenix to try and determine whether frozen water near the planet’s surface might periodically melt enough to sustain a viable environment for microbes.

“Phoenix will complement our strategic exploration of Mars by being our first attempt to actually touch and analyze Martian water — water in the form of buried ice,” said Doug McCuistion, director of the Mars Exploration Program.

Phoenix will blast off from Florida sometime in August, beginning a journey that will end several million miles and around nine months later with a risky descent and landing.

Once safely in position on the Martian surface, Phoenix will deploy a set of advanced research tools never before used on the planet.

The solar-powered craft is equipped with a 2.3 meter (7.5 foot) robotic arm that will go vertically into the soil, aiming to strike the icy crust that is believed to lie within a few inches of the surface.

Peter Smith, Phoenix’s principal investigator at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said the craft would be able to study the history of the ice and analyze how liquid water has modified the chemistry of the soil.

“In addition, our instruments can assess whether this polar environment is a habitable zone for primitive microbes,” Smith said.

The Phoenix’s robotic arm is capable of lifting samples to two instruments on its deck. One instrument will use a heater to check for water and carbon-based chemicals considered essential building blocks for life, while the other will analyze the soil chemistry.

The lander also boasts an onboard meteorology station which will assess water and dust levels in the atmosphere as well as monitor weather throughout the three-month-long mission.

First, however, Phoenix must touch down in one piece.

“Landing safely on Mars is difficult no matter what method you use,” said Barry Goldstein, the project manager for Phoenix at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

“Our team has been testing the system relentlessly since 2003 to identify and address whatever vulnerabilities may exist.”

As with previous Mars missions, the Phoenix will deploy a heat shield to slow its high-speed entry, before opening a supersonic parachute that will slash its speed to about 217 kilometers (135 miles) per hour.

The lander then separates from the parachute and fires pulsed descent rocket engines to slow to about 9 kilometers per hour (5.5 miles per hour) before landing on its three legs.

Source: Agence France-Presse

Have Your Say: Hunt For Life On Mars Goes Underground In New NASA Mission
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

An insight into the White House debate over military action against Iran

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

By Peter Symonds

The British-based Guardian has provided a fresh glimpse into the fierce debate raging inside the Bush administration over taking aggressive military measures against Iran. In an article on Monday based on a “well-placed Washington source,” the newspaper concluded that the balance “has shifted back in favour of military action before George Bush leaves office in 18 months”.

It is hardly a secret that Vice President Dick Cheney and his right-wing backers support a military assault on Iran and are opposed to the diplomacy being pursued by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Standing on the deck of a US aircraft carrier in May, Cheney warned that the huge American naval presence in the Persian Gulf was aimed at sending a clear message that the US would “keep the sea lanes open” and “stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region”.

According to the Guardian article, following an internal review the White House again debated policy toward Iran at a top-level meeting last month with senior Pentagon and State Department officials. Previously Bush had favoured Rice’s policy of enlisting European support in “putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran”. At the meeting, however, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns indicated that diplomatic efforts could still be continuing beyond January 2009—the end of Bush’s term. Cheney expressed frustration and Bush sided with him.

“Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo,” the Washington source told the Guardian. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern.” Bush and Cheney, the source explained, did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democrat, to deal with Iran decisively.

It is of course impossible to determine the exact balance of factional forces in the crisis-ridden Bush administration based on a single source, no matter how well placed. An article in the New York Times on June 15 put a somewhat different spin on a similar, if not the same, high-level White House meeting. Also at that gathering, “the hawks in the room reported later that they were deeply unhappy, but not surprised” that diplomatic efforts would continue beyond the end of next year.

The New York Times concluded from its sources that Rice and her deputies “appear to be winning [the debate] so far”. The article noted, however, that “conservatives inside the administration have continued to press for a tougher line, making arguments that their allies outside government are voicing publicly”. It pointed in particular to the remarks of former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, that “regime change or the use of force are the only available options to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability, if they want it”.

The newspaper also noted that one of Cheney’s top aides, prominent neo-con David Wurmser, had recently told conservative research groups and consulting firms in Washington that the vice president believed Rice’s diplomatic strategy was failing and that by “next spring” Bush might have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.

Whether Bush is shifting toward Cheney, or Rice is “winning so far,” is not clear. What is obvious, however, is that the most militaristic faction in the White House is continuing to wage a tenacious battle both internally and in the public arena for preemptive military action against Iran, despite the catastrophe facing US forces in Iraq and against the overwhelming antiwar sentiment of the American people. According to the contorted logic of Cheney and Co., the difficulties confronting the US in the Middle East stem from Tehran and will be solved by either crippling or toppling the Iranian regime through military strikes.

It should be emphasised that the scope of the White House debate on Iran is exceedingly narrow. To regard Rice as a “dove” is absurd. In a television interview on CNBC on July 6, she branded Iran as a very dangerous state that was becoming “increasingly dangerous”. Tehran must know, Rice declared, that while Washington was committed to a diplomatic solution, “there are coercive elements to US policy as well”. She reiterated that Bush was “never going to take his options off the table”—in other words, the threat of military action remains.

Rice’s comments confirm the belligerence of her so-called diplomacy and that any “solution” will be strictly on Washington’s terms. She only launched her diplomatic offensive for UN sanctions over Iran’s nuclear programs after Bush had ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf to underscore the military threat. She has refused to meet with Iranian officials over the nuclear issue unless Tehran shuts down its disputed facilities in advance. Face-to-face discussions have been limited to a meeting in Baghdad to press Iran to end its alleged “meddling” in Iraq. Rice’s diplomacy in the UN has consisted of bullying the EU, Russia and China into backing sanctions against Tehran, using the implied threat that the alternative is unilateral military action.

Rice has publicly backed greater funding for “pro-democracy” activities, including support for internal political opponents of the Iranian regime. A string of newspaper reports over the past 18 months testifies that the CIA and other US agencies are engaged in covert operations to foment opposition, including armed attacks, to destabilise the Iranian regime. At the same time, the State Department has been seeking to consolidate an anti-Iranian alliance of so-called moderate Middle East states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, to undermine Iranian influence in the region. Rice has also backed US Treasury initiatives to pressure international banks and corporations to go beyond the current UN sanctions, cut off relations with Iran and thus economically strangle the country.

While she may not currently advocate a strike against Iran, Rice is well aware that threats are worthless unless one is prepared to carry them out. Moreover, any one of her aggressive “diplomatic” measures has the potential to trigger an unexpected chain reaction of events leading to military confrontation. Rice’s somewhat more cautious approach is aimed in part at blunting criticism of the Bush administration’s reckless militarism. Sections of the political and foreign policy establishment regard an attack on Iran as simply compounding the disaster for US interests in the Middle East created by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Israeli demandsBoth the Guardian and New York Times highlighted Israel’s demands for action against Iran’s nuclear facilities as an important factor in the Bush administration’s calculations. Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the Guardian: “The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant that it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action. The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself.”

Since the beginning of the year, several articles have appeared outlining Israeli military preparations for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Both US and Israeli officials have seized on the provocative statements of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to intensify their military threats. According to the New York Times article, Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s transportation and former defence minister, told Rice in Washington last month that sanctions against Iran had to be strong enough to end uranium enrichment by the end of the year. If not, he warned, Israel “would have to reassess where we are”.

Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without US approval and is not, in the final analysis, the determining factor in any US military decision. However, Israeli officials are maintaining the pressure on Washington to act. Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser, former head of Military Intelligence’s research division, told the Jerusalem Post last week that the time for launching an effective military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities was running out. Assuming without proof that Iran was intent on building nuclear weapons, Kuperwasser impatiently warned: “The program’s vulnerability to a military operation is diminishing as time passes and they are very close to the point that they will be able to enrich uranium at an industrial level.”

The Bush administration is maintaining its relentless barrage of unsubstantiated allegations that could provide the pretext for war: that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons, supporting anti-US insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and “sponsoring terrorism” in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and throughout the Middle East. But the real driving force for war against Iran lies in US ambitions to secure its domination over the resource-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. In its relative economic decline, the US has increasingly resorted to military means to achieve its ends. The chief argument against any US diplomatic deal with Iran is that it would leave America’s European and Asian rivals, which already have strong economic and political ties with Tehran, in the driver’s seat.

It is not possible to predict, at this stage, the outcome of the White House debate. But there is no doubt that Bush’s instinctive reaction is to side with the most ruthless, militarist layers of his administration. Veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who is known for his high-level US sources and has repeatedly written over the past two years on Bush’s preparations for attacking Iran, provided a frightening insight into the president’s delusional mentality in comments to the Campus Progress National Conference on June 26.

According to Hersh’s sources, Bush frequently compares himself to Winston Churchill, making tough wartime decisions, regardless of popularity or any genuine Iranian threat. “Bush sees himself as somebody—that ‘yes, I may be at 30 percent in the polls, but in 20 or 30 years, they’ll appreciate what I’ve done’,” Hersh explained. “Anyway, Iran is nowhere near a bomb, despite what you’ve heard. They’re years and years away and would stop tomorrow if you gave them a peace guarantee… [T]he intelligence community keeps on saying, ‘There’s no bomb there.’ And Cheney keeps on saying to the young briefing officers, ‘Thank you son, I don’t buy that,’ in that nice pleasant tone.”

Asked what it would take for the US to end the tensions with Iran, Hersh bluntly answered, referring to Bush: “Well, you’ve got to have a coup to overthrow this guy. He’s not going to talk to Iranians. I don’t think he is, no matter what, and that’s terrifying because the Iranians are more than willing to talk.” Talk of a coup may perhaps be nothing more than a throw away line to underscore the point that Bush has no intention of entering into meaningful dialogue with Tehran. But it does indicate the ferocity of the antagonisms in the American political establishment. It also points to the desperation of those highly-placed Bush critics who speak to Hersh, and who regard any military adventure in Iran as catastrophic to the interests of US imperialism.

Have Your Say: An insight into the White House debate over military action against Iran
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Confessions Of The Neo-Cons

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

By Steve Watson
Infowars.net

A recent exposé in the London Independent, when stripped of its heavily lefty leaning bias, has provided a stark picture of neocon worshippers in America today as a bunch of bigoted wannabe elites who have swallowed whole the mantra of the Bush cabal and now believe that real conservatism consists of invading every oil producing country in the world and killing American citizens who protest.

Johann Hari’s recent article, while being laced with overly liberal padding, contains at its heart a detailed picture of the fallout of the neoconservative hijacking of America in the 21st century.

Hari, reporting from the annual cruise organised by the staunchly neocon publication the ‘National Review’, details casual comments made by attendees that highlight how the self made reality of right wing lobbyists and elites has filtered through to a bandwagon of greasy ladder climbing yuppies who consider total servitude and worship of the globalist run government to be the key to a strong and healthy American society.

Some of the highlights of the article follow:

I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, ” Of course, we need to execute some of these people,” I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. “A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country,” she says. “Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that’s what you’ll get.” She squints at the sun and smiles. ” Then things’ll change.”

Hillary-Ann and many others like her may get her wish should the Michael Chertoff’s “gut feeling” and the other daily warnings that there is going to be a major terror attack turn out to be accurate.

Hari also discovers that many of these mindless fools cannot get enough of their daily neocon media brainwashing and literally worship the mouthpieces that deliver it to them:

To my right are two elderly New Yorkers who look and sound like late-era Dorothy Parkers, minus the alcohol poisoning. They live on Park Avenue, they explain in precise Northern tones… One of the Park Avenue ladies declares that she gets on her knees every day to “thank God for Fox News”.

Some are less happy with Fox news however, take Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan’s one-time nominee to the Supreme Court, who is clearly unhappy with the unbalanced reporting on Fox:

[Bork] mumbles from beneath low-hanging jowls: “The coverage of this war is unbelievable. Even Fox News is unbelievable. You’d think we’re the only ones dying. Enemy casualties aren’t covered. We’re doing an excellent job killing them.”

Hari also details low ranking CFR member, editor of Commentary, and arch neocon Norman Podhoretz’s comments on the Iraq war as he declares that it has been “an amazing success”:

He waves his fist and declaims: “There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria … This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn’t have gone better.” He wants more wars, and fast. He is “certain” Bush will bomb Iran, and ” thank God” for that…. He goes on to insist that “nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo” and that Bush is “a hero”.

Another cruiser who laughably considers himself to be a traditional American conservative states:

“The civilised countries should invade all the oil-owning places in the Middle East and run them properly. We won’t take the money ourselves, but we’ll manage it so the money isn’t going to terrorists.”

Among various other ridiculous declarations that Al Qaeda is taking over the world and that all Muslims are terrorists, the crux of the piece lies in the following statement:

There is something strange about this, and it takes me a few moments to realise exactly what it is. All the tropes that conservatives usually deny in public – that Iraq is another Vietnam, that Bush is fighting a class war on behalf of the rich – are embraced on this shining ship in the middle of the ocean. Yes, they concede, we are fighting another Vietnam; and this time we won’t let the weak-kneed liberals lose it. The writer Dinesh D’Souza… says, in a swift shift to domestic politics, “of course” Republican politics is “about class. Republicans are the party of winners, Democrats are the party of losers.”

Though Hari wrongly labels these neocon worshippers as “conservatives” it is telling that he discovers that they consider themselves to be “joining the winning team”. They know deep down that true American values are being obliterated but have decided to embrace what is being offered to them instead. Trapped in a false left/right paradigm and failing to see that there is only one “team” that they cannot join, in reality these people are looked upon as nothing more than useful idiots by the elite masters they pander to.

Meanwhile real conservatives such as presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose whole campaign is structured around reigning in big government, restoring the Republic at home and abruptly halting military interventionism abroad, are looked upon by these twisted neocon underlings as traitors who hate America and should be gassed to death.

Renowned and trusted conservatives such as Paul Craig Roberts and even Ron Paul himself are now desperately trying to warn the American people that this administration has been hijacked and is willing to use false flag terror events to bring about the end of the Republic. They urge an instant restoration of the American constitutional system.

The false conservatives however continue to tell us that we must give up our liberties and support the expansion of government power to monolithic proportions.

This is the reality of the greatest threat to freedom in America in the 21st Century and what we must move to combat if liberty is to win out. To these soulless followers of the globalist elite, war is the new peace, slavery is the new freedom, ignorance is the new strength and blind worship of tyranny is the new conservatism.

Have Your Say: Confessions Of The Neo-Cons
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Fox guest claims CIA ’sabotaging our own War on Terror’

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

By David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Fox News on Tuesday interviewed veteran Pentagon reporter Rowan Scarborough about his “startling allegation” that “elements within the CIA are sabotaging our own War on Terror.” Scarborough, a former columnist for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon-owned Washington Times, is the author of Sabotage: America’s Enemies Within the CIA, which claims that “CIA bureaucrats are undermining President Bush and the War on Terror through disinformation, incompetence, and outright sabotage.”

“The CIA … is the only agency I know that has a retired group of officers who formed together for the sole purpose of attacking Bush,” said Scarborough. “The head of the organization goes around the country giving speeches about how the government did 9/11.”

This was apparently a reference to Ray McGovern of Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, who has criticized the 9/11 Commission Report by saying that “to say that no one could prevent 9/11 was a bold-faced lie. It basically let the president and everyone responsible off the hook.”

“That, I think, gives you a little peak inside to the bureaucracy at Langley and how anti-Bush it is, and how they will do things like leak the existence of programs or leak false allegations against Vice-President Cheney or John Bolton,” Scarborough added.

“You said that historically, the Pentagon seems to be more Republican, the CIA more Democratic — er, more Democrat — and they just don’t like Bush,” said the Fox host. “And so they make up these stories, you say. Is there ever hell to pay for them?”

“I don’t know of any CIA officer who’s been disciplined for any of the failures of the CIA,” Scarborough responded. “Of all the allegations that were lodged out of the CIA against Bush people, nobody were held to account for that.”

According to Scarborough, his book, which criticizes the CIA for its reluctance to cooperate with Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans in its cherry-picking of intelligence during the run-up to the Iraq War, was inspired by “Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. He wrote a private letter to Bush, warning him that the CIA was undermining what he was trying to do.”

Have Your Say: Fox guest claims CIA ’sabotaging our own War on Terror’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Row over police use of cameras criticised

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

Nigel Morris

Moves to allow police to monitor live the journeys of car drivers via 1,500 congestion-charge cameras in London have proved divisive in the Cabinet and provoked immediate criticism.

A confidential memo to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, disclosing the plan, and its roll-out across the country, shows it is opposed by the Department for Transport because it fears plans for national road-pricing could be undermined.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: “[This is] a Trojan Horse to secure unprecedented access to information on car drivers’ movements without full public scrutiny or debate.”

Have Your Say: Row over police use of cameras criticised
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests, Science & Technology News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: