The Center for an Informed America NEWSLETTER #17
September 28, 2002
(This newsletter got a little out-of-hand, so it is being sent in two parts. The second part should go out in a couple of days.)
Greetings, once again, to all subscribers!
As anticipated, the last newsletter generated a considerable amount of feedback. The reviews were decidedly mixed. From reader Randy came the following response: "Dave, Dave, Dave ... I didn't think it was your strongest work, dude." Reader Paula wrote, simply: "Touchdown!" And reader Simon sent in the following review: "Crazed conspiracy theorist? ... yes. Serious political researcher? ... no."
I know what you're thinking: "If these pop-cultural references get any cheesier, this guy is going to have to start paying royalties to Dennis Miller."
Is this really what it has come to? Recycling cheap "American Idol" jokes, and after the show has already completed its run, no less? I'm afraid it is. And I'll tell you why: because cable's FX network thinks that the "American Idol" format would be a great way to choose a president.
And it would be difficult to argue that such a process would yield a worse result than the president that we have now. So I say ... bring it on. Line the bastards up and lets start voting them off. Or better yet, let's have them all face off on "Fear Factor." Whoever can eat the most pig rectums gets to be the next president.
Meanwhile, on September 12, 2002, in an absolutely loathsome attempt to exploit the intense emotion generated by the crassly manipulated September 11 anniversary remembrances, "American Idle" George Bush stood on the floor of the United Nations and belligerently delivered a stunning mixture of historical inaccuracies, unsupported allegations, and outright lies.
Though hailed by the American press as a move away from war and toward old-fashioned diplomacy, the speech was in fact an ultimatum to the rest of the world to line up behind America's latest proposed war of aggression -- as well as being a masterwork of hypocritical demagoguery.
Bush's rather lengthy speech included the following series of proclamations:
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others -- again as required by Security Council resolutions.
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues -- as required by the Security Council resolutions.
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
"If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections."
Immediately following the speech, an enraged foreign dignitary rose from his seat and read the following statement:
"If the Washington regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction - including the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons - along with all long-range missiles and all its stockpiles of napalm, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, and fuel-air bombs.
"If the Washington regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism - including: its relatively open support for terrorist groups dubbed 'freedom fighters,' such as the Contras, the KLA, UNITA, and the Mujaheddin; its somewhat more covert support for terrorist 'death squads' throughout Latin America; and its support and protection of terrorist groups living within the U.S., particularly the legions of known Cuban terrorists living openly in the state of Florida - and act to suppress such terrorist groups, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
"If the Washington regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including - but not limited to - African Americans, Latinos, and Arab-Americans.
"If the Washington regime wishes peace, it will account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown, including releasing the true number of U.S. casualties that were suffered during the war, and the number of Gulf War vets who have subsequently died from 'Gulf War Syndrome' and related ailments. It will further assist in accounting for all Iraqi military and civilian casualties that it was directly responsible for both during the war and throughout eleven years of sanctions. It will accept liability for losses resulting from the saturation bombing of Iraq, accept responsibility for the devastating environmental damage inflicted on the country, remove all unexploded cluster bomblets from Iraqi territory, decontaminate all areas of the country where depleted uranium weaponry was utilized, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, to the extent that the international community makes any effort to resolve any of these issues.
"If the Washington regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade, including its direct complicity in the international drug trade. It will also cease and desist from flooding the international marketplace with weapons and torture devices. It will accept U.N. oversight of all such remaining trade to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the American people.
"If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Washington. And it could open the prospect of building a government that represents all Americans -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections, especially in the state of Florida."
Okay ... actually there was no such statement angrily delivered in response to Bush's bellicose and hypocritical pronouncements. But it would have been kind of nice if there had been.
Bush also issued one of the most remarkably Orwellian utterances ever to pass from his smirking lips: "Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest. And open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder."
Uhmm ... I'm a little confused here ... because here was our purported leader standing before the world doing what U.S. presidents do best - threatening the world with mass murder - yet at the same time he was saying that open societies don't do that. So ... what kind of society is it that does do that?
I'm just curious as I'd like to know, in case anyone asks, exactly what kind of society it is that we live in.
It obviously isn't a free one, since we now know that "free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest," and America certainly has done more than its fair share of intimidating others and is certainly no stranger to cruelty and conquest. So now I'm a little concerned that maybe this country isn't the free and open society that it pretends to be.
But enough about that. There are other issues that have come to my attention in the past couple of weeks that must be addressed -- beginning, for no particular reason, with a look at an e-mail that I received from alert reader "Jim," who may have provided yet another missing piece of the 9/11 puzzle.
Jim writes that: "On Sept. 11, 2001, I distinctly remember a mainstream news report asserting that a fifth plane crashed in the US." Now I seem to have missed those reports, but the CBC, in a 'rumor'-debunking posting from last September that Jim included a link to, acknowledges that there were indeed such reports:
"Some television stations also reported a fifth plane crash on Sept. 11, in Colorado. But a search of Internet news sites and news wires reveals that no such crash occurred."
Jim speculates that perhaps there was indeed a 'fifth' plane that crashed in Colorado. Only it wasn't really a fifth plane, but none other than Flight 77 -- the one that was supposed to hit the Pentagon but didn't.
Jim may well be on to something here. If Flight 77 did not turn back towards Washington, as the official story holds, but in fact continued on toward its destination (Los Angeles), then it very well could have been in the vicinity of Colorado -- depending, of course, on what time the crash in Colorado was reported to have occurred.
If anyone happens to have a clipping that notes what time the Colorado crash was reported, it would be most appreciated if you could pass that info my way. If it was after the attack on the Pentagon, possibly around or after the time that Flight 93 was, uhmm, 'crashing' in Pennsylvania, then it would seem to fit.
And if it was in fact something else that hit the Pentagon, then Flight 77 would have certainly had to 'crash' as well. It certainly wouldn't do to have it land safely at LAX after it had already hit the Pentagon. That might arouse a little suspicion. And of course the crash would have had to be covered up because, well, Flight 77 had already crashed somewhere else.
Except that when it 'crashed' the first time, it didn't leave behind any aircraft debris. Or the remains of the passengers. Or any of their personal effects or luggage.
So maybe all of that got left behind the second time that the plane 'crashed.' Somewhere, perhaps, in Colorado.
At this point, I'm leaning heavily towards the 'botched operation' theory of the 9/11 attacks. I believe that evidence will show that Flights 93 and 77 were supposed to be the first to strike their targets, but both failed to do so. 93 was unforeseeably delayed on the ground, and 77 never turned back toward its intended target, for unknown reasons. Both were later shot down. Something else was substituted for Flight 77, and the attack on the White House was simply aborted.
I'm not saying that I have the evidence to show that. I'm just saying that I believe that evidence ultimately will show that to be the case. Or maybe not.
I also believe that all the key players in Washington - including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Meyers - had very carefully prepared scripts for what their responses would be to the unfolding events. These scripts, however, were rendered null and void by the turn of events. And that is why the official cover story for what was obviously a thoroughly planned and prepared operation is so transparently fraudulent.
Jim, by the way, added this little closing comment to his e-mail: "P.S. I like your work. Don't get assassinated." Cheerful thought. Do other people get this kind of fan mail, or is it just me?
Well, Jim, I've got to say, you really screwed up my weekend plans. Now I don't know what the hell I'm going to do.
Truth be told, I decided against the whole assassination thing a long time ago. That's so passé. Everybody knows that assassination cheats you out of the ultra-trendy concentration camp experience. "And, like, when I first got there, you know, I was like, ohmygod!, because, you know, everyone was like sooo skinny that I thought I was, like, in California."
Did I just write that? I don't have any idea where I was going with that. I think it's probably best that we just move on now. So I thought I might discuss how blatantly fraudulent the Mensa organization is.
For those who don't know, Mensa is, in its own words, "an international society in which the sole requirement for qualification for membership is a score at or above the 98th percentile on any of a number of standardized intelligence tests." It is, in other words, an organization that fancies itself to be a collection of the brightest minds from around the world -- who amuse themselves primarily by indulging in such intellectual pursuits as eating to grotesque excess.
Now I happen to have a, uhmm, 'friend' who is currently a member of this organization. He first joined the group several years ago, "out of curiosity," or so he claims. He was decidedly unimpressed with his limited exposure to the Mensa organization, and so he did not renew his membership beyond the first couple of years.
But early this year he decided to rejoin, primarily to see how the group's publications were dealing with the September 11 attacks and everything that has come in their wake: the steep rise in U.S. militarism; the vast erosion of civil liberties; the pursuit of reactionary social policies; and the exposure of the rampant corruption of corporate America.
And what my friend found was that the allegedly best and brightest minds in the country were operating comfortably within the parameters established by academia and the American media: the official story of what happened last September 11 is unquestioned, as is the fact that any real investigation into the events of that day has been officially blocked; unprovoked U.S. military actions are given the same superficial level of debate that can be heard on any cable news broadcast; the frontal assaults on civil liberties are either not discussed at all or are justified as a legitimate response to what supposedly happened last September, with, you know, maybe a few instances where the government has, with all good intentions, of course, maybe overstepped just a bit; the social agenda of Team Bush receives barely a mention; and the corporate scandals, and the direct connections of various members of the Bush cabal to those scandals, are apparently old news.
After reading such drivel for several months now (my 'friend' passes them on to me after he's read them, you see), I still wasn't prepared for what I was to find in the September 2002 issue of the Mensa Bulletin, the slick monthly publication of American Mensa. Featured in a new survey column therein were the results of the first query posed to members: "Who are your heroes?"
And who do you suppose ended up in the #1 position on that list? Who do the 'intellectually gifted' among us look up to as a hero? Who, above everyone else, does the Mensa community place on a pedestal? None other than George W. Bush, of course.
The author of the column notes that most respondents limited their comments "to President Bush's initial reaction to the September 11th tragedy and how he is 'trying to keep Americans safe.'"
Interesting. Interesting because Bush's "initial reaction" to being informed that both towers of the WTC were in flames and that potentially tens of thousands of lives were threatened was, if I remember correctly, something along the lines of: "hold that thought for now, Andy; I want to see how this goat story turns out."
As for "trying to keep Americans safe" ... I'm almost at a loss for words about that one. High intelligence obviously doesn't automatically confer upon someone even a passing notion of independent thought. Which Americans exactly is it that Boy George is trying to keep safe? Is it the ones who were sent into Afghanistan, and all the rest of the 'stans? Is it the ones who will be sent into Iraq? Into Colombia? Into the Philippines? Into ...
Or is it all of us still at home feeling safer with each passing week, as the Bush mob's unfettered belligerence builds up ever more hatred, ever more resentment, ever more breeding grounds for anti-American 'terrorism'? Maybe enough, ultimately, to provoke some real terrorist attacks upon these shores.
But aside from Bush's dubious qualifications as a "hero," there seems to me something very odd about a group that sets itself apart from the 98% of the population with purportedly inferior intelligence would choose as its #1 hero a man who would come out on the losing end of a battle of wits with Dan Quayle.
Speaking of Mensa, if you ever get bored and need something to do, try this little challenge: go to the "Intellectual Links" page of the GLAAM website (Greater Los Angeles Area Mensa, a local chapter of American Mensa) and see if you can determine how many of them transport you to CIA fronts.
Links directly to the CIA itself don't count. Those are too easy. So you can't use, for example, the links to the CIA's "World Factbook," nor to its "Maps" page, nor to its "Kid's Page." That last one is my favorite. It's listed under "Kid Stuff." Isn't that special?
GLAAM has a monthly publication as well, though it is not as slickly produced as is the American Mensa monthly. GLAAM's periodical includes a regular feature penned by a gun enthusiast that in the past has offered members such valuable advice as how to protect one's self and family during a home invasion robbery, and what type of holster is best for around-the-house wear.
The gentleman who pens that column also happens to be the guy who maintains the CIA-friendly GLAAM website. And the new editor of the GLAAM newsletter introduced himself a few months ago by informing readers that he is a "former spook." At least he is relatively honest about who and what he is.
By the way ... while you're visiting the GLAAM site, if you happen to stumble upon the page with links to members' sites, and you see a "David McGowan" listed there ... it isn't me. It can't be me, you see, because Mensa has a policy (really) of not providing links to the sites of members who don't have nice things to say about the organization.
And I might have, maybe, possibly, made some disparaging remarks in a previous posting. (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/fwordpreview.htm#chapter 31) So that is why the link can't be to my site. Either that, or the Mensa thought police just haven't been alerted yet to this security breach.
Another thing that I wanted to mention, as I smoothly segue onto another topic, concerns some comments that I made in Newsletter #15 about the recent media focus on dangers to our children. I proposed that a possible goal could be DNA registration of our offspring. Reader "Tom" though reminded me that there could be an even more ominous goal:
"Why the sudden interest, when I know and you know the ... media doesn't give a shit about what happens to our kids? Now I think I KNOW!! In the last several weeks there have been stories extolling the virtue of tagging children with computer chips. These chips would allow the government to track them anywhere."
I couldn't help but notice that Tom wrote the words "I know" in all capital letters. I see that a lot, particularly in Internet postings -- to emphasize a word or a phrase, or to convey heightened emotion. I don't use that particular writer's trick. I'm wondering if I need to start doing that. And you're probably wondering what the hell I am talking about.
Anyway, Tom's point is duly noted. There have indeed been such stories surfacing through various avenues of the media. There was a case some months ago, for instance, in which a Florida family (where else?) offered themselves up as guinea pigs to all be implanted with tracking chips.
Tom goes on to note that, "Of course, once you start branding the kids, like so many cattle, then it is a simple step to get the adults 'in the program.' It is for our own good you understand." Of course it is. And there is no reason to doubt that whatever reactionary tracking/identification system is sold to the American people as necessary for the protection of our children will soon be extended to the rest of the population as well.
And speaking of abducted children, I see where Hollywood has just released a big-budget flick whose plot centers on, well, child abduction. I wish I could figure out how they keep getting these movies ready for release at just the right time. Maybe they have some 'psychics' on the payroll.
Also on the topic of abducted children, I happened to have the supreme misfortune of tuning in to an episode of "The O'Reilly Factor" a couple of weeks ago. Bush propagandist Bill O'Reilly was working himself into quite a lather over the Westerfield trial -- lambasting the defense team for actually mounting a defense (although not actually much of one), and vilifying the jurors for not immediately calling for the execution of the defendant.
O'Reilly claims to not understand how any discussion could be required before voting to take a man's life. After all but calling for the public stoning of defense attorneys, Blowhard Bill implicitly called for the abolition of the jury system. In the new Police State America, apparently, there is no place for such things as defense attorneys and juries.
The replacement of the adversarial jury system of criminal justice with a system that will purportedly be based purely on objective 'science' is, of course, part of the agenda being pursued by the 'powers that be' - as I discussed previously in a February 2001 posting.
I guess now I'm supposed to say something more about Iraq, since that is the topic du jour these days. But what is there to say? Congress will, of course, grant Bush carte blanche powers to annihilate Iraq -- after feigning varying levels of protest. And various UN members will sign off on some sort of fig leaf for King George to wear, after hold-outs are threatened, bribed and cajoled.
But one thing this won't be is a quick and easy war. I happened to catch that former president from Arkansas - what the hell was his name? - on the David Letterman show the other night. He told some sort of fairy tale of the war lasting something like 13 minutes.
I must digress here briefly to comment on Bush's predecessor in the Oval Office. Now I am certainly no fan of Bill Clinton. He is, without question, a complete fraud. But, having said that, I must also add that he is clearly a very intelligent, well educated, knowledgeable, articulate, and undeniably charismatic man.
For those reasons, I can understand why, as misguided as they may be, some people might have a great deal of admiration for the man. But George Bush possesses none of those qualities, which is why it completely baffles me why - even if they may agree with his policies, for whatever reason - anyone would express admiration for George Bush.
But the main point here is that this is a very dangerous fantasy that Billy-Jeff, and various media outlets, are selling. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-26-iraq-1acover_x.htm) This will not be a quick war, nor will it be a painless one, as we have become accustomed to having our wars served to us. The objective is, as Bush and others have said repeatedly, "regime change."
And the Washington gang would not contemplate regime change in Iraq, or anywhere else, unless they were sure that the results of the 'change' could be controlled. And in Iraq, the only way that Washington can be assured of a satisfactory replacement for Saddam Hussein is to militarily occupy and run the country under the cover of some craven figurehead.
There are no viable groups within the country that Washington can call upon to do its dirty work, no opposition forces that Washington can adequately control. That is why the first George Bush (you know, the guy who Little George claims Hussein tried to kill) left Saddam in place eleven years ago, and why no serious attempt has been made in the intervening years to remove him from power.
Make no mistake about it -- Saddam will not be removed until Washington is sure that the resultant void can be filled with a puppet of their choosing. And to be in that position, the U.S. has to physically take control of the country. That cannot be done from the safety of a high-altitude bomber. And that cannot be done without spilling a considerable amount of American blood.
Well ... I suppose that is quite enough rambling for this week, especially since I have a few weeks worth of links stockpiled that I need to get to. Leading off the links this week is a little something I like to call "Poppy Pops Off." It seems that George Bush, Sr. thinks that the CIA was unfairly criticized for failing to anticipate the September 11 attacks.
From reading Big George's complaints, you would think that pundits had been standing in line for the past year to heap scorn upon the agency. In truth though, criticism of the CIA has been virtually nonexistent, and no disciplinary action has been called for or taken against anyone at any level in the agency. The only thing that has been heaped upon the CIA in the past year has been massive amounts of additional funding.
But that's not really what I wanted to comment on. What I wanted to comment on was the fact that the current White House squatter is not the first person named George Bush to make a mockery of the English language. Consider, if you will, George, Sr.'s defense of the 'failure' of the CIA: "But that's not the way the real world works. But if you want to call that a failure. Yeah, it's a failure to predict but it's not the failure our intelligence internationally or nationally, per se."
You got that? It sounds to me like George the Elder is trying to "crawfish." Actually, I have no idea what the hell that means, but apparently George the Younger does. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-404738,00.html) And I suppose I should add here that, considering the Bush family's royal lineage, you would think that they would have a little more respect for the Queen's English.
Stories are once again being circulated of Big Brother's intention to 'protect' us all by forcing smallpox immunizations on us. All that is required to trigger such a program, we are told, is a single reported case of smallpox.
By my reading of the law, if someone assaults you or your loved ones with a deadly weapon - which a hypodermic syringe certainly is, particularly one wielded by a federal agent - then you have the absolute right to defend yourself by any means necessary -- including the use of lethal force.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say on that subject.
To be continued ...