--- Begin Message ---
For a more effective, integrated approach, you might want to include info
about "behind the scenes" connections between the US and Russia vis a vis
illegal money laudering and drug industry mega-profit picture which seems to
be compromising folks to the very tops of each government. See my letter to
Helen Thomas below for details and reasons for suggesting, eg, Ruppert and
Fitts for speaking at such events as yours below.
From: "John Burroughs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Putin and Bush: Below the Surface
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:04 AM
From: Sam Husseini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:11:23 -0600
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________
5:00 PM Eastern Time -- Tuesday, November 13, 2001
Interviews Available:
Putin and Bush: Below the Surface
At his news conference with President Vladimir Putin this
afternoon, President Bush talked of a shared commitment to "peace and
progress" along with "free markets and the rule of law." As the two leaders
continue to meet this week, the following analysts are available for
interviews:
DAVID KOTZ, (413) 545-0739, (413) 584-2547, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Co-author of "Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System" and
professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Kotz
said today: "There are reasons to be wary of the newly developed closer
relationship between the Putin and Bush administrations.... The tactical
importance of Russian help for the administration's war in Afghanistan has
led Bush to softpedal any criticism of the brutal Russian military tactics
in Chechnya. This reinforces the impression that American criticism of
'evil' in the world depends strongly on the context -- that is, on whether
the perpetrator is a government that the U.S. desires to befriend or to
oppose. Even worse, implicit American acceptance of Russian brutality in
Muslim Chechnya lends support to the charge that the U.S. is leading a war
against Islam. Russia's recent Chechnya experience has lessons for the
United States. Following several apartment bombings in Russia attributed to
Chechen terrorists, Russian forces re-entered Chechnya behind brutal
artillery bombardments. The years of lawlessness and chaos in Chechnya
during the period of de facto independence had made many Chechens ready to
welcome the Russians back. However, Russia's military tactics outraged and
alienated the local population, undermining the Russians' aim of
effectively regaining control of the breakaway province. There is a danger
that the U.S. may be making similar miscalculations, if American military
tactics outrage Muslims around the world, dissipating the sympathy for
America and the support for anti-terrorist action engendered by the Sept.
11 attacks."
JAY TRUMAN, (208) 776-5903, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://www.downwinders.org
Director of the Downwinders organization, Truman is an authority on nuclear
weapons. He said today: "Bush and Putin are outlining reductions in the
number of deployed nuclear weapons, but at the same time, Bush is leaving
the door open for an arms race. As Bush was speaking, the U.S. government
was boycotting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty conference in New York.
Weapons cuts and eliminating the ability to produce weapons should go hand
in hand. What we say and what we do are different -- that's why we have an
arms race in South Asia."
JOHN BURROUGHS, (212) 818-1861, (718) 548-8749, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://www.lcnp.org
Burroughs is executive director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear
Policy. He said today: "Bush's announced intention is to maintain about
2,000 operational long-range nuclear weapons for the next decade.... [This]
definitely does not fulfill the legal obligation under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty of the United States and other nuclear-armed
countries to eliminate their nuclear arsenals."
BRUCE GAGNON, (352) 337-9274, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://www.space4peace.org
International coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear
Power in Space, Gagnon said today: "Bush's statement that we have
'different points of view on ABM' reflects the reality that the U.S. still
intends to 'break out' of the ABM treaty and ultimately deploy the
destabilizing and costly Star Wars program. The U.S. intends to 'control
and dominate' space. A new space-based arms race will ensue."
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
-
To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
"help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
---------------------------------------------------
Is Bush trying to protect dad? -- "Out of The Loop" Bush Dynasty
Unravelling?
[fwd] Sent to Helen Thomas, columnist for Hearst Newspapers; national media
list, etc.
Dear Ms. Thomas, et. al.,
I think you have asked here the "64 trillion-dollar question" and, given
your wide recognition as the "Dean of White House Reporters" as a result of
your tenure formerly with UPI, your simply asking this question may become
an historical turning point should the media actually publish the answers
available from researchers like former Los Angeles Police Department
investigator Michael C. Ruppert, former GHW Bush HUD official Catherine
Austin Fitts, and former major TV network producer Daniel Hopsicker, all of
whom have experienced severe oppression for their attempts to publicize the
related info/answers they have developed over the past decade or so.
What is GW Bush trying to hide with this secrecy order? When his dad was
Reagan's Vice President, Bush added a new phrase to the now popular lexicon
when regarding the "Iran-Contra Affair" he said "I was out of the loop".
This is where you might start. Convincing evidence shows that he was not
only "in the loop" but was perhaps one of the "loopmasters".
For starters I suggest that you check the copious and well documented
articles by Ruppert at his website http://www.copvcia.com, recent 3-part
article by Catherine Austin Fitts at http://www.narconews.com (her website
is http://www.solari.com), Hopsicker's website http://www.madcowprod.com
where you will find on-balance dirt on the Clinton camp as well, and related
info at http://www.cia-drugs.org
If you do, I guarantee that you and other media folks will have a career
high experience with the details available relevant to how and why we are
now in a war crisis situation to protect the globalizing economy and stock
market fueled by covert illegal drug industry profits (in conjunction with
petroleum energy industry, see Stan Goff articles at narconews.com)
fostering almost unfathomable levels of widespread corruption to the highest
levels of our government and its elected officials, military, law
enforcement, and intelligence agencies.
I am copying this to key folks for their direct advice to you on the answer
to your question.
David Crockett Williams
an American Peace Movement member
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/an-american-peace-movement
---------thanks to truthout.com for forwarding below article:
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/45766_helen7.shtml
OPINION
Is Bush trying to protect dad?
Thursday, November 8, 2001
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- It's easy to see why President Bush wants to keep his
administration's current secrets, especially in wartime.
But why is he trying to hide historic White House documents of the Reagan
administration that former President Ronald Reagan agreed in writing to
release to the public?
Reagan issued an order in 1989 that called for disclosure of most of his
official papers 12 years after he left office. Until 1978 American
presidents had complete control over the release of their internal
communications.
But after Watergate and the struggle with President Richard Nixon over the
release of his records and tape recordings, Congress passed the 1978
Presidential Records Act, which provided for the release to the public of
presidential papers 12 years after the chief executive leaves office.
Reagan's records were supposed to be released in January, and historians
were eagerly awaiting them. But because of delays ordered by White House
counsel Albert R. Gonzales, researchers and the public may never get to see
them.
Welcome to the handy excuse of "national security." It is being used to
cover any past, current or future questionable government activities under a
new order Bush has signed. The six-page document requires anyone seeking
papers of past presidents and vice presidents to demonstrate a "specific
need" for those papers before they can be produced. And any release then
will be at the discretion of the sitting president -- even if a past
president wants the information released. Bush's father was vice president
under Reagan.
Amazingly, the current president's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told
reporters the aim of the order was to introduce an "orderly process" for
releasing the documents. And Gonzalez said White House officials recognize
"the importance, for historical reasons, of releasing as much information as
we can." He even added that "there may be reasons that it's inappropriate or
harmful to the country not to release certain information."
Yet the order is clearly protective of the president's father and officials
who are back at the White House in top jobs after serving in the Bush I
administration between 1989 and 1993.
Gonzales said the order will put the incumbent president "in a better
position to decide whether or not the release of documents of a former
president does, in fact, jeopardize the national security of this country."
Gonzales said anyone who would challenge a decision under the order could go
to court. But he admitted that the legal battle would take years.
Thanks a lot.
Knowledge is power. Why shouldn't the American people know what was done in
their name? Aren't presidents supposed to trust the public with the facts in
an open and democratic society? Or am I dreaming?
Some 68,000 pages of confidential messages between Reagan and his advisers
were closely reviewed by his presidential library staff and cleared for
release. But now the White House has seen fit to put a permanent hold on
their disclosure to the public.
Remember the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s in which Reagan's aides
sold arms covertly to Iran and used the proceeds to illegally fund the
Contra rebels in Nicaragua? It led to congressional hearings and criminal
indictments that tainted the Reagan-Bush administration in its final years.
The new far-reaching order, obviously designed to block historic
revelations, covers most records and state secrets in the White House files.
You can be sure they will stay secret if this order is upheld in the courts.
The Bush order declares that documents subject to release after 12 years
that are not covered by "constitutionally-based privileges" will fall into
the category of freedom-of-information requests. That will permit the
Archivist of the United States to withhold them, too.
It's a shame that a former president will no longer have the last word on
release of his official papers if the sitting president disagrees with the
disclosure.
The Bush order said that "absent compelling circumstances," the incumbent
president or a future president would have the right to determine whether he
or she agrees with the former president's decision.
Secrecy is endemic in government, but this order goes counter to the
American tradition of government by the people and for the people.
True, it's wartime and information is important. But so is truth, and trust
is a two-way street.
The American people have always been willing to give government the benefit
of the doubt until those in charge lose their credibility. Witness the
Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal in which Lyndon B. Johnson and Nixon,
respectively, lost the trust of the American people. Historians and writers
are still digging out the deceptions of those eras.
Is the Bush White House trying to protect the reputations of prominent
political players -- especially George H. W. Bush -- through suppression of
historic data? If so, that would deny the American people a chance to hold
their past public servants accountable, albeit belatedly.
We have a right to know what our history is, warts and all.
� 1998-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
--- End Message ---
