--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
Greetings from the Center for an Informed America
(http://davesweb.cnchost.com/). Please forward this newsletter widely.
If this was forwarded to you and you would like to receive future
mailings, e-mail (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) a request to be
added to this mailing list.
NEWSLETTER #11
July 29, 2002
What's It Really All About?, Part I
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr11.html
Greetings to all subscribers!
Jared Israel - and his website, The Emperor's New Clothes - has long
been near the top of my list of the very best of alternative news
sources. With unflinching, in-depth coverage of the U.S. assault on
Yugoslavia, the mockery of justice masquerading as the 'war crimes'
trial of Slobodan Milosevic, and - most notably - the September 11
attacks and their aftermath, Emperor's has distinguished itself as one
of the more credible voices of dissent.
For that reason, it pains me to write this newsletter. Nevertheless,
recent postings on the site compel me to do so. As those who have
visited Emperor's lately are aware, Israel has been working himself into
quite a lather these past couple months trying to convince readers that
U.S. military forces are not in Central Asia for the oil.
And he's quite right that oil isn't the only goal of America's latest
military foray, nor even necessarily the primary goal. But Mr. Israel
seems to want us to believe that oil doesn't factor into the equation in
any way -- which is, quite frankly, an extremely dubious claim. And the
arguments put forth by Israel to bolster this contention have at times
bordered on the bizarre.
Israel's wrath has been primarily directed at Jean-Charles Brisard and
Guillaume Dasquie, two French researchers (and probable spooks) who
authored a book that claims that the war in Afghanistan was motivated
solely by oil. But though he hasn't mentioned them by name, Israel also
seems to be attacking numerous other researchers who have presented
evidence that oil is at least one of the motivating factors behind the
assault on Afghanistan.
On May 17, Emperor's posted a piece entitled "The Empire Isn't in
Afghanistan for the Oil," which apparently was the first volley of the
war of words waged by Israel. In that posting, he refers to what he
calls an "age-old truth" -- that "the poor seek security. The rich seek
more money. But the real rulers seek power, because power gets them
control of everything that human beings seek."
(http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/oil-1.htm)
It's hard to argue with that. But then Israel goes on at some length
attempting to convince his audience that U.S. oil conglomerates in
general, and Unocal in particular, have no interest in building a
pipeline across Afghanistan -- an argument that flies in the face of a
considerable amount of evidence to the contrary.
To back up his claim, Israel cites an article from the Petroleum
Economist, which he describes as "the most sophisticated journal of the
oil industry." The Economist article is characterized as claiming that
"it was the Taliban which tried to get a trans-Afghan pipeline, and it
was the U.S. and Unocal which nixed the project."
The Economist does in fact portray the Taliban as having been the
driving force behind the pipeline, described as a "$2bn gas line across
Afghanistan," which was to have been built "under the leadership of
Unocal." But the project purportedly died on the vine due to the
"imposition of US and, later, UN sanctions against the country and then
Unocal's withdrawal put a stop to the plan."
The problem with this article from what Israel inexplicably describes as
a "reliable source" (a mouthpiece of the oil industry is a reliable
source?) is that it was published in February of 2002, after the
devastation of Afghanistan had been underway for several months.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the oil industry had a vested
interest at that time in distancing itself from any plans for a pipeline
across a country being pelted with U.S. bombs and missiles, and in
claiming that it was actually the Taliban, and not the oil cartels, that
wanted the pipeline.
In an interesting side note, the Economist article mentions that the
planned pipeline was to terminate at the "Pakistan border, at Quetta
..." Quetta is, strangely enough, the very place where there was, in the
early days of the 'war,' reports of an unexplained outbreak of
Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever -- before all mentions of that fact
disappeared down a memory hole.
(http://davesweb.cnchost.com/wtc6.html)
Further into Israel's initial "it's not about oil" posting, he lays out
what he believes is the primary motivation for the U.S. incursion into
Central Asia: "We said the central (that is, dominant) goal of the New
World Empire was to fully encircle Russia with Imperial proxy states and
gradually - including the use of phony rebellions and military attrition
- reduce Russia and certain other former Soviet states to shattered,
totally impoverished territories under Imperial domination."
I don't really have much quarrel with that statement, except that Israel
presents this as though it is some kind of recent development. The goal
of the "Empire," as Israel dubs it, has since 1917 been the destruction
of the Soviet empire. From the time that U.S. forces were first sent
into the Soviet Union immediately following the October Revolution, the
'West' has been fixated on dismantling the Soviet state.
That was certainly the true goal during World War II*. It was also the
goal throughout the so-called Cold War, which was really just a covert
continuation of World War II -- complete with the utilization of the
entire massive Nazi Eastern Front 'intelligence' infrastructure, which
was maintained in its entirety by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
(*see my Understanding the F-Word: American Fascism and the Politics of
Illusion, Writers Club Press, 2001)
On July 3, Emperor's posted another "it's not about oil" article --
under the title of "Zbigniew and Zalmay's Excellent Afghan Pro-Terrorist
Adventure." In that posting, Israel claims that "Unocal, which pulled
out of the Afghan pipeline deal in 1998, has not returned."
(http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/zbi-zal.htm)
The primary piece of evidence that he presents to support that claim is
the observation that: "There is exactly zero mention of Afghanistan on
their Website during 2002. Their last mention of the Afghan pipeline is
a September 14, 2001 statement which concluded as follows: 'Unocal
suspended participation in the pipeline consortium in August 1998.
Unocal officially withdrew from the consortium (in accordance with the
consortium contracts) in December 1998.'"
For some reason, it never occurred to Mr. Israel to question the timing
of the posting of that disclaimer. September 14, 2001? Gee, wasn't that
just a few days after the WTC and Pentagon attacks? You don't suppose
that Unocal would have had a vested interest at that time in distancing
itself from any business ventures in a country the U.S. was gearing up
to bomb the piss out of, do you?
The rest of the Emperor's posting consists of tracing the connections of
Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, to various U.S.
national security luminaries -- especially to Zbigniew Brzezinski, who
Israel portrays as being the primary architect of Central Asian
domination. Israel's contention is that, while Khalilzad did serve as a
consultant for Unocal, that connection is of less importance than his
other connections.
That is a fair enough assessment. Khalilzad does appear to be a very
well-connected member of the U.S. intelligence/national security
community -- which is to say, he is well connected to the enforcement
arm of corporate America.
So it is likely true that he is not now in Afghanistan primarily as a
representative of Unocal. He is there to represent the 'interests' of
all of corporate America. Certainly Unocal won't be the only U.S.
corporation working through Khalilzad to exploit the resources of the
country, but it will likely be one of those doing so.
Israel's next "it's not about oil" posting came on July 9 -- in the form
of an answer to a query from a reader in Germany. The reader asked,
logically enough: "why do you insist on the formulation: It's not the
oil? There could be oil and gas interests in connection with the
striving for world hegemony, couldn't it?"
(http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/stein.htm)
Not according to Israel. He first launches into an attack on a
comparison that the respondent had drawn with Nazi Germany. That
argument, according to Israel, "is flawed because you are comparing
apples and oranges. The Nazis in World War II were a rebellious attack
dog making a desperate move to seize world power."
Uh huh. They sure were. And the United States is ... what? A cuddly
puppy making a move to seize world power? How exactly is it that the
apples differ from the oranges?
According to Israel: "The US/Euro Empire is not fighting World War III
... " There is considerable room for argument with that statement.
If we count the 'Cold War' as World War III, then I guess technically we
are now fighting World War IV. But the Cold War was really just an
extension of World War II, and the current war is really just an
extension of the Cold War, so it could be argued that we are still
fighting World War II. But whatever number you assign to it, it really
boils down to the fact that it's just the same shit, different year.
The very next statement in the posting, after the comment about World
War III, is: "[The US/Euro Empire] is consolidating control by means of
the systematic devastation of potentially hostile populations." Yeah, it
sure is. That is the way that the oranges are doing it ... but how
exactly does that differ from the way that the apples did it? That's the
thing that confuses me.
Israel again points to Brzezinski as the primary architect of the
current military actions, noting that Brzezinski is on the record as
supporting a shattering of the former Soviet Union into pieces.
Brzezinski though didn't just snatch his ideas about Central Asia out of
thin air. Such ideas have a long, and very significant, history -- a
fact that we shall return to shortly.
Later in the same Emperor's posting, Israel writes: "Some of those who
have led the way with [the "it's about oil"] argument have made it clear
they don't even know whether Unocal was negotiating an oil pipeline or a
gas pipeline. Well, there was no oil pipeline deal. Unocal was involved
in a gas pipeline deal, and in December 1998 it dropped out of the
CentGas gas pipeline consortium. They don't know this because they
haven't bothered to read what's on Unocal's Website."
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read what's on Unocal's
website. What I have read though is the transcript of the Congressional
testimony delivered by Unocal vice-president John J. Maresca in February
of 1998, when he clearly and unequivocally stated that Unocal had vested
interests in building both oil and gas pipelines across Afghanistan,
once an acceptable regime was in place.
(http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm)
Maresca began by relaying to Congress that Unocal had three specific
areas of concern: "The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central
Asian oil and gas. The need for U.S. support for international and
regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements
within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan. The
need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the
development of appropriate investment climates in the region." (emphasis
added)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that what Unocal was
asking for was a military 'pacification' of the area, and the
establishment of permanent military bases in the region, in order to
create the "appropriate investment climates" to enable the construction
of "multiple pipeline routes."
And, contrary to Israel's assertion that Unocal never had any interest
in an oil pipeline, Maresca explicitly detailed the oil pipeline that
Unocal wants to build: "The territory across which the pipeline would
extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not
recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we
have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot
begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence
of governments, lenders and our company.
"In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best
option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to
the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route
through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil
closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of
transporting the oil.
"Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline
Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil
pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline
infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.
"The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of
Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through
Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the
Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline
would be in Afghanistan."
Now that certainly sounds to me like an oil pipeline that Mr. Maresca
was talking about. Of course, Maresca also discussed at some length the
CentGas natural gas pipeline, about which he commented: "As with the
proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline, CentGas cannot begin construction
until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place."
Maresca delivered a very clear message that Unocal wanted a regime
change in Afghanistan. And he noted that the company had already covered
all the bases: "Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group,
and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings
for all of them."
In other words, Unocal was willing to work with just about anyone to get
their pipelines built (notice that "pipelines" is plural here, as in oil
and gas pipelines). Now that seems to me a rather odd posture for a
company that already had in place a relatively stable government that,
according to the company's website and according to Jared Israel, was
the primary cheerleader for building the proposed gas pipeline. Why then
was Unocal requesting a regime change?
Israel never mentions this testimony, which came straight from the
proverbial horse's mouth. Instead, he offers up PR from the company's
website, along with the transcript of a telephone interview which he
conducted with Unocal's public relations manager -- which is to say, a
man who is well versed in the practiced art of lying on behalf of his
company.
(http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm)
If I didn't know better, I would swear that the interview was conducted
by that notorious softball-lobber, Larry King. To say that Israel asked
leading questions would be a serious understatement. It wasn't really so
much an interview as it was a request for confirmation of Israel's
preconceived notions.
For example, rather than asking if Khalilzad had in fact been employed
by Unocal, and in what capacity, Israel asked: "My understanding is he
never worked directly for you. Is that right?" Instead of asking why
Khalilzad was selected for the position, Israel supplied his own reason:
"My understanding is that he's a door-opener because he's very
influential. Is that correct? ... Is it commonplace for companies
dealing with an area to have people working for them that have influence
in the area?"
As for reported claims by Afghan officials that Unocal is still
interested in the pipeline project, Israel asked the 'question': "It
occurred to me that it's in the interest of Afghanistan to say Unocal is
still interested because that makes the project seem more attractive and
they need it as a cash cow. So you guys are not secretly planning to go
back?"
Israel also mentioned reports that Hamid Karzai - installed by force as
the interim president of Afghanistan, and so completely lacking in
support among his own people that he has now replaced his Afghan guards
with U.S. military personnel - was once a consultant for Unocal.
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/afgh-j25.shtml)
In this case, Israel didn't even bother to disguise his statements of
opinion as a question: "Well the argument is that there is something
sinister and therefore you would both deny it anyway. But my argument is
in order to posit that this relationship existed in the first place you
have to have some evidence - something - but all LeMonde has is their
own assertion. They just say he was a consultant. They say 'At one
time.' Not even a date. And no source. And then all these writers repeat
this as if LeMonde's assertion is enough to counter your denial. I mean,
you can't use the fact that somebody denies something to prove it's
true."
Clearly either Unocal or LeMonde, which has reportedly stood behind its
initial report, is lying. But why should we assume that it is LeMonde?
Unocal has a long and sordid history of exploiting 'Third World' human
and mineral resources, engaging in egregious human rights violations,
and being complicit in U.S. covert operations. Unocal, in other words,
has a lot to lie about. Unquestioning acceptance of their public denials
is tantamount to unquestioning acceptance of the CIA's public denials.
On July 15, Emperor's posted yet another "it's not about oil" offering,
again in the form of a response to a reader's query. This posting is
devoted to debunking the oft-repeated quote of a statement allegedly
delivered to the Taliban by a U.S. delegation: "Either you accept a
carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."
(http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/carpet.htm)
It is entirely possible, even probable, that that is a bogus quote. But
that quote is only one small piece of the "it's partially about oil"
argument, just as the Mike Vreeland story is only one small piece of the
"U.S. officials had specific foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks"
argument. And debunking one plank of an argument, especially one likely
set up as a straw man to begin with, does not serve to debunk the
balance of the evidence supporting the argument.
Next up from Emperor's was a telling posting entitled "Brzezinski,
Hitler, MacKinder, Geopolitics ... and Correction." Strangely though,
and quite significantly, Hitler is never mentioned throughout the
posting, though his name appears in the title. This posting was, once
again, a response to an e-mail from a reader.
(http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/geopolitics.htm)
This particular reader attempted to educate the staff at Emperor's about
the history of geopolitical theory. Specifically, he identified the
father of the theory, quite accurately, as Sir Halford MacKinder, and
suggested to Emperor's that they should do a little research into the
subject.
The reply from Emperor's, in its entirety, was: "It would be most kind
of you to write in more detail about these issues." Apparently then,
Israel and company had no idea what this reader was talking about.
Considering that Emperor's has been pushing an explicitly geopolitical
theory of the incursion into Central Asia, it is a most remarkable fact
that Israel appears to be completely unaware of where these ideas
originated.
For the record, the ideas that Brzezinski has promoted in his written
works have been around, relatively unchanged, for an entire century.
They were first formulated in 1904 by British geologist Halford
MacKinder, who wrote that: "Who rules East Europe commands the
Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules
the World-Island commands the World."
According to Unocal's John Maresca, something else significant happened
around that very same time: "About 100 years ago, the international oil
industry was born in the Caspian/Central Asian region with the discovery
of oil." Now that's certainly an odd coincidence, isn't it?
(http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm)
Considering that MacKinder was one of the foremost geologists of his
day, he was most certainly aware, at the time that he formulated his
Heartland theories, of the discovery of oil in Central Asia and of the
birth of the international petroleum industry. It is entirely possible
then that a covert goal of his geopolitical gameplan was from the
beginning, and continues to be today, to seize control of the planet's
energy reserves.
In the Summer of 2000, Parameters, a quarterly publication of the U.S.
Army War College, published a review of MacKinder's theories of
geopolitics and the effect those theories have had on the formulation of
U.S. foreign policy.
(http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/00summer/fettweis.htm)
The author of the article, Christopher J. Fettweis, wrote that
MacKinder's "theories [had] influence throughout the century, informing
and shaping US containment policy throughout the Cold War. Today, almost
a century after his 'Heartland' theory came into being, there is renewed
interest in the region that MacKinder considered to be the key to world
dominance."
Though it is more accurate to say that there is continued interest in
the region, notice that the 'renewed' interest that Fettweis speaks of
was evident prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Fettweis cites a laundry list of influential architects of U.S. foreign
policy who were/are avid disciples of MacKinder: Yale University
professor Nicholas Spykman, who updated MacKinder's theories in the
1940s, along with such Cold Warriors as George Kennan, Colin Gray, Henry
Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeleine Albright (a prot�g� of
Brzezinski).
Colin Gray has written fairly recently that: "From Harry S Truman to
George Bush, the overarching vision of US national security was
explicitly geopolitical and directly traceable to the heartland theory
of MacKinder ... MacKinder's relevance to the containment of a
heartland-occupying Soviet Union in the cold war was so apparent as to
approach the status of a clich�."
It wasn't just during the Cold War that MacKinder's theories proved to
be hugely influential. As Fettweis notes: "MacKinder's theories might
have faded into irrelevance were it not for their apparent influence on
the foreign policy of Nazi Germany. A German geopolitician and devotee
of MacKinder, Karl Haushofer, spent the interwar period writing
extensively about the Heartland and the need for Lebensraum (additional
territory deemed essential for continued national well-being) for the
German people."
According to some reports, it was Haushofer who was the actual author of
two chapters of Mein Kampf, which of course popular mythology holds was
dictated to Rudolf Hess by an imprisoned Adolf Hitler. Haushofer was,
for the record, a teacher of, and the mentor of, Rudolf Hess.
(see Peter Levenda's Unholy Alliance, Avon, 1995 -- if you can find a
copy)
Fettweis downplays the notion that the Third Reich was basing its
conquest of the East on MacKinder's theories, though he does allow that
"the possibility that there was a secret master plan at work in Berlin
created a whole new interest in geopolitics and what MacKinder and
geopolitics had to say."
In light of that, I must again ask the question: if Nazi Germany was
following a geopolitical plan for world domination through conquest of
the Heartland, and now America is following a geopolitical plan for
world domination through conquest of the Heartland, then how exactly is
it that comparing Adolf Hitler's Germany to George Bush's America is
like comparing apples and oranges?
As for MacKinder's relevance today, Fettweis writes that: "One might
expect that geopolitics would have faded into the intellectual
background with the end of the Cold War and the defeat of the Heartland
power. Strangely, though, MacKinder received a fresh look by some
scholars in the 1990s ... because policymakers are searching for ways to
conceptualize and deal with the heart of his Heartland -- Central Asia
and the Caspian Sea."
One way to "deal with the heart of his Heartland," which apparently no
one has thought of, would be to leave the fate of the area up to the
indigenous peoples who live there. But that would hardly serve the needs
of a global power bent on world domination and monopolization of the
world's energy reserves.
On July 19, Emperor's checked in with yet another "it isn't about oil"
posting, yet again in the form of a response to a reader's suggestion --
a suggestion that didn't even indirectly reference the Brisard/Dasquie
book. Nevertheless, Israel once again launches into a lengthy attack
upon the two, again with an inordinate amount of attention paid to the
"carpet of gold" quote, as though destroying the credibility of the
French book effectively destroys all aspects of the "it's at least in
part about oil" argument.
(http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/jcbrisard.htm)
Some of Israel's criticisms of Brisard and Dasquie are valid, but some
of them are just downright silly. Here, for example, is something that
some of you might not know: "liars tend to talk too much, embellishing
with lots of flowery baloney in the hopes of creating an atmosphere of
believability."
This bit of wisdom is imparted to let Emperor's readers know that the
French authors had revealed themselves as liars by using the adjective
"delightful." Israel asks that the writers just "Give me some facts" --
as though information is only credible if presented in a dry, Joe
Friday-like manner. And I guess it never occurred to Israel that since
he was reading an English language version of the book, "delightful" was
actually an adjective that some translator chose to use in such an
offensive way.
Later in the same posting, Brisard and Dasquie are attacked even more
viciously for another of their translator's choice of adjectives:
"'tireless' is another of those tell-tale gossipy-but-irrelevant
adjectives, used to tell us the writer is 'in the know' - a mark of the
liar!"
I don't even know what to say about that. It boggles the mind that a
website that has garnered a considerable amount of well-earned respect
for the past several years would put forth such a ridiculous argument.
Someone should inform Mr. Israel that putting such absurd arguments in
print seriously damages his own credibility.
Somewhere in the midst of his "there was no carpet of bombs threat"
diatribe, Israel goes in search of some of the references cited by the
French authors. Before doing so, he advises readers to:
"Keep in mind that if the 'carpet of bombs' threat does appear in either
article, it would not prove the threat was made. It would only mean that
Niaz Naik, a Pakistani official who might have an axe to grind and
therefore could well be lying about anything he said, apparently
reported this to the Guardian. I say 'apparently' because the Guardian
could have inaccurately reported his words. But if the threat does not
appear, it means Brisard and Dasquie are liars."
I don't want to sound like I'm nitpicking, but it seems to me that Mr.
Israel has set the bar pretty damn high here. He has set this up as a
no-win game -- even if all of the authors' sources check out. If this is
the standard that is to be applied, then everyone's research, including
Israel's, would fail to pass muster.
I barely even know who these poor French saps are that wrote this book
but I kind of feel sorry for them here -- though I have little doubt
that their book is ultimately disinformational. It does, after all,
support the "blowback" theory of the September 11 attacks -- which is
about the only version of 'dissent' that is allowed in the U.S.
alternative/progressive press.
Not surprisingly then, it is The Nation that has published the English
language version of the book. The fact that The Nation - the very same
publication that graces the progressive community with the written words
of such notables as David Corn, Marc Cooper and Christopher Hitchens -
chose to offer this book to an American audience raises serious
questions about its validity.
Strangely enough, one of Israel's tell-tale indicators that the French
authors are "liars" is his contention that some of the allegations from
the original French edition of the book have been embellished in the
English language edition -- purportedly because English speaking readers
can't check the original sources and will therefore not know that they
are being lied to. Israel readily admits though that he hasn't actually
read the French version.
Those who have read the original French version, and who facilitated the
publication of the English edition, say exactly the opposite: that
allegations made in the original have been toned down in the new English
version. As the Village Voice characterized it: "it's the equivalent of
buying a manuscript that states unequivocally that the CIA killed John
F. Kennedy--and then publishing a book that speculates that the CIA
might have killed John Kennedy."
(http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0230/cotts.php)
Unfortunately, I see that I've run out of time this week, so I will have
to carry this discussion through to next week's newsletter. For now, I
will leave you with the following summary of my interpretations of the
recent spate of postings on The Emperor's New Clothes:
1. Israel's contention that it is about more than just the oil is an
accurate observation; however, his claim that it has nothing to do with
oil is contradicted by the known facts.
2. Some of Israel's arguments are downright silly and have no place on a
website regarded as a credible source of information.
3. Israel presents his interpretation of current events without
supplying any sort of historical context, thereby presenting what is
necessarily a disinformational view of the world we live in.
4. The Brisard and Dasquie book is consistently singled out for attack,
as though impeaching the credibility of the book is all that is required
to debunk all the evidence that indicates that oil is in fact one of the
motivating factors behind the 'war.'
5. Some of Israel's claims are patently false, most notably his strident
statement that Unocal never had any vested interest in building an oil
pipeline across Afghanistan, which is directly refuted by the
Congressional testimony of a Unocal spokesman.
Leaving all that aside until next week, here is a quick rundown of the
most illuminating articles that have come to my attention recently.
First up is this trio of articles that are absolutely essential reading.
The obvious question that is begged by these postings, and which of
course goes completely unasked, is: exactly what kind of 'training' are
U.S. Special Forces operatives receiving in Afghanistan? Can you say
'Phoenix Program'?
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bragg27jul27025758.story
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497434884.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2155051.stm)
Next up is this random assortment of postings whose titles are pretty
much self-explanatory:
"Internet extends long arm of the law"
(http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/07/22/borderless.internet.ap/index.html)
"United States loses fight to block U.N. vote on torture convention"
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020725/ap_wo_en_po/un_torture_24)
"Government tightens hold on information"
(http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/3718371.htm)
"Firm Linked to Cheney Gets Contract for Cuba Jail Cells"
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cells27jul27.story)
"Bush civil rights commissioner warns of detention camps for Arab
Americans" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/kirs-j26.shtml)
"Alabama Mobilizes Tank Battalion for Use Inside the US"
(http://www.thememoryhole.org/alabama-guard.htm)
"Bombers' families targeted as Israel responds to new violence"
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898918356.html)
"Expert: Palm Beach's New Voting Machines Have Problems" [here's a hint:
they don't allow for auditing of the results]
(http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGAIFTWBQ3D.html)
"Evidence Against Suspect From 9/11 is Called Weak" and "The Case
Against Moussaoui: Internal Doubts"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/20/national/20MOUS.html?ex=1028180150&ei=1&en=278a1e5260b160ed
http://www.msnbc.com/news/786612.asp)
"'But Officer, I Didn't Do Anything!'"
(http://www.tampatrib.com/MGA5WPU8Z3D.html)
Finally, last but certainly not least, comes this interesting story,
discovered deep within the bowels of the July 24 edition of the Los
Angeles Times, that reveals that: "The [NYC] mayor's office says it
plans to keep secret hundreds of written and audio records related to
the Fire Department's response to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World
Trade Center."
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nyrecords24jul24.story)
I can't imagine why such information would be withheld. Can you?
(Permission is hereby granted for this material to be widely
distributed, provided that the content is not altered in any way.)
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
