from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Bush's Wars
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:32:39 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bush's Wars
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Bush's Wars
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
source - Counterpunch - www.counterpunch.org
Bush's Wars
By Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
It would not have been hard to improve on President George Bush's
normal listless speaking style and, faced with the great challenge of
his speech to the joint session of Congress on Thursday night, the
President managed the task capably enough. Reduced to its essentials,
the speech was a declaration of lawlessness, with the concept of
It would not have been hard to improve on President George Bush's
normal listless speaking style and, faced with the great challenge of
his speech to the joint session of Congress on Thursday night, the
President managed the task capably enough. Reduced to its essentials,
the speech was a declaration of lawlessness, with the concept of
"justice" being reduced to that of the freedom to shoot the other guy
on whatever terms America may find convenient. How else are to
interpret the much quoted line that "whether we bring our enemies to
justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." This
is the language of terrorism.
"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make," Bush
declared. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
Thus has the founding charter of the United Nations been finally
discarded, even as a fig leaf, and the founding charter of NATO been
reduced to a line from a western.
In terms of substance Bush has committed America and its allies to
the overthrow of the Afghan Taleban, with occupation of Afghanistan
apparently part of the schedule. Here at CounterPunch we have no
affection for the Taleban, any more than we have nothing but
revulsion for the dreadful terrorist acts of September 11. But Bush
and advisers seem to be embarking on a course of folly that will not
strike down, may even bolster the Taleban, and that could indeed lead
to a coup in Pakistan, installing in power army officers deeply
complicit with the Taleban and also in possession of nuclear weapons.
Bush pronounces the forthcoming war as one between freedom and fear,
with God most definitely on America's side. We are now witnessing the
opening volleys of an assault on constitutional freedoms in this
country by a government in which opposition has been effectively been
suspended. More than once, on Thursday night, we heard gleeful use of
the ominous phrase, "there is no opposition". As Bush talked about
unified national purpose, the news cameras lingered on Rep Barbara
Lee of Berkley, everlastingly to her credit the only member of
Congress to vote against authorization of open-ended retaliation.
Aside from Lee, there were few independent voices in Congress. Among
them was the Texas libertarian Republican, Ron Paul who told his
colleagues, "Demanding domestic security in times of war invites
carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy.
Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be
sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary
to remain safe and secure."
We now have the prospect of a new cabinet officer, supervising the
new minted Office of Homeland Security (OHS), to be headed by the
governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, a man known to death penalty
opponents as the official who has been leading the lynch mob again st
Mumia abu Jamal and to anti-globalization protesters as the man who
supervised the violent suppression of civil rights at the Republican
National Convention in Philadelphia last July.
Want a foretaste of the kind of actions Ridge is likely to feel will
enhance homeland security? Last July Philadelphia saw coordinated law
enforcement involving FBI, local and state police, with covert
surveillance, infiltration and disruption of legitimate groups,
snooping on email, phonetaps. Protest leaders were arrested early on,
under absurd pretexts and in the case of John Sellers (Ruckus
Society) and Kate Sorensen (Act Up) held on million-dollar bail.
Jailed protesters were brutally handled, denied access to medical
care and attorneys. When all was over, the courts threw out 95 per
cent of the charges brought against protesters by the Philadelphia
police. Ridge presided over an utterly disgraceful and violent denial
of freedoms of assembly, free speech and due process. The only
comfort we can is that the FBI, CIA, FEMA, Pentagon and Coast Guard
will see the Office of Homeland Security as a bureaucratic threat and
move swiftly to neutralize it. We have no doubt that these seasoned
bureaucratic fighters will soon be leaking information discreditable
to Ridge.
Of greater concern is Attorney General John Ashcroft's agenda, now
being rushed to Congress. There are three components to what has been
described as "the mother of all anti-terrorism bills". Immigration;
wiretapping and domestic intelligence surveillance; search and
seizure. The bill sought by Ashcroft vests virtually unlimited
authority in the US Attorney General to target non-citizens with
arrest, indefinite incarceration and deportation. The arrests can be
made on the basis of secret evidence with little or no opportunity
for meaningful judicial review. As the ACLU points out, the upgraded
sanctions could mean that if a legal immigrant had in the 1980s
contributed to Mandela's African National Congress, which could be
grounds for deportation today.
There's an irony here. As the writer John Mecklin has recently
pointed out in the San Francisco Weekly, among the first investors in
Arbusto Energy, George W. Bush's early adventure in the oil business,
was James Bath, a Texas airplane broker. According to Mecklin, Bass
invested $50,000 in Arbusto (the word for bush in Spanish), said sum
coming from Saudi investors including the bin Laden family. If true,
this means that theoretically Bush could be subject to sanction as
benefiting indirectly from terror.
Ashcroft is seeking expanded wiretapping power, plus enhanced ability
to snoop on e-sites. The bill seeks roving wiretap ability, meaning
that the police could tap any phone used by their target, no matter
to whom that phone might belong. In Ashcroft's line of fire is the
"probable cause" standard, governing warrants to snoop. Ashcroft's
bill also seeks to vastly widen law enforcement's ability to conduct
secret searches. As the ACLU emphasizes, "this bill would extend the
authority of the government to request 'secret searches' in every
criminal offense." As usual, emergency is used as the pretext for a
far wider assault on basic constitutional rights.
The president's speech came at the end of a week of ferocious war
mongering. The predictable eye-for-an-eye frenzy built up its usual
lethal head of steam with predictable rapidity. The outstanding
question is: how many eyes for an eye. Count 6,500 dead in the Trade
Towers, the four hijacked planes and the Pentagon. How many dead does
this require in Kabul, or Baghdad or elsewhere in the hinterlands of
terrorist Islam?
The only quick way to achieve killing on this scale would be with a
substantial nuclear device on a city. Given this requirement, we may
applaud the restraint of Thomas Woodrow in the Washington Times on
September 14, though his moderation is salted with the pusillanimous
phrase "at a bare minimum". Woodrow recommends that "at a bare
minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin
Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly
seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as
cowardice on the part of the United States and the current
administration."
Absent dropping a Big One, how can the necessary revenge be exacted?
Cruise missiles, used by Bill Clinton as a way of expressing his
displeasure at Sudan, may be useful for destroying pharmaceutical
factories, hospitals, even defense ministries, but the body counts
are not robust. But who or what is there to bomb in Afghanistan? The
Russians have already done their best. A pathetically poor country in
the first place, Afghanistan is only marginally ahead of Mali, in
terms of available infrastructure to destroy, with far more
challenging terrain.
A land invasion in force, a blitzkrieg sparing nothing and no one?
Afghanistan is famously the graveyard of punitive missions embarked
upon by the Great Powers, as the British discovered in the nineteenth
century and the Soviets in the 1980s. The mere mounting an
expeditionary force would take would be a difficult, possibly
protracted business, landing the United States in a prodigious number
of diplomatic difficulties, given the mutual antagonisms and stresses
of adjacent or nearby states such as Pakistan, India, Russia's
dependency Tadzikistan, China.
One familiar way extricating oneself from confrontation an unsuitable
foe is to substitute a more satisfactory one. Though it is highly
likely that Iran was the sponsor of the downing of Panam Flight 103,
in revenge for the downing of the Iranian Airbus by the US carrier
Vincennes (whose crew was subsequently decorated for its conduct in
shooting down a planeload of civilians) the US preferred to identify
Qaddafi's Libya as the culprit, as a more easily negotiable target
for revenge. Already there's a lobby, the most conspicuous of whom is
former CIA chief James Woolsey, pressing Iraq's case as possible
sponsor or co-sponsor of the World Trade Center attacks. So sanctions
against Iraq could be strengthened, its cities bombed and perhaps
even another invasion attempted.
Obviously aware of the difficulties of surrounding speedy, adequately
bloody retribution, Bush's entourage have been talking in Mao-like
terms about "protracted war", or a "war in the shadows". The purely
nominal ban against US Government-sponsored assassination (there have
been numerous CIA-backed against Castro since the mid-1970s ban, if
you believer the Cubans) will be lifted, as will the supposed
inhibition against the CIA hiring unsavory characters, meaning drug
smugglers, many of them also trained in the flying schools of
southern Florida.
The war in the shadows will be definition be shadowy (hence poor
provender for the appetite for revenge), at least until some
CIA-backed revenge bombing surfaces into public view like the
attempted bombing of Sheikh Fadlallah outside a Beirut mosque,
sponsored by CIA chief William Casey, which missed the Sheikh but
which killed nearly a hundred bystanders, including many children.
On the morning of September 11 Judge Henry Wood was trying, of all
things, an American airline crash damage case in Federal District
court in Little Rock, Arkansas. In the wake of the attacks there were
orders to close the courthouse. All obeyed, except Judge Wood, aged
83, who insisted that jury and lawyers and attendants remain in
place. Turning down a plea for mistrial by the defendant, Wood said,
"This looks like an intelligent jury to me and I didn't want the
judicial system interrupted by a terrorist act, no matter how
horrible."
Wood's was the proper reaction. America could do with more of what
used to be called the Roman virtues. A monstrous thing happened in
New York, but should this be a cause for a change in national
consciousness? Is America so frail? People talk of the trauma of
another Pearl Harbor, but truth to say, the trauma in the aftermath
of the Day of Infamy in 1941 was far in excess of what the
circumstances warranted, and assiduously fanned by the government for
reasons of state. Ask the Japanese Americans who were interned.
Why, for that matter, ground all air traffic and semi-paralyze the
economy, with further interminable and useless inconveniences
promised travelers in the months and possibly years to come? Could
any terrorist have hoped not only to bring down the Trade Center
towers but also destroy the airline industry? It would have been far
better to ask passengers to form popular defense committees on every
plane, bring their own food and drink, keep alert for trouble and
look after themselves. A properly vigilant democracy of the air.
Remember, even if there were no x-ray machines, no searches, no
passenger checks, it would still be far more dangerous to drive to
the airport than to get on a plane.
Martyrdom is hard to beat. In the first few centuries after Christ
the Romans tried it against the Christians, whose martyrdoms were
almost entirely sacrificial of themselves, not of others. The lust
for heaven of a Muslim intent on suicidal martyrdom was surely never
so eloquent as that of St Ignatius in the second century who, under
sentence of death, doomed to the Roman amphitheater and a hungry
lion, wrote in his Epistle to the Romans, "I bid all men know that of
my own free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me. . . Let
me be given to the wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto
God. I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the wild beasts that I may
be found the pure bread of Christ. Entice the wild beasts that they
may become my sepulchre. . . Come fire and cross and grapplings with
wild beasts, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my
whole body; only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ."
Eventually haughty imperial Rome made its accommodation with
Christians, just as Christians amid the furies and martyrdoms and
proscriptions of the Reformation, made accommodations with each
other. What sort of accommodation should America make right now? How
about one with the history of the past hundred years, in an effort to
improve the moral world climate of the next hundred years? We use the
word accommodation in the sense of an effort to get to grips with
history, as inflicted by the powerful upon the weak. We have been
miserably failed by our national media here, as Jude Wanniski,
political economist and agitator of conventional thinking, remarked
in the course of a well-merited attack on "bipartisanship", which
almost always means obdurate determination to pursue a course of
collective folly without debate: "It is because of this
bipartisanship that our press corps has become blind to the evil acts
we commit as a nation."
America has great enemies circling the campfires and threatening the
public good. They were rampant the day before the September 11
attacks, with the prospect of deflation, sated world markets, idled
capacity, shrinking social services. Is ranting about Kabul and
throwing money at the Pentagon going to solve those national
emergencies?
There is no compelling reason to accept that bin Laden is the Master
Terror Mind of the World. On some fairly persuasive accounts, his
resources have dwindled, both in terms of money and equipment. He
lives in a cave without phone or fax or email, hungrily devouring
long outdated editions of newspapers brought by visitors. He may an
inspirational force to the terrorist cadres, but we strongly doubt
that he is the hands-on master of terror portrayed by the
Administration, manipulating world financial markets.
A great nation does not respond to a single hour of terrible mayhem
in two cities by hog-tying itself with new repressive laws and abuses
of constitutional freedoms, like Gulliver doing the work of the
Lilliputians and lashing himself to the ground with a thousand cords.
CP
"justice" being reduced to that of the freedom to shoot the other guy
on whatever terms America may find convenient. How else are to
interpret the much quoted line that "whether we bring our enemies to
justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." This
is the language of terrorism.
"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make," Bush
declared. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
Thus has the founding charter of the United Nations been finally
discarded, even as a fig leaf, and the founding charter of NATO been
reduced to a line from a western.
In terms of substance Bush has committed America and its allies to
the overthrow of the Afghan Taleban, with occupation of Afghanistan
apparently part of the schedule. Here at CounterPunch we have no
affection for the Taleban, any more than we have nothing but
revulsion for the dreadful terrorist acts of September 11. But Bush
and advisers seem to be embarking on a course of folly that will not
strike down, may even bolster the Taleban, and that could indeed lead
to a coup in Pakistan, installing in power army officers deeply
complicit with the Taleban and also in possession of nuclear weapons.
Bush pronounces the forthcoming war as one between freedom and fear,
with God most definitely on America's side. We are now witnessing the
opening volleys of an assault on constitutional freedoms in this
country by a government in which opposition has been effectively been
suspended. More than once, on Thursday night, we heard gleeful use of
the ominous phrase, "there is no opposition". As Bush talked about
unified national purpose, the news cameras lingered on Rep Barbara
Lee of Berkley, everlastingly to her credit the only member of
Congress to vote against authorization of open-ended retaliation.
Aside from Lee, there were few independent voices in Congress. Among
them was the Texas libertarian Republican, Ron Paul who told his
colleagues, "Demanding domestic security in times of war invites
carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy.
Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be
sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary
to remain safe and secure."
We now have the prospect of a new cabinet officer, supervising the
new minted Office of Homeland Security (OHS), to be headed by the
governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, a man known to death penalty
opponents as the official who has been leading the lynch mob again st
Mumia abu Jamal and to anti-globalization protesters as the man who
supervised the violent suppression of civil rights at the Republican
National Convention in Philadelphia last July.
Want a foretaste of the kind of actions Ridge is likely to feel will
enhance homeland security? Last July Philadelphia saw coordinated law
enforcement involving FBI, local and state police, with covert
surveillance, infiltration and disruption of legitimate groups,
snooping on email, phonetaps. Protest leaders were arrested early on,
under absurd pretexts and in the case of John Sellers (Ruckus
Society) and Kate Sorensen (Act Up) held on million-dollar bail.
Jailed protesters were brutally handled, denied access to medical
care and attorneys. When all was over, the courts threw out 95 per
cent of the charges brought against protesters by the Philadelphia
police. Ridge presided over an utterly disgraceful and violent denial
of freedoms of assembly, free speech and due process. The only
comfort we can is that the FBI, CIA, FEMA, Pentagon and Coast Guard
will see the Office of Homeland Security as a bureaucratic threat and
move swiftly to neutralize it. We have no doubt that these seasoned
bureaucratic fighters will soon be leaking information discreditable
to Ridge.
Of greater concern is Attorney General John Ashcroft's agenda, now
being rushed to Congress. There are three components to what has been
described as "the mother of all anti-terrorism bills". Immigration;
wiretapping and domestic intelligence surveillance; search and
seizure. The bill sought by Ashcroft vests virtually unlimited
authority in the US Attorney General to target non-citizens with
arrest, indefinite incarceration and deportation. The arrests can be
made on the basis of secret evidence with little or no opportunity
for meaningful judicial review. As the ACLU points out, the upgraded
sanctions could mean that if a legal immigrant had in the 1980s
contributed to Mandela's African National Congress, which could be
grounds for deportation today.
There's an irony here. As the writer John Mecklin has recently
pointed out in the San Francisco Weekly, among the first investors in
Arbusto Energy, George W. Bush's early adventure in the oil business,
was James Bath, a Texas airplane broker. According to Mecklin, Bass
invested $50,000 in Arbusto (the word for bush in Spanish), said sum
coming from Saudi investors including the bin Laden family. If true,
this means that theoretically Bush could be subject to sanction as
benefiting indirectly from terror.
Ashcroft is seeking expanded wiretapping power, plus enhanced ability
to snoop on e-sites. The bill seeks roving wiretap ability, meaning
that the police could tap any phone used by their target, no matter
to whom that phone might belong. In Ashcroft's line of fire is the
"probable cause" standard, governing warrants to snoop. Ashcroft's
bill also seeks to vastly widen law enforcement's ability to conduct
secret searches. As the ACLU emphasizes, "this bill would extend the
authority of the government to request 'secret searches' in every
criminal offense." As usual, emergency is used as the pretext for a
far wider assault on basic constitutional rights.
The president's speech came at the end of a week of ferocious war
mongering. The predictable eye-for-an-eye frenzy built up its usual
lethal head of steam with predictable rapidity. The outstanding
question is: how many eyes for an eye. Count 6,500 dead in the Trade
Towers, the four hijacked planes and the Pentagon. How many dead does
this require in Kabul, or Baghdad or elsewhere in the hinterlands of
terrorist Islam?
The only quick way to achieve killing on this scale would be with a
substantial nuclear device on a city. Given this requirement, we may
applaud the restraint of Thomas Woodrow in the Washington Times on
September 14, though his moderation is salted with the pusillanimous
phrase "at a bare minimum". Woodrow recommends that "at a bare
minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin
Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly
seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as
cowardice on the part of the United States and the current
administration."
Absent dropping a Big One, how can the necessary revenge be exacted?
Cruise missiles, used by Bill Clinton as a way of expressing his
displeasure at Sudan, may be useful for destroying pharmaceutical
factories, hospitals, even defense ministries, but the body counts
are not robust. But who or what is there to bomb in Afghanistan? The
Russians have already done their best. A pathetically poor country in
the first place, Afghanistan is only marginally ahead of Mali, in
terms of available infrastructure to destroy, with far more
challenging terrain.
A land invasion in force, a blitzkrieg sparing nothing and no one?
Afghanistan is famously the graveyard of punitive missions embarked
upon by the Great Powers, as the British discovered in the nineteenth
century and the Soviets in the 1980s. The mere mounting an
expeditionary force would take would be a difficult, possibly
protracted business, landing the United States in a prodigious number
of diplomatic difficulties, given the mutual antagonisms and stresses
of adjacent or nearby states such as Pakistan, India, Russia's
dependency Tadzikistan, China.
One familiar way extricating oneself from confrontation an unsuitable
foe is to substitute a more satisfactory one. Though it is highly
likely that Iran was the sponsor of the downing of Panam Flight 103,
in revenge for the downing of the Iranian Airbus by the US carrier
Vincennes (whose crew was subsequently decorated for its conduct in
shooting down a planeload of civilians) the US preferred to identify
Qaddafi's Libya as the culprit, as a more easily negotiable target
for revenge. Already there's a lobby, the most conspicuous of whom is
former CIA chief James Woolsey, pressing Iraq's case as possible
sponsor or co-sponsor of the World Trade Center attacks. So sanctions
against Iraq could be strengthened, its cities bombed and perhaps
even another invasion attempted.
Obviously aware of the difficulties of surrounding speedy, adequately
bloody retribution, Bush's entourage have been talking in Mao-like
terms about "protracted war", or a "war in the shadows". The purely
nominal ban against US Government-sponsored assassination (there have
been numerous CIA-backed against Castro since the mid-1970s ban, if
you believer the Cubans) will be lifted, as will the supposed
inhibition against the CIA hiring unsavory characters, meaning drug
smugglers, many of them also trained in the flying schools of
southern Florida.
The war in the shadows will be definition be shadowy (hence poor
provender for the appetite for revenge), at least until some
CIA-backed revenge bombing surfaces into public view like the
attempted bombing of Sheikh Fadlallah outside a Beirut mosque,
sponsored by CIA chief William Casey, which missed the Sheikh but
which killed nearly a hundred bystanders, including many children.
On the morning of September 11 Judge Henry Wood was trying, of all
things, an American airline crash damage case in Federal District
court in Little Rock, Arkansas. In the wake of the attacks there were
orders to close the courthouse. All obeyed, except Judge Wood, aged
83, who insisted that jury and lawyers and attendants remain in
place. Turning down a plea for mistrial by the defendant, Wood said,
"This looks like an intelligent jury to me and I didn't want the
judicial system interrupted by a terrorist act, no matter how
horrible."
Wood's was the proper reaction. America could do with more of what
used to be called the Roman virtues. A monstrous thing happened in
New York, but should this be a cause for a change in national
consciousness? Is America so frail? People talk of the trauma of
another Pearl Harbor, but truth to say, the trauma in the aftermath
of the Day of Infamy in 1941 was far in excess of what the
circumstances warranted, and assiduously fanned by the government for
reasons of state. Ask the Japanese Americans who were interned.
Why, for that matter, ground all air traffic and semi-paralyze the
economy, with further interminable and useless inconveniences
promised travelers in the months and possibly years to come? Could
any terrorist have hoped not only to bring down the Trade Center
towers but also destroy the airline industry? It would have been far
better to ask passengers to form popular defense committees on every
plane, bring their own food and drink, keep alert for trouble and
look after themselves. A properly vigilant democracy of the air.
Remember, even if there were no x-ray machines, no searches, no
passenger checks, it would still be far more dangerous to drive to
the airport than to get on a plane.
Martyrdom is hard to beat. In the first few centuries after Christ
the Romans tried it against the Christians, whose martyrdoms were
almost entirely sacrificial of themselves, not of others. The lust
for heaven of a Muslim intent on suicidal martyrdom was surely never
so eloquent as that of St Ignatius in the second century who, under
sentence of death, doomed to the Roman amphitheater and a hungry
lion, wrote in his Epistle to the Romans, "I bid all men know that of
my own free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me. . . Let
me be given to the wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto
God. I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the wild beasts that I may
be found the pure bread of Christ. Entice the wild beasts that they
may become my sepulchre. . . Come fire and cross and grapplings with
wild beasts, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my
whole body; only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ."
Eventually haughty imperial Rome made its accommodation with
Christians, just as Christians amid the furies and martyrdoms and
proscriptions of the Reformation, made accommodations with each
other. What sort of accommodation should America make right now? How
about one with the history of the past hundred years, in an effort to
improve the moral world climate of the next hundred years? We use the
word accommodation in the sense of an effort to get to grips with
history, as inflicted by the powerful upon the weak. We have been
miserably failed by our national media here, as Jude Wanniski,
political economist and agitator of conventional thinking, remarked
in the course of a well-merited attack on "bipartisanship", which
almost always means obdurate determination to pursue a course of
collective folly without debate: "It is because of this
bipartisanship that our press corps has become blind to the evil acts
we commit as a nation."
America has great enemies circling the campfires and threatening the
public good. They were rampant the day before the September 11
attacks, with the prospect of deflation, sated world markets, idled
capacity, shrinking social services. Is ranting about Kabul and
throwing money at the Pentagon going to solve those national
emergencies?
There is no compelling reason to accept that bin Laden is the Master
Terror Mind of the World. On some fairly persuasive accounts, his
resources have dwindled, both in terms of money and equipment. He
lives in a cave without phone or fax or email, hungrily devouring
long outdated editions of newspapers brought by visitors. He may an
inspirational force to the terrorist cadres, but we strongly doubt
that he is the hands-on master of terror portrayed by the
Administration, manipulating world financial markets.
A great nation does not respond to a single hour of terrible mayhem
in two cities by hog-tying itself with new repressive laws and abuses
of constitutional freedoms, like Gulliver doing the work of the
Lilliputians and lashing himself to the ground with a thousand cords.
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================================================================
nytcov-09.25.01-21:32:37-6372 " JC
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
