December 14, 2008 - The Baseball Season Begins in Iraq

The Iraqi reporter who threw both his shoes yelled, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog!"

Honor Vets by Learning About Depleted Uranium

The rest of the world knows about the health effects of the Depleted Uranium weaponry we use. Only Americans are kept in the dark.

*****************************************

As Europe mourns in Verdun today for those lost in "The War to End All Wars", World War I, we could look to another moment in European history to shed light on the most aggressively silenced story of the Bush administration.

In late 2000 and January 2001, reports were exploding across Europe about the rise in cancer amongst NATO soldiers who had served in the "peacekeeping missions" in Bosnia and Kosovo. The effects of the depleted uranium in the U.S. and U.K. weapons could not be ignored.

But history shows that the United Nations and the World Health Organization could be intimidated. The report from the WHO – that detailed how the DU vaporized upon impact into tiny particles that were breathed in, or consumed through the mouth or entered through open wounds, where the irradiating bits attacked cells all the way through the body, causing mutations along the way – was shelved under pressure from the U.S.

Even now, the major U.S. news organizations do not touch the subject, though the international press cannot ignore it. Even last month, a Middle Eastern Reuters reporter discussed the health damages because of the contaminated environment with Iraqi Environment Minister Nermeen Othman,

"When we talk about it, people may think we are overreacting. But in fact the environmental catastrophe that we inherited in Iraq is even worse than it sounds."

And The Tehran Times further endangers their country by continuing to report on the problem, calling it a war crime.

And across the internet, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Roger Helbig seeks to intimidate anyone who dares to bring up the subject.

But we evolve, and the United Nations First Committee has overwhelmingly passed a resolution , on October 31st, calling for "relevant UN agencies, in this case the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to update and complete their research into the possible health and environmental impact of the use of uranium weapons by 2010." The only countries that voted against it were the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and France.

Meanwhile, to help the reader get to the point, I've put together the following. Although the facts, for the most part, do not contain links, there is a list of the references at the end.

Ten Essential Facts:

1. Depleted uranium, the nuclear waste of uranium enrichment, is not actually "depleted" of radiation; 99.3% of it is Uranium238, which still emits radioactive alpha particles at the rate 12,400/second, with an estimated half life of 4.5 billion years.

2. Depleted uranium is plentiful - there are 7 pounds remaining for every pound of enriched uranium - and requires expensive and often politically-contentious hazardous waste storage.

3. Depleted uranium is less of a problem for the nuclear industry when it is cheaply passed on to U.S. weapons manufacturers for warheads, penetrators, bunker-busters, missiles, armor and other ammunition used by the U.S. military in the Middle East and elsewhere, and sold to other countries and political factions.

4. Depleted uranium is "pyrophoric", which makes it uniquely effective at piercing hard targets, because upon impact, it immediately burns, vaporizing the majority of its bulk and leaving a hard, thin, sharpened tip - and large amounts of radioactive particles suspended in the atmosphere.

5. Depleted uranium weaponry was first used in the U.S. bombing of Iraq in 1991, under President George H. W. Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.

6. Depleted uranium weaponry was later used by President Bill Clinton in the NATO "peace-keeping" bombing missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia. By January 2001, as the 2nd President Bush and Dick Cheney were moving in to the White House, there was a furor in Europe over the news of an alarming increase in leukemia and other cancers amongst the NATO troops who'd served in the Balkans.

7. The World Health Organization suppressed a November 2001 report on the health hazards of depleted uranium by Dr. Keith Baverstock, Head of the WHO's Radiation Protection Division and his team, commissioned by the United Nations. Baverstock's report, "Radiological Toxicity of Depleted Uranium", detailed the significant danger of airborne vaporized depleted uranium particles, already considerably more prevalent in Iraq than the Balkans due to the difference in military tactics, because they are taken into the body by inhaling and ingesting, and then their size and solubility determines how quickly they move through the respiratory, circulatory and gastrointestinal systems, attacking and poisoning from within as they travel, and where the damages occur. In addition, the report warns that the particles tend to settle in the soft tissue of the testes, and may cause mutations in sperm. In 2004 Dr. Baverstock, no longer at the WHO, released the report through Rob Edwards at Scotland's Sunday Herald.

8. The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney administration twisted the meaning of the failure of the World Health Organization to produce evidence of depleted uranium's health hazards, turning it into evidence that there was no link between exposure to depleted uranium and the increases in cancer in Europe and Iraq; instead, as presented in the January 20, 2003 report by the new Office of Global Communications, ironically titled Apparatus of Lies: Saddam's Disinformation and Propaganda 1990 - 2003, the depleted uranium uproar was only an exploitation of fear and suffering. Two months later, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Rice began to "Shock and Awe" Baghdad by again dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on densely populated areas.

9. On March 27, 2003, significant increases in depleted uranium particles in the atmosphere were detected by the air sampler filter systems of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at 8 different sites near Aldermaston Berkshire, Great Britain, and continued at 4-5 times the previous norm until the end of April 2003, after the Coalition forces declared the war over. This information only came to light in a report on January 6, 2006 by Dr. Chris Busby, due to his diligent fight for access to the data through Britain's Freedom of Information law.

10. We have a new, intelligent President, who is willing to listen. It is up to us to bring this to his attention. THIS IS HOW WE CAN HONOR VETERANS.

***************************************





VALUABLE REFERENCES:

Campaign Against Depleted Uranium. http://www.cadu.org.uk/ Founded by one of the great long-time scientist/activists, Dr. Rosalie Bertell.

International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) is probably the best of the best all-in-one place http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/.

Department of Defense description of self-sharpening depleted uranium: click here

Dr. Keith Baverstock's November 2001 report, suppressed by the World Health Organization:http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Radiological-Toxicity-WHO5nov01.htm

Rob Edwards article on Baverstock: http://www.robedwards.com/2004/02/who_suppressed_.html

Karen Parker, a Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Lawyer: http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker.html Scroll down on the page and you'll find her documents on DU.

January 2003 White House Report - Apparatus of Lies: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/suffering.html

January 2006 Chris Busby report: click here

***********************************************
COMMENTS FROM THE OPEDNEWS POST

From "editnetwork":

"Traces of uranium" found at bombed Syrian plant

My first thought at seeing that headline was: "depleted uranium."

It's truly a crime that our outgoing administration somehow is escaping all accountability as it waltzes out the door. They are getting away with this horror of irradiating a population in Iraq that posed no threat to us and had been systematically weakened by ten years of sanctions, supposedly directed against their leaders. Now the displaced truly have no home to which to return, no water to safely drink, etc., because of lingering radiation. (Of course our civilian contractors supply safe water, etc., to the occupying "warfighters.")

All this lasting destruction thanks to us. Some legacy. I have no reason to doubt that the arms we give or "sell" to Israel are just as "advanced" and were used against the Syrian installation they destroyed and probably stand ready for use anywhere else in the region they decide to strike. Hence the "traces of uranium" which scientists will no doubt find a way to construe as evidence that the Syrian plant was bent on nefarious (nuclear) ends.

I may be proud to live in a free country, but I am not repeat not proud of the mark the U.S. is making on this planet and the ruin we are wreaking in the lives of countless humans and uncounted ecosystems.

***

From "editnetwork":

Note to Barbara -- requesting clarification

In your first listed point of information:

'Depleted uranium, the nuclear waste of uranium enrichment, is not actually "depleted" of radiation; 99.3% of it is Uranium238, which still emits radioactive alpha particles at the rate 12,400/second, with an estimated half life of 4.5 billion years.'

For "12,400/second" to be meaningful, it should be per given unit of mass (weight): for example, alpha particles 12,400/second/kg or whatever. I am unable to find the factor and hope your research will turn it up.

In fact, that "per weight" factor will turn out to be rather high, because with such a long half-life the radiation is fairly low-level. This in NO way diminishes the hazard of exposure to this material or the criminality of its continued use in weapons, whether against civilian or military populations.

Thank you -- the editor person

***

From Me (BBT):

Dr. Rosalie Bertell

Here is the article full of excellent information by Dr. Rosalie Bertell written for the May 1999 Hague Peace Conference, entitled "Gulf War Veterans and Depleted Uranium" from which I got those specific statistics: http://www.ccnr.org/du_hague.html.

The point is that the public is fooled by the term "depleted", which generally means "empty", which seems to indicate that it is harmless.

Similarly, the term "low-level radiation" results in another misconception. I am not a scientist, but I do understand that 12,400 emissions per second indicates a great deal of blasting. It turns out that the term "low-level" refers to the size of the distance the emission travels, not the power of the blast.

While I may be able to stand a few feet away from a chunk of depleted uranium and not be affected by it, because the emissions don't reach me, if instead there is a particle of it in my body, the cells that are next to that particle that is working its way through the gastrointestinal or respiratory system, for example, are being constantly bombarded, and change as a result.

For the universe of my body, there is nothing low-level about the experience.

Thank you for asking for more clarification. I hope this helps.

***

From "editnetwork":

Thank you for clarifying

The article for which you posted a link helped enormously, and I hope everyone reads it.

The portion that clarified the statistic for me is this paragraph:

"Natural uranium in soil is about 1 to 3 parts per million, whereas in uranium ore it is about 1,000 times more concentrated, reaching about 0.05 to 0.2 percent of the total weight. Depleted uranium concentrate is almost 100 percent uranium. More than 99 percent of both natural and depleted uranium consists of the isotope U-238. One gram of pure U-238 has a specific activity of 12.4 kBq, which means there are 12,400 atomic transformations every second, each of which releases an energetic alpha particle. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.51 E+9 (or 4.51 times 10 to the 9th power, equivalent to 4,510,000,000 years)."

So the emission rate is 12,400 per second per gram of U-238, much more than I realized. And even though they are low-energy (velocity) alpha particles (helium nuclei, two protons with two neutrons), they are massive and do considerable subatomic damage when they do strike -- as do ingested particles of this material, no matter how small.

Especially enlightening was the section a bit later in the article was the treatment of decay products, one kind after another decaying into further radioactive isotopes. The final resting stage of this process is atoms of lead, which noboty wants in their system.

Thanks again for raising this terribly important issue.

***

From Me (BBT):

My Thanks for Your Follow Through

It is that concern to really know what's being said, so you, too, can consider its meaning and what you can do about it, that encourages me.

More important, it creates the public dialogue which is so profoundly called for, so we can put an end to the use of depleted uranium in weaponry.

Thank you.

***

From Me (BBT):

Writing about DU

I should mention that I first learned about depleted uranium on Memorial Day 2005. It took me more than a year and a half to dare to post anything anywhere about it, but during that time I gathered a ton of articles and reports, so when I did finally say something, I could back it up.

Some people who write about Depleted Uranium are so frustrated (understandably) that they let their need to be heard outshine the facts, and those who want this embarrassing and potentially expensive liability silenced are ready and willing to jump on that weakness.

I've been pleased that my presentation of the essentials has been reviewed and confirmed by two of the top experts in the field. Phew.

It is a sad tale, but it must be faced.

***

From Me (BBT):

P.S.

I noticed that this article has been picked up and posted on a blog.

When I visited the blog, there he was, that retired Lt. Col. Roger Helbig I mentioned in the article, to criticize the blogger for posting "lies about depleted uranium", saying that no one ever reads the referenced reports.

So, I wonder, did Helbig actually read the article? Does he actually criticize an article that points out that he may show up to criticize it?

Ask Petraeus

On Friday, April 4th, Congressman Robert Wexler sent out a email asking what questions we, the people, would like asked of General Petraeus when he delivers his assessment of the Iraq War to Congress next week, and appears before such committees as the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee, beginning next Tuesday, April 8th.

Wexler asks that we submit "short and focused" questions to him at contact@wexlerforcongress.com along with a first name, city and state. He will ask two questions that have been sent by the public.

I received the email on the same day I discovered a report released on April 1, 2008 entitled: "U.S. War Crimes in Iraq 2007-2008", written by Karen Parker, President of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers and Chief Delegate to the United Nations for the International Education Development/Humanitarian Law Project, along with author/policy analyst Bill Rau, produced by Consumers for Peace.

The only news article available to date on the release of this report is titled: "Report Recommends Petraeus Be Quizzed by Congress on Iraq War Crimes".

The report is the third in a series, with the original being, "War Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq and Mechanisms for Accountability", published in October 2006, and revised in December 2006.

This original report is endorsed by such honorable scholars and journalists as Howard Zinn, Dahr Jamail, Kathy Kelly, and retired Colonel Ann Wright.

The second report, titled "U.S. War Crimes in the 'Surge' -- 2007: Petraeus Manual and Tactics Flout International Law" is an analysis by Karen Parker of the "Counterinsurgency Field Manual" co-authored by General Petraeus and released in 2007, followed by documentation by Bill Rau of the effects of the policies and tactics of the U.S. military on the Iraqi population.

Both the above reports are notably concise, with lengths of merely 38 pages and 26 pages, respectively, and present significant information we, the people, need to know.

The third report, the one just released, a mere 20 pages, is the one you should read immediately.

Even if you only have a few minutes to glean information, ">this piece is revelatory.

From the first report onward, Parker and Bau have shown that the U.S. military, in its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has turned its back on international humanitarian law, as well defined by the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

In this third report, the "surge" that has been "successful", according Mr. Bush, Mr. Gates, General Petraeus and others who either have ulterior motives or are drinking the Koolaid, is completely based on statistics that indicate a decrease of Iraqis killing other Iraqis.

However, what they are not reporting is the severe increase in civilian fatalities, a figure that was already too large to report without public outrage.

This notable increase has been caused by the increase of "air power" in place of troops on the ground. Rather than going door to door searching for "insurgents" (otherwise known as 'Iraqis-with-a-legal-right-to-resist-the-tyranny-of-an-occupying-force), more often the U.S. is finding it easier to use helicopters and bombers to blast away at "assumed targets".

This does make for less American casualties, to be sure, but the slaughter is also conveniently less noticeable to the America public, since the Pentagon has made it clear from the beginning that it is not in charge of body count.

Of course, the Iraqis can't help but notice it.

In addition, the report reviews the continuing increase of detention of innocent Iraqis, up from 17,000 in March 2007 to approximately 50,000 at this time. This includes approximately 1000 children as of December 2007. They are picked up arbitrarily, often for being male, held without charge, for a year or more, in filthy, disease-ridden prisons that were meant to hold 30-40% of their current occupancy – with the apparent intention of intimidating Iraqi citizens into submission.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is over 60%, making the promise of money for terrorist/resistance acts even more tempting for the most moderate Iraqis.

Two thirds of medical professionals have left the country, and those who remain have inadequate facilities and supplies, so needless deaths are a constant.

Few schools remain open, many educators have also left, and few students regularly attend, leaving a large population who will not have the skills necessary as adults to improve their lives.

Other services, such as water and electricity, are worse than ever. While living without electricity may be mostly survivable, drinking contaminated water is not. Last fall, a major cholera epidemic struck 45 Iraqi districts.

So, the actual result of this "successful" surge is an increase in hatred for the U.S. and its troops. . .

Which naturally results in more "insurgents".

Which, as I see it, gives those-who-profit-from-war more reason to keep it going.

Hence, just last month, as McCain called for a 100 year war, Mr. Bush found military service to be "exciting" and "romantic", Mr. Cheney uttered his infamous "So?" regarding the opinions of Americans, and Iraq and Afghanistan War Vets testified about atrocities at "The Winter Soldier" conference, the Pentagon called for a delay in troop withdrawal in Iraq.

Sickening, eh?

That is why now is the time to take action and ask questions.You, too, can contact Congressman Wexler (contact@wexlerforcongress.com).

And any other Congressman, Senator, journalist, and/or Presidential candidate you want.

Read the reports -- and/or tell them you know about them. And demand accountability -- from both the General -- and those who should be asking questions.

As for me, these are the questions I have sent:

1. What has been the effect of the increased use of aerial attack helicopters and aerial bombing on the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians?

2. Why does the U.S. military not provide the numbers on Iraqis killed by U.S. troops?

3. In terms of the international law established by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, what do you understand to be the responsibility of the United States military in Iraq regarding its civilians?


You, too, have a right -- no, now that you know more, you have a responsibility to ASK.

Friday Questions for Diane, April 4, 2008

The John Yoo torture memo is noteworthy, as further hard evidence of the cold mentality and legal manipulations of the Bush/Cheney administration, but there is little new information there.

It would serve the public so much better if the media would cover the release this week of the “U.S. War Crimes in Iraq 2007-2008”, a report by Karen Parker, President of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers and Chief Delegate to the United Nations for the International Education Development/Humanitarian Law Project, along with author/policy analyst Bill Rau, produced by Consumers For Peace.

In this update to their 2006 report, Ms. Parker and Mr. Rau shine a light on the increase of civilian fatalities, with great detail, as the U.S. has increased the use of “air power” in place of ground troops. This strategy continues to result in massive, indiscriminate killing and maiming of the civilian population, and completely goes against international humanitarian rights law as defined by the United Nations.

They point out that reports on the success of the surge are based on the decrease in Iraqis killing other Iraqis. However, the number of Iraqis killed by the U.S. is not counted when claiming the surge has been a success.

The report calls for Congress to question General Petraeus about these missing statistics that would show the impact of U.S. military actions and policies on the Iraqi people.

Do your fine journalists there today think this a worthy area of investigation?

A Call for Justice

January 4, 2008*

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chair, Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Conyers:

We are writing out of deep concern for our nation. The President and members of his administration have violated, and continue to violate, our Constitution, significant and numerous treaty obligations, customary international law, and laws passed by Congress. However, the federal courts and Congress (even with a Democratic majority) have utterly failed to hold the President and his administration accountable and to put an end to the egregious violations of law and abuses of power.

When the President abuses and exceeds the powers vested in the executive branch, the people of our nation have reason to expect, and our Constitution contemplates, that the other co-equal branches of government – the courts and Congress – will rein in the President, not only holding him to account, but also making it clear that such abuses and excesses will not be tolerated, now or in the future, in our constitutional democracy. When the courts and Congress fail in their duties to challenge and repair abuses of executive power, they condone the abuses and are thereby complicit in undermining our Constitution, our international standing, and our nation’s commitment to the rule of law.

Our nation and our constitutional form of government are at a crucial crossroads. Either we condone and thereby encourage unlawful misconduct by our President and his administration, or we hold them to account and put an end to the illegalities. We can make it clear to the world, including all U.S. citizens, present and future, that we are a nation of laws, that we will support and uphold our Constitution, and that we will not tolerate the undermining of the carefully structured system of checks and balances among three co-equal branches of government. To challenge, disclose and censure the abuses of power by the Bush administration would also serve to uphold our nation’s proud history of support for fundamental human rights, which has distinguished our nation, until now, from those totalitarian, human-rights abusing nations that have kidnapped, disappeared, and tortured people, and deprived them of any semblance of due process.

In a constitutional form of government, which is committed to the rule of law, the courts are a safeguard against unlawful conduct by government officials, including the President. The courts are intended to be a safeguard against tyranny and dictatorship, both procedurally and substantively. Alarmingly, that is no longer the case in the United States.

Recently, a federal court has ruled that the invocation of the “state secrets” doctrine by the Bush administration is sufficient to deny citizens the right to obtain information about whether their communications have been subjected to warrantless governmental surveillance, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and federal statutory law (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Without the ability to obtain that information, the parties challenging the unlawful governmental surveillance have been held to lack standing to pursue their claims in court. Contrary to earlier false representations by President Bush that warrants were being obtained by his administration before electronic surveillance of communications was being conducted, the federal government is known to have continually and blatantly violated a criminal law passed by Congress and one of the most cherished rights protected by our Constitution. However, astoundingly, there is now no recourse in the federal courts.

The federal courts have even denied recourse to those who, pursuant to the “extraordinary rendition” program, have been illegally kidnapped, disappeared, and tortured by US agents and assignees in other countries. That dangerous lack of accountability has resulted from the indiscriminate acceptance by the courts of the assertion by the Bush administration of the “state secrets” doctrine. The Bush administration has invoked the “state secrets” doctrine 39 times, compared to a total of only six times by other presidents from 1953 to 1976, during the height of the Cold War.

Without action by Congress, these recent court decisions significantly undermine any notion that the rule of law prevails in the United States in instances of presidential abuse of power – and make it clear that no remnant of justice remains in relation to claims that such abuses have caused severe harm to innocent people. These decisions also call into question whether the truth about these abuses will ever be brought to light. All of this is leading our nation toward an unbounded and unaccountable tyranny, completely foreign to what many of us value most about our beloved country.

Because the courts are not providing a means of disclosing, or holding the Bush administration accountable for, serious violations of the law, it is particularly essential that Congress vigorously assume its constitutional prerogative and duty to thoroughly investigate and disclose the truth about the abuses of power and excesses of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and others in the administration, all of which have caused extreme damage to our country.

Of course, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives is best suited to conduct any inquiry into abuses of power by the President and others in his administration, particularly when violations of domestic statutory law, the Constitution, and treaty obligations have occurred. As Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, you have an historic opportunity and solemn responsibility, through the holding of hearings, to discover and disclose, and to bring the President and others to account for, the astounding abuses of power and violations of the law arising from the following misconduct, all of which have been severely injurious to our great nation:

• Authorizing, permitting, and condoning the kidnapping, disappearance, imprisonment and torture of people throughout the world, in violation of the US Constitution, domestic statutory law, treaty obligations, and customary international law. (In connection with the investigation of the illegal “extraordinary rendition” program, the Judiciary Committee should consider recommending passage of a compensation bill for Khaled el-Masri, Maher Arar, and others who have been kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured by U.S. agents and who have been denied any recourse to justice in US federal courts.)

• Authorizing and permitting the arrest of US citizens without charges, and causing them to be held, indefinitely and incommunicado, without access to an attorney, without the right to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement through the great writ of habeas corpus, without a trial, and under inhumane circumstances.

• Authorizing, permitting, and condoning the electronic surveillance of US citizens’ communications, including emails and telephone conversations, without a warrant, in violation of the US Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

• Engaging in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Covenant, and the United Nations Charter (all international treaty obligations, which, under the Constitution, comprise the supreme law of the land), following a public campaign comprised largely of fictitious and fraudulent representations intended to persuade the people of the United States that the war was justified by self-defense. The fraud was comprised of outright misstatements of material fact and by withholding material information known to President Bush and members of his administration that was directly contrary to the representations of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others in the administration to Congress and the American people.

• Abusing and exceeding the executive power, and undermining the constitutional principle of separation of power, through the issuance of a record number of signing statements following the enactment of legislation by Congress. These signing statements have led to an unprecedented disregard by the executive branch, including administrative agencies, of federal statutory laws, and to the assertion of an unbounded dictatorial “unitary executive” presidential power, during the so-called “war on terror,” an undeclared “war” that is geographically and temporally unlimited.

In addition to inquiries into the above grave criminal misconduct and other gross abuses of power, we urge that Judiciary Committee hearings include an inquiry into the use of false propaganda by members of the Bush administration, which has served as the source for articles in the news media that misled many of the people in the United States and elsewhere concerning the supposed “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein and the execution of the war. When our government lies to the people, with the aid of an inept and credulous news media, our democracy is at grave risk.

Hearings on the matters described above could be held for the purposes of (1) disclosing serious criminal misconduct and egregious abuses of power, (2) accountability, and (3) deterrence. Crucial to our constitutional democracy and a commitment to the rule of law is a determination of the facts of abuse and illegal misconduct, then conveying that the outrages of the Bush administration are not reflective of American values, and that our proud nation will not condone the subversion of our values, our laws, or our Constitution by any president or members of his or her administration. Such a result would also vindicate Congress’s vital role as a co-equal branch of our government that will zealously protect its role, rights, and responsibilities under the Constitution.

We urge you, as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to commence hearings without further delay in connection with the above described violations of law and abuses of power by President Bush and members of his administration. To embrace the opportunity to discover and disclose the truth, and to provide for the sort of accountability, transparency, and openness due to any democratic people, will be an important step toward a national recommitment to the rule of law, a renewal of international respect, and a return to the national values we Americans have always cherished for ourselves and our posterity.

Respectfully,

George McGovern, Ralph Nader, Robert A. Feuer, Rocky Anderson, Blase Bonpane, Theresa Bonpane, Ramsey Clark, Mimi Kennedy, Andy Jacobs, Jr., James Abourezk, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Paul Findley, Kevin Zeese, John Nichols, Tim Carpenter, Marcus Raskin, Jonathan Kozol, Harry Belafonte

[*Bold and italic emphasis by BBT]

To Honor Veterans, What Americans Should Know About Depleted Uranium

The United Nations has voted to move forward on the issue of depleted uranium weapons and their effects.

No longer facing the infamously brutish U.S. Ambassador (never confirmed, only recessed) John Bolton, on October 31st, the vote in the UN First Committee was 122 to 6 in favor of a resolution calling for studies to be done on depleted uranium and its effects by various countries, with the results to come back at the next General Assembly where it will be on the Agenda.

The United States and its ally, the United Kingdom, voted against it, along with The Netherlands, The Czech Republic, Israel, and its newest surprise friend, France.

While Americans are extraordinarily unaware, misled and deceived on this nuclear waste material that is at the core of the U.S. military's most effective weapons, the rest of the world knows the damages suffered first by Iraq, then the former European NATO troops who served in the Balkans in the late 90's, then Afghanistan and even more in Iraq again.

In addition, on November 6th, the International Coalition to Ban the Use of Uranium Weapons launched its Global Disinvestment Campaign - with their "Too Risky for Business" dossier, which provides information as to which banking institutions are investing in the weapons manufacturers that use depleted uranium.

The time has come. America needs to ask the tough questions and shine a light on the truth. Is there a candidate willing to lead us in that direction? What are their positions on this? Have any of them they even dared to face this? Do we have a responsibility to raise the subject? Yes.

Check out this list of essential facts about depleted uranium so you can understand why the world is so angry, and why Bush/Cheney's statements on Iran are so hypocritical.



Ten Essential Facts:

1. Depleted uranium, the nuclear waste of uranium enrichment, is not actually "depleted" of radiation; 99.3% of it is Uranium238, which still emits radioactive alpha particles at the rate 12,400/second, with an estimated half life of 4.5 billion years.

2. Depleted uranium is plentiful - there are 7 pounds remaining for every pound of enriched uranium - and requires expensive and often politically-contentious hazardous waste storage.

3. Depleted uranium is less of a problem for the nuclear industry when it is cheaply passed on to U.S. weapons manufacturers for warheads, penetrators, bunker-busters, missiles, armor and other ammunition used by the U.S. military in the Middle East and elsewhere, and sold to other countries and political factions.

4. Depleted uranium is "pyrophoric", which makes it uniquely effective at piercing hard targets, because upon impact, it immediately burns, vaporizing the majority of its bulk and leaving a hard, thin, sharpened tip - and large amounts of radioactive particles suspended in the atmosphere.

5. Depleted uranium weaponry was first used in the U.S. bombing of Iraq in 1991, under President George H. W. Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.

6. Depleted uranium weaponry was later used by President Bill Clinton in the NATO "peace-keeping" bombing missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia. By January 2001, as the 2nd President Bush and Dick Cheney were moving in to the White House, there was a furor in Europe over the news of an alarming increase in leukemia and other cancers amongst the NATO troops who'd served in the Balkans.

7. The World Health Organization suppressed a November 2001 report on the health hazards of depleted uranium by Dr. Keith Baverstock, Head of the WHO's Radiation Protection Division and his team, commissioned by the United Nations. Baverstock's report, "Radiological Toxicity of Depleted Uranium", detailed the significant danger of airborne vaporized depleted uranium particles, already considerably more prevalent in Iraq than the Balkans due to the difference in military tactics, because they are taken into the body by inhaling and ingesting, and then their size and solubility determines how quickly they move through the respiratory, circulatory and gastrointestinal systems, attacking and poisoning from within as they travel, and where the damages occur. In addition, the report warns that the particles tend to settle in the soft tissue of the testes, and may cause mutations in sperm. In 2004 Dr. Baverstock, no longer at the WHO, released the report through Rob Edwards at Scotland's Sunday Herald.

8. The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney administration twisted the meaning of the failure of the World Health Organization to produce evidence of depleted uranium's health hazards, turning it into evidence that there was no link between exposure to depleted uranium and the increases in cancer in Europe and Iraq; instead, as presented in the January 20, 2003 report by the new Office of Global Communications, ironically titled Apparatus of Lies: Saddam's Disinformation and Propaganda 1990 - 2003, the depleted uranium uproar was only an exploitation of fear and suffering. Two months later, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Rice began to "Shock and Awe" Baghdad by again dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on densely populated areas.

9. On March 27, 2003, significant increases in depleted uranium particles in the atmosphere were detected by the air sampler filter systems of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at 8 different sites near Aldermaston Berkshire, Great Britain, and continued at 4-5 times the previous norm until the end of April 2003, after the Coalition forces declared the war over. This information only came to light in a report on January 6, 2006 by Dr. Chris Busby, due to his diligent fight for access to the data through Britain's Freedom of Information law.

10. The John Warner Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007, signed into law on October 20 2006, was celebrated by those concerned with depleted uranium because it contained an amendment authored by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), calling for a study of the health effects of depleted uranium on returning soldiers, due in one year. However, George W. Bush also issued a signing statement that day which includes the right to withhold information "which could impair foreign relations". At this time, November 2007, there remains no federal program for all members of the U.S. military and National Guard returning from the Middle East to be tested and treated for the presence of depleted uranium in their bodies, and the study that was called for has not appeared.

Clearly, the story of the United States and depleted uranium is shameful and horribly irresponsible.

The international community, however, is ready to take a stand.

On October 31st, 2007, the United Nations First Committee passed the "Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium" Resolution, by a vote of 122 to 6, with 35 abstentions, requesting that states and international bodies submit a report on depleted uranium to the UN General Assembly by next year's session. The countries voting against it were the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Israel, and the U.S.'s newest surprise friend, France.

The United States will not get away with this forever. Other countries know about the depleted uranium, and they see arrogant hypocrisy in the administration's fear-mongering about Iran as a nuclear threat.

Now, at this moment in our history, the United States needs a leader with the moral courage to face this issue.

So, what we still need to know is:

Where do the Presidential candidates stand on this issue?

Who is willing to be the leader who will stop this?

We need -- and our veterans deserve -- answers.



*****

References and Links:
There are articles and documents that span decades which shed light on Depleted Uranium and the deceptions that surround it. The evidence is plentiful, often overwhelming, but one should be aware that there are powerful interests ready to confuse the public and silence or discredit the scientists and activists.

Campaign Against Depleted Uranium. http://www.cadu.org.uk/ Founded by one of the great long-time scientist/activists, Dr. Rosalie Bertell.

International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) is probably the best of the best all-in-one place http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/.

Department of Defense description of self-sharpening depleted uranium: http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/94/030314-D-9085M-022.pdf

Dr. Keith Baverstock's November 2001 report, suppressed by the World Health Organization: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Radiological-Toxicity-WHO5nov01.htm.

Rob Edwards article on Baverstock: http://www.robedwards.com/2004/02/who_suppressed_.html

Karen Parker, a Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Lawyer: http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker.html Scroll down on the page and you'll find her documents on DU.

Representative Jim McDermott: http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr061020.shtml

October 17, 2006 Presidential signing statement is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/200Http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/200 61017-9.html .

January 2003 White House Report - Apparatus of Lies: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/suffering.html

United Nations First Committee, October 31, 2007: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gadis3357.doc.htm

January 2006 Chris Busby report: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Contamination1jan06.htm

Note: On November 12, 2007, Dr. Janette Sherman, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, and Research Associate and Lecturer with the Radiation and Public Health Project, wrote to me after reading the above, "It looks accurate to me. Good work! You may use my references too if you want."

A Question for Carl Bernstein on KUER's RadioWest

Carl Bernstein appeared on KUER's RadioWest with Doug Fabrizio today. He is the author of the book on Hillary Clinton, A Woman in Charge.

And the question is:

Will Hillary Clinton be willing to tackle the atrocity of depleted uranium in our current weapons -- which would mean she'd have to acknowledge her husband's culpability in this? He continued what the first Bush & his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney started in 1991 in Iraq, when he bombed Kosovo & Bosnia, and Bush2/Cheney have continued to use them despite news in January 2001 that our European NATO allies were coming up with unusually high numbers of cancers, especially leukemia.

Hillary seems to be the least likely Democrat to stop the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military.

Depleted Uranium Still in the VA Closet

Is there perhaps another reason for the VA Secretary James Nicholson to get out before it's too late?

Perhaps so.

For two years I've been researching Depleted Uranium, in waves, as time allows, interrupted by such other urgencies as Diebold and the Bush adminstration's usurping of public safety by controlling EPA and OSHA testing and findings under the guise of Homeland Security.

Some central concepts to know about DU:

It goes back to Bush/Cheney. January 1991, Bush Sr. and his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney blasted Iraq with hundreds of tons of Depleted Uranium weaponry.

Depleted Uranium is used because when it strikes, the friction causes it to instantly burn and sharpen, leaving radioactive particles. These particles hang in the air until moved by air or water.

They are available to be inhaled, ingested through food, water, or simple hand-to-mouth exposure, or they can enter a body by landing on an open wound.

Depending on their size and solubility, they may lodge in the nooks and crannies of the brain, the lungs, the bones, the colon, the liver - blasting nearby cells with "low-level" radiation [Note: Low-level does not mean less deadly, it means the range of the the attack is very small - but perfect for whacking the hell out of the local DNA in a human body).

If the particles are small and soluble they may just move swiftly to the kidneys, where the chemical poisoning may end the suffering quickly.

And these particles are predicted to continue to radiate for hundreds of millions of years, contaminating the water and food chains, carried by wind for hundreds of miles (Iraq has some of the greatest wind/dust storms in the world), causing birth defects and suffering for innocent people for generations to come.

(This is why international human rights attorney Karen Parker calls it a war crime and helped a initial report come before a UN Human Rights subcommittee in 2003. Funny how that whole division seemed to suddenly collapse and was further dashed by the formidably nasty neoconservative John Bolton.)

In January 2001, while Cheney was engaged in finding the best lobbyists to fill the Cabinet, news from Europe was bursting with almost hysteria, as the NATO forces that had been a part of the "peace-keeping" missions in the former Yugoslavia were suffering cancer at an alarming rate, with the blame going to the depleted uranium weaponry used by the United States and the UK.

In response to the concerns of the NATO allies, the United Nations assigned its World Health Organization to investigate. If they had then allowed the world to see the report of their senior radiation expert, Dr. Keith Baverstock, the use of DU weaponry could have been stopped. But the report was shelved, presumably under political pressure. Baverstock has since retired and is working elsewhere to get the word out.

Yes, by the way, that was Bill Clinton in charge during the US bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo.

Which is why Hillary should not be elected. She has a legacy to protect.

Which may also be why the Democrats have failed to jump on this.

Because there is a problem of liability. The greatest class action suit in history. And there have always been people who knew this, and squashed it.

So those who speak up about the effects of DU are shot down quickly. The frustration of trying to raise the issue for almost two decades has left some exhausted and cynical. Careers have been destroyed, scientists discredited, articles pulled, journalists stopped. Some activists have turned on each other.

Regardless of all that, the DU is still radiating.

Saddam Hussain tried to get the world to hear the effects it has had on Iraq, especially when sanctions kept hospitals unable to treat the increase in cancer, especially among the most vulnerable, the children.

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has decried the hypocrisy of the US using DU weapons while taking the world to the brink of another impossibly horrific war over Iran's uranium projects.

Much of the rest of the world knows what has been done in our name.

But we don't. And we don't know why they are all so crazy mad.

Ron Paul was right in the Republican debate. Too bad he didn't go all the way and say what exactly we'd been bombing Iraq with. Not only did Bush 1 and Cheney break their word to the Saudis about staying only long enough to get Iraq out of Kuwait -- they poisoned the entire Middle East for the rest of time.

Oh, well. At least somebody's making money on it, right?

Okay, hopefully, this might inspire a bit of Googling. And sharing.

And if you Google, you just might run into this article, pointing out that Nicholson's predecessor, Anthony Principi, also left rather abruptly and some suspected that increased reported on DU influenced his decision.

Mary Mapes with Brad Friedman

Checking out Bradblog today, July 24th, and his guest hosting the Peter B. Collins radio show, I saw a name that gets me going -- Mary Mapes. I commented on Bradblog:

Mary Mapes! You've got Mary Mapes?! Wow.

Okay, I confess. I spent months in 2005 researching what happened to Dan Rather. I would have finished, and written something up, but the story kept growing.

And I was suddenly interrupted by the Carter Baker Panel, ACVR, etc. and felt like I desperately had to focus on election theft.

And the rest is history.

But that summer, at the first Cindy Sheehan vigil, The Salt Lake Tribune captured the most outrageous photo of me at the moment when, as I spoke about getting the real news, I declared passionately, "Dan Rather was right!"

Whatever mistakes were made, he was right. Bush ducked out of his already plush Air National Guard gig and was AWOL - a spoiled selfish arrogant brat. And since then, he and his folk have lied, and sent others to their deaths. Grrrrrrrr.

Digging into the story, I found Rather's magnificent confrontive interview of Daddy in 1988, as well as a quote from Cheney about how Daddy Bush holds a grudge.

I also discovered that the man who ran the investigatory panel set up by CBS, Richard Thornburgh, who of course was Daddy's AG, has spent a lot of his time and energy at the Justice Department reclassifying documents as secret and covering for the antics of Neil and George W.

Then there's Bill Burkett, Rather's source, a man who was desperate to have the public hear about what he'd seen and what a corrupt man George W. Bush was.

Not only was Burkett THE WITNESS to Bush's National Guard files being cleansed, but his story was told by James Moore in his Bush's War for Re-Election: Iraq, the White House, and the People, released in early 2004, and Moore is also the co-author with Wayne Slater of Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, the book revealing the kind of fiend that Karl Rove has always been.

Burkett was contacted after appearing with Moore, and memos were handed off in a non-trackable way. Burkett did nothing with them for months, until the swift-boating began.

It was a set up! And Bush/Rove got to take so many down.

I just want Mary to know, and Dan, that they've got a passionate, obnoxiously outspoken supporter here in li'l ol' Salt Lake.

I'm on hold now Brad - talk to me!

Yes, I got on, and by then I had reviewed some of my notes from 2005. I was always amazed by what I learned about Richard Thornburgh, who CBS picked to investigate the handling of the National Guard 60 Minutes story. I quickly asked if Mary was aware of Thornburgh's reputation as Bush 1's Attorney General. Afterwards, I followed up in Brad's comments:

To follow up on what I spoke about regarding Bush 1’s Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, who ran the panel that investigated CBS’s National Guard story, here is a section from the an article in the March/April 1993 Columbia Journal Review by Russ W. Baker, "IRAQGATE, The Big One That (Almost) Got Away, Who Chased it – and Who Didn’t"

" ARMING SADDAM

The United States and its European allies have laws and policies designed to prevent arms and military technology from getting into the hands of developing countries, especially where there is a likelihood of their reckless deployment. If these controls were aimed at anyone, certainly they were aimed at the highly repressive, swaggering Iraqi regime, with its history of threatening both its neighbors and its citizens.

Still, when Saddam went to war against Iran, becoming the world’s chief practitioner of chemical warfare, U.S. realpolitikers dubbed him the lesser of two evils, and the one less likely to disrupt the oil flow. The essence of Iraqgate is that secret efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward.

Much of what Saddam received from the West was not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology – ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. We’ve learned by now that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

And we’ve learned that the obscure Atlanta branch of Italy’s largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro [BBT Note: a client of Baker Botts, the law firm of notorious Bush consigliere James Baker III], relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $ 2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq.

All of this was not yet clear in August 1989, when FBI agents raided U.S. branches of BNL, hitting the jackpot in Atlanta. The branch manager in that city, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq – some of which, according to the indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology. Yet three months after the raid, White House officials went right on backing Saddam, approving $ 1 billion more in U.S. government loan guarantees for farm exports to Iraq, even though it was becoming clear that the country was beating plowshares into swords.

At the time, inquiring minds wondered whether Drogoul could possibly have acted alone in such a mammoth operation, as the U.S. government alleged. Was there a formal, secret plan to arm Iraq? And did the U.S. government engage in a massive coverup when evidence of such a plan began to emerge?

In fact, we now know that in February 1990, then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh blocked U.S. investigators from traveling to Rome and Istanbul to pursue the case. And that the lead investigator lacked the basic financial know-how to handle such an investigation, and made an extraordinarily feeble effort to get to the bottom of things.

More damningly, we know know that mid-level staffers at the commerce department altered Iraqi export licenses to obscure the exported materials’ military function – before sending the documents on to Congress, which was investigating the affair.

Eventually, it would turn out that elements of the U.S. government almost certainly knew that Drogoul was funneling U.S.-backed loans – intended for the purchase of agricultural products, machinery, trucks, and other U.S. goods – into dual-use technology and outright military technology. And that the British government was fully aware of the operations of Matrix Churchill, a British firm with an Ohio branch, which was not only at the center of the Iraqi procurement network but was also funded by BNL Atlanta. (Precision equipment supplied by Matrix Churchill was reportedly a target this January when the Western allies renewed their attack on Iraq).

It would later be alleged by bank executives that the Italian government, long a close U.S. ally as well as BNL’s ultimate owner, had knowledge of BNL’s loan diversions. It looked to some like an international coalition. As New York Times columnist William Safire argued last December 7, “Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator.”

Safire had been on the case since 1989, turning out slashing op-ed pieces. But readers of the Times’s news pages must have wondered where Safire’s body-blows were coming from, since the news columns contained almost nothing about Iraqgate for the longest time. "

In addition, this from Webster Tarpley’s George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography

The old imperialist idea of Theodore Roosevelt was quickly revived by the Bush administration during 1989. Through a series of actions by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, the U.S. Supreme Court, and CIA Director William Webster, the Bush regime arrogated to itself a sweeping carte blanche for extraterritorial interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, all in open defiance of the norms of international law.

These illegal innovations can be summarized under the heading of the “Thornburgh Doctrine.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrogated to itself the “right” to search premises outside of U.S. territory and to arrest and kidnap foreign citizens outside of U.S. jurisdiction, all without the concurrence of the judicial process of the other countries whose territory was thus subject to violation.

U.S. armed forces were endowed with the “right” to take police measures against civilians.

The CIA demanded that an Executive Order prohibiting the participation of U.S. government officials and military personnel in the assassination of foreign political leaders, which had been issued by President Ford in October 1976, be rescinded.

There is every indication that this presidential ban on assassinations of foreign officials and politicians, which had been promulgated in response to the Church and Pike Committees’ investigations of CIA abuses, has indeed been abrogated.

To round out this lawless package, an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court issued on February 28, 1990 permitted U.S. officials abroad to arrest (or kidnap) and search foreign citizens without regard to the laws or policy of the foreign nation subject to this interference.

Through these actions, the Bush regime effectively staked its claim to universal extraterritorial jurisdiction, the classic posture of an empire seeking to assert universal police power. The Bush regime aspired to the status of a world power “legibus solutus,” a superpower exempted from all legal restrictions.

Isn’t history astonishing? No wonder they had to get rid of Rather. He had an historical perspective.

And while you can see him on “Rather Reports” - Comcast refuses to include HDnet on its schedule. And the show does not podcast. There are, however, transcripts. And suddenly, they are making some of the episodes available to watch online.

Know Bush Fact #27

Based on the belief that the truth shall set you free:

In January 2003, Bush appointed Retired General Jay Garner to serve as Civil Administrator in charge of reconstruction and humanitarian aid in post–Saddam Hussein Iraq.

On April 21, 2003, Garner arrived in Baghdad, stating that his top priority was to restore basic services such as water and electricity.
"What better day in your life can you have than to be able to help somebody else, to help other people, and that is what we intend to do." Garner said upon arriving.

Previously, in 1991, Garner helped lead Operation Provide Comfort, which delivered food and shelter to Kurds in northern Iraq after the first Gulf war, and had a reputation within military circles for believing that the military should be used as a "merciful instrument in shaping future humanitarian operations."

On April 28, Garner gathered 250 delegates in Baghdad representing the entire political spectrum of Iraq. It was agreed between the parties that a national conference would be held by the end of May to elect the first post-Hussein Iraqi government.

On 5 May, Jay Garner proudly announced "the beginning of a nucleus of a temporary Iraqi government" would be set up by mid-May.

Bush was not pleased.

The next day, on May 6, Bush announced his appointment of Paul Bremer as the new Presidential Envoy and Senior Coalition official in Iraq. Bremer landed in Iraq on May 12 and took over.

On May 21, Bremer announced that the national conference would not be taking place any time soon.

On May 23, Bremer dissolved the Iraqi Army, causing 400,000 people to lose their jobs. It had been Garner’s plan to utilize these people to rebuild Iraq. Instead, they were unemployed, and angry.

In an interview with Greg Palast which aired on the BBC on March 19, 2004, Garner noted, "I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with."

Clearly different from Bremer, who, according to a former senior State Department official quoted in Newsday, is a "voracious opportunist with voracious ambitions."

Previously, Bremer was Henry Kissinger’s assistant in the State Department, and spent 11 years as Managing Director of Kissinger Associates, the powerful international business consulting firm.

At a February 2003 presentation for Cincinnati business leaders, Bremer said, "We're going to be on the ground in Iraq as soldiers and citizens for years. We're going to be running a colony almost."

For his Senior Advisor in Iraq, Bremer chose Daniel Senor, previously with The Carlyle Group (the investment company linking former President Bush with the Bin Laden family).

To verify/research, Google "Bremer +Garner."
June 6, 2004

Know Bush Fact #26

Based on the belief that the truth shall set you free:

I apologize up front for the length of this story. It started with a simple "thanks. . . to the efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker . . . ," said by Bush last week, Monday, May 25, 2004, during his televised speech at the U.S. Army War College.

But why, out of the blue, was he thanking former Secretary of State James Baker?

He continued, ". . .many of Iraq's largest creditors have pledged to forgive or substantially reduce Iraqi debt incurred by the former regime."

Perhaps true. However, in fact, there are many other "efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker" for which Bush might offering thanks, going back many years.

It was James Baker's law firm, Baker & Botts, that wrote the contract for Bush to purchase the Texas Rangers baseball team, paying it off with the funds from his suddenly dumped shares in Harken Oil in 1990.

In 1991, that same lawyer from Baker & Botts, James Doty, was the new General Counsel for the SEC, along with his colleague from Baker & Botts, Richard Breeden, as the President Bush-appointed SEC Chairman, when George W. Bush’s insider trading at Harken Oil was investigated and dropped.

James Baker was also the man Bush called in November 2000, when Florida’s vote came into question, to lead the battle to take the White House. Baker started the spin immediately, declaring that the votes "have not only been counted, they’ve been counted twice" (blatantly untrue), attacking Gore for his "endless challenges to the results" (the recount was required by Florida law), and finally pushing it to the Supreme Court, where he knew there were five Republican appointees who had to answer to no one. Certainly, Bush owes a lifetime of thanks for that.

Baker's enduring value has been as the Senior Counsel for Washington’s Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group was formed by former ranking Republicans in the early 90's as an investment group which took advantage of the end of the Cold War to buy up defense and intelligence businesses cheaply.

Thanks to James Baker, Bush I was immediately hired by The Carlyle Group after his 1992 re-election defeat to be guest speaker at events where big-time investors knew the value of access to the ex-President and all his contacts, inside both U.S. and foreign governments. Bush I then could take his sizeable "speaking fee" and invest it back into Carlyle subsidiaries for his own personal investment as well. Later, when Bush I’s son took power in Washington, it made access to Bush I, and therefore II, even more advantageous for all involved with Carlyle.

In 2001, The Carlyle Group showed $12 billion in holdings. With multiple contracts in Iraq, The Carlyle Group's holdings have grown exponentially, as has Bush I’s stock portfolio in Carlyle. Bush II stands to inherit untold millions/billions from his father now, especially since he made certain the inheritance tax was completely abolished soon after occupying the White House. Thank you, James Baker.

Coincidentally, on September 11, 2001, while the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group was hosting an exclusive conference in Washington, D.C. Among the guests of honor was a valued investor named Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama. He soon became one of the 140 powerful Saudis that Prince Bandar arranged to have flown out of the country immediately, despite a nation-wide ban on flights, without even being questioned by the FBI or CIA.

Currently, Baker's law firm, Baker & Botts, is defending Saudi Arabia against the trillion dollar lawsuit filed by the families of 9/11 victims. The families’ suit has forced open accounts that reveal the Saudi government’s role in funneling millions of dollars to Islamic charities that are widely suspected of covertly financing Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.

Which brings us back to Bush thanking Baker before the whole world last Monday night – because of his efforts "many of Iraq's largest creditors have pledged to forgive or substantially reduce Iraqi debt incurred by the former regime." Sounds good. But...

The U.S. has no right under international law to handle Iraq’s debts. So in December 2003, when Bush announced that Baker would negotiating the restructure of these debts with its foreign investors (while Colin Powell happened to be in the hospital in surgery), it was said to be "at the request of the Iraqi Governing Council," thus allowing Baker to do his business without answering to Congress or revealing who was paying him.

Thus Bush facilitated Baker’s pre-empting the complete debt write-off the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was seriously considering.

It’s worth knowing whose money Baker made sure will still have to be at least partially paid back. Most of the debt belongs to his clients, the Saudis, in the $100 billion range.

Much of this goes back as far as the 1980s, when both the United States and the Saudis covertly built up Saddam Hussein, giving him technology, biological weapons and training in his war against Iran, back when James Baker was President Reagan’s Treasury Secretary and Chairman of the President’s Economic Policy Council, and Bush I’s Secretary of State.
And so we come full circle.

Thank you, James Baker.

To verify/research, start your Google search with "Bush +Baker". You might want to get a cup of coffee first.

- May 30, 2004

Know Bush Facts #23 A and #23B

Based on the belief that the truth shall set you free:

Know Bush Fact #23 A

Bush’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld received a letter from Amnesty International dated JANUARY 10, 2002 (with copies also sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell, FBI Director Robert Mueller, CIA Director George Tenet, and Commander in Chief General Tommy Franks), expressing concern over photographs showing Al-Qaeda suspects hooded while under guard by US troops, and pointing out that the United Nations Committee against Torture had condemned the hooding of suspects, and that such treatment is also covered by the Geneva Convention.

To research/verify, Google "Rumsfeld +hooding."

And #23 B

On September 11, 2001, Bush’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was not in Washington D.C. He was out of the country with Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, and William Luti, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Plans and Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, and four other like-minded advisors. They were "busy on unrelated missions in Europe and the Middle East."

Upon their return, Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a team, headed by that same Douglas Feith and William Luti, to scan and sort already-analyzed documents from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies to consider possible interpretations and angles of analysis that these agencies may have missed. Much of the information scanned had already been deemed "not credible" by the experienced intelligence agencies.

Eventually Rumsfeld’s team came to be named The Office of Special Plans.

Staffed by a tight group of like-minded neo-conservatives who advocated regime change in Iraq, the Office of Special Plans displaced the CIA and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency as Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al-Qaeda.

It was "the stovepipe" - a means of funneling upward directly to the White House and National Security Advisor selectively chosen intelligence to serve the ideological ends of the "neo-cons" in the Bush administration.

"They’d take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don’t belong together,"

wrote retired Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Undersecretary for Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.

She found the work of the Office of Special Plans to be "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-option through deceit of a large segment of the Congress."
Which resulted in Congress giving Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq.

To research/verify, Google "Rumsfeld +Office of Special Plans".

- May 9, 2004

Know Bush Fact #16

Based on the belief that the truth shall set you free:

On the eve of the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration issued the following directive through the Pentagon:

"There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein (Germany) air base or Dover base."

The Dover Air Base is the location of the largest Defense Department mortuary for the remains of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Defense Department spokeswoman Lt. Col. Cynthia Colin stated that the ban on media coverage stemmed from a respect for the families, "to protect their wishes and privacy during the time of greatest loss and grief." Though the "Dover policy" has existed since its creation by George H. W. Bush during the first Gulf War, it went unheeded by the Clinton administration.

"This year," Lt. Col. Colin said in late 2003, "we've really tried to enforce it."

To further sanitize the repercussions of the war, today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" - a familiar term from the Vietnam War. During Bush's father's 1991 Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches."

Now, under Bush, the term for the returning dead is "transfer tubes."

To verify/research, Google: "Bush +Dover +directive."

- March 20, 2004