IS WAR EVER JUST?

IS WAR EVER JUST? HAVE WE EVER DEALT WITH THE UNDERLYING CAUSES OF WAR SO AS TO MAKE WAR UNNECSSARY?

The US says that it is necessary to have a war in Iraq to enhance our security and to bring democracy to Iraq. Israel said that it is necessary to have an ongoing war in
Gaza, The West Bank, and Lebanon for the safety of Israel. The problematic result of both wars has raised this question in many minds: Can a heavily armed nation ever “win” a war against determined individual guerrilla fighters? As additional justification for these wars, both the US and Israel demonize their opponents as having a religion of violence and as being less than civilized.

We in the United States have a relevant historical experience on the question of just wars and use of Federal armies to control and defeat guerrilla resistors. If ever there was a “just” war, our Civil War was one. It caused the abolition of slavery in the US and preserved the Union but at a tremendous cost. 620,000 soldiers died in the war and many more than that were wounded, many thousands with limbs amputated.

Was there no other way to abolish slavery? Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1837; in France in 1794; in Russia in 1861; in Rumania in 1855; and in Brazil in 1888, all without a war.

In our Civil war, both sides saw themselves as civilized. Both sides were Caucasian. Both sides saw themselves as Christians and prayed to the same God for victory. Brothers fought against brothers. Military commanders on both sides were trained at West Point. Ship owners in the North had supplied the slaves for the South. Demonization of the opponent cannot have been much of a factor on either side.

Nicholas Lehman has written a new book, Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War that is brilliantly reviewed by James M. McPherson, Professor of History Emeritus at Princeton, in the New York Review of Books dated November 30, 2006. This book shows that despite its great human cost, our Civil War did not end the virtual enslavement of Blacks or the intense hatred of Whites for Blacks or the White murders and lynchings of Blacks for over one hundred years after the Civil War. The book’s title, “Redemption” refers to the South’s successful guerrilla effort to redeem the South from “black and tan Negro-Carpet bagging rule.” Southern guerrillas, most of them former Confederate soldiers and officers conducted this war to redeem. Only a tiny fraction of these veterans had ever owned slaves. The non-slave owning poorer whites were induced to fight the Blacks because it gave them the status that they were “one up” on some group at least, even if they were being used and exploited. This guerrilla force killed and intimidated Negroes from voting starting immediately after Lee’s surrender, despite General Grant’s very generous surrender terms. These Confederate veterans did not consider themselves defeated. By 1877 all Federal troops were withdrawn from the South, and the Southern guerrillas had a total victory. Very few Negroes voted in the South for the succeeding 100 years.

Former slave owning Democratic Party politicians resumed their Congressional offices almost immediately, and by 1894 these Southern Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They had enough Justices on the Supreme Court to gut the 14^th Amendment by 1876 so that it was no longer a Federal crime for Southerners to lynch Blacks. Southern White Supremacy over Blacks was guaranteed for more than a century after the Civil War had been “won.” These Southern Democrats blocked the enactment of a Federal law against lynching until 1968. These Southern Democrats, both the rich and the poor, have not given up to this day. After the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 they switched to the Republican Party that elects its candidates by sly code words that signal its racism. The poor white Southerners to this day are still voting against their own self-interest because of their own racism. So this “just” war has still not achieved justice or equality.

All of this raises the very serious question of whether national armed force can ever be successful against passionately determined guerrillas. This is relevant for the US in Iraq and for the Israelis in their war against the Muslims. It raises the question of whether a war can ever solve a serious social evil. It also raises the question of whether or not the Civil War made things worse for the Blacks and for the nation in the long run. Those nations that abolished slavery without war have not had the racial conflicts and the exploitation and manipulation of poor Whites and Blacks that plague the US to this day.

Most people would agree that war, even a just war, should be started only as a very last resort when all possible alternatives have been fairly tried and have failed. We see from our own Civil War history and the failed Reconstruction effort that the use of armed violence does not achieve victory over evil. War produces among the “defeated” hatred, resentment and a passionate determination to seek revenge. War and violence seem to perpetuate the evil that the war was intended to overcome. War creates unintended side effects such as the deaths of innocent civilians, trained killers and sadistic torturers among the fighters on the “good” side, maimed and amputated wounded, and post traumatic stress syndrome in both victor and vanquished. War requires the use of means and mental habits and attitudes that are counterproductive to those needed to achieve victory over evil, peace and reconciliation.

Let’s therefore give serious consideration to the successful alternative to War used by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. The use of nonviolence as a means to exercise power is not widely understood, so we shall examine the little book, Jesus and Nonviolence, A Third Way, by Walter Wink for the underlying theory and the book, From Violence to Wholeness, by Ken Bataan, for the training, preparation and discipline necessary to exercise nonviolent power effectively.

From these sources we derive the following:

Using the power of nonviolence does not mean doing nothing and it does not mean being passive. It does involve being fully aware of and accepting of one’s anger at an injustice so that if all else failed one might resort to violence. It involves the conscious overcoming of the fear that might lead to flight or doing nothing, and diverting the anger that would ordinarily result in violence. It involves advance personal orientation and training so that one can then utitilize nonviolent resistance as a creative means of most powerfully resisting the evil. There are at least 168 different ways of resisting evil in this way. Some recent examples that are etched in our memories are: Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham jail when he violated an unjust law to demonstrate that he believed in and wanted the rule of law, but just laws, to implement his dream; Rosa Parks violating the bus seating law; MLK Jr leading the parade of Blacks facing Bull Connor’s dogs and whips.

Some of the ways of exercising nonviolent power among the 168 are:

Work stoppages and work slowdowns

Consumer boycotts

Intentionally violating an unjust law and accepting the punishment

Vigils

Parades

Street Theater

Demonstrations

Cartoons

Posters and Graffiti

Draft Resistance

Tax Resistance

The effective use of the power of nonviolence involves the following:

Seizing the moral initiative

Finding a creative alternative to violence

Asserting one’s own humanity and dignity as a person

Meeting force with ridicule or humor

Breaking the cycle of humiliation

Exposing the injustice of the system

Taking control of the power dynamic

Shaming the oppressor into change

Standing one’s ground

Forcing the oppressor to make a decision for which he is not prepared

Recognizing one’s own power

Being willing to suffer rather than retaliate

Depriving the oppressor of a situation where a show of force is effective

Being willing to accept punishment for breaking unjust laws

Avoiding tactics that arouse the fear of one’s oppressor

It is immediately apparent that the use of nonviolent power requires much psychological, emotional, and moral maturity. It requires much intelligence and creativity. It is not a normal human response. It requires much advance training to overcome the intuitive reaction of fleeing or fighting. It requires immense courage. It is not for the lazy. It requires much knowledge of one’s inner self, the recognition of one’s own dark side and capacity for evil and violence, and the control of one’s own violence.

The underlying theory is that one resists the evil acts of a person without demonizing the person. One must sincerely feel love for the person, or at least caring attention. One is trying to change his attitude and his behavior, with the full realization that this person is not going to evaporate and that one will have to live with him and relate to him whether the nonviolent confrontation is immediately successful or not. For religious persons, one fully recognizes that the other person was also created by God and equally loved by God, and therefore the non-violent resistor must also. One approaches the opponent with the hope and objective of changing his mind no matter how hopeless that may seem. One loves one’s enemy because it is in one’s long term self interest to do so.

Defenders of the use of violence usually argue that the exercise of nonviolent power is effective only against governments that have achieved a minimum moral level. That argument is based on the belief that every single person among one’s opponents is totally beyond any possibility of change and has not one shred of human feeling. The successful use of nonviolence in Eastern Europe and elsewhere shows that this argument is not true. To write off whole groups of people as intrinsically racist and violent is to accept the very same premise that upholds racist and oppressive regimes. The nonviolent use of power involves the assumption that every person, no matter how evil, is capable of future conversion. If one confronts a person with violence, lies, deceit and torture, one is denying one’s self and one’s opponent the possibility of change in the future, and one would be perpetuating the cycle of evil.

Nonviolent power is founded on the concept that the means used to confront evil must be consistent with one’s objective. The means used are at least as important as the objective. The means used give advance information about how things will be if one is successful in overcoming evil.

It is not an absolute moral law that one must always be non-violent. Violence is not an absolute evil to be avoided at all costs. It is not even the main problem, but only the presenting symptom of an unjust society. War is usually used to maintain and protect privileges and material wealth. All injustice, all inequality of power and wealth is maintained by violence. The nonviolent use of power involves reforming unjust situations long before the seeming need for violence arises. If one is himself accepting of the material benefits of an unjust system, one cannot then argue that a “just” war is necessary to quell those who seek to resist the injustice. Peace is not the highest good, but rather the outcome of a just social order. An example of all of this is WWII with Japan and Germany. In 1938 President Franklin Roosevelt caused oil companies to stop supplying Japan with oil. This created an injustice and hardship for the Japanese. Japan then invaded Southeast Asia in an effort to get oil. In Europe after WWI the Allies imposed harsh sanctions and reparations on Germany. These were not generous terms of surrender. It was inevitable that Germans would resist, and they did. The nonviolent use of power would have required fairer treatment of Germany in the 1920s and of Japan in 1938 and 1939.

Let us now take another look at our own Civil War. Was it just? Were all possible steps taken to try to deal with the evil of slavery short of war? Did the Civil War really solve the evils of slavery or its causes? Let’s ask the same questions of the Israelis and their ongoing wars against Muslims. Let’s ask the same questions of ourselves about the US war in Iraq and now possibly in Iran.

Dated: November 18, 2006

Douglas R. Page

dougpage2@earthlink.net

This article and other articles by Doug Page may be accessed at Doug’s blog at

http://www.thenewliberator.blogspot.com

THE GREAT TURNING

A PRESCRIPTION FOR OUR CIVILIZED HUMAN LIBERATION FROM EMPIRE TO EARTH COMMUNITY

David C. Korten, former Professor of Business at Harvard, is a brilliant, enlightened, sensitive human being with years of experience in the underdeveloped world. He has observed and experienced the dark side of imperialism and of the free market economy. He is free of the limiting and largely false vision of our conventional wisdom, of our civic myths and of our Chamber of Commerce optimism. His new book, The Great Turning From Empire to Earth Community is a very wise analysis of our present human condition, how we got here and what we humans must do together if we are to avoid the Hobson’s choice of fight or flight and lives governed by the law of the jungle. He has done no less than to give us an extraordinary conceptual framework within which we humans can understand our plight and transcend it. He integrates the wisdom from every discipline and tradition. He presents both a sense of urgency, and surprising reasons why we can succeed.

We who live "at the top of the food chain" with material abundance in the "developed" world try to deny our alienation, the lack of meaning in our frantic, busy lives and the worrisome sense of risk and fragility of our existence. We think we have too much to lose. We do not wish to look at the uncontradicted evidence that our "civilized" lives are in very serious jeopardy and that we may lose everything if we do not make some changes. We are in a trance.

Korten is free of this trance. Korten forthrightly presents the evidence that the dynamics of a 5000 year old Empire system based on domination, patriarchy, force and greed have reached the point of implosion such that civilization as we now know it will fall. We humans in our earliest times evolved and survived in more egalitarian human families, tribes and clans by cooperating, sharing, and caring attention for each other. These qualities, now prevailing as dimly perceived ethical ideals, ironically, provide us humans with our only chance of civilized survival.

Korten’s focus on domination as the root evil provides a fresh and accurate method of analysis of history, nationality, culture, gender, race, economics, class, religion and politics while avoiding the stale buzzwords of those who rely on Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Korten also rigorously examines our human and institutional dark sides. He believes that we must know every facet if we are to be able to overcome and control these dark sides within and without ourselves. He gives special emphasis to the evil of gender domination, namely patriarchy, that under girds the negative elements of our religion, politics, views of God, family structure, and crime and punishment.

At the core of The Great Turning analysis and prescription, there is a ranking of the levels of maturity of human consciousness from infancy to the truly adult. Beginning with the Magical Consciousness of the infant who believes in Santa Claus, and proceeding in maturity to Imperial Consciousness of the current Empire, then to Socialized Consciousness, then to Cultural Consciousness to the most mature that Korten calls Spiritual Consciousness. By this most mature level, Korten means the consciousness of the elder statesperson, teacher, tribal leader, or religious sage with a morality grounded in the universal principles of justice love and compassion; a consciousness capable of accepting individual and collective responsibility for the shadow side of our human nature; a consciousness that strives to liberate one’s own creative potential and the creative potential and fulfillment of all humans; a consciousness that honors wisdom, truth and morality. It is a consciousness that is aware of the limitations of using violence in the liberation of humans from domination.

. Korten lists the three coinciding and interconnecting threats to our civilization: peak oil, global warming, and global economic collapse. Carolyn Baker calls these three "Terminal Triage." Most of us know of the fragility of our market economy from our own experience of job insecurity, of excessive debt, job loss, and job outsourcing. This triple threat has been created by the leadership by those humans at the Imperial level of consciousness, advocates and beneficiaries of domination, greed, and selfishness.

The opportunity for civilized survival and the obligation to lead rests on those at the top two ranks of maturity that Korten and others call "Cultural Creatives." It is these classes of evolved mature persons that can lead and persuade humans at the third rank of maturity, who can be led either up or down, to strive toward and to honor and appreciate the higher levels of consciousness. By leading these humans of mid level consciousness, we have the possibility of avoiding disaster.

We who are in the trance of conventional wisdom may at first blush see all of this as idealistic, and therefore hopeless. Korten says that this is our only chance. It is up to us. There are surprising reasons and much evidence that we humans have a chance of liberating the creative potential of all humans and avoiding collapse. Here are some of the reasons:

· We humans have the capacity to choose; our most powerful instinct is to survive, "to be." We do not voluntarily choose to self destruct.

· We each have had the experience of caring, sharing and cooperation in our nuclear families. Such conduct is not totally strange to us.

· There is a yearning among most humans for truth, justice, equality, security, cooperation, caring and sharing. We simply need to communicate and to connect.

· There has been a surge toward freedom in recent history in the civil rights movement, and then in the women’s movement involving the entry of huge numbers of women out of the home into public life and influence. They bring with them their proclivity toward nurturing rather than domination.

· Millions of humans around the planet have demonstrated their emergence from the world wide human trance of conventional wisdom by questioning "free trade," multi-national corporate domination, imperialistic wars, and even the utility of armed violence itself.

· Recent studies by Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson show that a surprising percentage of humans in the US and Western Europe have achieved a consciousness that values social inclusion, environmental stewardship and a spiritual practice. They show that 50 million people in the US and 90Million in Europe have reached this level. They have much influence.

· We now have the capacity for instant communication around the planet by the Internet, televised downlinks, teleconferencing, and video-conferencing. Everyone has access to information and wisdom via Google.

· The accelerating liberation of women has placed women with their nurturing values into positions of leadership and influence so as to be able to challenge the entire system of domination.

This book is itself a valuable tool and guide that enables us to break free of Empire’s trance, and to value, strive for, and achieve a higher level of maturity. It can help each of us to reach the level of Cultural Consciousness where we can see the possibility of creating a sustainable Earth Community, an inclusive, life-affirming group of societies that work for all humans and unleash the vast potential of human creativity.

Dated: November 17, 2006

Douglas R. Page

dougpage2@earthlink.net

DID VP CHENEY CAUSE OR ALLOW 9-11?

11-14-06

DID VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY CAUSE OR ALLOW 9-11 TO HAPPEN?

A Review of Crossing the Rubicon and The New Pearl Harbor

By Douglas R. Page

I INTRODUCTION

It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with some people about the unanswered questions arising from 9-11. On the other hand, 42% of the people across the nation believe the Official Kean Commission Report was a whitewash. For all of us, there is a sense that the truth of Bush Administration involvement would be too frightening to accept. It might cause us to lose our jobs, or be put in jail. It would require some action on our part. It would demolish our comfortable lives and our sense of well-being and security. It is simply too monstrous for many humans to face. Many liberals are those who want to be somewhat sensitive to the injustices of the world without having to sacrifice one iota of their privileges. Thus liberals often give support to and benefit from capitalism and from US imperialism. These liberals thus may not wish to confront the facts of 9-11.

Why are there are so many vigorous critics of those of us who question the official story of 9-11? We know from Carl Bernstein’s (of Woodward, Bernstein Deep Throat fame) article in Rolling Stone in 1976 that the CIA then had some 400 “journalist-plants” in the mainstream media including the liberal and progressive media, who were directed to publish stories favorable to the CIA and to counter unfavorable stories. Given the changes since 9-11, it is fair to assume there are many more CIA planted journalists in the media now in 2006.

There are a few baffling critics of “conspiracy theorists” on the left. Each critic left or right writes as if he or she has not read the evidence tending to show complicity, and does not really deal with the serious unanswered questions. The critics of questioners usually make two arguments: 1. It is impossible to keep such a dastardly treasonous deed secret when so many human beings would have to have been involved. (An example of a project involving hundreds of people that was kept secret for years is the Manhattan Project in WWII involving the creation of the atomic bomb.)

2. “Conspiracy theorists” are irrational and crazy…in effect an ad hominem attack. It is even an ad hominem attack to label those of us who are troubled by the evidence and by the unanswered questions as “conspiracy theorists.” The official story is also simply a conspiracy theory and not one single person has been tried and found guilty of the attack.

There are right wing critics also. One must check whether they are being politically defensive of the Bush Administration, or whether they are dependent on the Administration for jobs or a continuing security clearance. Many including NY police and firemen are under a signed commitment of secrecy that they shall not tell of what they know about 9-11. Violation carries a heavy fine and jail.

None of the critics, left or right, seriously attempts to explain how the 57 story WTC 7 fell when it had not been touched by a plane, when it fell 9 hours later, and when closer buildings survived structurally intact.

None of the critics of us questioners could win any serious formal debate conducted under debate rules. They could not and have not won any trial of alleged wrongdoers in public prosecution in a court of law.

Those of us who have long recognized the disparity between our civic myths and our national and international acts and motives, are more willing to look at the unanswered questions and to participate in the debate. Some of the civic myths we have challenged: We are not equal; there is a tremendous and increasing disparity between the wealth and power of the top 1 % and the rest of us. A rising tide does not lift all boats. It lifts only the yachts. Due to the power of money in politics, the reality is we have an oligarchy where the rule is “one dollar, one vote” not one man one vote, in terms of the real effectiveness of our votes. Many do not realize that the US has, from the beginning, been imperialist…using military power to expand American business as far and wide as possible. We have never been equal friends with or friendly partners to the rest of the nations on this planet. Long before 9-11, the US maintained 700 military bases in 45 countries around the world. The interests of us voters are often very different from the interests of the persons who have the top 1% of power and wealth. Presidents have lied to the voters in the past. Franklin Roosevelt had secret knowledge of the pending Japanese attack. Lyndon Johnson lied about the “facts” leading the Senate to support the Tonkin Gulf resolution. Officials high up in the Reagan administration lied about the drug importation to finance a covert war against Nicaragua.

All administrations have secretly sponsored assassinations of foreign leaders and coups when it served the interests of the elite.

Hence, it is not impossible that the Bush Administration is lying to us now. This is made possible by a lap dog media that is overwhelmingly supportive of the Bush Administration’s major policies and acts.

With this introduction, let us consider the evidence in the outline that Michael Ruppert of www.fromthewilderness.com has set forth in his 2004 book, Crossing the Rubicon. We will put in clarifications and citations of other sources and also evidence that has become available since 2004. We will use Paul Thompson’s The Terror Timeline in its book form published in 2004 as well as his website at www.cooperativeresearch.org, both being collections of data dealing with 9-11 from main stream domestic and foreign sources. Many are impressed, as we are, with the scholarly research and legitimate questions raised by David Ray Griffin, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Claremont School of Theology in his 2004 book, The New Pearl Harbor. Griffin presents enough information to raise crucial questions that beg for investigation and answers by an independent panel with the power of subpoena. Some of Griffin’s points rest on expert opinion evidence, and as all lawyers know, one can hire an expert to give testimony of each side of almost any issue.
Ruppert’s book on the other hand is based on the available factual evidence other than opinion. Ruppert presents a prima facie case that Vice President Cheney either caused or allowed 9-11.

PART ONE THE MOTIVE FOR CHENEY AND NEO-CON ASSOCIATES TO CAUSE OR ALLOW 9-11

Chapter 1. A motive was that the Peak Oil Crisis Threatens the Power and the Profit of the Power Elite. Cheney, CEO of Halliburton and a leader in the American oil business was well aware of the human need for oil, and the numbers of humans needing oil are rapidly increasing while the finite remaining reserves of oil and gas are rapidly decreasing. Cheney and his oil associates needed control of the planet’s diminishing reserves of oil in order to continue making profit and to retain neo-con power and privilege. The power elite of the Western World does not wish to share control of and profits from the remaining oil with Russian, Chinese or other oil companies if it can possibly be avoided. The privileged standard of living of those in the Western World, and the compounded power and privilege and profit of the top 1%, the Power Elite, rests on oil and gas. Oil is needed to fuel the growth of business and there will be a serious economic downturn as business stops growing. The power elite seeks to maintain its privileges, power and profits for as long as possible. To do this, it must capture control of as much of the remaining oil reserves of the planet as it can.

Chapter 2 Richard Cheney has long been concerned about the Peak Oil Crisis.

On November 15,1999, Halliburton Chairman, Dick Cheney gave a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum that revealed that Cheney was aware of and very concerned about the facts of the Peak Oil Crisis set forth in Chapter 1, particularly oil company profits.

As soon as he took office in 2001, Cheney convened a meeting of an energy task force called the US National Energy Policy Development Group. To this day we do not know of the identity of the task force participants. In July 2003, a conservative group Judicial Watch sued under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained 7 pages of the task force report. From that we know that the task force was concerned about the oil reserves of Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Richard Cheney successfully fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court to keep the task force report and the names of the participants secret. Cheney took Supreme Court Justice Scalia on a duck hunting trip just before the case was argued before the Supreme Court. Despite complaints, Scalia refused to recuse himself and voted with a slim majority to keep the task force report secret.

Why was it so critically important to Cheney that this report be kept secret? US energy policy is of vital public importance to all of us. What is this Energy Policy? Ruppert’s allegation is that VP Cheney is the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9-11and that the evil plan was hatched in this Group and in its Report. Hold an open mind and test this allegation with other evidence that follows.

Chapter 3 Another motive was that US corporations desperately needed the illegal drug money that the Taliban in Afghanistan had curtailed, as a source of financing. It is a well hidden but financially important secret that drug money is badly needed on Wall Street and in the American Economy. The cost of capital determines how much profit a corporation or an oil company makes. It affects the growth of the economy. If a corporation had to issue bonds bearing 10% interest in order to drill new wells or build pipe lines, its profit would be drastically cut. Moreover oil companies could not compete with State Owned oil companies. If holders of drug money buy bonds at 5% the profit of the issuing corporation is vastly increased. Drug profits can also be laundered simply by paying cash to GM for 100,000 Chevrolets and selling them in South America. Hewlett Packard, Ford, Sony, GE, Whirlpool, and Phillip Morris were making large sales for cash. In 2001, according to the IMF money laundering produced $1.5 trillion cash for investment. Opium sales produce a large portion of this cash. Afghanistan produces 70% of the opium each year.

In June 1999, NYSE chairman, Dick Grosso flew to Panama seeking the money of Columbian Rebels who made their money by taxing the drug trade. The CIA is Wall Street and Wall Street is the CIA. All of the Directors of the CIA since WWII have come not from police departments or from the FBI, but from Wall Street or its lawyers: Clark Clifford, Allen Dulles, William Casey, George Tenet, and John Deutch, and George H.W. Bush.

In the late summer of 2000, the Taliban banned the production of opium in Afghanistan. Opium production there then dropped from 3276 tons to 185 tons. This created a financial crisis on Wall Street. Under the pretext of pursuing the wrongdoers of 9-11, the US invaded Afghanistan in November 2001 in the middle of the opium planting season, and liberated the drug lords. The 2002 opium production was back to 3700 tons and by 2004 reached 6400 tons. The drug flow from Asia via Kosovo into Western Europe resumed.

At least since WWII Flying Tigers in China, The CIA (or its predecessor OSS) has been deeply involved in the drug trade on behalf of Wall Street. Remember Iran-Contra?

On February 11, 1982, Attorney General William French Smith wrote a letter to CIA Director William J. Casey informing him that the CIA no longer needed to report narcotics violations to other law enforcement agencies, thus making the CIA and its agents free to do what Wall Street wished regarding narcotics. These general assertions are implemented by the details in Chapters 4, 5 and 6.

Chapter 4 Oil and Drugs are connected through Cheney’s Halliburton Corporation

Ruppert sets forth no direct evidence of drug running by Cheney or Halliburton. The circumstantial evidence is this: Cheney (the largest shareholder) still owns $45 million of the stock of Halliburton, which owns its subsidiary, Brown and Root. One or the other of these corporations is present at every location where drugs are produced, and does work for entities directly involved in production and sale of drugs. These companies also provide NOC (non-official cover) for CIA operatives.

Chapter 5. The Engine of capitalist expansion is oiled by the profits from the money laundering of drug profits. Ruppert gives examples of the money laundering and illegal activity of Banamex, R J Reynolds and Enron.

Chapter 6. The foundation for US control of Asian oil was laid in the Reagan Administration by the destruction of the Soviet Union’s Empire

Reagan increased the arms race causing the Soviets to economically destroy themselves by trying to keep up. The World Bank and Harvard’s Jeffrey Sachs then caused the Soviets to auction off their communal and state owned enterprises. These were purchased by private well connected Russians who then sold them to US firms. The Russians then laundered the money from these sales through the Bank of New York.

Chapter 7. By 2000 the Elite knew that the Central Asia oil and gas reserves were much smaller than had been hoped. It would be necessary to turn to Iraq.

In 1992 Cheney was among the neo-cons who drafted the report of the Project for the New American Century. This report emphasized the need to capture the oil of Central Asia while noting that implementation of the plan would take years “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” This needed catastrophe would trigger the support of the American people for an “imperial mobilization” to capture control of the planet’s oil. (and to secure the immense profit opportunities for Cheney’s Halliburton and other oil companies.) The American people would never support a war for the purpose of enhancing the profits and power of Halliburton and other oil companies. They needed a new “Pearl Harbor” to do this.

Although US oil companies had substantial investment in the oil of Central Asia, and lengthy negotiations for a pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan, the actual drilling results by 2000 were disappointing. The American companies needed to turn to Iraq where there were tremendous reserves. In May 2001, Vice President Cheney’s public version of a national energy plan was released which stated: “the US cannot rely on market forces alone to gain access to these added supplies, but will also require a significant effort on the part of government officials to overcome foreign resistance to the outward reach of American energy companies.” Russia, France, China, Italy, Spain, Algeria, the Netherlands and Britain all had massive investments in Iraq, and the US threatened to dishonor their Iraq oil contracts if they did not help in the Iraq war.

Chapter 8 The CIA created and funded Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence as America’s agent for financing both Taliban, Al Queda, and funding 9-11.

Both the Taliban and al Queda have long been and now are CIA “assets.” Osama bin Laden was and may still be a CIA “asset.” The CIA created Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI and the CIA funded ISI. The CIA through its agent, the ISI, had infiltrated al Qaeda and well knew of the plan to hit WTC. There were no intelligence failures. Although lower levels of the FBI may not have known what was going on, the top levels did know of the CIA-ISI complicity in 9-11.

Thus the 9-11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. ISI Chief, General Mahmoud Ahmad caused one, Ahmad Umar Sheikh to wire $100,000 from Pakistan to terrorist ring leader Mohammed Atta, the alleged pilot of Flight 11, in Florida a few days before 9-11.

This very same “money man” General Mahmoud Ahmad, Chief of ISI, came to Washington DC a few days before September 11, met with CIA Director George Tenet, and on the very morning of 9-11 when the attacks were in progress, General Mahmoud was having breakfast at the Capitol with the heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees, Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and Pakistani Ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi were also present at that breakfast. The next day General Mahmoud met with Secretary of State Colin Powell.

At this very time, in order to divert our attention and to keep us from searching for the truth, Cheney was warning that we had to be ready for another attack at any time and at any place.

Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was in Pakistan investigating these doings of the ISI in January 2002. He was kidnapped and his body was not found until May. In July 2002, the man who sent the 9-11 $100,000 to Atta in Florida, Ahmad Umar Sheikh, was convicted of Pearl’s murder! Wikipedia states: “ Despite his criminal conviction, his judicial appeal and sentence process have not carried out. It is believed that this is due to concerns that he will reveal his association with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. “

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf released a new book in October, 2006 revealing that this convicted Pearl murderer, Ahmad Umar Sheikh, aka Omar Sheikh, attended the London School of Economics, and that he was recruited there to work for M-16, Britain’s intelligence agency. Omar admitted to Pakistani police that he had prior knowledge of the attack on 9-11. Omar was a long time British national and an M-16 “asset” who served the British in Kozovo and Bosnia and then in Pakistan. For what reason would an M-16 “asset” be instructed to kill a nosy Wall Street Journal reporter?

Chapter 9. The Power Elite continued to do business with the Bin Laden family and with Saudi Arabia and ignored the fact that the alleged terrorists prior to 9-11 came from Saudi Arabia

The Bin Laden family has not ostracized Osama. He is not an outcast. His mother and siblings frequently visit with him. Osama still draws his share of the income from the Bin Laden investments and businesses. The Bush family and the CIA are closely connected with the Bin Ladens and share investments in Carlyle and other American corporations. The US has forgone many opportunities to capture Osama since 1991. The US chooses not to do so because the US is afraid of what he could say publicly and also because he was a CIA asset for many years and may still be, although he may have been used in ways he did not know at the time. Meanwhile, the CIA may be working very secretly to destabilize the Saudi royal government so as to enable Halliburton and other US corporations to have direct access to Saudi oil without paying royalties.

II THE MEANS AVAILABLE TO CHENEY TO CAUSE OR ALLOW 9-11

(Chapters are summarized below out of order better to present the evidence)

Chapters 18 &23. Bush issued a press release on May 18, 2001 stating that he had directed VP Cheney to oversee and coordinate all Federal Agencies including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice and Energy, the Environmental Protections Agency and other agencies, plus a new Office of National Preparedness in order to protect the US from catastrophic harm. Cheney was thus in overall control of the FAA, NORAD, FEMA the Department of Defense, the CIA and the Secret Service. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010508.html (Author’s comment: I have searched for a formal executive order in the Federal Register actually ordering what Bush said he did in the press release. I could find none. It may be classified.)

Christopher Bollyn, until recently a reporter for America Free Press writes:

“Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony before a congressional investigative panel of what he witnessed in the Vice President’s bunker in the basement of the White House (also known as Presidential Emergency Operating Center, PEOC) on 9/11 is essential reading to understanding the allegations of official complicity.

On May 23, Mineta testified (before the Kean Commission) about Cheney’s actions in the bunker. Mineta said he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (PEOC) at 9:20 a.m. where he observed the Vice President in charge
Mineta: ‘There was a young man who had come in and said to the Vice President, The plane is 50 miles out…The plane is 30 miles out. And when it got down to, The plane is 10 miles out, the young man said to the Vice President, Do the orders still stand? Cheney whipped his neck around and said, Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary? Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. And…
Hamilton: The flight you’re referring to is the…
Mineta: The flight that came into the Pentagon. (Flight 77)
Whether Cheney’s orders meant to shoot down the hijacked aircraft or not was raised.

Mineta said there were no such orders to shoot down a plane known to him at that time, which raises the question of what “the orders” were:
Hamilton: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.
Mineta: No, sir.”

(Author’s note: So Cheney’s orders were not to shoot the planes down even as Flight 77 got within 10 miles from Washington, and of course the plane was not shot down. Cheney was in charge. Cheney had the authority to change the orders and shoot down Flight 77. He did not)

(Author’s note: Bollyn’s quote of Minetas’s testimony is a fair summary if you read the entire testimony. The testimony was not presented in the neat sequence that Bollyn presents it. It is clear from the whole testimony that at that time, as far as Mineta knew, there never was any order to shoot down any plane, either Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon or Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. He says he was told of that later. Read the transcript at

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

The young man’s question “Do the orders still stand?” and Cheney’s apparently testy answer, “Of course they still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”, their location at the President’s Emergency Operating Center, and the Bush delegation of authority prove Ruppert’s allegation that Cheney was in charge of the entire Federal Government at that time.

In addition to the unidentified young man and Secretary of Transportation Mineta, those present in the PEOC on the morning of 9-11 were the Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice. PEOC was connected to the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon by video conferencing.

Chapter 10. Promis Computer Software and its updates provided the means for Cheney to implement his overriding control from the PEOC. Since the early 1980s the US has had immensely powerful software that was able simultaneously to read and integrate any number of different computer programs or data bases regardless of the language of the computers. This software was initially purchased by the Department of Justice to manage its caseload, and a corrupt official (Attorney General Edwin Meese, Boalt Hall, 1959) supplied it to a Republican friend, Dr.Edward V. Hearn, who sold the software. Canada, Israel and even Osama bin Laden somehow obtained the software... There have been many upgrades like SMART Self Managing Artificial Reasoning, and TECH I. The software can be used to peer into any computer anywhere in the world, override it, insert false data and manipulate data. By 2001, its power was immense. It could override FAA computers and NORAD Computers. Vice President Cheney had this secret state of the art computer software as his tool on 9-11 in the PEOC when he exercised the overriding emergency powers granted him on May 18, 2001 by President Bush to oversee and coordinate all Federal Agencies. Keep in mind this means the FBI, the CIA, the SS, FAA, NORAD and the DOD...

.

Chapter 12 Several FBI agents in the field tried to blow the whistle and were ignored by Cheney and the top brass of the FBI

• Robert Wright: The top brass of the FBI told him and other underlings to back off from investigating Saudi Arabians and from trying to bring the terrorists to justice
• Kenneth Williams Special Agent in Phoenix told top brass of suspected terrorists taking flight lessons in Arizona
• Colleen Rowley, Special Agent in Minneapolis tried to access the computer of a known terrorist, Zacarias Moussaoui and was prohibited from doing so by top brass.
• Denver FBI agents were furious when top brass destroyed terrorist e-mail intercepts under the Carnivore Program
• A CIA plant in the FBI, Dave Frasca impeded the investigation of FBI agents and was thereafter promoted.
• Sibel Edmonds a Farsi translator was taken off the job of translating critical documents.

Chapter 22: Tripod II may have been the Advance Preparation for the Casualties that would result from the Attacks on 9-11 Mayor Giuliani may have had advance notice of an attack. If so, the Mayor failed to warn his own police and firemen. It is a very strange coincidence that NY Mayor Giuliani’s OEM (Office of Emergency Management) and the US government through FEMA scheduled a drill named Tripod II for September 12, 2001 to deal with a simulated biochemical attack. Although Giuliani had a multi-million dollar OEM command center in WTC 7, the command center for this Tripod drill was established away from WTC at Pier 92. Hundreds of people from FEMA, from the federal government, and the New York State Emergency Management office were assembled in New York by 9-11. It was from the Pier 92 Tripod II command center that the search and rescue of people from WTC was done. Was it a happy coincidence that this rescue plan and hundreds of personnel just happened to be in place in NY on 9-11 ready to deal not with a biochemical attack, but the actual attack of 9-11? Or was it part of the criminal plan to cause or allow the attack?

Chapter 13. Long before 9-11, the CIA had deeply penetrated the Osama bin Laden group, al Queda and other terrorist groups.

The official story that cooperation was lacking between the FBI and the CIA is totally false. The Rand Corporation in a 2001 study completed before 9-11 stated that all intelligence agencies worked together and generally coordinated their activities and that they had successfully prevented at least seven Osama Bin Laden vehicle bombing attempts since 1998.

The penetration of al Queda was under minute scrutiny for years prior to 9-11. There was human intelligence, eavesdropping intelligence, and intelligence from direct electronic surveillance. There was very little that al Queda did that the Bush Administration and many other governments were not aware of. Western European governments cooperated in an Echelon program where each shared eavesdropping intelligence with the other with a complete computer analysis. US officials admitted that they had infiltrated al Queda cells. Keep in mind that the US had Promis software to aid in penetration around the planet and to monitor and analyze all types of electronic communication... “The bottom line is that Osama bin Laden and al Queda could not have sneezed without the CIA or the NSA knowing about it.”

In July 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial jets because of threat assessments from the FBI and the CIA.

Chapter 14. Somebody knew enough to place put options on AA and UAL stock

The put options on UAL between 9-6 and 9-10 were 90 times greater than normal and 285 times the average on the Thursday before 9-11. The put options on AA were 60 times greater than normal on 9-10. The Kean Commission official report says only that the put options were not placed by terrorists. So who did place them? $2.5 million remains unclaimed. The Stock Exchanges will not investigate, at least publicly. The Bush Administration has not released its investigation, if any there was.

Chapters 19,20,21,22,23 & 24. Cheney and his circle of helpers used War Games Disaster Exercises and High Tech to paralyze NORAD and FAA in order to pull off the attacks

In order to understand the existing system that had to be paralyzed, note the following:

All commercial airliners must fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) and must file a flight plan with FAA controllers for each flight. If a commercial airliner gets even 3 miles off its planned route, the alarmed controllers contact the pilot to get back on course in order to prevent mid air collisions. All airliners have transponders that send a radar signal to the controllers so that the identity of the plane, its location, and its altitude are displayed on the controller’s radar screen. Even if the plane’s transponder is turned off, the controller can still see the plane on his screen…only the altitude information does not show. However, NORAD has military radar covering the country, and its system shows a plane’s altitude and location even if the transponder is turned off. NORAD’s military controllers and FAA civilian controllers are in constant communication with each other.

In the case of a suspicious aircraft or a plane off its course, FAA immediately calls NORAD to send its jets to intercept the errant plane. Both FAA and NORAD had the capacity to give the jets interception coordinates. In the one year prior to 9-11 there were 67 such jet intercepts in the US. It was this system in place on 9-11 that had to be paralyzed, interfered with, or confused so that four separate airliners could deviate from their flight plans, avoid jet interception and strike their targets.

The FAA knew of the first Flight 11 hijacking by 8:14 am. At 8:46 am, 32 minutes later, the first jet scramble order was given to jets based in Massachusetts, but the jets headed out in the Atlantic apparently looking for Russian bombers. Closer jets from Atlantic City were not scrambled. By 9:03 when the South Tower was hit, the Otis jets were still 71 miles away and flying slowly! Flight 77 took off from Dulles at 8:20am, and by 9:09 am 11 aircraft are reported to be out of radio contact with FAA, but NORAD did not activate jets until 9:27 and then only far away jets who arrived at DC until 9:49, 9 minutes after Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon at 9:40. Flight 77 was doing complicated maneuvers near the Pentagon one hour and 45 minutes after Washington Center FAA knew of the first hijacking without jet interference. So, how was it done? Why the long delays? Why were only far away jets scrambled and then given inaccurate data about location of the hijacked airliners? It was because of a startling number of war games and disaster exercises going on at the time of the attacks. The ones we know about were:

Vigilant Warrior: a live-fly hijack drill on 9-11 involving real airline type planes pretending to be hijacked and real jets intercepting them

Vigilant Guardian: a drill allegedly involving imagined Russian bombers attacking actually involved airliners with a pretend hijack.

Northern Vigilance: Involved sending 20 or more US fighter jets to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian Artic and North Pacific and to counter a simulated Russian attack. False radar blips were injected into the radars of FAA and NORAD

The CIA via the National Reconnaissance Office was running a pre-planned disaster simulation exercise at Dulles Airport near Washington DC on September 11 involving an errant aircraft crashing into a building to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building

Not until March 11, 2005 did an official admit for the public record that these War Games were going on and that jets were in Alaska on 9-11. Under questioning by Representative Cynthia McKinney at a budget hearing, General Richard Myers admitted that the war games were going on but claimed that they “enhanced our ability to respond.” At that hearing, Donald Rumsfeld promised to look into the matter and give his answer in writing. He never did. (See the Part IV of this article for what happened to Representative McKinney at the 2006 primary election.)

These war games caused immense confusion among the flight controllers. They did not know whether the signals on their radar screens were those of war game participants or of actual hijacked planes. At one point a controller reported there were 11 “unidentified’ planes in the air.

Somebody had to coordinate all of the exercises to separate exercises and actual dangerous events, and to make sure that the existing procedures did not interfere with the exercises and with the actual attacks. That coordinator was Vice President Cheney using the authority Bush had given him on May 8, 2001. He did this from an underground, state of the art equipped bunker in the basement of the White House. He used the software to override existing procedures and lines of authority and to order jets not to shoot down the errant planes. Imagine the confusion of the FAA and NORAD controllers that day with false injects on their radar screens, actual attacks, and simulated attacks and exercises. Cheney prevented the NORAD jets from normal effective interception after the first FAA warning of hijacking, and the few jets that were available were sent the wrong way or were not given interception coordinates.

Author’s note: We can speculate about the details of 9-11, but we do not have access to the facts. There is some evidence that some of the hijackers were CIA assets, that they had been trained at US airbases, that they had been used by the CIA in ways that they did not realize. We know that the US has the capability remotely to control pilot less commercial jets including take offs and landings. It is not up to us to show exactly how it was pulled off.

IV EVIDENCE OF GUILT FROM EVENTS, ACTS AND CONDUCT AFTER 9-11

1. The most overwhelming evidence of guilt is the action of our elected agent and representative President George W. Bush in classifying every fact as secret, and by doing all that he could to impede and to control the official investigation. Vice President Cheney phoned Senator Daschle in January 2002 urging him not to make any investigation of 9-11. Bush keeps secret evidence that could readily prove that the official story is correct without any breach of national security. For example there were TV monitors at a gas station and on top of a nearby hotel that would show what actually hit the Pentagon. The FBI seized these video tapes within minutes after the attack and they have never been released to anyone. The black boxes of the 3 aircraft involved in the attack have never been released.

2. Immediately after 9-11, the FAA controllers involved made a tape recording of their experiences and frustrations as the attack was being carried out. A top FAA official destroyed the tape. He did not erase the tape (that can be re-created with modern technology). He cut it up in tiny pieces and then destroyed the pieces.

3. The strange and unexplained attacks on the main civilian questioners and researchers about 9-11:

1. Michael Ruppert’s offices and records in LA were trashed so he moved to Ashland Oregon. In July, 2006 his Ashland offices were trashed, his computers destroyed and his hard drives stolen. He has received many death threats. He has now moved permanently to Venezuela out of his fear that somebody is out to get him.
2. Christopher Bollyn, until recently was an investigative reporter for America Free Press, and the author of many of the most well documented articles questioning 9-11. In October, 2006 he was fired from his job for reasons that were either false or improbable. In July 2006, he noticed two men monitoring his house in the suburbs. He called the local police to ask what was going on. The local police accompanied by the two men came to his house and arrested him for resisting arrest. In the process they broke his arm.
3. Steven Jones, a Professor of Physics at Bingham Young University tested a small sample of the steel from WTC 1. The steel contained residues of thermite that is not present in the original WTC construction steel. He concluded that thermite explosives were placed in the WTC buildings to make them fall. He wrote and made speeches about his findings. On the 3^rd day of the fall semester of 2006, BYU told him that he was being placed on administrative leave for a year and was not allowed to teach.

“Last fall, BYU faculty posted statements on the university Web site that questioned whether Jones subjected the paper to rigorous academic peer review before he posted it at physics.byu.edu. Jones removed the paper from BYU's Web site Thursday at the university's request.
Efforts to reach Jones prior to press time Thursday night were not successful. He later declined comment. Jones told the Deseret Morning News on Wednesday that his paper had gone through an unusual third round of peer review in what is now an apparently unsuccessful effort to quell concerns on campus.” http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html In November, 2006 Jones resigned from BYU.

The Jones scientific research paper can be read at

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

d. The coordinated ad hominem attacks in both the main stream and left press on qualified researchers who question 9-11 that have occurred especially in the months prior to the 2006 elections

4. The potentially lethal attacks on Senators Leahy and Daschle with military grade anthrax shortly after 9-11, are still unexplained. No Republicans were attacked with anthrax. Was the attack to intimidate them and keep them quiet?

5. The strange, unexplained plane crash and death of Senator Paul Wellstone, a Senator very likely to question 9-11.

6. The massive right wing energy and money put up to defeat the two congressional questioners of 9-11, Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr.

7. The Bush Administration’s treatment of Republican Congressman Curt Weldon During the summer of 2005, Weldon, vice-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, revealed the existence of a secret Pentagon counter-terrorism operation codenamed Able Danger, which he claimed had identified Mohammed Atta, alleged ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, as early as 1999. Republican Senator Arlon Specter scheduled a hearing on the matter. Bush ordered those with knowledge not to testify at the hearing. The Republicans are withholding campaign money from Weldon who will probably be defeated by a retired Iraq War Admiral who has massive financing.

See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/weld-o23.shtml

8. The $2.5 million that somebody made on the put options on Airline stocks remains unclaimed.

.

9. Philip D. Zelikow PhD. was an excellent choice by Bush and Cheney to control the content and write the whitewash Keane Report. Zelikow was the Executive Director and principal author of the Kean Commission report which 47% of people believe is a whitewash of 9-11.

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

According to Melvin Goodman, Zelikow "headed a case study project at Harvard and took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA. He used CIA documentation and produced case studies that exonerated the CIA from any charges of politicization of intelligence, particularly with regard to the Soviet Union."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_D._Zelikow

10. Oil still remains Cheney’s motivation for 9-11 and reason for the Iraq War.

On October 27, 2007 Pete Escobar, a reporter for Asia Times Online tied Bush’s repeated “stay the course” statements and Cheney’s demand on October 19 for “total victory” in Iraq to the oil in Iraq, and not democracy, WMD, or the removal of a dictator. US media has been silent about this: US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman went to Iraq in July to insist that the Parliament of Iraq pass a new hydrocarbon law under which foreign companies can invest in oil and gas in Iraq. The International Monetary Fund had reviewed this law. The Bush Administration needs somebody in Iraq to sign this law, a strong man, our strong man of course. Insistent rumors of a US engineered coup to replace the current premier have surfaced of late.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ27Ak03.html

11. Bush backed up Cheney on November 2, 2006: We all remember that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell said at the outset that the reason for invading Iraq was WMD and certainly not oil. Due to a Freudian slip or inner guilt, Bush finally volunteered the truth without being even asked. Karl Rove must be ready to shoot himself.

ALL ABOUT OIL?....During his interview with Rush Limbaugh today, November 2, 2006, George Bush paused for a bit and then veered off from the subject at hand to explain what really troubles him about the Middle East:

“Give me a second here, Rush, because I want to share something with you. I am deeply concerned about a country, the United States, leaving the Middle East. I am worried that rival forms of extremists will battle for power, obviously creating incredible damage if they do so; that they will topple modern governments, that they will be in a position to use oil as a tool to blackmail the West. People say, "What do you mean by that?" I say, "If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up, and they will do so unless we abandon Israel, for example, or unless we abandon allies.”

IV CONCLUSION

So, what do you think? Do you think that there are important questions that should be investigated and answered?

Dated: October 28, 2006 and updated as new evidence emerges

Douglas R. Page

6063 East Rosewood St

Tucson, AZ 85711

dougpage2@earthlink.net

.

A LETTER TO MY JEWISH FRIENDS

WITH A MAJORITY OF US VOTERS WANTING THE US OUT OF THE WAR, WHY DOESN’T THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REPRESENT US?

I miss you. It has been a long time since we worked together in liberal and left politics in the US. Historically, we were together in the Democratic Party, and in the Socialist Party, in the New Deal, in the Civil Rights revolution and in Viet Nam peace marches. You guys, more often than not, provided the leadership, brains, money and enthusiasm for our efforts. I was honored to be invited to your annual Seders to celebrate metaphorically mankind’s universal, timeless struggle to be free.

We now seem unable to agree on public matters of critical importance. You and I need to examine how and why all of this came about.

Looking back, I see that our division began, not with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, but with the 1967 Six Day War and the permanent occupation and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza far beyond the UN sanctioned borders of the legal State. From that time on, it seems to me, you have been obsessed and preoccupied with the preservation of the State of Israel beyond its legal borders and no matter what Israel does. This defense of Israel became your passion instead of mankind’s quest for justice. First it was Palestinians that you excluded from legitimately sharing mankind’s universal timeless wish to be free that we celebrated together in the Seder. Now your exclusion of people seems to include all Arabs, all Moslems everywhere. Beyond that, it seems to exclude me and everyone else who does not share your passion for the defense of a neo-con Israel, and wishes somehow to make things right for the Palestinians.

You will first attempt to deny this and the evidence that follows, and then you will make an argument for “balance.” As your ace in the hole, you will buttress that with the claim that those with whom you disagree, like me, like anybody who writes or thinks along the lines of this letter, is anti-Semitic.

For years after 1948 and 1967, we goyem were especially sensitive to the charge of anti-Semitism. Your denial, your argument for “balance,” and your charge of “anti-Semitism” worked successfully with us for a long time. We averted our eyes from what Israel was doing in the West Bank and Gaza. We wanted to ignore factual reality out of our long friendship with you and with our own knowledge of the long history of the persecution of the Jews.

This denial of factual reality no longer works for me. I am appalled with what the State of Israel has become domestically, and with what it does beyond its legal borders. I am especially concerned with the hammer-lock grip Israel has on American politics through the Jewish lobbies like AIPAC and the Anti Defamation League. I am appalled that my American Jewish friends uncritically support these lobbies in monolithic fashion, while Jews in Israel openly debate a wide variety of public positions.

Let’s first get at my alleged “anti-Semitism” out of the way. I was and am a passionate defender of Israel’s right to exist within its pre-1967 legal borders. If Jews want a theocracy and a powerful haven for oppressed Jews everywhere, so be it. The long history of antagonism toward the Jews beginning with the four gospels of the Christian New Testament, continuing with the Crusades in the middle ages, with the pogroms in Europe before WWII, with the discrimination against Jews, and with the holocaust makes some special powerful haven for Jews completely understandable, necessary and just.

However, if Zionism means Jewish imperialism outside of Israel’s legal borders, then I am anti-Zionist. That does not make me “anti-Semitic” unless you choose to make it so in your own eyes.

Israelis and Jews everywhere, like most Americans, have become more interested in preserving their material benefits than in justice for others. However, there is one critical difference. I have come to the tentative conclusion that Jews everywhere, because of history, have a kind of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome that partly explains their current attitudes and political behavior that I do not share. I have never experienced anti-Semitism. My grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins and were not gassed in Hitler’s death chambers. 6 million of my extended family was not recently put to death. I do not have current fears or nightmares that I will be harmed by anti-Semites be they Moslems, Arabs, or local David Duke types. I do not have the guilt and shame from the possibility that one of my ancestors may have been a capo or that others were so immobilized that they did not flee when they could have. Hence, I have compassion for Jews who have this experience and hopefully, some understanding. I thus understand why Jews say “never again,” and choose to arm Israel to the teeth. However, it may be that this Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome of Jews prevents them from acting rationally, realistically, and justly in their own self interest or in my self interest. Whatever the self interest of American Jews may be as now manifest in American politics, it is not in my self interest.

You my Jewish friends do not confront and you do not criticize the powerful Jewish Lobbies that pressure the US. You support and finance following positions of AIPAC, ADL and the other American Jewish lobbies and interest groups that are not in my self interest:

• Actively lobbying for the US to invade or bomb Iran
• Lobbied for the Gulf War
• Lobbied for the Iraq War and lobbies for the War to continue
• Lobbies for ever more monetary aid, loan guarantees, and armaments for Israel
• Supports the 15,000 new Jewish settlers in the West Bank and ongoing settlements outside the legal boundaries of Israel.
• Opposed every two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict so far proposed
• Opposes any US intervention or brokering or pressuring or even handed mediation of the conflict
• Urges the US to veto any UN Resolution critical of Israel or sympathetic to Palestine.
• Opposes peace groups in the US and labels them “naïve.”
• Support Israeli spying in the US including the theft of atomic bomb secrets.
• Support for a War in Iraq and Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that creates more and more enemies of the US that are full of rage.
• Opposes every Democratic candidate for Congress who stands for ending the Iraq War.

It is this last position that is grossly offensive to me. These Jewish Lobbies, through their neck-lock control of House and Senate Democratic leaders in control of campaign funds, have carefully selected pro-war candidates and successfully eliminated pro-peace Democrats in the primary elections. Let me be blunt: American Jews thus prevent the Democratic Party from implementing the wishes of a majority of rank and file Democrats that we get out of Iraq.

American Jews will say: “no that could not be true, or if peace candidates have been eliminated it is due to the power of the Armaments Lobby, many other K Street lobbyists, and the evil controlling power of money in American politics.”

The truth is that these other K Street lobbies do not have the kind of hammer-lock control of Congress that AIPAC does.

How does AIPAC get this level of influence and control of our Congress and of the Democratic Party?

There are many Democratic leaders in the House and Senate whose allegiance to Israel and AIPAC is so complete, that one suspects that their paramount loyalty is to Israel, and not to the United States. Let me name some of those persons: Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut; Senator Charles Schumer of NY; Senator Diane Feinstein of California; Senator Barbara Boxer of California; Senator Hillary Clinton of NY; Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California; Congressmen Tom Lantos, Howard Berman, and Harvey Waxman of California; Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.

Two of these persons are of critical importance now in the 2006 elections:

Senator Charles Schumer is Chairman of the Senate Campaign Committee and Congressman Rahm Emanuel is Chairman of the House Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and both have control of the massive millions available to help re-elect of new Democratic Congress.

In my own Congressional District a qualified, attractive veteran, Jeff Latas ran in the primary election on a platform of opposing the War. His primary election opponent was a young woman, Gabriel Giffords, a former Arizona State Representative. Gabriel chose conservative positions. She supported the War. She supported massive federal funding to build a fence on the Southern border to keep out hungry Mexican immigrants. Congressman Rahm Emanuel gave her lavish campaign money and gave Latas none. Latas, having insufficient funds, got only 7% of the vote. Giffords won. Continuing Democratic support of the War is assured. The majority of Tucson voters who oppose the War were denied political effectiveness. These disenfranchised rank and file Democrats were forced to vote for the “lesser evil” even though their principal concern was not implemented.

This is my local example. Senator Schuman gave campaign money only to vigorously pro war Senatorial candidates around the US who supported the War. Congressman Emanuel did the same for Congressional Districts across the nation. Of the 22 Districts where change is possible, Emanuel supported 20 hawks, even digging up a candidate to run against a popular anti-war Democrat in one case. 20 won. The fix was on. The War will certainly go on even if the Democrats win. See http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html

Elected officials in Washington are terrified of AIPAC. If they propose that the US undertake balanced brokering between Israel and Palestine, if they falter in support of what Israel wants, or if they propose a little aid for Palestinians, AIPAC will throw its resources in to defeat that public official at the next election. AIPAC thus helped to defeat Congressman Pete McCloskey, Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois, Congressman Bob Barr, and Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Washington elected officials heard the message “loud and clear.” They cringe and dare not oppose AIPAC or risk having them labeled “anti-Semitic.”

An easy example of this power: AIPAC, several times a year proposes resolutions that uncritically support Israel in order to see if its influence is still effective and to demonstrate its power... No Senator or Congressman dares vote against these resolutions. The resolution giving unqualified support to Israel during its controversial invasion of Lebanon and urging Israel not to negotiate with Lebanon in August, 2006, is typical.

See the author’s blog for 2 other articles about the makeup and activities of AIPAC at

http://www.thenewliberator.blogspot.com/

John Walsh wrote in Counterpunch on October 14, 2006:

"’Democrats Split over Timetable for Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout,’ the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html

So the military industrial complex and its money for campaign contributions and lobbying is one reason the United States cannot get out of the War. The reason the Democratic Party cannot lead the nation to get us out of the war, as the rank and file Democrats wish, and the cause of the Democratic Party’s betrayal of its majority rank and file base, is the Jewish Lobbies like AIPAC and ADL. It is also those of you who give uncritical support to Israel and AIPAC.

See also The Israel Lobby and The Peace Process by Marshall Windmiller, Professor Emeritus of International Relations San Francisco State University at

http://www.middleeast.org/marshall1.htm

So you and I are now taking profoundly different positions. Now I am in a conflict with you, a dangerous and potentially deadly conflict accompanied by libel and slander suits, political retaliation, loss of jobs, and by death threats against those of us who examine the facts. It is not I who has changed. It is you, my Jewish friends. We who wish to bring peace and justice to this planet will unfortunately have to find other allies. We miss you. We will continue to struggle to implement the metaphorical message of the Seder even if you do not.

Dated: November 2, 2006

Douglas R. Page

dougpage2@earthlink.net