Israel won't be the first to attack Iran: Fidel Castro

[ahaze]

Israel won't be the first to attack Iran: Fidel Castro

HAVANA, Aug. 11 (Xinhua) -- Israel is planing an attack on Iran but will not be the first to start the war for fear of severe consequences, former Cuban President Fidel Castro said Wednesday.

Former U.S. intelligence agents "are right when they warn (U.S. President Barack) Obama that Israeli prime minister is planning a surprise attack on Iran with the idea of forcing the United States to go to war," Castro wrote in an article published on Wednesday by local press

Castro said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "would not dare to be the first to attack, because such an action would make him face all the nuclear powers and he is not stupid."

Castro added "Obama would have no other alternatives than ordering the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people, and the crew of the U.S warships near Iran would be the first victims (...) ."

Castro has been warning for over a month of the danger of a nuclear war as a consequence of Washington and Tel Aviv's confrontations with Tehran.

He argues that the war could happen as soon as the United Sates tries to apply the new UN Resolution adopted in June, which imposed additional sanctions on Iran in response to its controversial nuclear plan.

"Iran's authorities will not allow that," Castro said.

Earlier this month, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said the United States has a plan in place to attack Iran, if it is necessary.

"Military actions have been on the table and remain on the table" for curbing Iran's nuclear ambition, Mullen, the highest ranking U.S. military officer, told NBC's "Meet the Press".

Iranian military officials have dismissed the U.S. threats, saying Iran has prepared defensive plans to face any threats by the enemies.

_http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-08/12/c_13441469.htm

[Negentropic]

Of course, Israel won't be the first to attack, not that if they were the first to attack they wouldn't lie and say they didn't. Either way, attack first or attack last, they'll still get away wtih it. They've got especially raised and trained attack dogs that will do whatever they tell them, they're called stupid brainwashed Yankees and their goy-rabble imitators the world over. Do we need a decrepit old clown like Castro to tell us that?  They pull on his beard and he keeps yapping on cue just like Ahmdinejackturd. Castro just keeps yapping at the mouth as if it wasn't the arab banksters who were behind the bolshy-irish who were running things behind this guy:




who was standing behind the cigar-chompin' heroic freedom fighting, anti-imperialist
35,000-women-screwing degenerate head pimp of Cuba  

http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12196



Anti-Imperialist hero Khrushchev by the way, just happened to be a protege of that wonderful humanitarian Lazar Kaganovich:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev

Kaganovich protégé
Khrushchev met Lazar Kaganovich as early as 1917. In 1925, Kaganovich became Party head in Ukraine[29] and Khrushchev, falling under his patronage,[30] was rapidly promoted. He was appointed second in command of the Stalino party apparatus in late 1926. Within nine months Khrushchev arranged the ouster of his superior, Konstantin Moiseyenko.[29] Kaganovich transferred Khrushchev to Kharkov, then the capital of Ukraine, as head of the Organizational Department of the Ukrainian Party's Central Committee.[31] In 1928, Khrushchev was transferred to Kiev, where he served as second-in-command of the Party organization there.[32]

In 1929, Khrushchev again sought to further his education, following Kaganovich (now in the Kremlin as a close associate of Stalin) to Moscow and enrolling in the Stalin Industrial Academy. Khrushchev never completed his studies there, but his career in the Party flourished.[33] When the school's Party cell elected a number of rightists to an upcoming district Party conference, the cell was attacked in Pravda.[34] Khrushchev emerged victorious in the ensuing power struggle, becoming Party secretary of the school, arranging for the delegates to be withdrawn, and afterward purging the cell of the rightists.[34] Khrushchev rose rapidly through the Party ranks, first becoming Party leader for the Bauman district, site of the Academy, before taking the same position in the Krasnopresnensky district, the capital's largest and most important. By 1932, Khrushchev had become second in command, behind Kaganovich, of the Moscow city Party organization, and in 1934, he became Party leader for the city[33] and a member of the Party's Central Committee.[35] Khrushchev attributed his rapid rise to his acquaintance with fellow Academy student Nadezhda Alliluyeva, Stalin's wife. In his memoirs, Khrushchev stated that Alliluyeva spoke well of him to her husband. His biographer, William Tompson, downplays the possibility, stating that Khrushchev was too low in the Party hierarchy to enjoy Stalin's patronage, and that if influence was brought to bear on Khrushchev's career at this stage, it was by Kaganovich.[36]

even a completely controlled source like Wikipedia admits it.

Lazar Kaganovich: Stalin's Mass Murderer
American Times Today
Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich (Kogan), of Jewish descent, was born in Kubany, near Kiev, Ukraine, in 1893. In 1911 he joined the Jewish-founded Communist Party and became involved with the Bolsheviks (Lower East Side New York Jews). Kaganovich took an active part in the 1917 takeover of Christian Russia by Communism and rose rapidly in the Party hierarchy.

From 1925 to 1928, he was first secretary of the party organization in Ukraine and by 1930 was a full member of the Politburo.

Kaganovich was one of a small group of Stalin's top sadists pushing for very high rates of collectivization after 1929. He became Stalin's butcher of Christian Russians during the late 1920s and early 1930s when the Kremlin (jews) launched its war against the kulaks (small landowners who were Christians) and implemented a ruthless policy of land collectivization. The resulting state-organized forced famine, was a planned genocide and killed 7,000,000 Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933, and inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan.

Josef Stalin (Dzhugashvili) altered census figures to hide the millions of famine deaths when the Ukraine and northern Caucasus region had an extremely poor harvest in 1932, just as Stalin was demanding heavy requisitions of grain to sell abroad to finance his industrialization program which was on top of enforced collective farming of 1929. Stalin is conservatively estimated to have been responsible for the murder and/or starvation of 40,000,000 Russians and Ukrainians during his reign of terror, while the total deaths resulting from the de-kulaklization and famine, by way of Kaganovich, can be conservatively estimated at about 14,500,000.

On any analysis, Kaganovich, was one of the worst mass murderers in history, and little wonder that during World War II large numbers of Ukrainians greeted the Germans as liberators, with many joining the Waffen-SS to keep Communism from enslaving all of Europe.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-kaganovich.html

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=160


Anti-imperialist freedom-fighters  Khrushchev and Castro (and anti-commie Statist Nixon) also pay their tributes to this wonderful champion of human rights:





















"1949: On October 1, Mao Tse Tsung declares the founding of the People's Republic Of China in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. He is funded by Rothschild created Communism in Russia and also the following Rothschild agents: Solomon Adler, a former United States Treasury official who was a Soviet Spy; Israel Epstein, the son of a Jewish Bolshevik imprisoned by the Tsar in Russia for trying to forment a revolution there; and Frank Coe, a leading official of the Rothschild owned IMF."  -- Andrew Carrington Hitchcock

and yet, though Zionist banksters ran everyone behind Fidel and by extension Fidel himself, and they could blow twice and Fidel's pathetic raggedy-assed ramshackle tyranny would disappear, replaced by another new-improved stooge, Fidel still is anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian, same as Ahmedinejad?  Hmm, I guess that makes him a  hero, huh?  Kind of like a guerrila Chomsky  with medals? Let's all go have a party with Oliver Stone, Noam Chomsky, Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez and celebrate this heroic controlled-opposition Marrano uber-stooge.   :up:

[ahaze]

Thanks Negentropic.  I thought the Castro PR piece wreaked of something rotting. I think he delivers the thesis/antithesis on the 'bomb bomb Iran' strategy, so what's the alternative they're denying?  WTF PTSD are we in for now?

[Negentropic]

On the lower level for the consumption of the masses what Ahmedinejad and Castro say about Israel and Palestine is, of course, the right thing. They are defending the underdogs and therefore get points for that by millions of gullible people. Never mind that they're both tyrants with horrible human rights records internally. Would you trust somebody who's beating his own kids who started making a case against child abuse? It's like when the Soviets were massacring millions internally, they were still relatively peaceful externally compared to the United States, so they could propagandize on that to their own people about how imperialist the USA is, what savages they are, meanwhile when they're not starving and killing dissidents they're freezing their testicles off by the millions in sub-zero Siberian gulags.  Castro and Cuba had as many purges and brutal political killings as any other dictatorship but lefties like Oliver Stone and Chomsky try to pretend none of that stuff ever happened or is somehow justifiable means to some greater end  but when it comes to someone like the Shah of Iran or Franco or Hitler or Mussolini or any so-called 'fascist' dictator of the right killing a few political opponents off so they don't fuck up his regime, so that they can reach a greater end, same immoral ends-justifying-the-means, you'll never hear the end of it about how evil they are.  



What the powers that be try to confuse people with is the lack of correlation between the degree of internal freedom any particular State allows in a country and the degree of its external agressiveness (see Rothbard quote below for further elucidation).  They play one against the other all the time to confuse the shit out of everybody. You have states like Iran and Cuba who are internally pretty brutal and tyrannical dictatorships but who are at the same time externally relatively peaceful. Most of the former Soviet bloc countries created as controlled opposition by the West and supported by it, were also kept more externally more peaceful than the U.S. and internally brutal. The reason they neeed to stay internally brutal is because if they show weakness and the people revolt and overthrow of the government then  the leash of 'controlled opposition' is cut and they have a nationalistic human-rights respecting state they can't demonize for results.  War is the health of the state.  When was the last time someone declared war on Denmark or Sweden or Norway or Switzerland?  They can't because there's nothing they can demonize them on.  That's why the best controlled oppositions are internal brutal dicatorships that are externally peacful and can cry imperialism vs. the invading brutal imperialist aggressors like the U.S. or British military who are internally peacful within their own borders (relative to the dictatorships) and can pretend that they're fighting to protect 'freedom' or worse yet 'Iraqi freedom' or 'Iranian freedom' or 'Vietnamese freedom' or some other such nonsense.

As far as I can see Mullins was right and both sides are rigged for results on a grand chessboard. They will give up pawns all the time so that they can take Knights or Bishops in return.  For, example, they'll let Ahmedinejad have his holocaust revisionist conference in Tehran and as a result have some more people investigate and learn the truth about the 'holohoax' because they know that number will be in the minority. Then they can use the fact of there even being a holocaust 'denial' conference in Iran to draw comparisons to Hitler. Hitler is the figure that is considered the 'ultimate evil' in the eyes of the entire mass-media brainwashed world and especially the western world.  They bring the weight of  60 years of non-stop anti-German propaganda to bear on the association of Ahmedinejad's Iran and Hitler's Germany. They plaster it all over the press and they get nothing but results from the brainwashed masses and what did Ahmedinejackturd do? A completely idiotic thing, even if he wasn't a direct agent, he made himself a useful idiot, which amounts to the same thing in the end.. He played right into their hands. They could have blacked him out completely from the MSM if they had chosen, instead they broadcast it everywhere. That's because it was planned that way.  They were perfectly willing to give up a pawn or two in order to take a bishop.






Isn't it funny that the guy who wrote this:



"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-- Noam Chomsky




Also wrote this:


"The Holocaust was the most extreme atrocity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we are even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes."  -- Noam Chomsky

"By entering into the arena of argument and counterargument, of technical feasibility and tactics, of footnotes and citations, by accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one's humanity."  -- Noam Chomsky

Now is that a complete douche-bag or what? He just declares something that's never been proven as true and then refuses to enter into argument and considers anyone who does less than human but he's for free speech for everybody. Isn't that cute? Free speech, just don't say that the earth is round, it's heresy you sub-human. Only MIT professor Marxist deep-cover Jewry agents get to choose what topics humans are allowed to debate and still be considered humans.




This same douche-bag is on the lower level 100% pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel and a 100% anti-Imperialist so called 'humanitarian' admired by most leftists as some sort of messiah. So according to Chomsky's own statement douchebag #2 Ahmedinejad lost his humanity by being even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes. But Ahmedinejad played the role anyway because Israel and the West need someone they can demonize together cheerfully and who better to bring the Yanks and the Yids together their hypocritical fear-and-loathing than the fearsome ghost of Adolf embodied in or associated to some new villain on the block.




Always worth reading or re-reading in this context:

"There is still one thesis common to Americans and even to some libertarians that may prevent them from absorbing the analysis of this chapter: the myth propounded by Woodrow Wilson that democracies must inevitably be peace-loving while dictatorships are inevitably warlike. This thesis was of course highly convenient for covering Wilson's own culpability for dragging America into a needless and monstrous war. But apart from that, there is simply no evidence for this assumption. Many dictatorships have turned inward, cautiously confining themselves to preying on their own people: examples range from premodern Japan to Communist Albania to innumerable dictatorships in the Third World today. Uganda's Idi Amin, perhaps the most brutal and repressive dictator in today's world, shows no signs whatever of jeopardizing his regime by invading neighboring countries. On the other hand, such an indubitable democracy as Great Britain spread its coercive imperialism across the globe during the nineteenth and earlier centuries.

The theoretical reason why focusing on democracy or dictatorship [p. 290] misses the point is that States — all States — rule their population and decide whether or not to make war. And all States, whether formally a democracy or dictatorship or some other brand of rule, are run by a ruling elite. Whether or not these elites, in any particular case, will make war upon another State is a function of a complex interweaving web of causes, including temperament of the rulers, the strength of their enemies, the inducements for war, public opinion. While public opinion has to be gauged in either case, the only real difference between a democracy and a dictatorship on making war is that in the former, more propaganda must be beamed at one's subjects to engineer their approval. Intensive propaganda is necessary in any case — as we can see by the zealous opinion-moulding behavior of all modern warring States. But the democratic State must work harder and faster. And also the democratic State must be more hypocritical in using rhetoric designed to appeal to the values of the masses: justice, freedom, national interest, patriotism, world peace, etc. So in democratic States, the art of propagandizing their subjects must be a bit more sophisticated and refined. But this, as we have seen, is true of all governmental decisions, not just war or peace. For all governments — but especially democratic governments — must work hard at persuading their subjects that all of their deeds of oppression are really in their subjects' best interests.

What we have said about democracy and dictatorship applies equally to the lack of correlation between degrees of internal freedom in a country and its external aggressiveness. Some States have proved themselves perfectly capable of allowing a considerable degree of freedom internally while making aggressive war abroad; other States have shown themselves capable of totalitarian rule internally while pursuing a pacific foreign policy. The examples of Uganda, Albania, China, Great Britain, etc., apply equally well in this comparison.

In short, libertarians and other Americans must guard against a priori history: in this case, against the assumption that, in any conflict, the State which is more democratic or allows more internal freedom is necessarily or even presumptively the victim of aggression by the more dictatorial or totalitarian State. There is simply no historical evidence whatever for such a presumption. In deciding on relative rights and wrongs, on relative degrees of aggression in any dispute in foreign affairs, there is no substitute for a detailed empirical, historical investigation of the dispute itself. It should occasion no great surprise, then, if such an investigation concludes that a democratic and relatively far freer United States has been more aggressive and imperialistic in foreign affairs than a relatively totalitarian Russia or China. Conversely, hailing a State for being [p. 291] less aggressive in foreign affairs in no way implies that the observer is in any way sympathetic to that State's internal record. It is vital — indeed, it is literally a life-and-death matter — that Americans be able to look as coolly and clear-sightedly, as free from myth at their government's record in foreign affairs as they are increasingly able to do in domestic politics. For war and a phony "external threat" have long been the chief means by which the State wins back the loyalty of its subjects. As we have seen, war and militarism were the gravediggers of classical liberalism; we must not allow the State to get away with this ruse ever again.19

A Foreign Policy Program

To conclude our discussion, the primary plank of a libertarian foreign policy program for America must be to call upon the United States to abandon its policy of global interventionism: to withdraw immediately and completely, militarily and politically, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, from everywhere. The cry among American libertarians should be for the United States to withdraw now, in every way that involves the U.S. government. The United States should dismantle its bases, withdraw its troops, stop its incessant political meddling, and abolish the CIA. It should also end all foreign aid — which is simply a device to coerce the American taxpayer into subsidizing American exports and favored foreign States, all in the name of "helping the starving peoples of the world." In short, the United States government should withdraw totally to within its own boundaries and maintain a policy of strict political "isolation" or neutrality everywhere.

The spirit of this ultra-"isolationist," libertarian foreign policy was expressed during the 1930s by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler. In the fall of 1936, General Butler proposed a now-forgotten constitutional amendment, an amendment which would delight libertarian hearts if it were once again to be taken seriously. Here is Butler's proposed constitutional amendment in its entirety:

1. The removal of members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is hereby prohibited.

2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast. [p. 292]

3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps is hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.20


From "For A New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 14: War & Foreign Policy
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p73

[Christopher Marlowe]

Nice post Negentropic.

[ahaze]

Thanks for the cogent expansion Negentropic, and excellent to hear clear thinking on Chomsky's "genius" (a thousand words in that photo with Castro, and ranks right up there with Chomsky on AJ's show).

[...]
In short, libertarians and other Americans must guard against a priori history: in this case, against the assumption that, in any conflict, the State which is more democratic or allows more internal freedom is necessarily or even presumptively the victim of aggression by the more dictatorial or totalitarian State.
[...]

Guatemala seems a valid contrast here.  Guatemala's freely elected democracy was the "victim of aggression" by the United States' anti-democracy coup in 1954 when it was necessary for the US to defend the freedom of the United Fruit Company over the Guatemalan people.  In this respect Guatemala briefly manifested what appeared to be a pure democratic state, but the US de-"mock"-racy flexed its dictatorial alter-ego.  I think ancient Greek democracy better demonstrates Rothbard's points about elitist ambitions driving a democratic state (to its demise) and it seems the world is exceedingly short of pure democratic examples wielding the comprehension to transcend power mongering.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Physical launch of Iran's Bushehr power station begins - Rosatom head -Updated
By: Various on: 20.08.2010 [16:18 ] (645 reads)
Article image    

(5537 bytes) [c]    Print
PREVIEW: Iran's first nuclear power plant to open in Bushehr
Aug 20, 2010, 17:01 GMT


Bushehr, Iran - The Southern Iranian port city of Bushehr, with a population of less than 170,000, has attracted international attention ahead of the opening Saturday of the country's first-ever nuclear power plant.

Although the Russian-made Bushehr plant is just one of many in the world, its almost 30-year history makes it unique.

The power station was first planned in the 1970s, with the explicit blessing of the United States and its allies, and constructed in 1975 by Germany's Kraftwerk Union AG. Its construction was then suspended - despite being nearly finished - for political reasons following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1995, Iran persuaded Russia to resume work on the plant, said to be the first in the world to have both Western and Eastern technology.

The plant is tolerated by the West, which worries that Iran might be seeking to build a nuclear weapon, since Russia will not only provide the fuel for the reactor but also deal with its waste.

Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have full supervision over the power station.

On Saturday, the 82 tons of nuclear fuel that have already been delivered to Iran by Russia were to be unsealed by the IAEA and, according to Iran's atomic chief Ali-Akbar Salehi, kept in an outdoor 'fuel-pool' by the reactor.

The fuel will then be gradually injected from this pool into the reactor, again under constant IAEA supervision.

The plant is expected to go online in November at the earliest, and within six or seven months reach its maximum capacity of 1,000 megawatts, Salehi said.

Although the plant is not strictly an Iranian achievement, its coming into being means that despite international pressure and United Nations Security Council resolutions and sanctions, Iran finally has its own nuclear facility.

While the plant is mainly run by Russian experts and the fuel to be provided by Russia over the next 10 years, Iran wants to take control of it as soon as possible. It also wants to produce the plant's fuel on its own.

The people in Bushehr have mixed feelings about the plant.

Some of them hope that it will provide a boost to the local economy.

'I am a taxi driver and for me it will be good, since the need for transportation to and from the site will increase,' said Touraj.

Hotels and restaurant owners voiced similar views.

But others fear that a possible military attack or a technical failure might expose them to radiation leaks.

'We always hear in the news that the plant might be attacked by Israelis and this makes us very afraid,' said Fattaneh, a 36-year-old housewife whose house is near the nuclear plant.

Many doubt that the Israelis would dare carry out such an attack. However, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast warned that attacking an internationally-acknowledged plant with operative nuclear fuel
would be an 'international crime' with international consequences.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... in-Bushehr




The physical launch of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran has begun, the head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) said on Saturday.

"Today we begin the physical launch of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr," Sergei Kiriyenko told a launch ceremony.

The project of the Bushehr nuclear power plant is unique, Kiriyenko said.

"The construction of the plant began in 1974. The uniqueness of the project consists in the fact that specialists succeeded in building the plant on the old foundations... laid down by a German company more than 30 years previously," he said.

Kiriyenko said the energy launch of the plant will take place before the end of the year.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), described the day as "historic." He expressed his gratitude to Russia for its help in building the plant.

Russia has said that all the fuel for Bushehr will be supplied by Russia and all the spent fuel will be returned to Russia.

The fuel deal made the project acceptable to Washington and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this week that the Bushehr plant contributes to the nonproliferation regime.

The construction of Iran's first nuclear plant was begun in 1975 by several German construction companies. They pulled out following a U.S. embargo on hi-tech supplies to Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent U.S. Embassy siege in Tehran.

Russia signed a contract with Iran to complete construction in February 1998.

Western powers suspect Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of its nuclear program, a charge Tehran strongly denies, saying the program is aimed at the peaceful generation of civilian energy.

On June 9, 2010, the UN Security Council approved a fourth round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, including tougher financial controls and an expanded arms embargo, as well as an asset ban on three dozen companies and a travel freeze on individuals.

Later, the United States and the European Union imposed extra sanctions against Iran, including tougher restrictions on the energy sector and a tougher trade embargo.

The construction of the Bushehr facility was not affected by the sanctions.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100821/160284864.html

Good
by Zoraida on 20.08.2010 [16:41 ]    
For Iran, for Russia for us!!


It's about time
by LittleHelper on 20.08.2010 [16:49 ]    
A nuclear power plant is meant to produce electric power.
We all wait to see if Bushehr after endless delays finally will
manage to deliver electric power into the Iranian national
power grid.
We want to see how the wires start to glow, as soon as the
high voltage power lines are carrying those 1 Gigawatt of
power into Iranian cities !




I'm shocked
by Syrian on 20.08.2010 [20:42 ]    
Sergey doesn't have a cold?
Eugene doesn't have a sore back?
Ivan isn't visiting his sick mother?

Where is the usual delay? I am still holding my breath until Saturday.


In Bushehr
by RoyDubai on 20.08.2010 [22:08 ]    
last week I noted that there is little outward concern there about the nuclear power station. It is located well to the north. Bushehr is a pleasant port city, very clean with vibrant shops, markets and businesses. There is a sense of well-being and optimism there with many new cars on the roads. In many ways it is the new Iran. The power station will bring jobs for engineers and technicians. To militarily attack this city in order to put the facility out of action would be a crime of monstrous proportions.


With you Syrian.
by Iron_Clay on 20.08.2010 [22:19 ]    
You missed tooth ache.

However once this fuel is installed and on line the attack would have to take one of two different scenarios.

One the Israeli strike would have to leave the Bushehr plant alone.

If they left it alone it would make the situation for another strike (in years to come) or a continued strike nearly impossible world opinion wise as now Iran would have the excuse to be a nuclear power.


Two they would have to take it out with nuclear bombs.

This presents it's own problems in that there are Russian staff on site and melting their skin and bones may upset the Russians.
I say "MAY UPSET" because of what happened at the Baghdad Airport.
And besides when has Zionist Israel ever given a stuff about anyone else. They know UK and US will protect them from Russia right?

I've heard it say that the heat of a nuclear bomb uses up much of the nuclear fuel, so if that is correct (in the eyes of pentagon officials) then to encourage Israel to use first strike nukes would be the way to go.

There are several scenarios floating around in Zionist lar lar Land
iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/232122
and most of them are missing the plot or simple can't happen.

A longer war is out ... no one can afford a long war.
A land war or invasion of any large degree is completely out.
The Northern route is out.
An American lead strike is out ... yet it's very clear they will be there in large chuncks once the lead is taken.
The use of conventional weapons is out. (ineffective)

Some people believe that Iran has defense systems such as the S-300's.
That ensures any attack will be a first strike nuclear and there's only one mad enough for that.

(I note that Mr Black has pulled his ground forces back early from direct danger this week)

It is said that any attack would require the full support of middle east nations because of the counter attacks from Iran.
I do note that the US has gifted and installed air defense systems in all of these countries now and that it's been done over the last 6 months.


That leaves.

The route over Iraq is clear to use and will draw no fire.
The route over Saudi is completely open and will draw no fire.
The use of nuclear missiles in a first strike is almost certain.



Iran Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant Reactor #1 Historical Imagery
by informatron- on 21.08.2010 [02:43 ]    
Images from GeoEye
h ttp://publicintelligence.net/iran-bushe ... l-imagery/

U.S. Opposition to Bushehr

"On 23 February 1998, the US State Department reaffirmed US opposition to Iran's nuclear program. The United States argued that Iran had sufficient oil and gas reserves for power generation, and that nuclear reactors were expensive, unnecessary, and could be used for military purposes. The United States strongly opposed the project, which was permitted under the NPT, and had in the past provided Russia with intelligence information pointing to the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite this, the Russians proceeded with work on Bushehr."
h ttp://publicintelligence.net/iran-nucle ... wer-plant/


Saudi arms deal opens the door for Iran attack
by Iron_Clay on 21.08.2010 [04:42 ]    
Saudi arms deal opens the door for Iran attack

One of the largest arms deals in US history, involving the sale of weaponry worth some $60bn to Saudi Arabia, is about
sail through Capitol Hill.
The deal would include 84 Boeing F-15 fighter aircraft along with Blackhawk and Apache helicopters.

Saudi Arabia is focusing on a possible threat from Iran when the attack finally comes.

For an attack on Iran to take place by either party the U.S. would need to have the support of some Gulf nations to leverage assets such as what Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman; and the United Arab Emirates offers in the way of extensive port facilities and staging for tactical aircraft.

To gain that leverage and to counter the retaliation by Iran, the US has to provide defense weapons to those nations.

The stage is now set, cameras rolling and the world won't see any of it happen till it's all over and Iran's glowing red.


'Intl. law forbids attack on nuclear sites'
by Iron_Clay on 21.08.2010 [04:45 ]    
Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency says attacking or threatening to attack nuclear facilities is in violation of the UN charter.

"According to Resolution 533 of the IAEA, attacking or threatening to attack operational or under-construction nuclear facilities is a blatant violation of the UN charter, IAEA statute and international regulations," Ali Asghar Soltanieh said Wednesday.

"The remarks made by the former US envoy to the UN show Washington's warmongering and aggressive attitude as well as
its violation of international laws," Soltanieh said in reference to John Bolton hinting that Israel has only one week to attack the Bushehr power plant.

"(If not stopped), Iran will achieve something that no other opponent of Israel, no other enemy of the United States in the Middle East really has and that is a functioning nuclear reactor," Bolton said on Monday.

He said that once fuel rods are loaded into the reactor, "attacking it means a release of radiation," suggesting that any attack
should take place before the injection of fuel.

Soltanieh went on to add that some statements imply that until fuel rods are not transferred into the reactor's building, nuclear facilities cannot claim international immunity.

"According to Resolution 533 of the agency... attacking or threatening to attack nuclear facilities without nuclear materials is also considered violation of international laws," the Iranian official explained.

Iran's first nuclear power plant in Bushehr built by Russia is expected to become operational today.

ht tp://www.presstv.ir/detail/139255.html


How Iran exploited the dumb jews and their ignorant American followers
by Econ on 21.08.2010 [16:02 ]    
I thought the dumb jews had until today to bomb the Bushehr plant?

Everyday in America in the jew-controlled media we get the countdown to the bombing of Iranian nuclear power plant, yet the Iranians have left the jews shitting in their pants.

AIPAC is able to extort the traitors in the US congress who betrayed Americans for a dirty shekel and attention in the jew media.

There is very little the US, now a failed state and brankrupt empire, can do the protect the shit-hole zionist entity. The zionist entity is in its last day unable to support itself with the extorting Americans, the Swiss and Germans with their holocaust hoax and extortion racket.

Iraq and Afghanistan taught the ignorant jews and their dumb apologists in America a nasty lesson: When there is a possibility that an event will end failure, it is futile to attempt it and thus expose your weaknesses.

Iraq and Afghanistan exposed the US military, economic, financial, moral political and diplomatic weaknesses that Iran has exploited.

The jew parasites are now dependent on a host (the US) that is now on life support and dying a slow and painful death from too much debt to fund failed wars, foreign aid to prop up the zionist entity and useless military bases around the globe.

Meanwhile, Americans have become desperate as there are no jobs, massive foreclosures, bankruptcies and homelessness.

Americans have now realized that they really can't have guns and butter.

They can now see WHY the Germans wanted the jews out of Germany.




Econ, you're right on, as usual...
by sealion on 21.08.2010 [17:43 ]    
Econ, you're right on, as usual and the bark of the Zionist apologists and other assorted Zioprops on this site and elsewhere will soon become a WHIMPER...

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/232127

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Fidel Castro Fascinated By Book On Bilderberg Club
Published on 08-18-2010


Source: AP

Fidel Castro is showcasing a theory long popular both among the far left and far right: that the shadowy Bilderberg Group has become a kind of global government, controlling not only international politics and economics, but even culture.

The 84-year-old former Cuban president published an article Wednesday that used three of the only eight pages in the Communist Party newspaper Granma to quote - largely verbatim - from a 2006 book by Lithuanian-born writer Daniel Estulin.

Estulin's work, "The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club," argues that the international group largely runs the world. It has held a secretive annual forum of prominent politicians, thinkers and businessmen since it was founded in 1954 at the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland.

Castro offered no comment on the excerpts other than to describe Estulin as honest and well-informed and to call his book a "fantastic story."

Estulin's book, as quoted by Castro, described "sinister cliques and the Bilderberg lobbyists" manipulating the public "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."

The Bilderberg group's website says its members have "nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern" once a year, but the group does nothing else.

It said the meetings were meant to encourage people to work together on major policy issues.

The prominence of the group is what alarms critics. It often includes members of the Rockefeller family, Henry Kissinger, senior U.S. and European officials and major international business and media executives.

The excerpt published by Castro suggested that the esoteric Frankfurt School of socialist academics worked with members of the Rockefeller family in the 1950s to pave the way for rock music to "control the masses" by diverting attention from civil rights and social injustice.

"The man charged with ensuring that the Americans liked the Beatles was Walter Lippmann himself," the excerpt asserted, referring to a political philosopher and by-then-staid newspaper columnist who died in 1974.

"In the United States and Europe, great open-air rock concerts were used to halt the growing discontent of the population," the excerpt said.

Castro - who had an inside seat to the Cold War - has long expressed suspicions of back-room plots. He has raised questions about whether the Sept. 11 attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government to stoke military budgets and, more recently suggested that Washington was behind the March sinking of a South Korean ship blamed on North Korea.

Estulin's own website suggests that the 9/11 attacks were likely caused by small nuclear devices, and that the CIA and drug traffickers were behind the 1988 downing of a jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, that was blamed on Libya.

The Bilderberg conspiracy theory has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on just what the group wants to do. Leftists accuse the group of promoting capitalist domination, while some right-wing websites argue that the Bilderberg club has imposed Barack Obama on the United States to advance socialism.

Some of Estulin's work builds on reports by Big Jim Tucker, a researcher on the Bilderberg Group who publishes on right-wing websites.

"It's great Hollywood material ... 15 people sitting in a room sitting in a room determining the fate of mankind," said Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan policy think tank in New York.

"As someone who doesn't come out of the Oliver Stone school of conspiracy, I have a hard time believing it," London added.

A call to a Virginia number for the American Friends of Bilderberg rang unanswered Wednesday and the group's website lists no contact numbers.

Castro, who underwent emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006 and stepped down as president in February 2008, has suddenly begun popping up everywhere recently, addressing Cuba's parliament on the threat of a nuclear war, meeting with island ambassadors at the Foreign Ministry, writing a book and even attending the dolphin show at the Havana aquarium.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-101 ... -15--.html

[Negentropic]

The construction of Iran's first nuclear plant was begun in 1975 by several German construction companies. They pulled out following a U.S. embargo on hi-tech supplies to Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent U.S. Embassy siege in Tehran.

Meaning the German companies were made to play along with the game. And these shenanigans of the next few years strongly suggest it was a high level game all along:



http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/BOOK3Ch7.html

CHAPTER 7


IRAN-CONTRA




CONTENTS

THE OCTOBER SURPRISE

ARMS FOR HOSTAGES

REAGAN'S AND BUSH'S INVOLVEMENT

IRAN-CONTRA INDICTMENTS

THE AFTERMATH OF IRAN-CONTRA





THE OCTOBER SURPRISE



The Iran-Contra scandal can be traced to the October Surprise during the 1980 Presidential election between incumbent Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In the fall of 1980, Carter was marginally leading Reagan in the polls with the election right around the corner. The release of hostages before election day presumably would have insured the election for Carter. The Reagan team conspired to negotiate a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Campaign manager William Casey and George Bush met with Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr in Paris in October, only weeks before the election and with Carter having a slight lead over Reagan. Part of the deal cut between the Reagan team and Iran was to provide military weapons which Iran desperately needed in its war with Iraq. As it turned out, the 52 American hostages remained captive in Teheran. Carter's popularity continued to plummet, enabling Reagan to be elected in November, and ironically the hostages were returned at 12 o'clock noon on January 21, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated.


The first meeting regarding arms-to-Iran occurred in July 1980 in Barcelona, Spain and not in Madrid as was initially reported. The Republican team met at the Hotel Princess Sofia and at the Pepsico International headquarters. The American team was led by Republican campaign director William Casey, who months later was to be named CIA chief by Reagan, and by Robert McFarlane, who later became National Security adviser under Reagan. Three months after Barcelona, a more important meeting took place in Paris. CIA agent Richard Brenneke testified that Bush was in Paris on Sunday, October 19, 1980 when he met with members of the Khomeini regime to consummate an arms package to Iran. Bush, along with Casey and other government officials, flew to Paris on a BAC 111 on Saturday evening, October 18. The plane arrived in Paris on Sunday morning October 19 at 8:40 a.m. European time.


While in Paris, the Republican team gave $40 million to the Iranian government as a gesture of good faith that the Reagan team was serious in dealing with the terrorist Khomeini government -- and that the 52 American hostages should remain captive until after the November election. After the meeting, Bush had to quickly return to the United States in order to deliver a speech at the Washington Hilton Hotel. He departed France in an SR-71 reconnaissance plane, piloted by Gunther Russbacher. The plane was refueled by an Air Force tanker nearly 2,000 miles out of Paris. The entire return flight to the United States was less than two hours.


When news of the Paris meeting leaked out, the CIA moved quickly to cover-up Bush's meeting. CIA agent Frank Snepp wrote an article in the Village Voice, stating that the SR-71 pilot, Gunther Russbacher, was not capable of flying an SR-71 and, therefore, his allegations were false. However, in an interview between government whistle-blower Rodney Stich and Russbacher, it was very clear that Russbacher had been trained in flying the SR-71.


Several other witnesses corroborated the story that Bush was present in Paris. Ari Ben-Menashea, a member of Israel's Mossad and involved in the transfer of arms to Iran, stated that Bush was at the meeting. Also, Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr produced documents indicating that Bush was present. On the other hand, CIA agent Donald Gregg, who was on the flight to Paris, failed a polygraph test when asked about Bush's presence.


The Secret Service unequivocally denied the fact that Bush was in Paris. Yet, the agency refused to allow any of its agents who were assigned to Bush at that time, to testify. Justice Department prosecutors called two Secret Service agents who swore that Bush was in Washington, D.C. on that weekend. The Secret Service claimed that Bush was in Pennsylvania on Saturday, October 18; however, the agency did not produce any evidence to indicate Bush's activities on the following day.


Under pressure by the Republicans, both the House and the Senate initially refused to investigate the October Surprise. However, eventually in 1991, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a token gesture and superficially did look into allegations of improprieties. The investigation was virtually blocked, since the committee prevented investigators from traveling to Europe to interview witnesses; denied subpoena power to investigators; limited the time frame of the investigation; and limited the funds to investigate alleged illegalities.


In addition, the committee called Russbacher an imposter and refused to accept his sworn statements. The testimony of Brenneke was discredited. The committee claimed that he was in Portland, Oregon on the weekend of the October 19, 1980, since he had used his credit cards on that day on the west coast. However, Barbara Honegger, a member of the Reagan-Bush campaign team and one who claimed that Bush was in Paris on October 19, reported that a handwriting expert examined the credit card signatures and swore that they were not those of Brenneke.


A year after the Senate's "investigation" of the October Surprise, the House October Surprise Committee, chaired by Lee Hamilton of Indiana, was formed. However, chief counsel Lawrence Barcella, Jr. lacked credibility, since he earlier helped to conceal clandestine CIA operations in Libya. Also, Richard Pedersen, another key member of the investigation committee, had been involved in corruption. The House committee followed the pattern of its counterpart in the Senate and refused to hear testimony from anyone who had evidence that Bush was in Paris on the weekend of October 19, 1980. In 1993 the committee issued its final report which mirrored that of the Senate committee: the October Surprise was fabricated.


If the October Surprise did indeed occur, there would have been potential enormous consequences: the possibility of impeachment of high level government officials, including members of Congress; criminal activities of Republican Party nominees Reagan and Bush; and the exposure of illegal CIA activities.


Five months after the October Surprise and two months into his first term, Reagan gave CIA chief Casey the green light to begin clandestine activities to attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan Sandinista government. For three years the Contras only killed innocent Nicaraguans and were incapable of seizing any villages. This frustration, coupled with the American public's opposition to Reagan's dirty war, influenced Congress to cut off aid to the Contras.


ARMS FOR HOSTAGES


"Since United States contact with Iran, there's been no evidence

of Iranian government complicity in acts of terrorism against

the United States."

- President Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1986


In 1984, the CIA chief for the Middle East, William Buckley, was kidnaped by the Hezbollah which was operating out of Iran. Close sources to Reagan confirmed that he would do anything to obtain the release of Buckley. However, he was murdered several months later. This was followed by more abductions: Benjamin Weir, Father Jenco, Terry Waite, assistant to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and several professors from the American University in Beirut. The CIA and the National Security Council now moved to attempt to negotiate with Iran.


The NSC was composed of Vice President Bush, Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, CIA director William Casey, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, and National Security adviser Robert McFarlane. On June 7, 1985, the NSC was given permission to deal with Iran which could exert pressure on the Hezbollah to release the American and British hostages.


The secret funding of arms, which was sold to "moderate Iranians," was orchestrated primarily by North. Then the profits from the sales were used to send more weapons to the Contras in Central America. North controlled the secret and illegal treasury which financed "the Enterprise." This consisted of CIA agents turned arms merchants, dummy CIA corporations, and clandestine Swiss bank accounts. The Enterprise took in $48 million in cash. Some was pocketed by arms dealer Albert Hakim and by General Richard Secord. Some of the money was funneled into the Middle East to pay for North's failures in attempting to liberate the American hostages in Beirut.


Soon after the NSC was given permission to communicate with the Iranian regime, six separate arms deals took place.


**August 1985. 96 TOW missiles but no hostages were released. A DC-8 flew from Israel to Iran and transferred $1,217,410 into the Swiss bank account of arms dealer Ghorbanifar.


**September 1985. 408 TOWs were sold to Iran. One American hostage, Benjamin Weir, was released a day later.


**November 1985. 18 Hawk missiles were shipped to Iran via a Portugal and Israel. North arranged for the transfer of one million dollars which was placed into the bank account of Lake Resources, a CIA operated front to launder money in Florida. 80 Hawks were to be delivered; however, 62 were never delivered. North and Secord testified later that the money received covered the payment for the aircraft. $150,000 was actually spent for transportation, and $850,000 was diverted to the Contras.


**February 1986. 1,000 TOWs were sent to Iran in increments of 1,000 each and at $10,000 per missile. $10 million was placed in the account of Lake Resources. $3.7 million was used to pay for the TOWs. Of that amount, $6.3 million was profit.


**May 1986. $16.5 million was paid to the United States for spare parts for Hawk missiles. $6.5 million was given to the government, and $10 million was deposited in the bank account of Lake Resources. Two months later on July 26 Father Lawrence Jenco was released, and the remaining Hawk parts were sent on to Iran.


**October 1986. 500 TOWs were sold to Iran, David Jacobsen was released. $3.6 million was given to the United States. $2 million was paid for the missiles, while $1.3 million became profit.


On November 25, 1986, after a Lebanese newspaper broke the story of arms-for-hostages, Attorney General Edwin Meese revealed that illegal funds had been diverted to the Contras. Reagan downplayed the weapons which were delivered to Iran. He stated that TOW missiles were "hand held" and that they all could be "transported in one cargo plane." Reagan also asserted, "The TOW anti-tank missile is a purely defensive weapon. It is a shoulder-carried weapon. And we don't think that in this defensive thing -- we didn't add to any offensive power on the part of Iran." The TOW missile weighed 56.3 pounds and was four feet long. The complete system required a crew of four people. In addition, TOWs could be used offensively by Iran to attack Iraqi tanks.


It took several days before North's White House office was sealed, so he and his secretary, Fawn Hall, were able to shred damaging papers in this time period.


Reagan attempted to convince the public that his administration was not dealing with Khomeini but with "moderate elements" within the country. Reagan sent both McFarlane and North on a goodwill trip to Teheran to meet with Khomeini and to present him with an autographed Bible and a cake in the shape of a Bible. The Khomeini government refused to allow them to meet with anyone, and they only waited on the Teheran tarmac for several hours before returning to the United States. Because McFarlane's frustration level increased and because he continued to wrestle with the unethical American covert operations, he resigned as Reagan's NSC adviser and was replaced by Navy Admiral John Poindexter.


The next year, a joint Congressional hearing was created to investigate Iran-Contra. The committee granted immunity to North, thus forcing him to testify. North bragged that the United States carried out an illegal covert operation to fund the Contras in Central America. Since the Boland Amendment prohibited the funding of the Contras in their effort to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the NSC sought other avenues. The first was to convince Congress to allocate funds for "humanitarian aid." However, this money was used illegally to arm the Contras and was terminated after several months. Therefore, the NSC had to look for other sources of funds.


North testified that he took it upon himself to carry out "Operation Democracy." He boasted that the profits from the illegal arms sales to the Khomeini regime were placed in secret Swiss bank accounts and that dummy CIA fronts such as Lake Resources in Florida. These funds were used to purchase weapons with which to arm the Contras in Central America. This was carried out by North along with Hakim, Secord, and Singlaub.


North skimmed $50,000 from a secret cash account which was set up by the Contras. Secord helped arrange for weapons which were illegally obtained with profits from the sales to Iran and then shipped south to the Contras. Hakim was a military sales agent who worked as a middleman with Secord. Hakim was quoted after President Carter's aborted hostage rescue in Iran in 1979: "He couldn't have been happier when the Carter administration needed." Air Force General John Singlaub, who was president of the World Anti-communist League, became involved in raising funds overseas for the Contras in 1981.


On the domestic front, North solicited donations from various wealthy people. Claiming that communism was entrenched in Nicaragua and that it would move northward, he was able to solicit $80,000 from Adolph Coors. An $80,000 Cessna spotter plane, to be used in flights over Nicaragua, was purchased. North called wealthy widows, promising them photo sessions with Reagan if they made large contributions. One wealthy woman contributed $200,000 and was rewarded with a five minute meeting with Reagan. Billionaire Ross Perot supplied $2.3 million to North in an attempt to liberate Beirut CIA station chief Buckley in Lebanon. The sultan of Brunei contributed $1 million, and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia turned over $32 million.


North also lost more than $400,000 chasing false leads. An Iranian convince North that he was a Saudi prince with superior intelligence connections and was paid $15,000. An Armenian informant claimed that he knew the secret location of the American hostages. North slipped him $100,000, and he immediately disappeared in Syria. Lebanese "informants" received over $100,000 from North. Another Lebanese claimed that he had contacted Buckley, but it later turned out that Buckley had long been dead when he and North communicated. North also arranged for another informant to receive $200,000 of Perot's money and $11,000 from illegal Contra funds in exchange for information. This informant produced no information to North.



"Midshipmen will not lie, cheat, or steal."

- First seven words of the United States Naval Academy's Honor Code


"There is great deceit, deception practiced in the conduct of covert operations. They are at essence a lie. We make every effort to deceive the enemy as to our intent, our conduct, and to deny the association of the United States to those activities ... and that is not wrong."

- Oliver North


"In the United States Naval Academy, nobody taught me how to run a covert operation."

- Oliver North



This illegal financing -- to operate an illegal war in Nicaragua -- allowed a clandestine arm of the government to run itself. North was not accountable to anyone or to any agency. This was a direct assault on the American constitutional system. The laws of the United States were ignored and broken by a continuous series of lies. Presumably North believed that he was waging a war against the Sandinistas and many members of Congress.


REAGAN AND BUSH'S INVOLVEMENT


BUSH SEEMS TO LOSE HIS MEMORY. Plans to fund the Contras originally emanated from the office of the vice president. In the summer of 1982 Bush and Casey launched the Black Eagle Operation, a plan to ship weapons to the Contras through San Antonio, Texas and then on to El Salvador and Panama. According to a CIA operative, Bush agreed to use his office as a cover after Donald Gregg became the NSC adviser and coordinated the logistics of the operation.


Bush always claimed that he was "out of the loop" in the Iran-Contra scandal as well as the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking while he was vice president. Plans to fund the Contras originally emanated from the office of the vice president. In the summer of 1982 Bush and Casey launched the Black Eagle Operation, a plan to ship weapons to the Contras through San Antonio, Texas and then on to El Salvador and Panama. According to a CIA operative, Bush agreed to use his office as a cover after Donald Gregg became the NSC adviser and coordinated the logistics of the operation.


In December 1983, Bush flew to Panama to meet with Noriega. This encounter was interpreted by Noriega as an appeal in training and arming the Contras. Jose Blandon was the top political aide to Noriega. When subpoenaed before the Senate investigating committee in 1988, Blandon testified that Bush asked for and received a commitment from Noriega to help secretly arm, train, and finance the Contras. In North's 1989 trial, more evidence surfaced about the Bush-Noriega Contra connection. A Costa Rican-based Contra leader testified that he received $100,000 from Noriega in July 1984. Bush continued to plead ignorance about Noriega's drug dealing activities. Blandon confirmed that the CIA used Noriega to funnel guns and money to the Contras and that Panama was used as a training base.


After the Boland Amendment outlawed further shipments of weapons to the Contras, the "Supermarket" began to covertly fly in weapons which were purchased with private funds. Bush always pleaded innocence, maintaining that he was never aware that funds were solicited from private individuals to purchase weapons for the Contras. However, a large amount of evidence indicated that Bush knew the precise details of how the "Supermarket" raised money and bought arms.


NSC adviser Gregg served in Vietnam with Felix Rodriquez, and later both worked in American intelligence. Rodriquez was recruited by Gregg to help supply the Contras with weapons. On September 18, 1984, Gregg claimed that he sent a memo to Bush, explaining the military and political aspects of the war. Gregg said that he told the vice president that the "Supermarket" was providing the Contras with about $1.5 million from private sources.


Telephone records proved that Gregg made a number of telephone calls from his home to the White House on December 15. Bush's office officially acknowledged that Gregg and Rodriquez discussed Contra aid. The statement said that Gregg communicated with Rodriquez, but that they were never involved in directing, coordinating, or approving military aid to the Contras. Bush insisted that these contacts concerned weapons to El Salvador and not to the Contras.


On February 25, 1985, Poindexter wrote to Bush: "We want the VP (Bush) to discuss the matters with (Honduras President Roberto) Suazo." On March 16, Bush flew to Tegucigalpa and met with the president and promised him that the United States would increase military aid to Honduras in return for helping support the Contras. Suazo was close to telling the White House that he would soon evict the Contras from Honduras. Bush assured the president that he would be rewarded if he would permit Contra camps in his country and if he would help to supply them with weapons.


White House aid to Honduras began almost immediately after Bush's visit. Yet Bush categorically denied that he cut a deal with Suazo. The vice president said, "No implication, no quid pro quo, direct or indirect, from me to the president of Honduras."


As vice president, Bush was a member of the NSC. He attended at least six documented meetings between May and October of 1986 and a total of at least 24 meetings in the 1980s. The arms-for- hostages plan was undoubtedly the primary agenda item at these meetings. One of the first meetings to discuss the plan to sell arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages held by the Hezbollah was on August 6, 1985. Bush was present when National Security adviser McFarlane outlined a scheme to attempt to retrieve the hostages.


Weinberger contended that Bush supported the arms-for-hostages, while he and Secretary of State George Shultz opposed the idea. Weinberger stated: "President Reagan decided to go with Israeli-Iranian offer to release our 5 hostages in return for the sale of 4,000 TOWs (anti-tank missiles) to Iran by Israel." Weinberger's notes read: "George Shultz + 1 opposed - Bill Casey Ed Meese (Attorney General) + VP favored." Weinberger's notes told of a straightforward swap of weapons for hostages: "Our 5 hostages in return for sale of 4,000 TOWs."


Bush conceded that he supported the sale of arms but did not realize that it concerned the release of American hostages. Bush consistently said that he was "out of the loop." In addition, he stated that Israel was not a third party in sending some arms to Iran.


After Reagan authorized the sale of arms to Iran on January 6, 1986, Shultz and Weinberger expressed their opposition. Weinberger confirmed that Bush was present at a White House meeting on the following day. The two cabinet members later testified to the Tower Commission that they disagreed with both Reagan and Bush on the arm' sales. A few weeks later John Poindexter, the successor to McFarlane as National Security adviser, sent a memo to North acknowledging the high level opposition to the arms-for-hostages: "President and V.P. are solid in taking the position that we have to try."


More evidence implicated Bush with the illicit funding of the Contra war after the Boland Amendment terminated congressional dollars. Ramon Milian Rodriguez, who served as the chief financial officer of the Medellin cartel, stated that Bush had connections with the Colombia cartels. Rodriguez informed Gregg in April 1986 that North was skimming profits from the arms sales. This directly implied that Gregg was aware of the efforts of North to arm the Contras. Yet Gregg maintained that he never informed Bush about the operation. The next month, Colonel Samuel Watson, an assistant in the NSC, met with Bush and Gregg to discuss the status of the Contras. The vice president was briefed on the status of the war, including the resupply network for the Contras.


On July 29, 1986, Bush met with Amiram Nir, Israel's adviser on terrorism, at Jerusalem's King David Hotel. Bush's aide, Craig Fuller, took notes that explained that Nir hoped to gain the release of the hostages. According to Fuller, they discussed whether the arms destined for Iran would be delivered in separate shipments for each hostage as they are released. Bush later said that he could not recall much about the briefing and that he did not fully understand what Nir was referring to when he was talking about Iranian radicals. Bush said that he merely listened to Nir and that he did not know any details of the arms-for-hostages swap.


At his deposition during the Iran-Contra hearings, Contra leader Pastora testified that Bush was in the Contra resupply chain of command. Furthermore, records showed that after CIA operant Eugene Hasenfus' was shot down over Nicaragua in October 1986, his first telephone call was made to the vice president's office.


Despite the overwhelming evidence indicating that Bush was at several meetings where there were conversations concerning the arms-hostages swap, Bush continued to say that he was unaware of what transpired Even after the media broke the story, the vice president continued to maintain that he had been oblivious to the fact that illegal funds were being diverted to the Contras. Bush claimed that he had been informed by the Senate Intelligence Committee until a month later. The vice president contended that the entire operation to resupply the Contras was carried out privately and that no one in the White House was privy to process.


At the end of the Reagan administration, the Sandinista government still survived. Two years after Bush was elected president, Nicaragua was readying itself for the another election. The Bush administration pumped in $9 million to the 1990 election campaign of Violetta Chamorro. This is the equivalent of an enemy country spending $2 billion on an American election. It took Chamorro and 14 other parties to form the UNO coalition, and they barely defeated Daniel Ortega's Sandinista Party. This brought to a close the 11 year war which cost the lives of more than 30,000 Nicaraguans. Most of the war's casualties were civilians, since the goal of the Contras was to break the morale of those people. The United States government spent $300 million on the Contras, and private contributions never were totally accounted for. And the United States was able to sustain $15 billion in damage to Nicaragua's infrastructure.


THE CHRISTMAS EVE PARDONS. In late 1992 -- with only a month remaining in Bush's presidency -- Iran-Contra once again resurfaced. Bill Clinton had just defeated him in November in his bid for a second term. Reagan's secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, was soon to be indicted for his part in Iran-Contra. Bush only had two months remaining before he would leave office. And Walsh was in his fifth year of investigating the players involved in Iran-Contra. Bush himself was well aware that there was a chance that he, too, could be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and perhaps be indicted.


C. Gordon Gray Reagan's White House counsel for eight years, also served as Bush's personal lawyer in those same years when he was vice president. In December 1992, Gray recommended that Bush pardon Weinberger as well as other Iran-Contra figures. If Bush pardoned only Weinberger, Gray believed, that would make it suspicious that the president would be covering himself. After all, Weinberger's diary was in the hands of the independent counsel, and it contained evidence which could have implicated Bush. Additionally, possible personal testimony could also damage Bush's credibility, since he had vehemently denied any role in Iran-Contra. Gray believed that all the high level Iran-Contra players should be pardoned. He believed that this would shield Bush from the charge that he was attempting to bring Iran-Contra to a swift conclusion so that he himself could never be implicated. The president had been convinced to go ahead and pardon Weinberger and other Iran-Contra figures who earlier had been convicted.


Gray contacted six high level officials who had been convicted of Iran-Contra crimes in order to see if they would accept a presidential pardon. Two CIA officials as well as former NSC adviser Robert McFarlane and former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams agreed to a pardon. Gray helped Bush write a three page memo explaining the purpose of the pardons. Bush said that "the five have already paid the price -- in depleted savings, lost careers, anguished families -- grossly disproportionate to any misdeeds or errors of judgment they may have committed."


On Christmas Eve, December 24, Bush issued the pardons. The president stated that Weinberger had been pardoned "not just out of passion or to spare the 75 year old patriot the torment of a lengthy and costly legal proceeding, but to make it possible for him to receive the honor he deserves."


Bush then hired Griffin Bell's law firm of King & Spaulding to investigate himself. After only three weeks, King & Spaulding issued its findings: Bush was not implicated in any wrong-doings in Iran- Contra. King & Spaulding did in three weeks what Walsh had begun seven years before. Even though Walsh was not finished with his probe, the Christmas Eve pardons brought the Iran-Contra investigation to a conclusion. Walsh was angry.


REAGAN'S MEMORY ALSO FAILS. Reagan attended four NSC meetings, but he also contended that he knew nothing of illegal arms shipments to Iran and illegal weapons sales to the Contras. In November 1986, a Beirut newspaper broke a story which explained that American arms sales to Iran.


A month earlier on October 8, 1986 Reagan was asked at a news conference: "Was there any United States involvement in this fight over Nicaragua -- carrying the arms -- any involvement whatsoever?" Reagan replied: "I'm glad you asked. Absolutely not. While they (three Americans, including Eugene Hasenfus) there is no government connection with that at all." Then after the Reagan administration acknowledged that the United States was selling weapons to Iran, Reagan stated on November 19, 1986: "To eliminate the widespread but mistaken perception that we have been exchanging arms for hostages, I have directed that no further sale of arms of any kind be sent to Iran." Reagan was then asked, "Didn't the United States condone shipments of arms to Israel and other nations?" Reagan denied this charge by saying, "We did not condone and do not condone the shipment of arms." Then Reagan was asked, "Could you explain what the Israeli role was here?" Reagan's response was, "No, because, as I say, have had nothing to do with other countries or their shipment of arms."


On December 8, 1986, Reagan stated, "Let me just say it was not my intent to do business with Khomeini to trade weapons for hostages, nor to undercut our policy of anti-terrorism." On March 26, 1987 Reagan stated: "With regard to whether private individuals were giving money to support the Contras, yes, I was aware that there were people doing that. But there was nothing to my knowledge, of anyone whom I was aware of." Two days later Reagan said, "As a matter of fact, I was definitely involved in the decisions about (private) support to the freedom fighters. It was my idea to begin with."


Reagan told the Tower Commission that he "approved the shipment of arms by Israel to Iran" but later said that he was "surprised that Israelis had shipped arms to Iran." Then he said that he had incorrectly remembered both instances.


In his 1990 autobiography, Reagan wrote: "To this day I still believe that the Iran initiative was not an effort to swap arms for hostages. But I knew that it may not look that way to some people. Unfortunately, an initiative meant to develop a relationship with moderate Iranians and get our hostages home took on a new shape I never expected and was never told about."

"Mistakes were made and I tried to rectify them, first by appointing the Tower board to investigate,

then by reorganizing the National Security Council so that no one there could ever again take it upon himself to set foreign policy. In time, my ranking in the opinion polls rose. However, that never made me feel happy as some might think; it was as if Americans were forgiving me for something I hadn't done."


"If I could do it over again, I would bring both of them into the Oval Office and say, 'OK, John (Poindexter) and Ollie (North), level with me. Tell me what really happened and what it is that you have been hiding from me. Tell me everything.' If I had done that, at least I wouldn't be sitting here writing this book still ignorant of some of the things that went on during the Iran-Contra affair."


In November 1986, Reagan explained the TOW missile sales: "The modest deliveries could easily be put into a single cargo plane." He also stated that the TOW missiles could be hand-held. Additionally, Reagan denied that Israel was used as a third country to help deliver arms to Iran. John Tower was appointed by Reagan to head a commission to investigate Iran-Contra. In less than a year the Tower Commission exonerated Reagan of any wrong-doing. In 1989 newly elected President Bush appointed Tower to be his Secretary of Defense. Knowing that the Senate would not confirm his appointment because of allegations of womanizing and alcoholism, Tower withdrew his name, since it was impossible for him to receive a majority vote in the Senate.


Reagan ignored the warnings that he was waging an illegal and inhumane war. Instead he decided to put his men to work, cutting deals with right wing dictators in order to finance the Contras in exchange for drugs.


IRAN-CONTRA INDICTMENTS


It is not a crime to deceive the American public as high officials in the Reagan Administration for two years while conducting the Iran and Contra operations. However, it is a crime to mislead, deceive, and lie to Congress when Congress seeks to learn whether administration officials are conducting the nation's business in accordance with the law. Lawrence Walsh was hired as a special prosecutor to determine precisely if this had occurred. He subsequently found several upper-level Iran-Contra participants in violation of the law.


Several American laws were defied:



The National Security Act. Select committees in both houses must be informed of all intelligence gathering by the CIA.



The Hughes-Ryan Amendment (1974). The CIA may only use funds which are intended for obtaining necessary intelligence. The CIA must brief at least eight separate Congressional committees in regard to any covert action other than simple intelligence gathering.



The Boland Amendment (1984). The United States cannot use funds to support any military operations in Nicaragua unless appropriated by Congress.



The Neutrality Act (1794). It is illegal to initiate, organize, and/or provide money for military action against any foreign country which the United States is not officially at peace with. The United States had officially severed diplomatic relations with Iran which had been officially branded a terrorist nation.

At the Iran-Contra trials, North was found guilty of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress. He was sentenced to a three year suspended prison term and two years probation and was fined $150,000. Ironically, North was given 1,200 hours community work to help young people with drug problems in Washington, D.C. However, since North had been given Congressional immunity when he testified, his convictions were overturned by an appeals court in July 1990 by a two-to-one vote.


Caspar Weinberger was charged with withholding and concealing notes; lying about his knowledge of illegal Saudi Arabian contributions and lying about the existence of such notes; as well as perjuring himself twice by denying knowledge of Israeli arms sales to Iran and the need to supply Israel with arms it sold to Iran.


Major General Richard Secord, who helped arrange illegally purchased arms for the Contras, pleaded guilty to making false statements to the Iran-Contra committee. He was sentenced to two years probation.

Richard Miller, who headed a Washington public relations firm, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and to withholding information from Congress. He was given two years probation. Carl (Spitz) Channell, a conservative fund raiser, pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States government. He was sentenced to two years probation.


Former National Security adviser John Poindexter was convicted of five felonies involving conspiracy, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements. He was sentenced to six months in prison.


Robert McFarlane pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress. He was sentenced to two years probation and fined $20,000 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community work.


Clair George, former deputy director of the CIA, was charged with ten counts of perjury. He was convicted on two charges. Elliott Abrams, deputy Secretary of State to Central America, pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress. He was sentenced to two years probation and 100 hours community work.


Albert Fiers, part of the CIA's Central American task force, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges as part of the deal to cooperate with special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's investigation.


Albert Hakim, a California arms dealer in sending illegal arms to the Contras, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for supplementing North's salary. As a large shareholder in Lake Resources, he pleaded guilty to the theft of government property, and illegally shipping arms to the Contras. He was sentenced to two years probation and fined $5,000.


Thomas Clines, CIA official, was found guilty for under reporting his earnings to the IRS between 1985 and 1988. He also received illegal profits in Iran-Contra.


Other high level White House officials were unscathed. Chief of Staff Donald Regan was not implicated, even though he had participated in top secret meetings which dealt with the illegal sale of arms to Iran. CIA director William Casey who directly organized and orchestrated the covert Contra war died before any charges were brought against him.


Before special prosecutor Walsh completed his investigation, President Bush issued the Christmas eve pardons in 1992, just weeks before he was to leave office. This made it virtually impossible to convict anyone including Bush himself. He issued pardons to Casper Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert McFarlane, Alan Feiers, Clair George, and Duane Clarridge.


In July 1989, North and other Iran-Contra leaders were barred from Costa Rica on an order by President Oscar Arias. He acted on recommendations from a Costa Rican congressional commission investigating drug trafficking. The commission concluded that the Contra re-supply network in Costa Rica which North coordinated from the White House doubled as a drug smuggling operation. The Costa Rican government also barred Major General Secord, National Security Advisor Poindexter, United States ambassador Tambs, and CIA station chief Joseph Fernandez from its borders.


The Costa Rican narcotics commission started probing the Contra network centered around the northern Costa Rican ranch of CIA operative John Hull. North's personal diary mentioned "the necessity of giving Mr. Hull protection." Investigators held North responsible for Panama President Noriega's participation in the Contra supply network. The commission confirmed information about the Contra-drug connection from independent journalists, lawyers, and the United States Senate subcommittee. Ollie North's notebooks contained dozens of references to Contra-related drug trafficking, including a July 12, 1985 entry: "$14 million to finance (arms) came from drugs." (San Juan Star, Puerto Rico, July 22, 1989; Tico Times, Costa Rica, July 28, 1989)


During the United States' ten-year Contra war, the government failed to overthrow the Sandinistas and to bring back a capitalistic dictatorship to Nicaragua. The Reagan and Bush administrations fought against the people of Nicaragua instead of waging war against poverty. The war and the Iran-Contra probe, the latter of which began in 1986, finally came to a halt in 1992 with the Christmas eve pardons. In these years, the White House was incapable of eliminating a democracy based on Marxist principles, while on the home front the American judicial system failed as well. High-ranking officials, going all the way to the Oval Office, received minuscule sentences or no punishment at all.




EAGLE AVIATION SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY


During the Contra war in the 1980s, Eagle Aviation Service and Technology (EAST) helped Oliver North covertly fly guns to Nicaraguan rebels after the Boland Amendment cut off congressional funding. North turned to General Richard Secord to set up an illegal private arms pipeline to the Contras. Secord hired Richard Gadd, founder of EAST, in 1985 to oversee the weapons delivery. North also arranged for another of Gadd's companies to win a State Department contract to deliver legal, humanitarian aid. Through EAST, Gadd helped acquire planes to carry arms and ammunition from Portugal to Central America, and to make airdrops directly to Contra fighters. EAST also built an airstrip in Costa Rica near the Nicaraguan border. EAST received $550,000 for its covert work, according to the Iran-Contra report. (New York Times, June 5, 2001)

During the Iran-Contra hearings, Gadd testified under a grant of immunity from prosecution, and neither he nor EAST was accused of illegalities. In his testimony, Gadd said EAST was one of several companies he formed after retiring in 1982 as a lieutenant colonel from the Air Force, where he specialized in covert operations. Two decades later, that same company was used by the State Department to fly on dangerous drug eradication missions in Colombia. EAST received little attention, even as lawmakers scrutinize the use of contractors in the Latin American drug fight. (New York Times, June 5, 2001)

EAST was not directly contracted by the State Department. It was hired by DynCorp Aerospace Technology which the State Department hired to fly and maintain aircraft for counterdrug missions in Colombia. EAST pilots sprayed herbicide on coca, the raw material for cocaine. They frequently faced gunfire, sometimes from guerrillas protecting drug traffickers. The company also worked for the Defense Department. In 1999 and 2000, EAST received more than $30 million under several Defense contracts, which included providing engineering, supplies, and other services for Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas, according to Pentagon records. EAST's president, retired Air Force Colonel Thomas Fabyanic, declined to discuss the company's work. (New York Times, June 5, 2001)

Plan Colombia was launched in 2000 with a $1.3-billion American contribution. It reflected a gradual escalation in the United States' drug eradication effort in Colombia. Congress limited to 300 the number of civilian contract workers participating in Plan Colombia. By the middle of 2001, there were nearly 300 American citizens working on the program in Colombia. Then in August 2001, the State Department expanded to 400 the number of private pilots that could be hired by the Pentagon's private contractor to fight the drug war. It was an attempt by the Bush administration to circumvent Congress' attempt to keep the United States from becoming more involved into Colombia's civil war.

The House allowed a total of 800 American military and civilian personnel in Colombia. The Senate insisted on maintaining the civilian cap at 300, with a separate cap of 500 American military personnel. State Department officials defended the move to not count foreign employees, especially since many are Colombians working as secretaries and drivers and in other low-level jobs traditionally given to host country citizens.

The largest employer was DynCorp, which had 335 civilians on the payroll. Fewer than one-third were American citizens. An estimated 60 to 80 American citizens worked for other contractors, including Bell Helicopter Textron, Sikorsky Aircraft, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin. State Department officials said that they were not required to inform Congress that they had ordered DynCorp to hire as many as 50 pilots from Guatemala, Peru, Colombia, and other countries to transport Colombian army forces into cocaine-growing zones. The pilots, most of them former Central and South American air force members who flied the most dangerous anti-drug missions there, also were hired to reduce the risk that an American would be shot down and killed in the drug war. The private contract workers did everything from flying crop dusters to transporting troops to staffing radar stations.

The State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Bureau, which oversaw most of the United States' activities in the region, debated whether to count the former employees. At one point, the State Department acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and initially discussed being "totally virtuous" and counting the foreign employees in its reporting to Congress. The department subsequently decided to not count foreign employees after what the official called a "hotly debated" discussion. (Los Angeles Times, August 19, 2001)




THE AFTERMATH OF IRAN-CONTRA



February 26, 1987: The Tower Commission issued its report on Iran-Contra, reprinting hundreds of notes exchanged by McFarlane, Poindexter and North.



January 19, 1989: On the last day of the Reagan presidency, the National Security Archive filed a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests together with a lawsuit against President Reagan, to prevent the imminent erasure of the White House electronic mail backup tapes. On the eve of Bush's inauguration, District Judge Barrington D. Parker issued a Temporary Restraining Order, prohibiting the destruction of the backup tapes to the PROFs system.



September 15, 1989: United States District Judge Charles B. Richey ruled that the National Security Archive and its co-plaintiffs, including the American Historical Association (AHA) and the American Library Association (ALA), have standing to sue President Bush, in order to force him to comply with the retention requirements of various records acts which potentially cover the White House e-mail.



January 25, 1991: After one and one-half years of legal procedural wrangling, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Judge Richey's ruling, denying the Bush administration's attempts to have the case dismissed.



December 1, 1998--November 20, 1992: On request from the plaintiffs, Judge Richey added the White House e-mail from the lame duck Bush administration to the case, issuing a restraining order preventing the Bush White House from destroying its own backup computer records.


January 6, 1993: Judge Richey ruled that computer tapes containing copies of e-mail messages by Reagan and Bush White House staff must be preserved like other government records because the December 1, 1998 electronic versions were not simply duplicates of paper printouts, but contain additional information beyond the paper copies.



January 11 and 14, 1993: Judge Richey issued specific court orders requiring that the Bush White House preserve its computer records. In press interviews, Judge Richey stated that despite his orders, he believed that the Bush administration was planning to destroy its e-mail files.



January 15, 1993: In an expedited emergency ruling, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld and modified the rulings by Judge Richey, holding that government officials could erase White House and NSC computer files, as long as they preserved, on backup tapes, identical copies of what was being erased.



January 19, 1993: President Bush signed a secret agreement with Don Wilson, head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), purporting to grant Bush exclusive legal control over the e-mail tapes of his administration. A staff team from NARA took custody of thousands of tapes and disk drives, hurriedly removing them from White House offices to prevent incoming Clinton appointees from gaining access to them.



February 16, 1993: NARA career staff, who managed the transfer, described in an internal memo how the so-called "midnight ride" had violated NARA's own rules for records transfers and how several sets of tapes ordered preserved by Judge Richey had been lost, erased or damaged.



May 22, 1993: Judge Richey cited the Clinton White House and the acting Archivist of the United States for contempt of court for failing to carry out his order to issue new and appropriate guidelines for the preservation of the computer records of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton White House staff.



August 13, 1993: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated Judge Richey's contempt orders but upheld his overall decision that the Federal Records Act (FRA), requiring that complete electronic copies of e-mail messages be preserved by the White House, and by extension, government agencies in general. The appeals court remanded the case to Judge Richey to decide the issue of the dividing line between "agency" records covered by the FRA and presidential records covered by the Presidential Records Act.



March 25, 1994: In a brief filed in federal court, the Clinton administration declared that the National Security Council was not an agency, and should be accorded the protection from public scrutiny given to the President's personal advisers. This argument attempted to remove the Clinton administration's White House e-mail from the reach of FOIA requests and the FRA, arguing that all its documents were subjected only to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and therefore not to court oversight.



December 13, 1994: The e-mail plaintiffs filed suit against the Acting Archivist of the United

States to void the Bush-Wilson agreement, in American Historical Association et al v. Peterson.



February 15, 1995: Judge Richey rejected the Clinton administration's arguments about the NSC's status as "arbitrary and capricious... contrary to history, past practice and the law," and declared that the National Security Council is an agency. The government subsequently appealed the decision, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal against a portion of Richey's ruling that opened a loophole for senior NSC staff giving advice to the President.



February 27, 1995: In a separate opinion in the lawsuit over the Bush-Wilson agreement, Judge Richey declared the agreement "null and void," writing that "No one, not even a President, is above the law."



September 8, 1995: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the case on the issue of Judge Richey's decision and the agency versus Presidential status of the NSC.

FINAL REPORT OF THE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR
IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS
Volume I:
Investigations and Prosecutions
Lawrence E. Walsh
Independent Counsel
August 4, 1993
Washington, D.C.


http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

You know Negentropic interesting facts there.  IMHO, these days I don't look at any "Cold-war" activity as anything but a Jew Scam of sorts.

Kissinger is Jew Scammer and of course Agent #1 with his supporting cast of Reaganite Belt-way JewTards.  I've come to the final conclusion that Kissinger is an Israeli Agent, first and foremost, and by consequence a traitor to his adopted country the USA but not to "monster-mother" Israel.  Iran-Contra-CIA-Drugs-S.American Civil War-Noriega with Israeli Advisors and Coke pallets.... just confirms this. American Intelligence history just "smells Jewish" to me know after looking at the entirety of Jew Scams afoot in prior centuries.

[Negentropic]

You know Negentropic interesting facts there. IMHO, these days I don't look at any "Cold-war" activity as anything but a Jew Scam of sorts.

Kissinger is Jew Scammer and of course Agent #1 with his supporting cast of Reaganite Belt-way JewTards. I've come to the final conclusion that Kissinger is an Israeli Agent, first and foremost, and by consequence a traitor to his adopted country the USA but not to "monster-mother" Israel. Iran-Contra-CIA-Drugs-S.American Civil War-Noriega with Israeli Advisors and Coke pallets.... just confirms this. American Intelligence history just "smells Jewish" to me know after looking at the entirety of Jew Scams afoot in prior centuries

Exactly, and if the 'Cold War' was an international Jew scam as we have all come to understand now, too late to save millions of lives lost in the manufactured struggle of Marxism-vs.Imperialism, then what makes everyone here so sure that the Islamic opposition in Iran is not controlled given all the evidence that suggests it is to one degree or another such as, for just one example, this one:

US Has Given Over $100 BILLION To Companies Defying Its Policy On Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/middleeast/07sanctions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

They need the entire anti-imperialist Islamic world backing Iran in order to have their endless West-vs.Islam war. Once world government is established, if it hasn't been established already, the general populations will still be engaged in endless wars.  People have this false idea that somehow all wars will stop and it will be just one humongous top-down Soviet style world tyranny with the agents of the State fighting only the dissidents everywhere. I don't think so. The top-down tyranny will go high-tech everywhere but that will ensure even more that the endless manufactured strifes and wars will continue as they always have or get much worse if you believe the doom-&-gloomers.  The real battle everywhere is between individual rights and collectivism.  Between freedom and tyranny everywhere. You can't expect any state in today''s world to fight for the cause of freedom from the elite power grip anywhere the way Jackson did in the U.S.A., certainly not Iran.  They will fight for Islam and the Islamic way of life only and the U.S. has been keeping them strong to do this to the tune of 100 billion dollars indirect in just the past 10 years.  Eustace Mullins was right yet again.  When I first started posting here 4 months agon I had my doubts but now I'm pretty much convinced though I refuse to be 100% convinced of anything. Like the man himself said:


"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." -Voltaire




Dali - Disappearing Bust of Voltaire

[ahaze]

Exactly, and if the 'Cold War' was an international Jew scam as we have all come to understand now, too late to save millions of lives lost in the manufactured struggle of Marxism-vs.Imperialism, then what makes everyone here so sure that the Islamic opposition in Iran is not controlled given all the evidence that suggests it is to one degree or another such as, for just one example, this one:

US Has Given Over $100 BILLION To Companies Defying Its Policy On Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/middleeast/07sanctions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

That's a good example supporting the thesis of Iran as controlled opposition, and I read the degree of control posing a fundamental believability boundary for various forum members.  In - "Castro blasts Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic"  viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12482 - the leading Castro quote reads, "Cuban leader tells American journalist Iranian government should understand Jews 'were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God'"

That reads like prime propaganda to me with one world leader telling another world leader that "the Jews were expelled from 'their'" land for all the world to hear.  That effectively fixes the dialectic on Zionist assertion of land rights for the broader world in general without regard for common humanity.  Meanwhile Ahmadinejad keeps the Zionist paranoia firmly validated.

I find Ognir's recent call out of Mahmoud Abbas - "Hasbeen" viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12479 - similarly illustrates a world leader enforcing the Zionist paranoia, overtly defying its right to exist.