:::More War Updates

U.S. expels Israeli reporters from Iraq on espionage charges

TEL AVIV � The U.S. Army has expelled two Israeli reporters from Iraq and accused them of espionage.

Dan Scemama, a veteran for Israel's Broadcasting Authority, was detained by U.S. troops and held for nearly two days until he was expelled from Iraq.

Scemama was taken to Kuwait, where he was asked to leave by authorities in the sheikdom.

For more than a week, Scemama had accompanied U.S. troops who were advancing toward Baghdad. Scemama was not embedded with any allied military unit.

Scemama said he was roughly treated during his 48 hours detention and U.S. commanders told he was suspected of espionage. Another Israeli reporter, and Boaz Bismuth of the country's largest daily,Yedioth Aharonot, was also detained and expelled.

"We were humiliated for many hours," Scemama said. "They did not let is eat and they took all the means of communication we had on our persons."

Support Troops, Not Politicians
by Charley Reese

The spineless Democrats are all saying it is now time to support the troops and the commander in chief, meaning President George W. Bush. I disagree. Support the troops, but not Mr. Bush.

Despite the high-sounding title, the commander in chief's role in the war is limited to saying "Go to war" and "Stop the war." He is not a trooper. He is a civilian politician. All the recent presidents have liked to don flight jackets and other military gear, even those who had been draft dodgers, but they have not been the troops. They have suffered no hardships. They have taken no risks. They have lived luxurious lives even a Roman emperor would envy.

The troops are those young men and women in the Iraqi desert, living under miserable conditions and in constant danger while their families at home suffer hardships of loneliness and, often, a financial squeeze. It hasn't been that long since those troops now being praised as "the best-trained, best-equipped" in the world were living on food stamps. Mr. Bush is safely ensconced in the White House or at Camp David, surrounded by personal servants and personal bodyguards. By all means, support the troops, but don't let Mr. Bush off the hook. Don't let him get away with taking credit for their bravery and their sacrifice, as he is trying to do by strutting about, making bellicose, smirky speeches.

There will be no honor in this victory. We have attacked and will defeat a small country that doesn't stand a chance. As you can see, as of this writing, so far the main dangers to our people have been accidents and friendly fire. Our tanks shoot at 5,000 meters; the Iraqis' old Soviet tanks shoot at 2,000 meters. Our field intelligence is out of the space age. We have satellites and predators and U-2s and all-seeing radar. The Iraqis have binoculars. We have more than 1,000 of the world's most sophisticated aircraft. The Iraqis have a few dilapidated MIGs that they haven't even bothered to try to get off the ground.

Only if Saddam Hussein lures us into house-to-house combat in Baghdad are we likely to suffer larger casualties, and if he does, you can blame the generals for that. Their so-called shock-and-awe show proved to be a fireworks display in a rainstorm. The press got a lot of good video as million-dollar missiles destroyed long-empty buildings. If the generals wish to call an empty building a military asset, that's their business. The generals' intelligence concerning how eager Iraqis would be to surrender is obviously faulty. The little port that was supposed to be taken in two to eight hours held out for five days.

As for supporting the troops, the best thing we can do is to inquire if there are military families in our area and see if they need any help. Unsolicited mail and packages, while well-intended, have already jammed the military postal system and might well be interfering with the ability of the troops to get mail from their loved ones. Standing on a street corner waving a flag doesn't help; our young troops don't have color televisions in their tanks and foxholes.

I've never thought much of demonstrations, no matter what the cause. They always seem to me more about the participants' egos and the desire to make a statement than about doing anything positive about the cause they profess to be for or against. Anti-war demonstrations are not going to dissuade Mr. Bush, and pro-war demonstrations aren't going to comfort the troops. Right now, they aren't fighting for Mr. Bush or for any political causes; they are fighting for survival and for their comrades. They've all been inducted into a fraternity that those of us who have not been in combat will be forever barred from joining. They need prayers, not political jawboning.

In the meantime, remember that they are there because of Mr. Bush's failure at diplomacy and because of his obsessive personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush deserves Bronx raspberries, not cheers. He is risking their lives for quite personal reasons that have nothing to do with national security.

Liars, Scoundrels and Traitors
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
March 30, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld lied Friday (March 28) when a reporter asked if the US was misleading the public about its casualties in Iraq.

Rumsfeld feigned indignation. Looking straight into the camera, he said something like: "That's a terrible thing to suggest. We always tell the truth."

The official US death toll at the time was about 30. Does he seriously expect us to believe that after only 30 deaths, the U.S. would postpone the assault on Baghdad and bring in an additional 120,000 soldiers?

The Iraqi ambassador to Moscow claimed March 28 that over 500 Americans died in the last 24 hours alone.

In An-Nasiriya alone last Sunday (March 23) as many as two-dozen US soldiers were killed and over 60 wounded, the largest one day loses since the Vietnam War. According to MSNBC:

"'Each unit takes its turn being sacrificed,' said Sgt. Chris Merkle, 31, from Irvine, Ca, 'everybody gets torn apart the same way.' (The report continues:) Nasiriyah ... became a killing field ... with a pair of grisly disasters for U.S. troops. An Army convoy that made a wrong turn drove into an Iraqi ambush that left 12 soldiers dead or captured. In a separate incident, at least nine Marines died in the fighting." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/891868.asp)

Sound to me like Rumsfeld was lying. A stench of lies emanates from Bush, Blair and their minions.

HOUSE OF CARDS

The American people cannot conceive how traitorous and corrupt their leadership is. For example, last week the Bush Administration failed to approve $11 million funding for the 9-11 Investigating Commission. This was a minuscule (.00015) part of a $75 billion appropriation for the Iraq war that was passed.

Obviously Bush doesn't want us to learn that 9-11 was a CIA-Mossad inside job intended to justify this war. The purpose is to steal Iraqi oil; advance Israel's strategic interests and to destroy Islam. Islam represents a barrier to the totalitarian secular-materialist system (new world order) promoted by world bankers and their lackeys.

The US and Israel are under no threat. While feigning self-defence, both pursue aggression on behalf of the banking-oil cartel and its new world order.

Bush boasts that 46 countries have joined his coalition. He fails to mention that six have no army. In terms of actual fighting, the coalition consists of only three countries: the US, Britain and Australia. See "The Coalition of the willing but Not Able."

Even Canada is sitting out this war. I am Canadian and for once I agree with my government. I have ripped up my membership in the opposition Canadian Alliance Party that thinks we are bad friends and trade will suffer.

Someone talked about the true meaning of friendship on the radio: "When a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. The US is drunk with power."

The US is completely isolated and on course for World War Three. China is talking about resisting US "neo imperialism."

When a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. To stubbornly persist in hope of saving face only makes matters worse.

When traitors have hijacked your country, patriotism consists in defiance. Someone suggested that Americans should withdraw their savings from banks in protest. This is completely legal. A run on the banks would indeed send a message.

Every day that war continues, more soldiers die. More wives lose their husbands; more children lose their fathers. Americans join the army to serve their country: not to serve Israel, oil and a deranged & criminal master class.

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

Fresh wave of anger spreads worldwide

Human chain stretches from Munster to Osnabruck in Germany as hundreds block Rhine-Main US air base

By Severin Carrell
30 March 2003

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators around the world staged a fresh wave of peace protests yesterday, including the first officially sanctioned anti-war marches in China.

In a deliberately restrained criticism of the US-led war in Iraq, the Chinese authorities allowed 150 foreign residents to march past the US ambassador's residence and British embassy in Beijing, while another 100 protested in a walled park in east Beijing. The rallies, tightly scripted to avoid repeating the violent protests that followed the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, came as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators again targeted US, British and Australian military bases and embassies.

Rallies, marches and vigils were staged in Malaysia, Australia, Thailand, Greece, Bangladesh, South Africa and South Korea while Germany saw more than 100,000 take part in the largest of the weekend's demonstrations. In the most ambitious of yesterday's protests, around 30,000 peace activists formed a 31-mile human chain between the cities of Osnabruck and Munster, while 6,000 people surrounded the US military HQ and released blue balloons printed with the white dove of peace.

In Berlin, about 50,000 protesters converged on the capital's Victory Column, with one large group carrying a vast balloon that stated "no war". At the Rhine-Main air base near Frankfurt, police carried off hundreds of protesters who blocked the gates.

In Greece, 15,000 demonstrators chanting "we'll stop the war" marched on the US embassy in Athens, while protesters threw red paint at a McDonald's restaurant and on the road in front of the embassy. Early yesterday, another McDonald's was damaged by a grenade attack after closing time, but no-one was hurt.

Minor protests were again staged across Italy, while in Geneva, 3,500 people led by the radical French farming leader Jose Bov� marched from the World Trade Organisation headquarters to the United Nation's European offices, calling for an end to the WTO and the Iraq war. In Paris, about 10,000 people marched down the Left Bank.

Meanwhile, around Britain, about 10,000 people supported about 23 small marches and rallies staged by the Stop the War Coalition in cities such as Birmingham, Edinburgh, London, Cardiff, Swansea and Manchester, in the third successive weekend of protests.

In London, the BBC was targeted by the coalition for allegedly broadcasting biased and reports on the war � a charge the BBC dismissed. About 600 people converged separately on the corporation's television and radio headquarters in central London and White City.

Meanwhile, two loyalist Labour MPs were put under pressure for voting in favour of war. About 1,000 people, including local Muslim leaders, attacked Stephen Timms, the MP for East Ham and a trade minister, for refusing to abandon his support for the war. In north London, the Labour MP Mike Gapes, deputy chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, was also the focus of a Stop the War Coalition protest.

However, several hundred people staged a counter-demonstration in Exeter to support British troops in the Gulf. Ken Hill, the event organiser and former soldier in the Royal Corps Signals, said: "The families are having a rough time and I wanted to help boost morale for them and for the troops."

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, several hundred Yemeni women demonstrated in the capital San'a, accusing the US and Britain of being part of an "axis of evil". In Port Said, about 10,000 Egyptians supported an anti-war rally organised by the country's ruling party.

In Gaza City, Israeli troops fired tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets at hundreds of small Palestinian girls who chanted slogans in support of Saddam Hussein, including "With our souls, with our blood, we'll sacrifice ourselves to you Saddam". Several were injured.

In Dhaka, Bangladesh, the police spread out barbed wire to prevent supporters of radical Islamic groups chanting "stop genocide in Iraq" from reaching the US embassy.

In South-east Asia and the Pacific, Malaysian police used tear gas to disperse more than 1,000 demonstrators, mostly from an Islamic opposition party, who rallied outside the Australian embassy in protest at Australia's military involvement in the Iraqi conflict. The protesters scuffled with police, who then fired a round of tear gas. Twelve were arrested, in contrast to an officially sanctioned protest by Malaysia's ruling party which was attended by about 5,000 people.

In the South Korean capital, Seoul, thousands marched down an eight-lane road and called on their government to abandon plans to send 700 military engineers and military personnel to the Gulf. They later clashed with police.

In Melbourne, Australia, about 15,000 people protested against the use of Australian troops in the conflict. Although public opposition to the war has fallen to 50 per cent, one Australian Labour Party politician, Lindsay Tanner, accused the Prime Minister, John Howard, of "being a global vigilante, contemptuous of the rule of law and contemptuous of the United Nations".

Cracks appear in peace movement

The anti-war movement has been hit by internal rows between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and leaders of the Stop the War Coalition (SWC) over the latter's tactics and policies.

The split emerged late on Friday as the CND unexpectedly issued a formal note of "clarification", stressing its independence from SWC, with which its organised the last three anti-war marches in London. The CND said it had its own leadership and its own "constituency" � a reference to its "middle England" membership which includes ex-military officers, Tory voters and senior religious leaders.

Conversely, SWC officials are closely linked to the Socialist Workers' Party and other Communist organisations, and tensions have arisen between the two groups over SWC's decision to link the marches to the conflict over Palestine.

Since many CND officials insist on being non-party political, chairwoman Carole Naughton is understood to have come under pressure to issue last week's statement.

"[SWC] doesn't come from the same culture as we do," one senior CND figure said. "It was fairly broad but it has narrowed a lot, particularly in recent things."

But senior figures inside SWC have retaliated by pressing for CND to be asked to leave the anti-war movement. "It is our membership which is the biggest, and whatever 'middle England' legitimacy CND brings us, people are mobilising for us now," said one SWC organiser.

In the run-up to February's march � which drew more than one million protesters � CND leaders warned privately they had strong reservations about the Palestine link, but the policy was firmly backed by another march co-organiser, the Muslim Association of Britain.

Tensions came to a head during last Saturday's march in London, when the CND tried to organise a sit-down protest in Whitehall that was largely ignored by marchers as SWC officials appeared to be unaware of CND's plans.

But yesterday John Rees, SWC's chairman, and Ms Naughton insisted there was no split as they shared a platform at an anti-war rally in Birmingham.

"CND people work very closely with the Stop the War Coalition, and we don't see that that is going to change," said Lindsey German, another senior SWC official.

Unconvinced and unhappy: thousands take to the streets in anti-war protests

By Leyla Linton
31 March 2003

Hundreds of thousands of people took part in protests against the war across the world yesterday.

In Calcutta more than 150,000 people, including firemen, schoolchildren, teachers and Communist Party members, marched in India's largest anti-war protest. Some burnt effigies of President George Bush, others held placards reading "How many deaths per gallon?" and "USA: killer of innocent Iraqis".

Effigies of President Bush were also set alight in Peshawar in Pakistan, where about 70,000 turned out for a protest organised by hardline Islamist leaders.

Elsewhere in Asia, organisers said more than 250,000 people protested in Jakarta, Indonesia. Most were Muslims but there were also Christians carrying pictures of the Pope. Other demonstrators wore photographs of Iraqi civilian victims around their necks.

Up to 50,000 demonstrated in the Bangladeshi town of Cox's Bazar, while 10,000 South Korean workers marched in Seoul. In China, police allowed foreigners to march in front of the US embassy but stopped Chinese nationals protesting.

In Rabat, more than 200,000 Moroccans, some carrying fake weapons and bearing portraits of Saddam Hussein, marched through the streets. At least a dozen US and Israeli flags were burnt and riot police broke up the protest early after scuffles broke out.

In Spain, up to 60,000 protesters marched to a base in Rota used by the US military. Thousands more marched to military bases in Moron, Zaragoza, Albacete and Torrejon while thousands attended a peace concert in Barcelona.

Jose Maria Aznar, the Prime Minister, is one of the staunchest supporters of the US action against Iraq but he is out of step with public opinion. A survey published yesterday in El Pais newspaper showed his party was six points behind the opposition Socialists after supporting President Bush.

More than 10,000 people marched in Paris, watched by 5,000 police. About 5,000 Greek Cypriots marched to the British air base in Akrotiri, as hundreds of armed British soldiers and police in riot gear stood inside the wire fence.

Poland, which committed 200 soldiers to the war, saw its biggest demonstration yet, when 2,000 mainly young people marched to the American embassy in Warsaw, chanting "No blood for oil".

In the Netherlands, about 60 activists were arrested at a Dutch air force base near Volkel, 55 miles south-east of Amsterdam. Jos Klaren, a police spokesman, said they were charged with trespassing and would later be released. Mariette Moors, a spokeswoman for the demonstrators, said they entered the base to carry out a "citizens' inspection" of American nuclear missiles.

In Bulgaria, thousands marched through Sofia in the country's largest demonstration against the war so far. Organisers said 16,000 took part, reporters said there were about 5,000. Some protesters' slogans said "Bush and Blair to The Hague," a reference to the UN war crimes tribunal.

Turn-out at rallies in Britain yesterday was a tiny fraction of that at protests held before the invasion of Iraq, when anti-war feeling was more apparent.

Cook: 'Pull out of bloody, unjust war'

'There will be a legacy of hatred for the West if the Iraqis continue to suffer from the war we started'

By Andy McSmith, Political Editor
30 March 2003

Robin Cook last night launched a searing attack on the US and British governments for their prosecution of what he called a "bloody and unjust war".

It is the first time since the start of the conflict that a leading British political figure has called for hostilities to be ended with Saddam Hussein still in power.

Mr Cook's call for an immediate withdrawal from the war zone is a warning to Tony Blair of the immense political problems ahead if � as is now feared � the conflict drags on and the coalition forces are obliged to lay siege to Baghdad.

The former foreign secretary broke the silence he has maintained since his resignation speech in the Commons nearly a fortnight ago, which was greeted with an unprecedented standing ovation from fellow Labour MPs.

Mr Cook's intervention will raise new doubts about whether Mr Blair can survive in office if the war is not over quickly. His opponents on the far left of the party issued a new call yesterday for his removal.

Writing in the Sunday Mirror, Mr Cook said: "I have already had my fill of this bloody and unjust war. I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed."

He attacked Mr Bush for "sitting pretty in the comfort of Camp David" while Allied forces risked death in an "unnecessary and badly planned" war. "It is easy to show you are resolute when you are not one of the guys in a sandstorm peering around for snipers," he wrote. "Nobody should start a war on the assumption that the enemy's army will co-operate. But that is exactly what President Bush has done.

"And now his Marines have reached the outskirts of Baghdad, he does not seem to know what to do next."

He was scathing about the new tactic outlined by the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which Mr Cook summarised as sitting down outside Baghdad "until Saddam surrenders".

He warned: "There is no more brutal form of warfare than a siege. People go hungry. The water and power to provide the sinews of a city snap. Children die.

"There will be a long-term legacy of hatred for the West if the Iraqi people continue to suffer from the effects of the war we started."

Mr Cook revealed the thinking of many of those who sent the coalition into war, confident of a quick victory. "Shortly before I resigned, a Cabinet colleague told me not to worry about the political fallout � the war would be finished long before polling day for the May local elections. I just hope those who expected a quick victory are proved right."

He commended the decision to bring back the bodies of slain troops for burial in Britain, but added: "I can't help asking myself if there was not a better way to show consideration for their families.

"A better way could have been not to start a war that was never necessary and is turning out to be badly planned." Mr Cook's call for an immediate end to the war was echoed by Doug Henderson, who worked with him in the Foreign Office as Minister for Europe.

He told BBC Radio 4 that the only alternative was an escalation of the conflict, dragging in Syria and possibly Iran. "I think a ceasefire and withdrawal is by far the better way forward," he added.

Downing Street played down Mr Cook's comments and insisted that the war would be fought to the finish.

A spokesman said: "Robin Cook has a well-known position on Iraq and it is not one that the Government shares.

"As the Prime Minister said in the press conference in Camp David, we will see the military campaign through until we achieve our objectives: that is, Saddam gone and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction disarmed."

Meanwhile, some of the Prime Minister's most hardened opponents were meeting in London yesterday to plan how they could "reclaim' control of the party.

Mark Seddon, editor of the left wing newspaper, Tribune, urged the 300 delegates to a Labour Against the War conference to set up a new organisation to "reclaim'" control of the Labour Party.

Later, delegates voted by more than two to one to campaign for a change in the party leadership..

Although Labour Against the War has relatively little support inside Parliament � mainly from hardened left wing MPs � what will worry Mr Blair is the links it has established with several large trade unions, including the GMB general union and the CWU postal workers union.

CNN/CIA THE ENEMY WITHIN
THE MASTERS OF DECEPTION
by voxfux

The chilling reality of our time is that our biggest enemies are within.

CNN is one such enemy.

The New World Order crusaders know that it is better to control people and nations with the scientific application of fear and lies rather than the more unpredictable and expensive methodology of bullets and bombs.

So forty years ago, the CIA�s, �Operation Mockingbird,� went into full swing. The goal of the program was simply to control all mechanisms of opinion - the print news, the public opinion polls and the television news media. Their thinking was, if you control what people think, you�ve won the war before it has even begun.

And they have been frighteningly successful at achieving their goal - Since the 1950�s all major news and polling organizations have, to one degree or another, been absorbed into the sphere of control of the intelligence agencies. Now, the hard truth, which is simply too fantastic for most people to believe much less even comprehend in the first place is that the major news media is in actuality, mind controlling, opinion forming, population control mechanisms, and little else.

CNN is such a mind control machine.

CNN Being wholly a government propaganda machine, an organ of the CIA, and indeed as claimed by many in the right as well as left, extraordinarily influenced to the point of near subservience to a Zionist political agenda (more so than any discernible American agenda),

CNN is in charge of faking out the American people and tricking us into thinking there is support for the government, Bush and the war. CNN, Fox and the other government propaganda channels are clear warnings of what these New World Order types have in store for us - lies, war, death, slick 3D graphics, fraudulent polls, fraudulent elections, ominous theme music and dumb newsreaders.

CNN - the masters of the televisual lie.

And so now, the reptilian newsreaders with hairdos and tanning cream at CIA-CNN issue the latest fraudulent poll - 70% of the people support the president. This poll is a lie. It is a fake poll. The polling organizations, Time, Gallop, USA Today, CNN and all the rest of the CIA front companies posing as legitimate news organizations are all controlled by the CIA who themselves answer to the billionaire bankers and industrialists. The function of these fraudulent polls is to get people to conform with what they are tricked into believing that �everyone else� is conforming to. The polls are designed to create your attitudes, not reflect them. It�s called, �push polling,� and it works.

Not in a million years do 70% of the people support the president. People in the big cities have never met anyone who supports this jerk in the White House, yet there is this myth perpetrated by the media that there are these giant pockets of people (presumably hillbillies and rednecks) somewhere (presumably in the �heartland� of America) who are the ones who comprise this overwhelming 70% majority of Bush supporters. But when you look at the map, there just isn�t that many people in the, �hillbilly belt,� to comprise this mythical 70%. And so what does that mean? It means folks that you�re being lied to on a scale you never even imagined possible. That is the biggest scam and biggest secret of today - That there could be such an all encompassing hoax, pulled off right before our eyes - is real. But it is.

The American media is so fraudulent - the communist Chinese or Soviets never dreamed of forcing such preposterous lies down the throats of their people. No Soviet ministry of propaganda ever had the vast resources that the new lie masters have. The Red Chinese never had the prowess to so completely obliterate the truth in real time and retransmit it as utter lies to such a well conditioned and eagerly awaiting obedient sheep-like television viewing audience.

Each reporter knows full well the extent of truth that CNN senior editors will accept (very little) and so they don�t even cross that line into the realm of truth in the first place. They wouldn�t risk submiting a balanced and objective news story because by doing so their career would be finished. Each reporter knows full well, the tight, rigid parameters with which he is permitted to report the, �objective truth.� Each reporter knows that TV news is a game of lies - pure lies.

And the lies work! You really can control the vast majority of American �opinion� with massive transmission towers and cable systems transmitting 24 hour a day lies. That�s how it�s done. If the lie is transmitted over and over and over again, and if the application of fear is constant and conducted with the utmost of scientific precision - people can be transformed into sheep and herded into a corral of fear where they become well behaved, obedient sheep.

So turn off your TV news and forget about the major polls.

Get out in the streets and take them back. Confront these reptiles and sheep among us who are ruining this planet. And attack them.

It�s time to hit the streets and create some ruckus.

There needs to be a massive convergence of protesters at CNN headquarters in Atlanta. CNN will of course barely mention the protest, but their ambitious fellow liars in the other lie machines across the news industry would race to cover such a protest. Even though these other lie machines themselves are CIA controlled just like CNN they will still air the protest - demonstrating that in fact these LieNews organizations are equal parts CIA control, government propaganda, and ratings hungry back stabbing reptiles seething to make a profit for themselves, eager to stab their own kind in the back as long as they could gain one more square inch for their little corner of the big lie.

It is the responsibility of every young person and every seeker of truth and freedom and everyone who wishes for a better world for themselves and families to rise up and fight this REAL ENEMY WITHIN. The lie transmitters must be jammed and there are ways to do this. Jam CNN everywhere and anywhere with every method possible. Confront and disrupt anyway possible all CNN reporters, news trucks, satellite dishes or office buildings.

Steer the discourse towards topics never before even heard of.. New memes need to start surfacing in the worlds press and in the state houses of the worlds governments.

Shift the paradigm of rhetoric. Try a few of these memes on for size. A few headlines we need to start seeing:

�Foreign government seizes the assets of CNN and expels it�s journalists�

�Citizens urge their government to ban all CNN operations within their borders.�

Cut them off at the neck. Here�s a good rhetorical question to plant in foreign forums throughout the world:

�Since CNN is a CIA �front company� shouldn�t we urge our leaders to include a manditory warning label on all CNN/CIA newscasts warning us that CNN is a US government propaganda channel?�

What happened to our truth in advertizing laws?

�Europe jams all US government propaganda channels.�

�Boycotts organized against all advertisers on CNN.�

�Protesters disrupt, for the 20th day in a row, all activities of CNN and it�s advertisers.�

You get the idea.

All free nations or defenders of liberty must make efforts to knock out the capabilities which allow CNN and others like it to propagate the US government lies. Governments need to immediately mount massive public awareness programs warning their people that what they are really up against is nothing more than a massive lie machine and that if the world simply unites against it, and exposes it for what it is, they can knock out these machines of fraud and death quickly. The world must unite to cut them off where they breath. Boycott all advertisers on CNN. Protest and interfere with all activities of CNN and it�s advertisers. Deface their advertisements. And spit on every element of that machine of lies and death. Before they kill you all.

Since news is vital to our mechanisms of consent we need to draft laws assuring that our news companies have not been infiltrated or operated by the CIA. Laws must be enforced requiring an open and auditable mechanism of oversight for all major public opinion machines. (Gallop organization, Neilson ratings group, CNN, Fox and the other machines of lies.) The American attitude and psyche needs legal enforcement of the laws already in place to protect citizens from manipulation by the scientists of deception, whether from intelligence agencies who master such psychological operations or political parties who have adopted the techniques gained from these shadowy agencies to influence or steal elections.

The lie is the enemy.

And no news organization anywhere on earth represents this lie more fully and completely than CNN.

It is the responsibility of individuals to learn the nature of this struggle and organize to stop these fraudulent groups from spreading their terror to the peaceful nations of the earth.

And so it has come down to this: Americans are tricked, by the news media�s lies and fear, into doing the dirty work of oppressing the rest of the world using American bullets and bombs.

But soon after the ruling elite has finished using these deceived American worker ants and foot soldiers for their crusade of plunder they will turn the guns on these same worker ants and foot soldiers because there will come a day when the scientific application of lies and fear will no longer be sufficient to quell the unrest of these sheep and ants. The lie alone will no longer serve it�s function of suppression and will have to be supplemented with the next level, bullets.

When these New World Order murderers have exhausted the usefulness of the American sheep, American worker ants and American soldiers and there�s no more treasure to steal from abroad, when such a time arises that the sheep have nothing left to steal from others and nothing left themselves that is worthy of stealing, then and only then will these ignorant sheep, who supposedly support this crusade, see the fate that awaits them. Then and only then will the sheep see what these New World Order criminals have in store for them. Only then will they see the danger. Only then will the sheep decide that maybe it�s a good time to get off their knees. But by then it will be too late to rise up. For by then the sheep will fully fit within the vastly expanded definition of what a terrorist is. The definition of the word, terrorist by then will include any sheep who decides he wants a better life. It will be the twilight of the sheep - for the elites will find the few remaining thugs, reptiles, and pigs among us who are still ready, willing, eager and able, and pay them to turn the guns on the sheep, and slaughter the lot of them..

I never did like human sheep - so good riddance to them.

In bed with the Army: why the media is a hit with the military

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
29 March 2003

The media and the respective defence ministries in Washington and London are in rare, if temporary, agreement: the practice of "embedding journalists" is proving a big success, so far at least. But it is quite another matter whether this real-time, frontline coverage is actually elucidating events.

Both sides are delighted. Television and to a lesser extent radio have been able to provide astounding live accounts of soldiers going about their business at the sharp end. Already, footage from correspondents such as Walt Rogers of CNN, sweeping across the Iraqi desert on an Abrams tank of the US 7th Cavalry, getting brought to a standstill by sandstorms, and suddenly breaking off a report as missile trails streaked across the sky, are among the abiding images of the 2003 Gulf war.

Soon there may be bloodier and more terrible footage, if the war does end with a climactic battle for Baghdad, and the "embeds" are there to witness the street-fighting first hand. The impact of such scenes on public opinion can only be guessed at. But, so far, both the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence in London reckon the gains of "embedding" have far outweighed the losses.

For Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, the images sent back have been of huge value for the war effort, and are believed to have been at least partially responsible for swinging a dubious British public behind the war.

The "embeds" � 600 American and 128 British � do their utmost to be objective; but it is only human nature that they should grow close to the military units with whom they live, sleep, eat and maybe risk their lives. Ted Koppel of ABC, among the most experienced and respected news journalists on American television, told The Washington Post yesterday: "There's obviously a very fine line between being protective and being careful that you don't somehow provide information that could be helpful to people trying to kill the men you're travelling with". His feelings towards the soldiers were "very, very warm".

So far, the "embeds" have not crossed that line. Only one correspondent � Phil Smucker of The Daily Telegraph and Christian Science Monitor � has been expelled from Iraq, because his radio reporting gave information on where and how the 1st Marine Division was fighting. But Mr Smucker was not part of the official embedding programme.

Sympathy, however, is no guarantee that if things go wrong, the "embeds" will pull their punches. At that point, the reports could yet undermine the popularity of the war, just as the dispatches of combat zone journalists in Vietnam contradicted the official optimism of the Johnson administration.

Given the instant nature of news from this war, that process may be starting already. It has been in progress for 10 days; but the 24-hour coverage makes it feel like 10 weeks. An impatient public naturally demands why � after all the tank advances, and the bombs over Baghdad � isn't Saddam Hussein already history?

But proximity and authenticity do not breed clarity. War is inherently confusing. Often the worst place to understand how a war is going is the battlefield itself � as Stendhal understood when he told in La Chartreuse de Parme of how his hero Fabrizio joined Napoleon's army in 1815. Fabrizio found himself amid smoke and explosions, without realising that it was the Battle of Waterloo.

Thus it is with the frontline reports from different units in Iraq. They generate heat but little light. And one of these reports, unbeknown to everyone at the time, may be chronicling the Waterloo of the 2003 Gulf campaign.

Campbell orders media shake-up

By Jo Dillon, Deputy Political Editor
30 March 2003

Alastair Campbell has ordered the Whitehall press machine to get a grip of the war coverage, fearing that dramatic footage from the front line is overshadowing the overall successes of the military campaign.

Tony Blair's powerful director of communications and strategy went "ballistic" last week as criticism of the war began to spiral. The idea that the war plan had been changed to cope with unexpected Iraqi resistance began to circulate, and there was criticism that what people had expected to be a short war would become a more protracted campaign.

According to Whitehall sources, Mr Campbell ordered the MoD to "get the big picture out there".

On Thursday, the MoD dutifully attempted to give London-based journalists a sense of the "wider context". But Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's appeal was quickly drowned out by a series of gaffes by Government ministers.

First, Mr Hoon was embarrassingly forced to retract claims that the discovery of more than 100 biochemical protection suits was proof that Saddam Hussein was preparing to use weapons of mass destruction.

Then, more damagingly, the Prime Minister used a Washington press conference to erroneously claim that two British servicemen were "executed" by the Iraqi regime.

Questions surfaced about the veracity of other claims made by the coalition � the injury or death of Saddam Hussein in the opening stages of the campaign, the scale of humanitarian aid getting into Iraq and the confused situation in Basra.

The following day, General Sir Michael Jackson issued a stern warning to the press.

He told journalists to think about the effects of what they wrote and broadcast on the bereaved families. "It's not about propaganda or spin, it is about human decency," he said.

Turning to the reporting of the war, General Jackson urged people to set in context the significance of events shown on television. "They are no more than snapshots of a particular time and a particular place," he said. "They tell you very little if anything at all of the progress of the campaign at a strategic level."

Downing Street admitted there were a "lot of challenges" associated with the demands of 24-hour news and competition between journalists, papers and broadcasters.

Mr Campbell was fulfilling his role as head of strategic communications in handling the way the war was presented as in everything else.

Overheard: from the hairdresser's in Liverpool to the foxhole in Iraq

Have you heard the one about the war? Probably. It's bloody and nasty and not very funny, but even as the first bombs fell on Baghdad, the looming conflict was the subject of black humour, anecdotes, rumours and conspiracy theories in bars, at bus stops, in offices and at supermarket check-outs. Both here and in the Gulf, our correspondents have been able to listen in to some thoughts on the war:

Couple in a restaurant: "Have you seen GMTV's war coffee table? Natasha Kaplinski is very good at pointing at Baghdad."

Father to 12-year-old son: "They bombed a bazaar in Baghdad last night. Lots of Iraqis killed." Son, a Newcastle fan, replies: "Do you think Kieron Dyer will play on the left side for England, Dad?"

At the hairdresser's in Liverpool: "I don't know nothing about this war and I don't want to. It's better not to know."

Pedestrian passing anti-war poster in St Albans: "They'd soon be complaining if there was a terrorist attack round here."

At RAF Fairford last Saturday, watching a peace protest: "These bloody marchers: if it wasn't the war they'd be moaning about something else."

American woman in a smart hotel: "My husband's a Republican. So he's for war."

Young woman on the London Underground: "I can't wait for it all to be over so Danny Baker returns to BBC London in the mornings."

Woman with young child at bus stop: "I know it sounds simplistic, but just one cruise missile could probably buy us a new school."

Soldier in Umm Qasr who has just heard Geoff Hoon's remark that the Iraqi city is similar to Southampton: "He's either never been to Southampton, or he's never been to Umm Qasr." Whereupon his colleague in arms says: "There's no beer, no prostitutes and people are shooting at us. It's more like Portsmouth."

In a sports club: "You can't be soft with these people. What you've got to do is send in the SAS and wipe the lot of them out."

Doctor in his surgery: "Blair's crap, Bush is crap. They're having this war to fool people into forgetting that. They must realise their role is to do what we want them to do."

Driver of a black cab who has just been asked to go to the Foreign Office: "You work for the Foreign Office?" Answer: "No." Driver: "That's good; I was going to give you an earful about the war."

British soldier on the battlefield in Iraq: "Don't they understand my schedule? I've got tickets for a Robbie Williams concert booked in August."

From the next seat in the railway carriage: "Have you heard that they're going to behead Saddam Hussein when they get hold of him? I was really shocked to find out that the Americans are going to use decapitation in this war."

One busy colleague to another: "I've been in and out of the office this week like a coalition marine in Umm Qasr." Friend: "I'm working harder than a traffic cop on the Iraqi border."

Pentagon, in PR Assault, Uses Graphic Video Images
Sat March 29, 2003 04:29 PM ET
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Faced with opposition in the Arab world and elsewhere to the war in Iraq, the Pentagon launched a graphic public relations offensive on Saturday aimed at illustrating the "brutality of the Iraqi regime."

During a briefing shown by news organizations live around the world, chief Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke played videotaped clips of a news documentary showing the effects of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villagers 15 years ago. It also showed an interview of a woman who said her family was tortured by President Saddam Hussein's government.

A reporter asked Clarke whether she was showing the clips in an effort to counteract TV images shown during the world of civilian deaths and casualties in Iraq. She did not answer directly, but said, "That was my decision to use those clips."

"I have met some of these people. And I have heard their stories. And I was just struck in the last couple of days hearing some people say, 'Well aren't you surprised by the brutality of the Iraqi regime?"' she said. "How could anyone be surprised."

The decision to show the clips came amid strong opposition to the war in many Arab countries and other parts of the world. It also came as Pentagon officials investigate whether errant U.S. bombs caused numerous civilian deaths in Baghdad in two incidents in recent days.

Clarke played excerpts of a BBC documentary showing the aftermath of the Iraqi government's use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in the northern Iraq of Halbga in 1988.

The footage Clarke used included a video close-up of a Kurdish woman with grotesque facial disfigurement.

Clarke also showed portions of a videotaped interview conducted by the Department of Defense in February with Zainab Al-Suwaij, who the Pentagon said is an Iraqi woman who lives in Massachusetts.

Al-Suwaij described the imprisonment, torture and killing that she said members of her family endured after a teacher saw her 16-year-old cousin write in her notes at school, "I don't like Saddam." She said police took the girl, along with her parents, siblings, uncles, a cousin and an aunt to prison.

Al-Suwaij read a letter she said was written by the girl describing her treatment in prison.

"And they also start using electrical shock on my fingertips and my lips and my nipples. Also they used to hang me from my feet, and they used to make me walk on broken glass. One day they took all of my clothes off and they threatened my parents that they are going to rape me," Al-Suwaij said the letter stated.

A Defense Department pamphlet identifies Al-Suwaij as executive director of the American Islamic Congress, whose Web site says it is "a social organization that is dedicated to building inter-faith and inter-ethnic understanding."

The Pentagon said she participated in the 1991 uprising against Saddam after the Gulf War that was suppressed by government forces.

Perle: Iraq War Could Be Shorter Than Gulf War
Sun March 30, 2003 02:31 PM ET
By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Controversial Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said on Sunday the Iraq war could be shorter than the six-week Gulf War in 1991, predicting again the conflict could be easier than it has so far turned out to be.

"The last Gulf War involved several weeks of bombing before the first ground forces touched Iraqi soil. I don't think it will be longer than that and maybe shorter," Perle said in an interview with CBC Television.

Perle, who resigned last week as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board over alleged conflicts of interest, is seen as a leading architect of the Bush administration's drive to topple Saddam Hussein in the face of global opposition.

An influential neoconservative voice in Washington, Perle has been criticized for underestimating the difficulty of defeating the Iraqi president.

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder," Perle said last July.

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have warned since the conflict started that the war, now in its 11th day, could be long and difficult.

Rumsfeld, a friend of Perle's, has been criticized for committing too few troops to the battle that has resulted in overstretched supply lines and attacks in the rear of the advanced U.S.-British positions.

Perle said his earlier prediction that a major U.S. force in Iraq would not be necessary was made when he thought the war would be conducted on "an entirely different strategy."

But he insisted the war would still be short. "I think it will be a quick war, certainly by historical standards," he told CBC.

He also said he did not think the number of U.S. casualties would be high.

"It's not going to be tens of thousands and I hope it's not even thousands. I hope it's not in the high hundreds but I don't know, nobody knows."

Poll: Washington Too Optimistic Entering Iraq War
Sun March 30, 2003 05:51 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of Americans believe the U.S. government was too optimistic in its assessments of the probable course of the war in Iraq and one in three would not support the war if more than 500 U.S. troops were to die, according to a poll released on Sunday.

The Time/CNN poll also suggested Americans are resigned to a long conflict, with 46 percent saying they expect the war to last from four months to more than a year. Another 32 percent expect the war to last one to three months, while only 13 percent expect it to be over in two to four weeks.

The telephone poll of 1,014 adults, taken on March 27 by Harris Interactive, showed 55 percent believe Washington was overly optimistic in its assessments.

U.S. political leaders, including Vice President Dick Cheney, were quoted widely in the weeks leading up to the war as saying the Iraqi regime would collapse quickly in the face of overwhelming U.S. force.

With U.S. casualties mounting, the poll also suggests the collective stomach for American casualties is limited.

While 59 percent respondents say they would support a war in which 500 U.S. troops died, support falls to just 47 percent and opposition to the war rises to 41 percent if the U.S. death toll rises to 1,000.

Only 34 percent would support the war if as many as 5,000 Americans die, with 50 percent opposed if that happens. More than 50,000 American troops died in the Vietnam War.

Perhaps surprising to many abroad, a plurality of Americans would not support a war in which 5,000 Iraqi civilians were to die. In that event, opposition to the war rises to 47 percent, against 40 percent in support.

Even 1,000 Iraqi civilian deaths is too high a price to pay for many Americans, with just 50 percent willing to support such a war and 39 percent opposed under those circumstances.

While Americans would take a dim view of the use of chemical weapons against U.S. forces, a narrow majority of 51 percent say the United States would not be justified in using battlefield nuclear weapons against Iraqi soldiers deploying chemical arms. Some 42 percent would support such a move.

Still, support for President Bush appears to remain strong, with 67 percent of respondents saying they have a favorable impression of the president, against 30 percent who say they hold an unfavorable view of Bush.

Americans are, finally, largely united in their definition of a "victory" in Iraq: Fully 62 percent would not view simply removing Saddam Hussein from power as a victory. He must be captured or killed, they say, for the U.S. to declare victory.

The poll, which Time/CNN did not compare to previous polling, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

US troops 'abused' journalists
From correspondents in Lisbon
March 29, 2003

US troops in southern Iraq detained and beat up two public RTP television journalists from Portugal travelling in the company of two Israeli colleagues after accusing the four of spying, the RTP news director said today.

The four men entered Iraq on Monday in a jeep heading for the front.

They arrived at Karbala on Wednesday, but had to return to Najaf because the two Israeli reporters - public television correspondent Dan Scemama and Boaz Bizmuth, who works for the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot - reportedly had no proper accreditation.

Near Najaf the four slept next to US tanks after refusing to quit the Israelis.

"When they woke up they were surrounded by military police pointing their guns at them," said RTP news director Jose Rodrigues dos Santos.

Luis Castro and his cameraman Victor Silva are well and now staying in Kuwait, dos Santos told Lusa news agency.

Castro was kicked around and Silva was brutalised, he added. They were held inside a jeep for 36 hours, accused of spying and forbidden to contact anybody until they were freed by an officer.

Scemama told his network they had spent the worst 48 hours of their lives during their detention.

"The American soldiers said we were terrorists and spies and treated us as such ... in spite of our explanations they threatened us for hours with their arms," said Scemama.

The four were not given any food and were taken by helicopter to Kuwait, where they received medical treatment.

Dos Santos said US officials later apologised and promised an investigation.

The Portuguese television network had not announced their disappearance, so as not to alarm their families.

Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Dave Lapan said the journalists were "unilaterals" who "showed up on the battlefield and posed a security threat to forces there".

"The forces didn't know who these people were. They were told by headquarters to get them out of Iraq and back to Kuwait, which they did," he said, adding that the journalists were flown out in a military helicopter.

"We don't have any indication they were mistreated, but we continue to look into it," Lapan said.

US Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Owens, a spokesman for US Central Command in Doha, Qatar, said the military was looking into the incidents and took such allegations seriously.

Agence France-Presse

'Why give out food and then bomb us?'
By Burhan Wazir
30 March 2003

Viewed from the northern edge of Zubayr, the bone-dry flatlands of the Mesopotamian plain are ablaze with Allah's wrath. Salah Mehdi, 35, watched the inferno burning in the nearby city of Basra. Close by, another sign of what Iraqis describe as "Qiyamat", the Muslim Day of Reckoning. The skies are marked by the thick, black smoke from burning oil wells.

Mehdi, a geography teacher at Zubayr Elementary School, remembers when Basra was last in flames. In March 1991, Saddam Hussein ordered his forces to storm the sprawling, ancient Shia citadel to quell an uprising.

The President-for-Life had decreed that Basra's Shias had been betrayed by "herds of rancorous traitors, who infiltrated from inside and outside the country". His fatherly hand came down; and the glorious leader crushed the rebellion. According to Mehdi, "hundreds of bodies were lying in the streets".

Twelve years later, Basra is burning once more. Inside, soldiers loyal to the Great Uncle of the Iraqi people are dispensing his punishment again. From the outside, British forces nightly shell the metropolis. Mehdi has not seen his two brothers since 18 March. Mithal, 27, an engineer, and Ali, 28, an office administrator, are being used as human shields inside Basra.

"The Iraqi soldiers are not letting my brothers and their families come out," he said. Mehdi watched British troops unload boxes of bottled water from a truck. "I don't want water," he added. "I want to know if my brothers are alive."

Nearby, others spoke of relatives in Basra. "My father is there," said Nawaf Aja, 23. "I have not seen him in a week. No one can get out. Iraqi soldiers use people like him to slow down the attack."

While Basra burns, across southern Iraq, the 23rd Pioneer Regiment is leading what amounts to an emergency humanitarian exercise in the middle of a war zone. Convoys laden with water and emergency rations leave Shabiah airbase bound for Iraqi civilian heartlands. The deployment of humanitarian supplies, in the middle of an active battle, is viewed as a "Band-aid" until non-governmental agencies are able to enter Iraq. "We cannot expect to fix everything," admitted Colonel Peter Jones, the regiment's commanding officer.

The aid drops have also been subject to attack from Iraqi forces and militia still active in the area. On Wednesday afternoon, the first such drop in the dusty town of Zubayr was disrupted by gunfire. Earlier, several hundred people fought over supplies of water. Jalil Ali, 25, a well-educated and polite trainee scientist at the Ministry for Higher Education, threw a bottle of water on to the ground. "Take it back," he said. "Why are they giving water and food when they are bombing us as well?"

Basra, at the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, marks the nexus for the British humanitarian effort. Here, most of all, the British "hearts and minds" aid effort is crucial. On Friday afternoon, the 23rd Pioneer Regiment set off for the outskirts of Basra with about 20,000 litres of water and a mobile medical unit. The mission was fraught with logistical problems from the outset. Quickly, fighting erupted among the crowd; and, as panicked soldiers threw boxes of bottled water into the crowd, one man was hit in the face. As soldiers ordered the Iraqi civilians to sit down in orderly lines, some streamed towards an ambulance.

Earlier in the day, a mother had brought forward her six-month-old baby. Miriama had suffered severe burns across 70 per cent of her body when her father had tried to light a gas lamp. After injecting a painkiller, the doctor could only look on helplessly. "I can't do anything else," she said.

Iraqi civilians, for their part, feel uniquely helpless and frustrated. "I have an illness. Can you offer me some more medicine?" said Hamid Ali, 50. I had stood chatting to him about the Iran-Iraq war.Afterwards, Ali said he felt frustrated by the humanitarian response. "We need electricity. We need a running water supply," he said.

The water shortage had to be addressed, he added.

"I see a lot of British tanks coming in my town, but they seem to pass through. Do not ignore the south. Saddam's people are still here. They are watching and waiting. You cannot leave us to them."

This is a pool report from Burhan Wazir of 'The Observer'