|American Free Press | America's Last Real Newspaper :
( possecasts : http://americanfreepress.net/?page_id=723 )
|For anyone who can handle the Truth :
( mpg123 -@ http://republicbroadcasting.org/32k.pls )
|into ground shaking radio that will snap your neck in odd directions :
( mplayer "mms://22.214.171.124/channel islam" on Tuesdays at 20-22 CET/2-4PM EDT/11-1PM PDT. )
|Exposing Corruption, Informing Citizens and proclaiming Liberty :
( mpg123 http://lin1.ash.fast-serv.com:6040 )
|Your First Source For Reality & Honest Journalism :
( mpg123 -@ http://microeffect.purestream.net:9680/listen.pls )
|The Home of Cutting Edge Talk Radio :
( mpg123 -@ http://www.oraclebroadcasting.com/48k.pls )
|Veterans Truth Network - Truth in Media :
( mpg123 -@ http://126.96.36.199:7791/live )
|All News Network - We are not CNN :
( mpg123 -@ http://188.8.131.52:7164/live )
|Please help to get my car back :
( On July 21, 2009 my car was impounded (not by police), but by the
Dutch IRS, for failing to hand-over trumped up tax charges which my
small business could have never earned, according to my filed tax
deductions. In addition the bank account of my small business has been
impounded by the IRS as well. An important part of my business
activities involves the use of my car. The impoundment of my car can
only be explained as an outrageous attempt by the IRS to shutdown my
business by force, without a valid and sane reason.
It can be compared to those EXACTIONS reported only to happen in former
overseas colonies like India and Indonesia. The difference being that
today such exactions have moved into Western Europe and America as well
, the home countries of these old style colonialists themselves. My
conclusion is that today the old style Colonialist has started to
devour his own home country and town, through abuse of power of IRS
officials and police. )
When closing my PayPal account
Kelly had 'no right' to anonymity
The secret Downing Street memo
Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel
Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents
Kelly had 'no right' to anonymity
Dr. David Christopher Kelly was a renowned Weapons Inspector for
the U.N. and U.K. Military for researching Iraq after the 1st Gulf war.
On Sept 24, 2002 a dossier titled "IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION" was issued by PM Tony Blair. Kelly denounced
the dossier as fodder material due to a claim that "Iraq was capable
of firing battlefield biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes
of an order to use them. After the March 2003 ground war in Iraq
had been concluded, Kelly was invited to execute a renewed inspection
inside Iraq. Concluding his research Kelly became convinced that the only
purpose of the IRAQ WMD dossier had been to get a war going in Iraq,
which was published by
a BBC journalist, using Kelly as anonymous source. After Gilligan had
Alastair Campbell ("Prime Minister's Director of Communications and
Strategy") as the person responsible for the "45 minutes" fabrication
inside the WMD dossier, Kelly's Employer, the
Ministry of Defence, announced to the press that one of Gilligan
sources was on their payroll. Press inquiries at the Ministry of Defense
confirmed that indeed Kelly was one of Gilligans sources.
After testifying before the
Foreign Affairs Select Committee on July 15, Kelly went missing on
July 17 and was found dead on July 18, 2003. On July 22, Lord Hutton
started a investigation into Kelly's death and concluded Kelly had
committed 'suicide'. Why would a man like Kelly commit suicide when he
was simply tellling truth? On May 1, 2005 The London Times published a
verbatim copy of a secret "Downing Street memo" from July 23, 2002 stating
that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to
get a war going in Iraq. The authenticity of this document, to this
very day, has not been disputed.
From email@example.com Fri Sep 26 02:14:43 2003 +0200 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:14:43 +0200 (CEST) From: firstname.lastname@example.org X-X-Sender: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org, <email@example.com> Subject: "Dr. Kelly had 'no right' to anonymity" Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: "Dr. Kelly had 'no right' to anonymity"  --------------------------------------- Jonathan Sumption QC for the government told Lord Hutton that David Kelly had "no right" to expect the government to keep his identity secret and Whitehall no "constitutional" duty to conceal the name of a civil servant. Briljant. From the dossier in question , which mentions the 45 minute claim : " FOREWORD BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE TONY BLAIR MP The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The JIC is at the heart of the British intelligence machinery. It is chaired by the Cabinet Office and made up of the heads of the UK s three Intelligence and Security Agencies, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, and senior officials from key government departments. For over 60 years the JIC has provided regular assessments to successive Prime Ministers and senior colleagues on a wide range of foreign policy and international security issues. Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest. " And in Chapter 3, page 17 of this Document  it reads : " THE CURRENT POSITION: 1998 2002 1. This chapter sets out what we know of Saddam Hussein s chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, drawing on all the available evidence. While it takes account of the results from UN inspections and other publicly available information, it also draws heavily on the latest intelligence about Iraqi efforts to develop their programmes and capabilities since 1998. The main conclusions are that: " and then a summation of points is added, where here i quote the most notorious one : " Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so; " I would here suggest to Lord Hutton to ask Mr. Jonathan Sumption QC for Downing street 10, to reveal the names of the "Well Known Source" who received the above information about the 45 minutes claim. As Mr. Sumption SQ already claimed, Dr. Kelly had 'no right' to anonymity in this case, i'm most certain that the "Well Known Source" surely has neither. If Mr. Jonathan Sumption QC refuses to agree on this request, i would say that the current Ministry on Downing street 10 should be sent home. Regards, Robert -- Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist crashrecovery.org email@example.com
 Kelly had 'no right' to anonymity
 IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,
 Campbell, that dodgy dossier and the lies that cost David Kelly his life
 The Strange Death of David Kelly
The secret Downing Street memo
The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005
(copied from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html)
The secret Downing Street memo SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02 cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based. C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were: (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait). (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option. The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were: (i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons. (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition. (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions. The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary. The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN. John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real. The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush. Conclusions: (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options. (b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation. (c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week. (d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states. (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update. (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. (I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.) MATTHEW RYCROFT (Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
the officials present at the secret meeting
Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister and subsequently received copies of these minutes.
(We will be posting a revised version of this list with descriptions of the various roles and their US equivalents soon.)
Though it is sometimes difficult to equate a given official to his or her US counterpart, it's clear that this was a meeting at the highest level within the UK government.
Attendees included three members of the Cabinet (Prime Minister Blair, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary), the nation's most senior bureaucrat (the Cabinet Secretary), three out of the four top people from the UK intelligence community (the JIC Chair and the heads of MI6 and GCHQ), the head of the armed forces and four of the innermost circle of the PM's political advisors.
Note: The relatively junior level of Rycroft bears no relevance to the contents of the minutes, which summarize what the principals said at the meeting to each other.
From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Jun 14 03:35:06 2005 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:35:06 +0200 (CEST) From: "Robert M. Stockmann" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com> cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Downingstreet Memo : Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: Dear Editors, After viewing the c-span broadcast again on May 29, 2005, featuring Steve Cobble from AfterDowningStreet.org and Kevin Aylward from wizbangblog.com, i want to address the importance of the so-called Downing-street memo from 23 July 2002 as was published on Times-online : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html on May 01, 2005. The most quoted phrase was of course : "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." The full quote of that paragraph : "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Now it might be interesting to know who was "C" in this quote. From other sources it can be revealed that the following is known about "C" in the context of the Downing-street memo : http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html : Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove, is identified as 'C' in the meeting minutes, heads the UK's foreign intelligence service. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dearlove and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scarlet we can conclude that Sir Richard Dearlove's career has not really been going well since May 6, 2004 as then he was sacked  as MI6 (SIS) Director. In fact he was entirely kicked from the intelligence community since. On 1 August 2004 he became Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. His successor John Scarlett as MI6 (SIS) Director, at the time of the writing of the memo, Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) , was appointed to this position (JIC) 3 days before the 9-11 attack. What to conclude from this? The good guy, Sir Richard Dearlove was taken down from the intelligence community, and the bad guy, John Scarlett was rewarded for his controversial work as Chair of the JIC in close cooperation with Alastair Campbell on the dossier which would form the center of the Dr. David Kelly affair. Do we see a pattern here? People who speak up against the Bush/Blair WMD fraud get removed. The higher their ranking or their proven credibility on expert witness information, the more severe these Governmental removal procedures become. And all of this without regard to their legal of professional position or status. Dr. David Kelly apparently committed suicide. Thats the official white washed story. People who inform themselves, today know better. Sir Richard Dearlove was, just like has happened to most respected and experienced intelligence officers inside the CIA , purged from the Intelligence community. Why ? Because they spoke up to the Bush/Blair WMD fraud. Today the majority of the American and United Kingdom citizens have serious doubts about the Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq based on the WMD fraud. Today numerous officers and experts both from inside MI6 as from the CIA and other less known intelligence institutions have spoken up to the Bush/Blair WMD fraud. But they _ALL_ got removed, without regards to their previous proven track records, congress medals, or Sir titles awarded by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. This has got to stop. I demand the immediate and simultaneous impeachment of both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for conspiring a invasion into Iraq based on intentional fixed and forged intelligence documents. The two gentlemen can choose to leave immediately or might risk a court marshal for committing war crimes. Yours Sincerely, Robert M. Stockmann -- Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist crashrecovery.org firstname.lastname@example.org
 MI6 chief to quit after split on Iraq
Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel
(copied from www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uswmd074251820may09,0,7225183.story)
Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Thursday, May 12, 2005 Posted: 2:49 AM EDT (0649 GMT) (copied from http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002. The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval. The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a highlevel meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1 British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility. The Whitehouse has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6. The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..." "While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said. But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new." In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting. A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role. It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said. "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance." Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used. The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult." Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors." "If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said. Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."
Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents
Published on Thursday, May 12, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
(copied from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0512-01.htm)
Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents
Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein.
by John Daniszewski LONDON - Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain. But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy. The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July 23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas. The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government convinced of the U.S. desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to several specific conditions. Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war. "At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than the British government&. So the circumstances of this July discussion very quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified. The leaked minutes sum up the July 23 meeting, at which Blair, top security advisors and his attorney general discussed Britain's role in Washington's plan to oust Hussein. The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide, indicate general thoughts among the participants about how to create a political and legal basis for war. The case for military action at the time was "thin," Foreign Minister Jack Straw was characterized as saying, and Hussein's government posed little threat. Labeled "secret and strictly personal U.K. eyes only," the minutes begin with the head of the British intelligence service, MI6, who is identified as "C," saying he had returned from Washington, where there had been a "perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy." Straw agreed that Bush seemed determined to act militarily, although the timing was not certain. "But the case was thin," the minutes say. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Straw then proposed to "work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam" to permit United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. "This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force," he said, according to the minutes. Blair said, according to the memo, "that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors." "If the political context were right, people would support regime change," Blair said. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work." In addition to the minutes, the Sunday Times report referred to a Cabinet briefing paper that was given to participants before the July 23 meeting. It stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation earlier, at the April summit in Texas. "The U.K. would support military action to bring about regime change," the Sunday Times quoted the briefing as saying. Excerpts from the paper, which Smith provided to the Los Angeles Times, said Blair had listed conditions for war, including that "efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis was quiescent," and options to "eliminate Iraq's WMD through the U.N. weapons inspectors" had been exhausted. The briefing paper said the British government should get the U.S. to put its military plans in a "political framework." "This is particularly important for the U.K. because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action," it says. In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking Congress' OK. "If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own administration," the letter says. "While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a foregone conclusion," the letter's chief author, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said Wednesday. If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter. Both Blair and Bush have denied that a decision on war was made in early 2002. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for military operations as an option, but that the option to not attack also remained open until the war began March 20, 2003. In January 2002, Bush described Iraq as a member of an "axis of evil," but the sustained White House push for Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions did not come until September of that year. That month, Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly to outline a case against Hussein's government, and he sought a bipartisan congressional resolution authorizing the possible use of force. In November 2002, the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution demanding that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors. An effort to pass a second resolution expressly authorizing the use of force against Iraq did not succeed. Times staff writer Paul Richter in Washington contributed to this report. © Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times ###
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Common Dreams NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. © Copyrighted 1997-2005 www.commondreams.org
References : total 3152 -rw-rw-r-- 1 crashrec klant 73283 Jun 18 2005 BritishPrewarDocuments.pdf -rw-rw-r-- 1 crashrec klant 53855 Jun 18 2005 BushManipulatedIraqIntel.pdf -rw-rw-r-- 1 crashrec klant 50273 Jun 18 2005 BushUKWarMemo.pdf -rw-r--r-- 1 crashrec klant 439263 Jul 10 2004 dossier.pdf -rw-r--r-- 1 crashrec klant 2041067 Jan 28 2004 huttonreport.pdf -rw-r--r-- 1 crashrec klant 216405 May 9 07:15 Kelly-had-no-right-to-anonymity.pdf -rw-rw-r-- 1 crashrec klant 117918 Jun 10 2005 TheSecretDowningstreetMemo.pdf
First published on Fri, May 9 2008
Issues concerning the Desire of a New World Order
"911 was a Mossad Operation" Last edited on Sat, Apr 15, 2017 19:56:56 CEST
"Benjamin Freedman warns America" Last edited on Mon, Apr 03, 2017 17:23:01 CEST
The National Security Agency (NSA) Last edited on Sat, Mar 18, 2017 19:23:45 CET
"The Illuminati and the Counsel on Foreign Relations Conspiracy" Last edited on Sun, Aug 21, 2016 02:30:17 CEST
"Russian Israeli duel for power, oil and dirty cash" Last edited on Thu, Dec 10, 2015 20:47:33 CET
MOSSAD's control over the Internet Last edited on Sun, Nov 29, 2015 18:23:25 CET
"HITLER was a BRITISH AGENT" Last edited on Thu, Jun 11, 2015 01:27:45 CEST
"Dark Matter, a result of the heliocentric doctrine" Last edited on Sat, May 02, 2015 23:30:50 CEST
"The NWO : a Tarnung by Teutonic Knights?" Last edited on Mon, Apr 27, 2015 17:43:20 CEST
The Vatican Church has supported the Nazi's in the
1930's 40's and 50's. This connection turns out to be a very old one,
as middle eave Popes were emanating the agenda and mindset for the
crusades. This Nazi connection actually turns out to be a Teutonic
"Report from IRON MOUNTAIN" Last edited on Thu, Apr 16, 2015 21:52:02 CEST
"HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL." Last edited on Thu, Mar 26, 2015 18:20:12 CET
"A pre Jesuit history" Last edited on Thu, Sep 18, 2014 22:16:56 CEST
THE MONEY MASTERS Last edited on Tue, Jul 15, 2014 20:55:53 CEST
"Testimonials of Illuminati and Zionist
influence in Present Day America" Last edited on Fri, Jun 13, 2014 15:22:15 CEST
Norman Dodd, Paul Findley and Alan Hart present
their findings of facts which have directed America towards a highly
controversial direction, where as the late Norman Dodd stated : "Since
World War one, the men who lead this country, have institutionalized
conflicting interests to such an extend that they can never be
resolved. The Tax-Exempt foundations like the Cargenie Endowment, The
Ford and Rockerfeller foundation have been instrumental in this"
"The Infowar Techniques of the Rendon Group: a possible theory " Last edited on Sun, May 25, 2014 17:31:35 CEST
The Curse of Canaan, A Demonology of History Last edited on Tue, May 20, 2014 17:52:04 CEST
"Satanic Voices, Ancient & Modern" Last edited on Fri, Dec 06, 2013 19:02:44 CET
EU Software Patent Directive Last edited on Wed, Apr 18, 2012 15:02:48 CEST
"The History of Mind Control" Last edited on Fri, Feb 24, 2012 02:16:03 CET
"Judaism Discovered (Entdecktes Judenthum)" Last edited on Thu, Feb 23, 2012 04:52:11 CET
"The protocols are for real" Last edited on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 22:08:32 CEST
"Susan Lindauer -- Reporter Held Political Prisoner" Last edited on Sun, Jan 16, 2011 05:34:21 CET
In March 2001 Susan Lindauer carried a message from
the Iraqi government to her cousin, the White House Chief of Staff,
requesting the return of weapons inspectors. But Bush nevertheless
attacked and invaded Iraq using WMD as a pretext, murdered as many as
500,000 people, and spread radioactive poison over the entire country,
which will murder millions more.
Susan Lindauer was for over period of almost a year in prison on false
claims of insanity, sentenced on Feb 15, 2006 by then U.S. District
Judge Michael Mukasey. On Sept. 8, 2006 the forced mental
hospitalization was however dropped by Mukasey, and she was
subsequently released. A most weird case as the hearings carousel is
continuing to this very day.
"To Eliminate the Opiate" Last edited on Wed, Mar 04, 2009 20:15:27 CET
The secret Downing Street memo Last edited on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 08:52:12 CET
"Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M." Last edited on Fri, Dec 26, 2008 18:53:42 CET
A catholic Jesuit priest published a number of
articles in the 1950s illustrating numerous efforts by governmental
sponsored groups to systematic abolish the Catholic Religion and
religious faith in general.
Louis Madelin, "La Revolution" Last edited on Fri, Dec 26, 2008 18:53:40 CET
a analysis about the French Revolution, still to be
completed and translated.
"U.S. Patent No. 4,686,605 : H.A.A.R.P." Last edited on Fri, Dec 26, 2008 18:53:39 CET
A illustration of how H.A.A.R.P works in practice,
based on a U.S. Patent document.
King James Reference Bible Last edited on Thu, Mar 08, 2007 19:42:23 CET
A lot of content concerning the NWO is somehow
related to the Bible. As a convenience i present a restaurated
copy of http://www.htmlbible.com/ which recently somehow disappeared
from the internet.
To verify the md5sum checksum and file size of list.html
make an ftp connection to crashrecovery.org i.e. ftp://crashrecovery.org/pub/nwo . Download list.html to check its contents and size and download MD5SUM to verify the md5sum of list.html .
To verify the md5sum checksum and file sizes, load the same url, with https.
So when you have http://crashrecovery.org/moneymasters/ inside your browser, reload the same url with https://crashrecovery.org/moneymasters/ in a new window or tab and save the new loaded page as a file, i.e. internet.html. The md5 checksum and file size of internet.html should be the same as internet/index.html as listed above.
Note that the "Save Page As..." option in many modern browserslike e.g. Mozilla Firefox produces bad md5 checksums. Somehow some extra garbage html is added. In such cases one should use wget and md5sum.
For the Microsoft Windows platform see wget and md5sums. Wget version 1.10 on Windows is currently a mess when using https, so get version 1.9.1. I recommend to download ftp://ftp.sunsite.dk/projects/wget/windows/wget-1.9.1b.zip , ftp://ftp.sunsite.dk/projects/wget/windows/ssllibs097c.zip and http://www.pc-tools.net/files/win32/freeware/md5sums-1.2.zip
Unzip the contents of these three zipfiles into a directory (Folder) and proceed as follows from the windows command shell cmd.exe :
which corresponds with :
-rw-r--r-- 3 crashrec klant 95659 Apr 15 07:55 moneymasters/index.html
Robert M. Stockmann