They re Killing More Iraqis Than Americans

They re Killing More Iraqis Than Americans
Vol: 22 Issue: 17 Thursday, July 17, 2003

Mohammed Nayil al-Jurayfi, who had actively cooperated with U.S. forces as the new mayor of Hadithah, was killed when his car was ambushed by attackers firing automatic rifles as he drove away from his office in the city 150 miles northwest of Baghdad. The mayor, who took office after Saddam’s fall, was slain because he was “seizing cars” from Saddam loyalists who used to work in the deposed Iraqi leader’s offices in Hadithah, a city in the restive “Sunni Triangle” that is home to many supporters of Saddam.

An American soldier was killed and three others were injured in a rocket-propelled grenade attack west of Baghdad near the Abu Ghraib prison, a U.S. military spokesman said. In a separate attack, an 8-year-old Iraqi child died when an assailant threw a grenade into a U.S. military vehicle guarding a bank in west Baghdad.

The American driver of the vehicle was wounded along with four Iraqi bystanders, according to Army Maj. Kevin West.

“They’re killing more Iraqis than they are Americans,” West said, shaking his head.


U.S. soldiers have come under increasingly ferocious attacks by suspected Saddam loyalists in recent weeks — reaching an average of 12 attacks a day. More than 30 U.S. soldiers have been killed in hostile action since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1.

The Pentagon said that as of Monday, 144 U.S. personnel had been killed in combat since the start of the Iraq war. At least two U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraqi attacks since then, bringing the total just short of the 147 killed in combat during the 1991 Gulf War.

Newsday, a liberal New York publication, managed to use the word Vietnam twice in its first three paragraphs before going on to describe the situation in Iraq in terms not used since the Vietnam War. Newsday zeroed in on a comment from a disgruntled US soldier who was just disloyal enough to rate a spot on ABC s Good Morning America.

If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I’d ask him for his resignation. ABC featured another soldier saying, I would ask him why we are still here. I don’t have any clue as to why we are still in Iraq.”

Part of the reason that we are still in Iraq is because nobody else will go there. Too many countries, like France and Germany, had secret sweetheart deals with Saddam that went sour with his ouster. The Europeans are enjoying watching Bush twist in the wind over the now infamous Sixteen Words in which Bush quoted a British intelligence claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa.

The British allegedly got their information from the French, (Niger is a former French colony and the French run the uranium mines there) but Paris has refused the British permission to share the source material with the White House. There is no way Jacques Chirac will let Bush off the hook, especially if he actually could.

Nobody is claiming that they actually KNOW Saddam wasn t seeking uranium from Africa. And Saddam HAD purchased uranium from Africa in the past. But since the IAEA produced a supporting document they claim was forged, that makes Saddam innocent and Bush a liar.

(Lessee, if I was Saddam and I wanted to cover my tracks when I knew they had the goods on me . . .I wonder if I d consider planting some evidence, like maybe a forged letter? Nah. Saddam s not that smart. Is he?)

The rest of the world is enjoying watching the United States suffer for its ‘arrogant’ decision to liberate the Iraqi people. Despite the millions who died at Saddam s hands, to much of the world, America is worse.

Until they need us again.

Feeding the Alligator

Feeding the Alligator
Vol: 22 Issue: 16 Wednesday, July 16, 2003

Feeding the Alligator

Recently, the Council on American Islamic Relations suffered the dubious honor of having a second member of its national staff arrested on charges related to terrorism. Randal Todd “Ismael ” Royer was picked up in June by federal agents.

He is alleged to have trained with a Kashmiri terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has links to al Qaeda. Earlier this year, Bassem Khafagi, who had been community affairs director for CAIR’s office in Washington, D.C., had also been arrested.

And if you are one of those Americans who gets more of your news from ABC News than from any other source you probably didn t know that. The news media has turned a blind eye to the alleged wrongdoers at CAIR, refusing to take an in-depth look at this group, who funds it and why.

Experts on Islam know this group has strong links to the Saudi government, and that Saudi Arabia’s government itself is under the strong influence of the Wahhabi sect of Islam.

Recent intelligence reports to the Congress indicate that the Wahhabi lobby, directly funded by Saudi Arabia, is working directly to weaken anti terrorism legislation from within, while providing Islamic terror groups with as much as 50% of their annual funding in exchange for a gentleman s agreement to leave the Saudis alone.

The congressional probe, according to Capitol Hill sources, has focused on unpublished U.S. intelligence information stating that Wahhabi agents from Saudi Arabia have been responsible for terrorist attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. It also has focused on government documents showing that the Wahhabi movement has stepped up its efforts to penetrate the United States.

Part of the effort, the authorities said, also has targeted black Muslims in this country believed to be sympathetic to Islamic extremism using mosques, prisons and universities throughout the United States.

Federal law enforcement authorities believe cash from Saudi Arabia has been a significant source of funding for global terrorism, particularly the al Qaeda network founded by Osama bin Laden, who is a SAUDI millionaire.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described it as a strategy of feeding an alligator in the hope it will eat you last .

The recent attacks against Saudi targets are forcing the Saudi royals to rethink this strategy and take a closer look at the alligator. A Saudi investigation revealed more than 1,000 Saudi clerics with direct links to al-Qaeda. The rest of the Arab world is taking another look around as well.

Security chiefs of the 22 Arab League nations, meeting in Tunis last week, quickly agreed on the existence of a direct link between al Qaeda terrorist attacks and a clergy that promotes holy war in holy places effectively admitting what the White House continues to deny.

The Saudi clergy has sent Wahhabi clerics as missionaries all over the world to build mosques and set up madrassas (Koranic schools that teach only religion, to the exclusion of all other disciplines). There are about 2,000 mosques in the United States, most of them started by Wahhabi clerics.

Post-September 11, Saudi authorities continued to dismiss stories about Wahhabi-al Qaeda connections as anti-Saudi ‘propaganda’. Propaganda?

Following the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in February 1989, the Saudi Wahhabis lavished some $300 million a year on building a network of several thousand madrassas, from Peshawar to Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi and hundreds of towns and villages along the way.

From Pakistani madrassas, young Muslim men from some 30 countries, went on to Afghanistan for training in al Qaeda’s camps. Those who showed more promise for intellectual pursuits stayed on an additional two years to qualify as imams and mullahs.

The University for the Education of Truth, a leading madrassa in Khattak near Peshawar, graduated nine out of Taliban’s top 10 leaders. With a student body of 2,500, the institution is fully funded by the Saudi clergy and wealthy Saudis.

Its president, Sami ul-Haq, is now a prominent member of the MMA a coalition of six political-religious parties that governs the Northwest Frontier Province, shares power in Baluschistan and holds 20 percent of the seats in the National Assembly in Islamabad. Sami is a close friend of Osama Bin Laden.

President Bush has repeated frequently since September 11 that the United States is not at war with Islam. But Wahhabi Islam is very much at war with the United States.

Setting political correctness, spin and special interests aside leaves only reality. And the reality is that the United States is at war with a religion not a group of extremists, but an extremist RELIGION.

The fact that the Arab world and in particular, the Saudis are rethinking their alligator-feeding strategy represents a paradigm shift in thinking that could one day mean the development of what might truly BECOME a kinder, gentler form of Islam.

Acting in the name of King Fahd, who is too ill to rule, Crown Prince Abdullah has issued new regulations prohibiting any reference to jihad, or holy war, in radio and television broadcasts.

The royals are also drafting new regulations that the Wahhabi clergy will most probably consider sacrilegious. The new rules would actually remove elements of Wahhabi doctrine Islam’s strictest interpretation of the Koran as it is presently taught in mosques and schools around the kingdom.

Of course, to meet the challenge, the radical fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism will also have to be made more user-friendly. Fundamentalism of all stripes will face increased scrutiny and pressure to upgrade its theological worldview to accommodate the new reality.

Revelation Chapter 13 describes this new, inclusive form of worship for the three great monotheistic religions of the world.

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. (Revelation 13:11)

Management by Crisis

Management by Crisis
Vol: 22 Issue: 15 Tuesday, July 15, 2003

The Pentagon’s Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) program is designed to track terrorists by collecting information about every detail of every American, looking for ‘patterns’ that will help identify terrorists. One way they are gathering this information is by collecting information from consumer reporting agencies. The type of information that can be legally obtained ranges from political and religious contributions to magazine subscriptions, clothing sizes and even data about prostate problems.

Almost every conceivable tidbit of personal information is collected and sold by private firms to create behavioral dossiers on millions of consumers so marketers can pitch products to them. All this information is currently scattered in thousands of databases across the country — and thanks to the internet — across the globe. TIA will gather it all in a single super database where everything that is known about you anywhere in the country can be cross-referenced by federal officials by simply typing in your name.

Sound scary? It should. Congress left a major loophole in the legal language of the TIA legislation, permitting the government to collect any data that is “legally obtained and usable by the federal government under existing law.”

When asked if they would use consumer data in their program, a TIA official did not answer the question but reiterated the agency’s stance that it would use only legally obtained information.

“In obtaining their information, the operational agencies participating in TIA’s experiments comply with the laws and regulations governing intelligence activities and the laws governing the privacy and constitutional rights of U.S. persons,” says the TIA.

Chris Hoofnagle, deputy counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said information legally obtainable includes: current and past addresses, the number of bathrooms and bedrooms in a house, what utilities are consumed, telephone numbers, smoking habits, Social Security numbers, hobbies, income, automobiles, shopping preferences, height, weight, race, clothing size, magazine subscriptions, purchases through book, music and video clubs, and whether the family pet is a “Fido” or a “Fluffy.” This information, he said, can be bought for pennies per person.

Just as easily obtainable is information on individual contributions to political, religious and charitable groups, financial records, arrest records, occupation, levels of education, and health information, including allergies, visual impairment, birth defects, diabetes and prostate problems.

“All information is on the table, and a lot of information is being placed on the table by commercial-database vendors and direct marketers,” Hoofnagle told the Washington Times.


I thought this would be a good place to try out an excerpt from OUR new book,(I credit you all as contributors in the forward) since it fits the topical material for today. And, as a progress report to the membership, I am about to begin the last chapter of the first draft. The working title remains to this point, “Bodyguard of Lies.” The following is from a section sub-titled ‘Hegel and 9/11’. (I’d appreciate any feedback you might have).

Georg Hegel was a German idealist philosopher who lived from 1770 to 1831. Hegel is widely recognized as one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century.

Hegel built on the philosophy of the ancient Greek Parmenides, arguing that what is rational is real and what is real is rational. The logic that governs this developmental process is dialectic. The dialectical method involves the notion that movement, or process, or progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites.

Traditionally, this dimension of Hegel’s thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Hegel s Dialectic forms the basis for governments to manage by crisis to accomplish goals in the face of widespread popular opposition.

Here’s how it works:

Thesis: Create or identify a manageable crisis.

Antithesis: Identify the root cause, and stir up panic and fear of the crisis situation.

Synthesis: Offer the solution you wish to impose, which the people are now ready to embrace because of the psychological conditioning you have done with stages one and two.]

The Hegelian Dialectic is used within government all the time its part and parcel of governing.

We don’t like it its offensive and it s demeaning to admit how sheep-like we human beings really are. We prefer then, not to acknowledge it even when it is being systematically applied, provided we agree with its end goals.

To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, said Attorney General John Ashcroft defending his anti-terror measures before the Senate Judiciary.

God predicts in Revelation Chapter 13 that anyone unwilling to trade his freedom for the security of the antichrist’s system will be branded an outlaw and will be hunted down by the authorities.

Prior to 9/11, such a scenario seemed entirely possible in the Old World. The Europeans have a long history of willingly trading freedom for security. The same applies to virtually every nation on earth at some point in its history.

Except America. Until now.

Thesis: Individual American freedoms are our Achilles Heel.

It took a single, massive strike against New York and Washington to create the necessary crisis. Daily reports of new terror threats have continued to raise awareness and fear.

Antithesis: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. [David Rockefeller, a leader of the Conference on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission]

Demands from the public for government to do more grow louder every day. What did he know and when did he know it? The FBI dropped the ball. The CIA missed the signals. The various agencies are mired in bureaucratic red tape. Something must be done!!

Synthesis: Creation of a super secret domestic spy agency, an official propaganda machine and ultimately a peaceful and secure New World Order. With the full support and acquiescence of a carefully conditioned and terrified American public.

Simple, no? And you thought you were too smart to be propagandized, didn t you?

New PA Poll Sparks Riot

New PA Poll Sparks Riot
Vol: 22 Issue: 14 Monday, July 14, 2003

What if the Palestinians found out that they were conned by their leadership into fighting with Israel over something they never wanted in the first place? Three years ago, Jerusalem exploded with violence as Arafat kicked off the latest uprising using a pre-arranged 5 a.m. visit by Ariel Sharon to Temple Mount as an excuse. The Palestinians were whipped up by Arafat after he flatly rejected to accept victory for his side as offered at Camp David.

When Ehud Barak offered him everything he had been asking for, Arafat, frightened that he might lose his position as warlord by accepting Barak s offer, added a new ingredient he knew Barak could not agree to. He demanded the Right of Return (a lie repeated often enough that it is now a proper noun) for the alleged refugees from 1948.

Refugees is another lie repeated until it is truth . Virtually all the refugees are refugees by choice. They gambled and lost and now want their bets returned to them.

When Israel declared independence, it invited the Arabs in the region to join them. Those who did are today Israeli Arab citizens. They enjoy the same rights as any other Israeli, including representation in the Knesset.

The rest heeded the Arab countries massing to attack the fledgling Jewish State. They were encouraged to flee, and were promised their holdings back after the Jews were destroyed.

When the Arab states lost, the Arabs who fled hoping to return to a Jew-free Palestine became refugees . The fact that they chose their condition voluntarily is one of those historical facts that get lost in the retelling of the Big Lie.

So the Right of Return For the Refugees has been the new war cry since Arafat turned down statehood three years ago. It has already become a major pothole in the roadmap for peace.


It seems to me that if the Palestinians were to give up statehood over an issue as intractable as the Right of Return, there would have to be a reason. The Arabs know Israel would never accept it. There are already 1.2 million Israeli Arabs in a country populated by 5.5 million Jews.

The alleged refugees plus their descendants a key issue, number almost 4 million more. And the Arab side isn t demanding a right of return for these refugees to a new Palestinian state. They refuse to absorb what are fellow Palestinians. To make the deal utterly unacceptable (thus guaranteeing a continuation of the conflict), the demand is a right of return to ISRAEL.

It is nothing less than a rewording of the original goal of replacing Israel with an Arab state.

I have gone to great lengths to refresh the overview here so you can see just how important the Right of Return really is to the peace process. Israel gave in to all the other impossible demands; statehood, even the division of Jerusalem. This is the only thing left the Arabs COULD demand — short of a formal eviction of all Jews to New York.

Here s where this all comes together. The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just released the results of a poll conducted among Palestinian refugees distributed almost equally between Jordan, Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza. The poll was conducted according to accepted standards and has a margin of error of less than 3 percent.

The question was about the Right of Return from the viewpoint of those on whose behalf the two year intifada is being fought. Guess what! They don t WANT to return! No kidding!

The question involved being granted full Israeli citizenship, living under Israeli laws and Israeli rule inside Israel s Green Line. More than half would move to a new Palestinian state. 17 percent like it fine where they are now. 2 percent want to come to America. Less than ten percent would move to Israel if they were granted full citizenship and the Right of Return !

Arafat turned DOWN statehood over this. Thousands of Israelis and more thousands of Palestinians have been killed or horribly maimed over this. Entire Palestinian villages have been leveled over this. And it was all part of Arafat s Big Lie all along.

Protestors gathered in Ramallah. They marched, and then they rioted in fury. But they didn t march on the Ramallah compound of the architect of their misfortune when they heard they had suffered so much for a phantom issue.

Instead they stormed the offices of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, in effect, shooting the messenger because they didn t like the message.

And Washington wants to give these guys a STATE?

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Vol: 22 Issue: 11 Friday, July 11, 2003

Mr. Bush, You are a Liar said the headline at the appropriately named but that comes as no surprise. The liberal left would forgive Bush almost anything, if they could only catch him in a provable lie. That way, they would forever have an instant defense for Their Guy. Oh yeah, our guy only lied about sex. YOUR guy lied about Iraq!

Granted, lying under oath in an effort to protect one s own reputation at the expense of a six dollar an hour Arkansas state employee s isn t the same as lying to depose a murderous dictator that few argue wasn’t a threat to anyone within reach, but at least, they could underpin their argument that everybody lies about sex with all presidents lie but in reading their source material, its clear that they are trying too hard.

At issue is the question: Did George Bush know that the intelligence documents he referenced in his 2003 State of the Union speech were bogus?

According to the liberal left he did know, and that forms the basis for the current outcry; what did the president know and when did he know it?

Let s set the Wayback Machine to January 28 and see what the President actually said when he lied to America. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

According to the spin, a month after Bush made that statement, the IAEA said the documents that the British used to make that determination were forged. Here s a typical explanation this one from the AP.

As they see it, [b] efore and after President Bush claimed in January that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, U.S. intelligence officials expressed doubts about the British intelligence report that Bush cited to back up his allegation, senior U.S. officials said.

Those doubts were relayed to British officials before they made them public and across several agencies of the federal government before Bush gave his State of the Union speech, the officials said.

CBS, ABC and CNN reported Thursday that CIA officials who saw a draft of Bush’s speech even questioned whether his statement was too strong given the quality of the British intelligence. But the remark was left in, provided it was attributed to the British.


This is a classic example of how to craft a factually accurate report to create a completely false picture, which is, of course, the essence of spin. Most news accounts began this way, before burying the details in the body of the news report.

Dissecting the Big Lie, we see the following: US intelligence expressed doubts about the British report. Bush knew in advance. Those clearly unbiased news agencies, CBS, ABC and CNN say the CIA questioned whether it was too strong but Bush left it in.

Now, as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story.

Here are the doubts expressed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The agency raised an objection to the sentence involving an allegation that Iraq was trying to obtain yellow cake uranium. The CIA had some doubts about the SPECIFIC KIND of uranium the British document alleged Saddam was trying to buy. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said Sunday that, as a consequence of that ONE objection by the CIA, Some specifics about amount and place were taken out. . . With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared, she said. The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said essentially the same thing when questioned on the same topic from Africa where he was accompanying the president during his five country tour of the Dark Continent. Now, let s revisit the offending statement from the State of the Union once more the one that gives the left the smoking gun that the president lied to the nation. (Hearing the left taking the high moral ground on an issue of presidential veracity is like listening to Larry Flynt moralizing about the exploitation of women).

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

According to Rice, the CIA had mentioned such a claim that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa in a classified National Intelligence Assessment made periodically to the president.

If the CIA the director of central intelligence had said Take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, Rice said. We have a high standard for the president s speeches.

We ve looked at the motive, (get George Bush), the charges, the evidence, and the defense. Now let s apply some common sense.

The United States had reams of intelligence about Saddam s WMD efforts in 1991. Saddam s twelve year cheat and retreat policy left nobody in doubt he had WMD s. Even Hans Blix couldn t account for 7500 liters of VX gas, 10,000 pounds of botulinim toxin, and a litany of other components. Not even the French claimed during its fight to stop the invasion of Iraq that it doubted Saddam had WMD s. The mantra at the time wasn t Saddam is innocent but rather, give inspectors more time.

Add to that the fact that the State of the Union speech comprised 5,366 words and that almost entire speech was an indictment of Iraq, and the single, vague allegation that the British had intelligence that said Saddam was trying to get uranium from Africa falls into perspective. Then ask yourself the question; how much did YOU rely on that one sentence in deciding whether or not YOU believed Saddam was a threat?

And it all falls into place.

I received an email yesterday from someone asking me how could I defend President Bush in my recent column regarding Liberia. I went back through the column and the best I could find is that my defense of the Liberia policy consisted of explaining the background of the situation. It is into this kind of fertile soil that the Big Lie can take root.

No doubt there will be some who will see this column as another defense of George Bush, since I am not at present attacking him. But this isn t a column about George Bush and when it comes to justifying the war with Iraq, whether or not Saddam was trying to get uranium from Nigeria is inconsequential. And the alleged ‘evidence’ that Bush knowingly misled the country in this instance fails the common sense test.

The world is being conditioned to accept the Big Lie, despite what the evidence of their own eyes and ears tell them. Black is white, down is up, whatever is necessary to advance whatever agenda is on the table.

Right here and right now, the agenda is Get George Bush . Under antichrist, the agenda will change. But the method won t.

And the world is embracing it with open arms.

Things That Are Different Are NOT The Same

Things That Are Different Are NOT The Same
Vol: 22 Issue: 10 Thursday, July 10, 2003

The administration and the Pentagon are beginning to sound less confident that US forces will find Saddam’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Donald Rumsfeld admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that the United States did not go to war with Saddam because of new intelligence about Saddam’s possession of banned weapons of mass destruction, but instead ousted Saddam as a direct result of the September 11 attacks.

“The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass murder,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of our experience on September 11th.”

“Aha! shouts Saddam’s cadre of Useful Idiots. “An Unjust War! Deception! There’s no Smoking Gun! LIARS!”

Rumsfeld told the Senators, “The objective in the global war on terror is to prevent another attack like September 11th, or a biological, nuclear or chemical attack that would be worse, before it happens. We can say with confidence that the world is a better place today because the United States led a coalition of forces into action in Iraq.”

Rumsfeld, together with CENTCOM commander General Tommy Franks, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in response to the liberal-inspired hysteria that is ‘investigating’ whether or not the administration ‘cooked the books’ in order to ‘justify’ going to war with Iraq.

Let me stop here. I need to disassemble this mantra into its component parts before everybody’s eyes start to glaze over.

Implicit in the liberal’s charges is the assumption that the war with Iraq REQUIRED ‘justification’ not already in evidence. THAT is why it sounds to them like they have finally ‘gotten’ George Bush. I challenge you to peruse the editorial pages on this topic. Don’t look for ‘balance’ — since there isn’t any — go ahead and indulge yourself and read both extremes.

Follow me here: On the extreme left, you’ll read that ‘Bush lied’; closer to the ‘center’ you’ll find that it was really the CIA who cooked the books; to the moderate right you’ll read defenses of the intelligence agencies and to the far right you’ll hear the mirror image to the mantras already in use by the far left.

In the end, it will degenerate into a left v right fight and the truth will simply be overlooked.

The war against Saddam Hussein was already justified. At least 18 times, if you don’t count the fact that Persian Gulf War One never actually ended. Everything else is propaganda and spin. EVERYTHING. What is amazing to me is that the entire idiotic discussion ever came up in the first place.


You will read reams of complicated explanations of the vagaries of international law arguing one side or the other. It isn’t complicated at all — and therefore is an excellent example of how to sort out truth from propaganda. Truth isn’t complicated. Truth IS.

It’s propaganda that gets complicated, since it has to take you from reality to anti-reality while making it sound sensible — hence the new term, ‘spin’.

Forget everything else and focus on reality for a second. The coalition beat Saddam to a frazzle, and promised it would stop if Saddam agreed to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction within 90 days of the day of the ceasefire. If he did not, then the war would continue.

For twelve years, the war continued with almost daily air attacks against Iraqi installations. US forces maintained a hostile presence (define ‘invasion’ here and decide WHEN America invaded Iraq) since the mid 1990’s in Northern Iraq helping the Kurds defend themselves against Saddam.

In 1998, Clinton launched ‘Operation Desert Fox” (a full-scale four day air assault) against Saddam Hussein. From 1998 to the beginning of “Operation Desert Freedom” the air assaults against Iraqi installations intensified.

Step outside the spin zone and take a deep breath of truth. Forget partisan labels and partisan agendas. You’ve been here all along as an eyewitness to the events in question.

In spite of what you’ve been told, what have you OBSERVED? As an eyewitness? When did the war against Saddam Hussein cease? In 1991?

Then how, pray tell, does one explain 1992 to the present? Answer: We were at war all along. Every action taken by the United States vis a vis Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from 1991 to the present has been an act of a warring nation against an enemy country.

Imposing embargoes is an act of war. Bombing another country’s radar installations is an act of war. Killing somebody else s soldiers is generally considered to be an act of war. Invading a portion of another country, as we did in the mid 90’s in northern Iraq, is an act of war. Seizing a portion of another country’s territory, (in both the northern and southern no fly zones) is an act of war.

Compare US-Iraq relations from 1991 to the present to US-German relations from 1941-1945 and you find they differ only in time-span and degree of force used. We fought an all-out total war against the Nazis for four years, as opposed to a twelve-year war of attrition against Iraq. That’s what common sense, a clear look at contemporary reality and an honest comparison to historical truth say.

Spin, propaganda and obfuscation all require complicated explanations of international law and proper justification for the 2003 Gulf War — making your head spin as you try to rationalize that against the witness of your own eyes that tells you the first war NEVER ended. It just slowed in pace for a while.

For the principle of the Big Lie to work, it requires a kernel of truth it can surround. In this case, the kernel of truth is that the United States fought a war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It formally ended in a cease-fire that was abrogated by Saddam 90 days later, predicating the resumption of hostilities for 12 years that have not formally ended to this day.

This explanation sounds so foreign to what everybody on both sides and in the middle is saying, and so it sounds oversimplified, but you can’t quite put your finger on exactly where. That’s because it is true and therefore, the simpler it is expressed, the harder it is to obfuscate with spin.

It is the nature of man to try and complicate the simple. It makes him feel smarter and more god-like. The first lie Satan ever told a human being was that Eve’s eyes would be opened, knowing good from evil. Indeed, said the serpent, ‘ye shall be as gods’. Humanity has forever after been incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

Salvation is simple. Yet hardly anybody gets it. People like to complicate it with formulas, admission requirements, maintenance dues and all manner of contradictory doctrines. Like being saved by grace through faith and not works while simultaneously stressing works (sin or the lack thereof) as a condition of ‘unconditional’ salvation — in between choruses of “Jesus Did It All” and “Just As I Am”.

Truth is simple. It needs no explanation. “Take heed that no man deceive you.”

Liberating Liberia?

Liberating Liberia?
Vol: 22 Issue: 9 Wednesday, July 9, 2003

The United States is still mopping up in Afghanistan. Osama bid-Laden remains at large, according to our best intelligence, and remains in al-Qaeda’s operational chain. The war with Iraq is over, but the war with Saddam Hussein has not yet been won. Dozens of US soldiers have been killed or wounded since offensive military operations came to a close on May 1. Saddam and his sons are presumed to be alive and in command of a growing anti-American resistance movement.

But the White House is considering sending US forces into the war-torn West African nation of Liberia. Why Liberia? Liberia poses no threat to any regional US interests. The civil war tearing up that country didn’t just erupt yesterday; it has been raging for more than a decade.

During his entire administration, Bill Clinton never saw fit to intervene in Liberia (or anywhere else in Africa after Somalia) even when he was in his most desperate need of a military action to draw attention away from his impending impeachment.

President Bush came to office scoffing at the idea of ‘nation-building’ and insisting that America needed to do some internal nation-building of its own. But this week, he is in the middle of a whirlwind tour of sub-Saharan Africa, discussing doing exactly that — nation-building — with the leaders of five other African countries.

And ‘liberating’ Liberia is now at the top of the Bush administration’s African agenda. So what is our ‘compelling national interest’ in Liberia — a place most Americans have only heard of peripherally — that justifies an American military intervention? And what happened to change President Bush’s attitude toward ‘nation-building’?


September 11 happened. We live in the New Normal. And in the New Normal, failed states ARE among America’s most compelling national interests. Here’s why.

Those attacks were directed from the failed state of Afghanistan that Saudi exile Osama bin-Laden directed the operations against New York, Pennsylvania and Washington.

With the probable assistance of the failed state of Iraq, with logistical support from the failed state of Syria while the failed state of Iran provides safe haven.

And while all of those failed states helped to kill our citizens, all of them were in better shape than most of Africa. None were in worse condition that Liberia.

And the US has a unique historical connection to Liberia. America invented it.

In 1821 a group of freed American slaves retraced the steps of their forebears to West Africa to start a new country.

At first the Africans didn’t want to turn over a huge hunk of land to the American blacks. But America also sent the navy. After some gunpoint negotiations with the biggest guns they had ever seen, the African blacks agreed to give it up for about $300. The country of Liberia was founded.

The emigrating blacks proceeded to organize a society around the only social structure they had experienced, that of the antebellum South. So just like the Southern whites, they set up plantations, adopted the formal dress of Southern gentry, joined the Masons, sipped bourbon on the verandas, and sent their kids abroad to school.

Liberia’s main city, Monrovia, is named after President Monroe. As for the Africans who worked the plantations, the transplanted former American slaves called them “aborigines.”

For more than a century, Liberia was a model of stability. Liberia is rich in both diamonds and rubber. Firestone owns the world’s largest rubber plantation there. Liberia was a functioning republic for almost 150 years. Unlike most West African states, Liberian rulers were elected in peaceful democratic elections.

Elected Liberian officials could expect to die peacefully in their beds of natural causes, and not violently in office at the hands of their countrymen. Liberian President William Tubman was the last Liberian president to die of natural causes in 1971. His successor, William Tolbert, was murdered in his presidential bed in April 1980 by HIS successor, Samuel Doe.

Doe rounded up all the Liberian aristocracy, (descendants of Liberia’s American founders) and had them shot in a festive celebration by the new ‘aborigine’ leadership.

Doe was murdered by his opponents, who in their turn were deposed in similar fashion by the current president, Charles Taylor. Taylor is a graduate of Benton College, Massachusetts and an escapee from the Plymouth County House of Corrections in Massachusetts and a fugitive from American justice.

Taylor’s Liberia is the perfect breeding ground for al-Qaeda. AFRICA is a perfect breeding ground for terrorism. The White House intervention in Africa is pre-emptive self-defense.

(Even if the UN does agree, which is something that always makes me nervous).

Bush is hoping to develop a sort of supra-national African organization that can pull the failed states of Africa together before they begin exporting terror to the West. And in so doing, is setting the stage for the development of the fourth sphere of world power prophesied by the Bible for the last days.

Scripture identifies the overarching superpower led by the antichrist as a revived form of the Roman Empire (EU).

Ezekiel speaks of the Gog-Magog alliance of nations, out of the ‘north’ (Russia) allied with the nations of the Middle East and North Africa.

The Apostle John identifies a massive 200 million strong military alliance called the ‘Kings of the East’ [China and (maybe?) North Korea].

But Daniel speaks of a fourth sphere of global influence in the last days. The Kings of the South.

“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him [antichrist]” (Daniel 11:40)

Tick, tick, tick.

A Tale of Two Headlines

A Tale of Two Headlines
Vol: 22 Issue: 8 Tuesday, July 8, 2003

Two competing headlines got my attention this morning. The first screamed “White House Says Iraq Uranium Claim an Error”; while the other said, “Iran Confirms Test of Missile That is Able to Hit Israel.” Something about seeing both headlines side by side put me in mind of one of those diet pill ads where one sees the ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures.

The liberal press is positively gleeful in reporting that the White House admitted an error in its intelligence. The Washington Post opened its story with this breathless news tease; “The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.”

Does it sound to you like the Washington Post has caught the administration in a lie? That is what it is SUPPOSED to sound like. Reading further into the story, the Post makes it clear that isn’t what it was saying, but for those who are looking for confirmation of anything negative against George Bush, the first paragraph is all they needed to read.

According to the Post, the “administration’s statement capped months of turmoil over the uranium episode during which senior officials have been forced to defend the president’s remarks in the face of growing reports that they were based on faulty intelligence.”

Here’s a refresher on the background. As part of his case against Iraq, Bush said in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28 that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Notice something here first. In his speech, Bush said the ‘British government’ had intelligence information about ‘quantities of uranium from Africa.’

The Post reported; “The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council in March that the uranium story — which centered on documents alleging Iraqi efforts to buy the material from Niger — was based on forged documents.”

Ok, let’s connect the dots the way the Post did. Bush referenced a report from BRITISH intelligence. Then the IAEA said TWO MONTHS AFTER the State of the Union speech that the documents the US relied on were forgeries.

Then the Post delivers its lightning thrust; “Although the administration did not dispute the IAEA’s conclusion, it launched the war against Iraq later that month.” Ipso facto George Bush is a liar — or so one would conclude from reading the Post’s story.

Somehow, the Post was able to infer from a British parliamentary report CLEARING Tony Blair of deception that somehow, it makes Bush a liar. But the same report admitted (deep in the bowels of the article) that there were several other reports that also indicated Saddam was seeking uranium, not just from Niger, but also from Namibia and Gabon.

Only the Niger report was alleged to be a forgery — the other two remain unconfirmed either way, and the Post says only that ‘some’ government analysts do not consider those reports credible either. But look at what the President said, in his speech, again.

It reminds me of a joke — stop me if I’ve told this one before.

Bush and the Pope are out fishing in a boat on the Potomac when the Pope’s hat blew off. Bush leaps up, steps off the boat, walks ACROSS the surface of the water, bends up and retrieves the Pope’s hat, and walks back to the boat, gets in, and hands the astonished Pope his hat back — in full view of the assembled press corps. The next morning, the Post’s headline read, “George Bush Can’t Swim.”


The second headline that got my attention was the one that noted Iran had developed a missile capable of hitting Israel. Iran is also seeking nuclear weaponry, except that Iran already has nuclear reactors, nuclear scientists, is believed very close to having a nuclear weapon already and has made no secret of its visceral hatred of the also-nuclear Jewish state.

But in this report, the Bush administration isn’t doing enough, unlike the Iraq situation in which the administration is being blamed for doing too much — except there was far more evidence for Iraq’s WMD than there is for Iran’s.

Unless and until the Bush administration actually DOES something about the Iranian threat. I submit that the moment that happens, the liberal mainstream will begin questioning the very intelligence information it now reports as fact.

To the liberal left, America’s security is secondary to the destruction of George Bush and evidently, no price is too high to pay. When Bush invaded Iraq, the liberals complained, ‘What about Iran?’ ‘What about North Korea?’

Had Bush gone after either Iran or North Korea, the liberals would be screaming, ‘What about Iraq?’ It isn’t about security — it’s about deception.

I highlight this story because it is such a subtle example of deception by truth-telling. The story selectively (subliminally) suggested that because US intelligence was questionable about the Nigeria connection, the Bush administration was ‘deceptive.’

But they accurately quote the President’s State of the Union speech where he clearly says Bush was relying on BRITISH intelligence. While the story mentions that a British parliamentary committee concluded that Tony Blair’s government (who relied on the same intel Bush cited) was NOT deceiving Parliament, somehow, they conclude Bush was deceiving America, in a speech made two months BEFORE the intelligence was discredited.

There is no more evidence that the Bush administration cooked the books than there is that Blair did. The British parliament (and people) were far more divided about the Iraq evidence than Americans were, and British politics is much more reckless than in America. But even in that climate, British lawmakers couldn’t find evidence that Blair was deceptive.

The reason the mainstream press is assuming guilt until innocence is proven is because it isn’t about Iraq. Or Iran. Or America’s security. Or uncovering the truth. It’s about George Bush and Election 2000. It’s about deception and the principle of the Big Lie. ‘Bush lied about Iraq’ is the latest eye-glazing, mind-numbing mantra.

People believe what they want to believe. Facts are either evidence to support the preconception, or are obstacles to be marginalized away.

‘Bush lied about Iraq.’ Tell it often enough, and it becomes the ‘truth’. And once that happens, no amount of evidence will be enough to convince you otherwise.

That’s just how it works. And the liberals know that.

‘Bush lied about Iraq.’ Convinced, yet?

Special Report: Taking Sides in the Culture War

Special Report: Taking Sides in the Culture War
Vol: 22 Issue: 7 Monday, July 7, 2003

Nobody is immune to the power of the Big Lie, it would appear. Not even the allegedly conservative Supreme Court that the liberals love to complain about.

The left has long feared a conservative majority would spell the end of such legal debauchery as abortion on demand, homosexual rights, reverse discrimination, and coming soon, legal polygamy, incest, and maybe bestiality.

Liberals never saw a practice they didn t like or a prohibition they didn t loathe. Unless it was the prohibition against public worship of the God of the Bible. The public worship of Allah, Buddah, Vishnu, Zoroaster or Satan are protected under the 1st Amendment.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thusly: All forms of religious expression are legal except those based in Judeo-Christianity.

In striking down the Texas law forbidding sodomy, the Court cited European law as a precedent.

In deciding Lawrence v Texas the Court overturned its own ruling of 17 years earlier, ruling that when it upheld the sodomy laws then, it did so without relying on the views of a wider civilization.

Justice Breyer wrote in his decision that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

In other words, since the French have no problem with homosexual conduct, the Supreme Court s earlier decision was flawed. That s not all. Justice Breyer is just one of a growing number of Supremes who believe that the Constitution itself is flawed and unlikely to survive the 21st century.

Speaking on ABC News, Breyer told George Stephanopolis, “We see all the time, Justice O’Connor and I, and the others, how the world really it’s trite but it’s true is growing together. . . Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it’s becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they’re going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.”

Pay attention to that last quote there is a lot in it, considering it comes from one of the nine justices who have taken unto themselves the right to create law, rather than simply interpreting it.

The Constitution, argues Justice Breyer, isn t one-world enough, since it seems clear to him (and other members of the Court) that a one-world government is just around the corner.

Asked to explain what he meant when he said judges who favor a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution can’t justify their practices by claiming that’s what the framers wanted, Breyer responded: “I meant that the extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you’re talking about. When you look at the word ‘two’ for two representatives from every state in the United States Senate, two means two.

But when you look like a word look at a word like ‘interstate commerce,’ which they didn’t have automobiles in mind, or they didn’t have airplanes in mind, or telephones, or the Internet, or you look at a word like ‘liberty,’ and they didn’t have in mind at that time the problems of privacy brought about, for example, by the Internet and computers. You realize that the framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed.”

Let’s look at that again: The framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed?

What the heck does that mean? ( Hi. I m schizophrenic and so am I. )

Constant values that would change in their application . . . — we let this guy interpret the law? If they are constant values, then they don t change that s what makes them constant values!

The liberals complain about stacking the Supreme Court with conservative judges that they fear will undo the great gains they ve made over the last generation. They are particularly fearful that a more conservative court might reverse itself over abortion, perhaps deciding that it was mistaken to promote sodomy while endorsing killing off the next generation.

Because that is where the Supreme Court stands now. The unnatural (and decidedly unproductive) practice of sodomy is ok, killing children in the womb is ok . . .do you see a pattern here?

What next? A ruling condemning immigration laws because we need foreign workers to help pay social security benefits to the generation that didn t leave any kids behind to do it for them?

One of the court s actual conservatives, Antonin Scalia, was scathing in his dissention, which, unfortunately, was the minority view.

Today’s opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. . . This court has taken sides in the culture war.”


For years, there s been a debate raging within the Church about the United States and whether or not it plays any role in the last days. Where IS the world s most powerful nation during the last days before the return of Christ? I ve been unable to locate any reference to it.

And those who claim they have are not very convincing using vague Scripture references that could be interpreted as many ways as the Supreme Court interprets the word constant .

Maybe America IS in there, but we can t recognize it. It is possible.

If the Framers of the Constitution were to read recent Supreme Court rulings, they d wonder where America went, too.

Bodyguard of Lies

Bodyguard of Lies
Vol: 22 Issue: 4 Friday, July 4, 2003

If you follow what the mainstream press has been reporting about the war with Iraq (and believed it) your view would be approximately this: President George Bush, still angry over Saddam s attempt to kill his daddy in 1993, ran for President for the express purpose of avenging the Bush family honor.

To do so, he had to steal the White House away from the real winner, Al Gore, and then concoct a case against Saddam Hussein.

While he was asleep at the switch, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Bush then illegally attacked the Taleban in Afghanistan and plunged the country into a Vietnam-style quagmire.

Bush didn t do enough to prevent 9/11 and now he s created Big Brother in the form of the Department of Homeland Security that is doing too much spying.

After failing to prevent 9/11, Bush then shredded the Constitution by investigating terror suspects based on their religion and ethnicity.

Bush used the war on terror to build his questionable case against Saddam Hussein by scaring the American public into falsely thinking Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he might use against American targets.

Ignoring the much more pressing threats posed by al-Qaeda and North Korea, Bush recklessly committed America to a dangerous adventurist policy, invading Iraq without any real provocation, apart from the fact he wanted to make his father proud of him and avenge the family honor.

Once the attack began, Bush ordered US forces to move too fast, stretched its supply lines too thin, met fierce resistance from defending Iraqi forces and was ultimately beaten to a standstill near the Karbala Pass.

Far from being greeted by Iraqis with open arms and flowers, the Americans were almost annihilated but ultimately overcame resistance, although not without casualties.

Saddam Hussein escaped because of faulty American intelligence to later wreak havoc on US forces, forcing America into its own sort of Israeli-Arab conflict situation, prompting a political cartoon of Donald Rumsfeld surrounded by reporters asking, Is it Vietnam yet? .

America is the Occupying Force in Iraq and the big question is whether or not Washington can win the peace.

Sound about right?

It does if you get your news from the mainstream.

If you were to sit down and write out what you have learned about Bush and Saddam and the administration based exclusively on what you heard in the mainstream, it makes you wonder how Bush avoided impeachment.

The same mainstream-based executive summary of Bill Clinton s presidency paints his administration as the most unfairly persecuted and successful administrations of the 20th century. . .


This is the first draft of the introduction to “Bodyguard of Lies”. Thought I’d give you a peek and see what you think.

Praise the Lord, I’ve actually started it!!! Thanks to Joy Dass, Joe Wynne and Ed Mlynar for helping me pick up the slack with the web summaries. You guys are unsung heroes — thanks to you, I’ve been able to finish the outline and actually begin the manuscript.

And thanks to the rest of you, I have a whole weekend to flesh things out.

I’ll keep you abreast of how its going in the forums. Thanks for being my friends.

God bless you all.