MAY PEACE PREVAIL ON EARTH
February 28, 2003
The Writing On The Wall Series #15: Unmistakable Signs of Mass Crookedness
Here is a final one for this - once again! - quite busy week.
Feel free to share with others ;-)
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
To subscribe at no cost to the Earth Rainbow Network e-list, go at http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/ERNlist.htm.
This compilation is archived at http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/Archives2003/WritingWall15.htm
Check also my latest Media Compilation #118: The Great Liberator-in-Chief Wants to Save the World" archived at http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/Archives2003/MediaCompilation118.htm
IMPORTANT NOTE: I failed to note in yesterday's Rising Phoenix Series #22: Reaffirming Love and Compassion Over Anger and Fear (archived at http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/Archives2003/RisingPhoenix22.htm), that the first item entitled "This is a pivotal week" mistakenly indicated that the proposed Meditation this coming Sunday morning was on March 1. Sunday is actually March 2nd. The meditation times are the same as usual and will thus coincide with the current Meditation Focus #82: Redressing The Balance In Our Global Priorities (archived at http://www.aei.ca/~cep/MeditationFocus82.htm). Interestingly, a French subscribers to this English list has translated it in French. I did forward it to the ERN French list and you can download this French version of "This is a pivotal week" at http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/semainecle.htm
"None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."
- Johann Goethe
1. Some important European poll results
2. Chemical Brothers: Bush Magic Turns Medicines Into Munitions
3. Bush's speech signaled the end of rule of law
4. BUSH BRIBES BLAIR FOR UK SUPPORT
5. Robert Fisk: How the news will be censored in this war
6. Bush Photos
The Defector's Secret (MUST READ!)
Before his death, a key defector said Iraq had destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons but had retained the design and engineering details of its WMD
Do You Want This War? (March 3, Time Magazine cover issue)
The Surrender Of MSNBC (Feb 25 - They pulled the plug this week on Phil Donohue's anti-war TV Show!)
Leaked internal report says "Donahue presented a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."
Exposing NORAD's Wag The 911 Window Dressing Tale (a MUST see!)
Coalition of the willing? Make that war criminals (Feb 26) http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/25/1046064028608.html
A pre-emptive strike on Iraq would constitute a crime against humanity, write 43 experts on international law and human rights. (...) it would be a fundamental violation of international law.
U.S. on Diplomatic Warpath (Feb 24)
Senior U.S. officials have been quietly dispatched in recent days to the capitals of key Security Council countries where they are warning leaders to vote with the United States on Iraq or risk "paying a heavy price."
US Assures Israel That Syria And Iran Are Next (Feb 19)
Israeli Newspaper Exposes US Plans
Rebellion (Feb 12)
According to UN estimates over 10 million Iraqis will be killed, injured, displaced or traumatized by the U.S. war of aggression. It is highly likely that U.S. military intelligence figures coincide. Washington has put in place a military plan involving hundreds of war planes and a sea armada directed to dropping thousands of tons of explosives on Iraqi cities, towns, essential infrastructure and defense installations. The mass media around the world report each and every ground, air and sea deployment in greater or lesser specificity. U.S. public officials openly speak of the systematic destruction, plunder and prolonged occupation of Iraq. Genocide - massive, systematic destruction of a people and a nation - is planned down to the last tactical detail. The minutely calculated costs of troop movements, bombing and population displacement is determined by economists who then estimate the war's impact on the national budget, future oil revenues, and the length of the occupation and its projected costs. This is scientific pre-meditated genocide, similar to what took place in Nazi Germany at the Wannsee Conference of January 1942 when the high command decided on extermination of the Jews. The major difference with the Nazi experience is that Washington's decision on genocide precedes the war and is widely publicized in public documents and in official speeches by its executioners. CLIP
United Nations: Over One Million Iraqi Children Might Die in War (Feb 13)
A newly-obtained confidential UN document predicts that 30 percent of children under 5 in Iraq, or 1.26 million, "would be at risk of death from malnutrition" in the event of a war. The draft document, "Integrated Humanitarian Contingency Plan for Iraq and Neighbouring Countries", was produced by the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on January 7, 2003. Its release comes as aid agencies and government representatives meet urgently in Geneva to discuss humanitarian operations in the event of war."
Our Designated Killers, 'Where Is the Outrage?' (Feb 14) http://villagevoice.com/issues/0308/hentoff.php
The disciplined Bush administration strives continually to keep out of the news those of its security operations that are creating what The Washington Post accurately and ominously describes as an "alternative legal system." Or, as I call it, "a shadow Constitution."
List of names of 655 cities where protests took place last February 15
This provides estimates of numbers who took part - however it misses hundreds of still smaller locations where action was not recorded.
To feel the magnitude of what happened on Feb 15th visit http://hyperreal.org/~dana
These pictures are worth more than all words and numbers you may have heard in presenting the reach of this peace movement across the world.
101 Ways to Stop the War in Iraq
Both the Military and the Spooks are Opposed to War on Iraq (Feb 24) (MUST READ!)
Blair hasn't even convinced his own security establishment. Why now? The question is of course being asked by those opposed to a war against Iraq, and those who have not made up their minds. But it has also been asked by one of the most senior Whitehall officials at the centre of the fight against terrorism.
National guard to protect American bases in UK (Feb 25)
Armed troops from the American national guard - some from as far away as Puerto Rico - are being sent to protect US bases in Britain in the event of a war against Iraq.
If not war then what?
30 high-profile opponents of military action offer their alternatives.
Export of arms criticised (Feb 27)
Some important European poll results
* Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time
* Spain: 80% opposed to war at all, 91% against attack without UN resolution
* Italy: 72% opposed to war
* Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now
* Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances
* Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances
* Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate
* Australia: 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq
* Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops
* Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force
* Macedonia: only 10% support war on Iraq
* Bulgaria: only 21% support war
* Estonia: only 30% support war
* Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers
* Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour
The Gallup International survey, upon which many of the figures cited above are based, also found that of the 41 countries surveyed, "half of [the] population is not in favour of military action under any circumstances." Also, one in five Americans were found to be "against military action under any circumstances.", and another one in five against invasion with UN support Notably, the poll also found that people worldwide are more worried about the "gap between the rich and poor" more than any other issue, including terrorism.
Much more details at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/835
February 24, 2003
Chemical Brothers: Bush Magic Turns Medicines Into Munitions
by CHRIS FLOYD
Six million marched for peace last week, but the Bush Regime and the Blair Regency were unmoved by this outburst from the ignorant rabble. Instead, the righteous leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" (or COW) declared that no power on earth will halt their holy quest to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his chemical weapons.
Strange, then, to see one of COW's biggest bovines -- Pentagon warlord Donald "Squinty" Rumsfeld -- informing the dazed and docile rubberstamps of Congress of his intention to assault Iraq with, er, chemical weapons.
Rumsfeld told Congress he has asked COW head George W. Bush to sign a special waiver allowing American forces to use biochemical weapons against Iraqi troops and civilians in the upcoming stampede into Iraq, UPI reports. What's more, the COW chemicals would be launched unilaterally, as part of the standard Rules of Engagement -- and not merely in retaliation for an attack with similar weapons by Saddam.
In his extraordinary testimony -- entirely ignored by the mainstream American media, natch -- Rumsfeld openly complained about the onerous restrictions imposed on American forces by the stupid old Chemical Weapons Convention that the U.S. signed -- indeed, initiated -- many years ago. Rumsfeld told the Congressfolk of his deep "regret" that the U.S. had "tangled ourselves up so badly" with all that sissy-mary malarkey in the first place. But now, thank God, a real brush-clearin', pretzel-chompin' he-man is sitting on top of the COW, so Squinty is sure to get that waiver.
What Squinty wants to do is unleash a barrage of so-called "non-lethal" biochemical weapons against any godless Ayrab stupid enough to resist the incoming herd. This array of incapacitators -- or to use the Pentagon's quaint term, "calmatives" -- will include fighting pharmaceuticals developed by the world's leading drug companies. True, the weaponization of medicine is something of a departure from the Hippocratic Oath -- but what's health and healing when your COW is calling you to war? Anyway, isn't the Hippocratic Oath -- like the CWC, the ABM Treaty, the UN Charter, the Bill of Rights, indeed, the very notion of law itself -- outmoded in the new Bush imperium?
Rumsfeld hopes to emulate the glorious success of Russian security forces, who used "non-lethal calmatives" to liberate the Nord-Ost hostages from their captors -- and from the bonds of earthly existence as well. But there's one slight hitch: the Russians' employment of "calmatives" -- however blundering and murderous -- was legal under international law, which permits the use of "crowd-control devices" in domestic, law enforcement situations. But the use of any chemical weapon against people in wartime -- no matter how supposedly non-lethal it might be -- is expressly forbidden by a number of international treaties, all signed by the United States.
Not only that: the very production of such combat weapons is prohibited -- which is supposedly why COW is on its high horse about Iraq. Squinty knows this, of course; that's why he and COW head Bush have quietly shifted funding authority for "calmative" research from Pentagon coffers to John Ashcroft's Justice Department -- it gives "domestic" cover to the military program. Meanwhile, Squinty proudly notes that production of "delivery systems" for the weaponized drugs is rolling right along: the COW invaders will be able to use both an unmanned "loitering vehicle" -- which hovers in the air and sprays brain-deadening and gut-wrenching juice over all and sundry -- and a good-old fashioned mortar shell loaded with chemical cocktails.
Rumsfeld painted the deployment of field chemical weapons as a "humanitarian gesture," but here too there's a slight hitch. "There is no way known to medical science that can put large numbers of people to sleep without killing a sizable percentage of them," as Harvard biology professor and biochemical weapons expert Matt Meselson told The Nation. This is particularly disturbing in the light of Pentagon documents obtained by The Sunshine Project, a Texas-based group devoted to biochemical warfare issues, detailing the actual plans for the weapons.
The papers, produced by the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, stress a concern for "target discrimination." Like so many Pentagon terms, this phrase actually means the opposite: the weapons do not discriminate among targets -- civilian from soldier, for example -- they simply knock out (or kill) everyone within range, allowing COW troops to move in afterwards and discriminate the victims into piles of "bad guys" and unlucky innocent bystanders. This is considered particularly effective in urban warfare, although the JNLWD papers do note that "soldiers would probably have to be trained to refrain from killing persons already incapacitated with chemical weapons." Well, let's hope so, anyway.
Rumsfeld, of course, knows his way around drugs. He was chairman of two major pharmaceutical firms, including G.D. Searle, which later merged with Monsanto which then merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn and is now merged with Pfizer, creating of the world's great googily-moogily conglomerations of medical loot. Doubtless, Squinty dumped any remaining shares in these various interlocking combines when he cashed out his $95 million worth of corporate holdings upon taking office in 2001 -- or rather, many, many months after taking office and overseeing programs like, well, the weaponization of pharmaceuticals (before the program's hugger-mugger shift to Ashcroft).
He's also well-acquainted with the use of chemical weapons in combat. Back in 1983, when the UN first revealed that Saddam Hussein was exchanging biochemical unpleasantries with Iran, Rumsfeld himself was kicking back in Baghdad, bringing fraternal greetings to Saddam from the wise and pious leaders of the West: Ronald Reagan -- and some guy named George Bush.
Chris Floyd is a columnist for the Moscow Times and a regular contributor to CounterPunch. He can be reached at: email@example.com
Rumsfeld Refuses To Rule Out Unleashing Nuclear Weapons (!!!)
War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq. The Bush Administration is seeking large increases in funding to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. And the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the White House has considerably lowered the threshold for using nuclear weapons. A first strike nuclear attack by the U.S. is now a possibility.
Bush's speech signaled the end of rule of law
By Craig Barnes, Santa Fe N.M.
February 23, 2003
When I grew up on the plains of eastern Colorado, I walked across wheat fields to a little three-room country school. I slept on summer nights under the cottonwoods, raised chickens and sheep and some days rode horses like the wind flying across the prairies. In school, we had three classes in the same room, but I learned what we thought were the values of America.
I learned that we had saved the world from the aggressions of Hitler and Japanese warlords, that we, as a principle, resisted imperialism and contained communism. That we had fostered the United Nations, were champions of international law and descendants of a new order for the ages, a country in which law was above the king. In that little red brick school house we learned of George Washington's self restraint, Abraham Lincoln's essential kindness, Woodrow Wilson's search for the rule of international law, the generosity of Truman's Marshall Plan.
I learned that when World War II was over we supported the Nuremberg principles and incorporated them into treaties outlawing the practice of killing civilians indiscriminately in war. I learned that people were not to be judged by the color of their skins or their religions, or condemned for their political associations and that the great gift of the American republic was to hold high the flag of equal dignity. We did not blame the German people for the crimes of Hitler, nor the Japanese as a people for the crimes of Hirohito. We fed the hungry, we granted courts of law to the wicked, even to war criminals.
When I served in the U.S. Army infantry in the 1960s I learned that we would oppose illegal aggression but never become aggressors ourselves. I learned that we depended upon the rationality of leaders in the Soviet Union and that they depended upon us for the rationality not to commit mutual suicide. I learned that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.
On Jan. 28, in one speech, George W. Bush threw away and rejected all this that I had learned. He scorned the rationality of his opponents, scorned the diplomatic process, scorned containment, condemned deterrence, declared the right of pre-emptive aggressive war, implied a willingness to use nuclear weapons first and authored a new doctrine of American imperialism for the Middle East.
He dismissed 50-year-old treaties banning aggression, stating that we would attack when we wished, and explicitly rejected the legal pre-requirement that the threat to us be "imminent," knowingly mocking international law.
He narrowed his eyes and stated his intention to kill terrorist suspects, wherever he finds them, upon suspicion, without trial. He endorsed guilt by association as the test of criminality, a willingness to kill people for their association with al-Qaeda, without actual proof of their intention or action. He will track down and kill his targets, undoubtedly based upon the color of their skin and their religion, wherever in the world he might find them and whenever he might suspect them.
The small band of ideologues who seized the presidency in Florida two years ago have now demonstrated with what mind they were willing to use shouting crowds, mob intimidation and force. This State of the Union speech was a product of the same mind. Carefully inserted under the superficial heading of Iraq and terror was artfully embedded an agenda that has been dogging the moderate Republican Party ever since World War II.
When Bush used the word "containment" and explicitly renounced that concept, he rejected the centrist foreign policies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan. When he used the word "rationality," and specifically rejected that approach, he scorned the core principle of deterrence that has guided every president in the nuclear age.
When he looked the world in the eye and said he would not abide by the United Nations, he rejected the 50-year old foundation of world order. When he said he would not hesitate to cause the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, he endorsed the idea of collective responsibility, a violation of the Nuremberg principles. When he said that he would track down and kill people whom he imagined were terrorists, without trial, without evidence or proof, he rejected the foundation of American democracy, that we are a nation of law.
It is as if, in Florida two years ago, the NRA had seized the government and suspicion, malice and bravado had become our flag. This State of the Union was the bold declaration of the extreme conservative victory they have sought for a generation.
Jan. 28, 2003, is therefore apt to be remembered as a watershed day in American history, a day of infamy reminiscent of Pearl Harbor. This time the infamy is the conquest of bravado and guns over restraint and decency, imperialism and militarism over the rule of law, the extreme right over the moderate center. This speech was not so much a declaration of war against Iraq as the announcement of the long-sought victory over what the president scornfully in his speech called "process" and we call democracy.
This passionate regard for the use of force rather than process is what drove the explicit rejection in the speech of all those code words, all those "soft" policies of the past. This was intended to be the Krystalnacht of post-war American liberalism and the uncowed declaration of American pre-eminence in the world.
Call it the Grand Reversal of 2003 and prepare for the war it launches, not only in Iraq, but in the hearts and minds of broad middle America, those who went to ordinary schools, those who are not elite - those who need democracy to survive.
Craig S. Barnes is a former Denver lawyer who ran unsuccessfully as a Democratic candidate for Congress in 1970. He has negotiated nuclear issues in Moscow, ethnic cleansing issues in the Caucasus and water agreements for the U.S. in Central Asia. His memoir, "Growing Up True," is the story of his school days in rural Colorado.
The Stories the Shadow Government Hopes You Don't Learn
BUSH BRIBES BLAIR FOR UK SUPPORT
Cloak and Dagger has been contacted by reliable bank investigators who have uncovered evidence that British PM Blair was involved in criminal bribery. Blair accepted large bribes from the Bush oil interests.
The evidence consists of bank transfers from George Bush financial interests to PM Blair's personal accounts via the United Arab Emirates where the investigations into criminal bribery against Blair began.
The purpose of the bribery is so that the United Kingdom's PM would be sure to go along with Bush's plan to forcibly seize the Iraqi oil fields while also unseating strongman Saddam Hussein. Part of the bribery plan was to use the Oil fields for collateral to support an out of control US deficit.
In recent months the Cloak and Dagger program has exclusively presented on air, details from the moderator and producer Sherman Skolnick, of a Chicago Public Access Cable TV program. Bank investigators have shown senior French diplomats documents that corroborate the following.
The documents support the following:
 A year and a half ago, Daddy Bush sent 16 Billion Dollars to Tony Blair. Sent via Carlyle Group which had Daddy Bush as a paid senior consultant. Daddy Bush has been a paid senior consultant, to among others, the Bin Laden Group, the family of Osama bin Laden. THEY are NOT on the outs with Osama who receives huge funding through a major Saudi Bank from his family as well as several Saudi Princes. A former UK PM is a director of Carlyle Group.
 The funds were payable to Tony Blair via a financial entity in the United Arab Emirates. The situation supports the contention that the Bush Crime Family plan has been long in the making. The Iraqi oilfields are, under the Bush/Blair scheme, to be seized and used as collateral to underwrite the huge growing U.S. deficit that is getting out of control as a result of the Bush Family's massive scheme to cut taxes of the most wealthy in the U.S.
 Further, for huge private profit, Blair arranged to ship items to North Korea to facilitate their nuclear capabilities. The items were shipped via Royal Jordanian Airlines. Same way in which Hillary Rodham Clinton did the same. Visit previous parts of my series on "The Overthrow of the American Republic". Late Tuesday, according to a news report from London, Blair is not any longer pushing for a pre-emptive soon-to-occur attack on Iraq. Threats of scandal and black mail works.
 The documents had been at the residence of Alan Greenspan. On January 16, 2003, the Bush Crime Family/American CIA "black bag" team in a break-in at his residence searched for the same. They were foiled, however, in that his wife, Andrea Mitchell, senior Washington correspondent for NBC, had just previous thereto removed the documents to another location. Remember: when the shuttle Columbia was downed, February 1, 2003, Andrea Mitchell made a strange network-broadcast statement that after the January 28, 1986 explosion of shuttle Challenger, Ronald Reagan used it as a disaster of convenience to divert attention from the impeachable offenses he committed as to Iran-Contra. Only dunderheads would not get the obvious analogy to the shuttle Columbia downing.
 All this plainly shows there is a serious division in the Aristocracy, one faction having corruptly installed George W. Bush, the other faction restraining him by every means short of openly arresting him for treason, such as Bush having been blackmailed into giving U.S. Military secrets to a sworn enemy of the U.S., namely the Red Chinese Secret Police. More Information:
1- The scheme to grab Iraqi oil fields was in the works over a year and a half ago when several billion dollars was transferred to bank accounts set up for the private benefit of Blair.
2- Another document shows that Blair and his wife privately profited for arranging for North Korea to have nuclear capability. Skolnick also has stated on his TV show including broadcasting documents showing Hilary Clinton, now U.S. Senator Democrat New York, likewise privately profited from the treasonous North Korean deal. Stay tuned for more Cloak and Dagger exclusive news of this story as it develops.
Robert Fisk: How the news will be censored in this war
A new CNN system of 'script approval' suggests the Pentagon will have nothing to worry about
25 February 2003
Already, the American press is expressing its approval of the coverage of American forces which the US military intends to allow its reporters in the next Gulf war. The boys from CNN, CBS, ABC and The New York Times will be "embedded" among the US marines and infantry. The degree of censorship hasn't quite been worked out. But it doesn't matter how much the Pentagon cuts from the reporters' dispatches. A new CNN system of "script approval" the iniquitous instruction to reporters that they have to send all their copy to anonymous officials in Atlanta to ensure it is suitably sanitised suggests that the Pentagon and the Department of State have nothing to worry about. Nor do the Israelis.
Indeed, reading a new CNN document, "Reminder of Script Approval Policy", fairly takes the breath away. "All reporters preparing package scripts must submit the scripts for approval," it says. "Packages may not be edited until the scripts are approved... All packages originating outside Washington, LA (Los Angeles) or NY (New York), including all international bureaus, must come to the ROW in Atlanta for approval." The date of this extraordinary message is 27 January. The "ROW" is the row of script editors in Atlanta who can insist on changes or "balances" in the reporter's dispatch. "A script is not approved for air unless it is properly marked approved by an authorised manager and duped (duplicated) to burcopy (bureau copy)... When a script is updated it must be re-approved, preferably by the originating approving authority."
Note the key words here: "approved" and "authorised". CNN's man or woman in Kuwait or Baghdad or Jerusalem or Ramallah may know the background to his or her story; indeed, they will know far more about it than the "authorities" in Atlanta. But CNN's chiefs will decide the spin of the story.
CNN, of course, is not alone in this paranoid form of reporting. Other US networks operate equally anti-journalistic systems. And it's not the fault of the reporters. CNN's teams may use clichés and don military costumes you will see them do this in the next war but they try to get something of the truth out. Next time, though, they're going to have even less chance.
Just where this awful system leads is evident from an intriguing exchange last year between CNN's reporter in the occupied West Bank town of Ramallah, and Eason Jordan, one of CNN's top honchos in Atlanta.
The journalist's first complaint was about a story by the reporter Michael Holmes on the Red Crescent ambulance drivers who are repeatedly shot at by Israeli troops. "We risked our lives and went out with ambulance drivers... for a whole day. We have also witnessed ambulances from our window being shot at by Israeli soldiers... The story received approval from Mike Shoulder. The story ran twice and then Rick Davis (a CNN executive) killed it. The reason was we did not have an Israeli army response, even though we stated in our story that Israel believes that Palestinians are smuggling weapons and wanted people in the ambulances."
The Israelis refused to give CNN an interview, only a written statement. This statement was then written into the CNN script. But again it was rejected by Davis in Atlanta. Only when, after three days, the Israeli army gave CNN an interview did Holmes's story run but then with the dishonest inclusion of a line that said the ambulances were shot in "crossfire" (ie that Palestinians also shot at their own ambulances).
The reporter's complaint was all too obvious. "Since when do we hold a story hostage to the whims of governments and armies?We were told by Rick that if we do not get an Israeli on-camera we would not air the package. This means that governments and armies are indirectly censoring us and we are playing directly into their own hands."
The relevance of this is all too obvious in the next Gulf War. We are going to have to see a US army officer denying everything the Iraqis say if any report from Iraq is to get on air. Take another of the Ramallah correspondent's complaints last year. In a package on the damage to Ramallah after Israel's massive incursion last April, "we had already mentioned right at the top of our piece that Israel says it is doing all these incursions because it wants to crack down on the infrastructure of terror. However, obviously that was not enough. We were made by the ROW (in Atlanta) to repeat this same idea three times in one piece, just to make sure that we keep justifying the Israeli actions..."
But the system of "script approval" that has so marred CNN's coverage has got worse. In a further and even more sinister message dated 31 January this year, CNN staff are told that a new computerised system of script approval will allow "authorised script approvers to mark scripts (ie reports) in a clear and standard manner. Script EPs (executive producers) will click on the coloured APPROVED button to turn it from red (unapproved) to green (approved). When someone makes a change in the script after approval, the button will turn yellow." Someone? Who is this someone? CNN's reporters aren't told.
But when we recall that CNN revealed after the 1991 Gulf War that it had allowed Pentagon "trainees" into the CNN newsroom in Atlanta, I have my suspicions.
REALLY FUNNY PICS!
Date: 24 Feb 2003
Subject: Bush Photos ...
Some of these are absolutely hilarious. These need to be spread to the far corners of the Earth so that the people of the world recognize that we don't take Bush at face value. We delve DEEP into his real persona. We recognize his leadership qualities.
Definition of terrorism: "The use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives."
- Quoted from a Legislation Against Terrorism in Norther Ireland - see paragraph 3.15 in http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-03.htm
Whose recent conduct fits this description?
SUBSCRIPTION TO THE EARTH RAINBOW NETWORK E-LIST
If you would like to subscribe to the Earth Rainbow Network automated listserver and regularly receive similar compilations covering a broad range of subjects, including each new Meditation Focus issued every two week, please click on this SUBSCRIPTION page.
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE