 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: parallel universe stuff - 11
Viewing all 2 messages - View by pages of 10: 1
Original Message 1/2 03-Nov-05 @ 06:13 PM - parallel universe stuff - 11
TURN ON COMPUTER // TUNE IN TO FREED SPIRIT OF INTERNET
// TAKE OVER!
"WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE
JUST GIVE HIM A BLOW JOB
SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM?!"
- a sign carried in a Washington demo.
UP!
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
u cant understand the world without innerstanding yourself
UP! 234 // nov 3, 05
Wa’rgate Begins
la- la- la- lap-toppling da system!
u cant innerstand yourself without understanding the world
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
p. 06 The Ghastly Truth About Vaccines
p.14 Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter discuss the fact that
This Administration Has Learned Nothing ,
What's Worse Is Congress Has Learned Nothing!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005X.shtml
Frank Rich: To believe that the Bush-Cheney scandals will be behind us anytime soon you'd have to believe that the Nixon-Agnew scandals peaked when G. Gordon Liddy and his bumbling band were nailed for the Watergate break-in.
>> couldn’t have put it more succinctly.
UP!
\)))))(/
___,,,,_{ô¿ô}_,,,,____
watch them fall, one by one as …
wa’rgate begins!
first impressions : the internet’s been buzzing about 28 indictments coming and we got only one. and it doesn’t even deal with the plame affair itself but with libby’s cover-UP.
first reaction: if fitzgerald had produced all the indictments then bush coulda done a reagan, fired his entire cabinet, and started again with clean hands and a new spin campaign. this way the investigation goes on (and on) (and on) and we are definitely (i say) into the wa’rgate scenario where, as each guy was nailed, he turned state evidence and named the guy above. only this time we’re already only 2 steps from bush hisself. and soone enuff there’ll be ongoing investigation of the cover-ups that will be going on right now in the white house.
"There may be as many as 23 sealed indictments because of the national security end of the investigation. Now some people are going to say, 'well, you guys predicted 20 indictments or 10 indictments.' Ladies and gentlemen, we stand by that prediction. Scooter Libby is a bigger player than Karl Rove can ever be because Libby, of course, is the attorney for Mark Rich. And Mark Rich is the well known con man and international swindler who has basically been the financial backer for both the Bush and Clinton crime syndicates." Federal whistle blower Tom Heneghan
i must be careful about my (lack of) knowledge of american politics.
the animals went out one by one…
fitzgerald has to slowly weaken the elite band of thugs around bush, and he can best do this one step at a time. by which i mean not just one guy after another but even one crime after another. by not seeming to focus on plamegate but on the criminal nature around it (the early beginnings of the ongoing cover up) (or did u think fitzgerald is too dumb to think of such angles?)
"One of the reasons they wanted the other indictments sealed, over and above this national security question, was to soften the blow to the American people so that they don't go completely berserk when they realize that the occupant of the White House, the fictitious President and the fictitious Vice-President are actually under indictment but its sealed for the moment. In other words, they’re worried the American people will create an insurrection realizing their government is fictitious," Sherman Skolnick.
remember that watergate began as a little column on p. 13 of the washington post before the election which nixon won handsomely. but from there it grew and grew until, after a year, it finally made it onto the front pages and the general public began to pay attention. i was living (it up) in ibiza at the time and i used to cycle into town nearly every day to follow the latest development in the Herald Tribune. i knew from the beginning it was history-making and i still have ALL those herald tribunes going yellow under my bed. when bush finally faces the firing squad (or gets ‘mercified’ by the new president ralph nader) (wanna bet?) and sent for life to the Guantanamo Memorial Prison For Forecefully Retired ‘Democratic’ Dictators on the malvinas, the falkland isles, they’ll be worth their weight in gold.
another 6 months and nixon was gone, pardoned by his vice president Ford (who couldn’t walk and chew gun at the same time, remember?). to cynics like peter password who wrote in last week, i say: that can’t happen this time because the VP will be among the first to go.
and there will, of course, have to be a new election. republican party dead forever, or the empire-building Dino wing certainly, democrats hardly any better, who will a scandalised people turn to?! (wanna bet?)
is the whole iran nonsense drummed up to distract attention? the iranian president said something he’s said a thousand times before, as has most of the iranian and indeed middle eastern population (namely that we have to wipe the jews-only racist state called “israel ” off any map called civilisation, which 90% of the planet believe). he said it at an anti-zionist conference, and the next day was the culmination of Jerusalem Day, an annual Palestinian Solidarity day in iran. now ask yourself: did not the brit and american governments know these events were coming up? and did they not know that the pres would be saying something like “israel has to be stopped ”? and could they not have prepared to make it look like SOMETHING NEW! something we must react to?
call it the Chirac Moment in the build-up to war. remember when chirac said “we will never agree to this UN resolution until the inspectors tell us they’ve finished their work” and blair took it entirely out of context and, with the brit press backing him to their lying hilt, announced that since chirac had just admitted he would “never agree the resolution ” we could now advance without it?! ugh.
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"Beyond Chutzpah is a brilliantly illuminating study of the lengths to which some American Jews will go to present Israel in a favourable light. On display are all the sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills." Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University
UP!
Our 27 Months Of Hell
by Joseph C. Wilson IV
Joseph Wilson, the diplomat whose wife's name was leaked by Bush administration officials, describes the, "2-year smear campaign orchestrated by senior officials in the Bush White House against my wife and me."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102905A.shtml
UP!
"If the Success or Failure of this Planet,
and of Human Beings,
Depended on How I Am and What I Do;
How Would I Be? What Would I Do?"
Buckminster Fuller.
UP!
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
T EX T J OC KE Y // TJ PHRASER (Fraser Clark) & THE MEDIA EVOLUTION
MIXING THE TRACTS LIVE ON THE KEYBOARD
@ A MEDIA-MEME RATE OF 160 IPP *
* Ideas Per Paragraph
TO SUBSCRIBE SOMEONE, WRITE I wanna get UP! TO fraser@parallel-youniversity.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, HIT REPLY WITH REMOVE IN THE SUBJECT BOX
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
Bill Gates Dumps Dollar For Euro
The dollar’s downward trend has not been broken this year. Now Microsoft’s co-founder Bill Gates, whose net worth of $46.6 billion makes him the world’s richest person, has openly stated he’s pulling out of the dollar and is instead investing in euros.
“I’m short the dollar,” Gates told Charlie Rose in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “The ol’ dollar, it’s gonna go down.”
Gates’s concern that widening U.S. budget and trade deficits are undermining the dollar was echoed in Davos by policymakers including European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
The US trade deficit swelled to a record $609.3 billion last year, and total U.S. government debt rose 8.7% to $7.62 trillion in the past 12 months.
“It is a bit scary,” Gates said. “We’re in uncharted territory when the world’s reserve currency has so much outstanding debt.”
http://www.sebimeyer.com/?p=1229
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"A very solid, important and highly informative book. Norman Finkelstein provides extensive details and analysis, with considerable historical depth and expert research, of a very wide range of issues concerning Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S." Noam Chomsky.
UP!
YOUR STOP-AND-SEARCH RIGHTS
* An officer must tell you what law they are using and your rights, their name,
the station they work for, why they chose you and what they are looking for.
* If you are asked to remove more than a coat or jacket and gloves,
police must search you out of public view. Officer must be of same sex.
* Unless told you are being arrested for an offence,
you do not have to give your name and address.
* Police will give you a form with all details of the stop-and-search.
* They should treat you fairly and with respect.
* You can complain about your treatment. See:
www.apa.police.uk
>> there is an alternative view of your rights. they are, it is often said,
whatever the cop in question decides them to be.
UP!
london
AFRICAN ESSENCE
Resonance FM Tuesdays 17.00-18.30 UK time. Repeated Mondays 08.00hrs UK time
www.resonancefm.com 104.4fm London wide
UP!
Thanks for your courage and enthusiasm. I discovered you whilst I lived in the UK for 3 years, and am now back in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Keep up the good work!”
David, Miami.
UP!
>>>> for the Great (BETRAYED! ) American Public will never forgive them, NEVER! Capital Punishment for Saddam because that’s the law in Iraq? well, maybe americans can be persuaded to send all involved (!!!!) to the Falkland Islands for life.
>>> Why to Argentina?
Hugo Colunga @ciudad.com.ar
>> r u argentinian? izzat wot ‘ar’ means? ho ho. well, the falklands are very isolated is the main reason - whoever owns them
but i remember b4 the falklands war the idea was mooted from among us peaceniks that it would cost less to give every falkland islander a million bucks each to leave. so am sure we can work out something here, no?
> I knew you 'd answer. I really admire most of wot U think. Praps not admire, agree. But when I saw "send all involved (!!!!) to the Falkland Islands for life." I thot, what???? This guy supporting imperialism? As I knew you'd answer I now knowyou'llmake some reading and then acknowledge that Malvinas are Argentinian.
The rest, great, I agree with you in almost everything. I wish all the people in the UK and/or USA thought your way & the world'd be a better place....
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"Finkelstein is absolutely right to assert the absurdity of linking criticism of Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians to anti-Semitism. And his documentation of human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories is invaluable." Tikkun.
UP!
Larry Cloud Morgan
Hi fraser
Here's something I thought you might like. 15 years ago my younger brother took a trip to Libya to attend a 2 week seminar and cheque-giving ceremony for all the freedom fighters of the world. Not that he's a freedom fighter, he went along for the ride.
He met people from all over the world and had a little romance with a beautiful Venezuelan freedom fighter, a difference of opinion with the Black Muslims of America (Farakan), a famously great time with Coltrane the then leader of the Black Power movement, taught the young boys of the ANC how to swim, and met a fantastic individual by the name of Larry Cloud Morgan aka White Feather, who was leading the American Indian contingent. My brother was very taken with Larry and booked him as one of the most charismatic, intelligent, informed and caring people he’d ever met.
I was so taken with the story that I decided to write it up as a screenplay and began my research. My first port of call was obviously LCM, I figured he wouldn't be hard to find and he wasn’t, except that he’d died 6 years before.
His people, however, did get back to me, sending the poem below, which summed up the man of whom my brother had spoken so highly. It touched me in a way that poetry rarely has.
lcm
when there is a political rally crowd, we look for lcm and we miss him
when the wind blows and brings a feather to our feet we think of lcm and we miss him
when we smell sage and sweet grass we think of doing ceremony with lcm and we miss him.
when we see a fine pair of black leather gloves we think of lcm and we miss him
when we see that our political leaders have lost their integrity and we need a profound vision
we think of lcm and we miss him
when we hear amazing grace, we think of lcm and we miss him
when the sun doesn’t shine and lcm would call to ask if we’d hidden it in our drawer,
we think of lcm and we miss him
when the seasons change, the flowers bloom, the leaves crackle under our feet,
when the trees are iced, we think of lcm and we miss him.
as long as we be, lcm shall live in our hearts and personal forevers
He must have been quite a guy, I miss him and I didn't even know him.
Regards Sean
UP!
www.warp-experience.com
The Warp text, and a new novel by Neil Oram, PLUS poems, philosophical articles etc are now available on Neil’s web site which, he tells fraser, “is a tribute to your vision.”
www.warp-experience.com
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"What is the controversy about? . . . .On the one hand, the controversy surrounding Beyond Chutzpah seems to be a reaction to Dr. Finkelstein's attempt to expose how elements in academia have played an active role in concealing Israel's abuse and, by extension, the abuse of other rogue regimes, not least the United States itself. Obviously those intellectuals who resort to this tactic prefer to operate in the dark. On the other hand, the heated response to his book is just another example of how the literature discussing the new anti-Semitism delegitimises those who expose Israel's egregious violations of international law. The major irony informing this saga is that Dr. Finkelstein's book, not Mr. Dershowitz's, constitutes the real case for Israel, that is, for a moral Israel." National Catholic Reporter.
UP!
Monkey’s Trip FEEDBACK
Fraser,
Having just listened to your broadcast on the 'Big Lie', I have to agree, I can't pass the test either! So to reach out in a spirit of 'one love', I do indeed hope we can reclaim our true potential and reject the fear and the lies.
Thanks for the alternative vision.
James Davidson, Paris.
UP!
I finally got the paradigm-shifting idea that Psychedelics may have triggered man's evolution.
I like it, Fraser, yes, I do. I have slightly varied views of our origins, not holding STRICTLY to the naturally evolved ape theory, and believe instead in some genetic interference and possibly a bit of other input, and Mushies and the other allies could well fit the bill.
It is good to see the Beastmen in trouble at last, but whatever comes of it, no guarantee things are going to change much on the World Ugly scene.
Wonder if your Bliar and our Johnny Howhard will ride the storm out back home, expect Howhard will ,and like everyone in the NWO we have no credible opposition.
Rabbit, Australia.
>> glad u r there now, steve it is easily the most radical idea around - by far! and it reverses everything we been taught, and u have to break a force field to get there.
have to admit am congenitally an optimist but i see the Fall of the Dinos Last Stand as exactly what everything has been heading towards. and had to.
and i don't exackly see them as beastmen, but apes who've regressed further back (by removing mushies from their diet) than the original apes cos they've lost even the sense of community.
UP!
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o
the UP! is a global edutainment round-up, broadcast weekly to =[13,698]=
Alternative// Activist// Zippy// Trance// New Age// Peace folks
recommended to the Parallel YOUniversity// Megatripolis Dance Dept as
"showing signs of life".
Since recipients forward it widely to their own lists & sites,
we conservatively estimate 50,000+ direct recipients.
A further 40,000 read it on the YOUniversity's site.
And, because of its 'mix' of 'specialist' & 'general' content,
it's increasingly being posted on a variety of sites worldwide,
making an estimated total weekly readership of =[275,000]=
(\o/)(\o/)\(o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o
Glass Ceiling?
Imagine a future in which the rooftops of residential homes and commercial buildings can be laminated with inexpensive, ultra-thin films of nano-sized semiconductors that will efficiently convert sunlight into electrical power and provide virtually all of our electricity needs. Researchers with Berkeley Lab and the University of California, Berkeley, have developed the first ultra-thin solar cells comprised entirely of inorganic nanocrystals and spin-cast from solution.
These dual nanocrystal solar cells are as cheap and easy to make as solar cells made from organic polymers, and offer the added advantage of being stable in air because they contain no organic materials.
http://www.semiconductoronline.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID={AFBE77F6-8C42-44DE-BC28-E3A0C20B91EC}&Bucket=&Featured=&VNETCOOKIE=NO
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"Beyond Chutzpah is the most comprehensive, systematic, and well-documented work of its kind. It is one of the harshest - rational and nonemotional - texts about the daily practices of the occupation and colonisation of the Palestinian territories by Israel, and it is an excellent demonstration of how and why the blind defenders of Israel, by basing their arguments on false facts and figures, actually bring more damage than gains to their cause." Baruch Kimmerling, George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
UP!
I just wanted to say that the 'Important' bit in your signature at the end of your email is hilarious. I don't know who wrote it but I'd like to. Maybe, if they're interested in meeting other writers, you could pass on my email to whoever, maybe we could collaborate on some comedy stuff. My recent work has been an historical drama so a bit of comedy would be nice. Comedy tends to be a collective, rather than singular pursuit, so I'm always on the lookout for funny writers. Sadly, they’re scarcer than hens teeth which is why I'm making this enquiry.
Sean Casey
UP!
>> how long, we all wondered, b4 the overground media would finally report the Wa'rgate Story - Time seemed to totter/yawn, pausing, 3am eternal, on the Tectonic Cusp of His Story.
Just saw this story on the itv evening news. Looks like the sh*t is about to hit the fan! Wow!! It’s so exciting!!! Is it normal to feel like this???
Keep doing what you do.
Chris, London.
>> yes, is perfectly normal. actually we should all feel this much more often
UP!
The Ghastly Truth About Vaccines
DON’T READ THIS
If You Want To Sleep Tonight
Jon Rappoport Interviews Ex Vaccine Researcher
“ The medical cartel, at the highest level,
is not out to help people,
it is out to harm them, to weaken them”
In India in the early ‘70s I got into a deep conversation with a natural doctor. He asked me at one point if I knew what the Polio Vaccine consisted of. I parroted, like the young student I had just stopped being, that it contained “a little of the disease” in order “to allow the body to build up its defences against it.” Yes, he nodded patiently, but he had meant did I know what was actually IN the vaccine. I had to admit ignorance.
“They inject massive amounts of syphilis into a cow” he said, which of course is a holy animal to the hindus. “And when the cow’s body breaks out in massive syphilitic sores they burst these sores and extract the pus and that is what they inject into your body” he explained.
I was shocked. But less shocked than he was, it seemed. The entire West, he shuddered, is injecting these killer diseases into its own bloodstream, its own children, and it won’t even be able to measure their effect for possibly hundreds of years to come!
Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.
A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines, I won't say which ones.
Q: Why not?
A: I want to preserve my privacy.
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
A: I believe I could lose my pension.
Q: On what grounds?
A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.
Q: Harassed by whom?
A: The FBI.
Q: Really?
A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.
Q: So much for free speech.
A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.
Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?
A: Vaccines are the last defence of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honourable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.
Q: And then?
A: I did my own investigation.
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
Q: What conditions?
A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
A: Despair. I realised I was working in a sector based on a collection of lies.
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases - say, meningitis - that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that’s been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.
Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumours - that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.
Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.
Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time - which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defences.
Q: How were your findings received?
A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminium which are purposely put into vaccines.
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."
Q: The immune system is?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.
Q: What was the turning point for you?
A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
Q: And that is what you found?
A: Yes. You’re dealing with correlations, most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.
Q: Has it been enough?
A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
Q: Which is?
A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realise that these are NOT isolated situations.
Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
A: Yes I did.
Q: What happened?
A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labelled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.
Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. At different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on.
But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.
Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?
A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realising the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.
Q: This network you speak of.
A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.
Q: And in the industrialised nations?
A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarfare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.
Q: The furore over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one good avenue.
A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine - and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles - is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.
Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.
Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.
A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.
Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.
A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.
A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?
A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funnelled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.
Q: A good idea.
A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.
Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?
A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.
Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?
A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.
Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?
A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.
Q: The things that are not there.
A: Yes.
Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.
A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?
A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. f you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition.
But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe. In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.
Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?
A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.
Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?
A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.
A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.
Q: So we come to the level playing field.
A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.
Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.
A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.
_________________________________________________________________
Dr. Mark Randall (pseudonym) was a vaccine researcher for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.
He retired during the last decade.
He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory --with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings - he has decided to break his silence.
He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"The scholarship is simply superb. Finkelstein has clearly done his homework, and consulted and mastered a breathtaking range of material: primary sources and documents, scholarly works, reports old and new, correspondence with relevant individuals, and numerous other sources too. He has left no stone unturned." Mouin Rabbani, Contributing Editor, Middle East Report
UP!
This Administration Has Learned Nothing ,
What's Worse: Congress Has Learned Nothing!
This conversation between legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter was based on revelations in Ritter's new book, Iraq Confidential. They discuss how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve a hidden foreign policy agenda in the Middle East.
Hersh: So, Scott, to begin, before we even talk about how we got to where we are, my own personal view is we have two options in Iraq. Option A - we get all our troops out by midnight tonight, and option B, we get them all out by tomorrow night. And so I wonder where you sit on that?
Ritter: Well, I view that Iraq is a nation that's on fire. There's a horrific problem that faces not only the people of Iraq but the United States and the entire world. And the fuel that feeds that fire is the presence of American and British troops. This is widely acknowledged by the very generals that are in charge of the military action in Iraq. So the best way to put out the fire is to separate the fuel from the flame. So I'm a big proponent of bringing the troops home as soon as possible.
Today's the best day we're going to have in Iraq. Tomorrow's going to be worse, and the day after that's going to be even worse. But we also have to recognise that one of the reasons why we didn't move to Baghdad in 1991 to take out Saddam was that there was wide recognition that if you get rid of Saddam and you don't have a good idea of what's going to take his place, that Iraq will devolve into chaos and anarchy. Well, we've done just that. We got rid of Saddam, and we have no clue what was going to take his place. And pulling the troops out is only half of the problem.
We also have to deal with three critical issues that have emerged since we invaded:
The Shia, and I'm not talking about the mainstream Shia of Iraq. I'm talking about this political elite that's pro-Iranian that has conducted a coup d'état. They're running the government today.
The Sunni. We took a secular bulwark against the expansion of radical anti-American Islamic fundamentalism, and we've radicalised them. And if we just pull out and leave the situation as it is, we've turned the Sunni heartland into a festering cesspool of anti-American sentiment. It's the new Afghanistan, the new breeding ground for Al Qaeda.
The Kurds, the one that nobody talks about in the media. We have somehow given the Kurds this false sense that they're going to have an independent homeland, and yet our NATO ally, Turkey, has said this will never happen. And if we allow the Kurds to move forward towards independence, we're compelling the Turks to radical military intervention at a time when Turkey has just been invited to enter into the 15-year negotiation with the European Union about becoming a member of the European community. If the Turks move against the Kurds, that negotiation's over, which means that Turkey has been rejected by Europe and will be heading towards the embrace of radical anti-American Islam.
So it's not just about getting the troops out. We have to recognise that there are 3 huge ongoing issues in Iraq that affect the national security of the United States, and we need a policy to address these. But keeping our troops in Iraq is not part of that policy.
Hersh: How do you get them out, how quickly?
Ritter: The quicker the better. I mean, I'd leave it up to military professionals to determine how you reduce perimeters. There are some areas of the country where you can just literally up and run. But we have a significant force in place, and significant infrastructure, and we have an active insurgency that would take advantage of any weaknesses. But I guarantee you this, if we went to the insurgents - and I do believe we're having some sort of interaction with the insurgents today - and said we're getting out of here, all attacks would stop. They'd do everything they can to make sure that the road out of Iraq was as IED-free as possible.
Hersh: One of the things about your book that's amazing is that it's not only about the Bush Administration, and if there are any villains in this book, they include Sandy Berger, who was Clinton's national security advisor, and Madeleine Albright.
Another thing that's breathtaking about this book is the amount of new stories and new information. Scott describes in detail and with named sources, basically, a two or three-year run of the American government undercutting the inspection process. In your view, during those years, '91 to'98, particularly the last 3 years, was the United States interested in disarming Iraq?
Ritter: Well, the fact of the matter is the United States was never interested in disarming Iraq. The whole Security Council resolution that created the UN weapons inspections and called upon Iraq to disarm was focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is a vehicle for the maintenance of economic sanctions that were imposed in August 1990 linked to the liberation of Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait, I participated in that conflict. And one would think, therefore, the sanctions should be lifted.
The United States needed to find a vehicle to continue to contain Saddam because the CIA said all we have to do is wait 6 months and Saddam is going to collapse on his own volition. That vehicle is sanctions. They needed a justification; the justification was disarmament. They drafted a Chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq and saying in Paragraph 14 that if Iraq complies, sanctions will be lifted. Within months of this resolution being passed - and the United States drafted and voted in favour of this resolution-within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, are saying publicly, not privately, publicly that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
That is proof positive that disarmament was only useful insofar as it contained through the maintenance of sanctions and facilitated regime change. It was never about disarmament, it was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It started with George Herbert Walker Bush, and it was a policy continued through 8 years of the Clinton presidency, and then brought us to this current disastrous course of action under the current Bush Administration.
Hersh: One of the things that's overwhelming to me is the notion that everybody believed before March of '03 that Saddam had weapons. This is just urban myth. The fact of the matter is that, in talking to people who worked on the UNSCOM and also in the International Atomic Energy Agency, they were pretty much clear by '97 that there was very little likelihood that Saddam had weapons. And there were many people in our State Department, in the Department of Energy, in the CIA who didn't believe there were weapons. And I think history is going to judge the mass hysteria we had about Saddam and weapons. And one of the questions that keeps on coming up now is why didn't Saddam tell us? Or did he tell us?
Ritter: Well, of course he told us. Look, let's be honest, the Iraqis were obligated in 1991 to submit a full declaration listing the totality of their holdings in WMD, and they didn't do this. They lied. They failed to declare a nuclear weapons program, they failed to declare a biological weapons programs, and they under-declared their chemical and ballistic missile capabilities. Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran but also to focus on Israel. What he didn't count on was the tenacity of the inspectors. And very rapidly, by June 1991, we had compelled him into acknowledging that he had a nuclear weapons program, and we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door, flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so he could tell the cops, "I don't have any drugs," the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet.
They blew up all their weapons and buried them in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth. And by 1992 they were compelled again, because of the tenacity of the inspectors, to come clean. People ask why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them, but the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.
And furthermore, the CIA knew this, the British intelligence knew this, Israeli intelligence knew this, German intelligence, the whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed because nobody could say that, but they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding WMD had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it, and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.
Hersh: The other element in all of this, of course, is that, as Scott writes in his book, there were things going on inside his own organisation that he didn't know about, operations being run by the CIA. One of the things that was going on is, as we provoked Saddam and demanded to get into the palaces, their concern was, of course, that the real meaning of the effort was to assassinate him, and, lo and behold -
Ritter: Well, that's exactly what happened. I mean, look, the American policy was regime change. At first they wanted to be passive, we're just going to contain Saddam through economic sanctions, and he's going to collapse of his own volition in six months. That failed. We're going to put pressure on the Iraqis, and we're going to get some Sunni general to apply the 75-cent solution - the cost of a 9 mm bullet put in the back of Saddam's head - and the Sunni general will take over. If you want proof positive about the corrupt nature of our regime-change policy, understand this, it wasn't about changing the regime. It wasn't about getting rid of the Baathist party or transforming Iraq into a modern democracy back in the early 1990s. It was about getting rid of one man, Saddam Hussein. And if he was replaced by a Sunni general who governed Iraq in the exact same fashion, that was okay. And that shows the utter hypocrisy of everything we did.
But the CIA was having a difficult time getting near Saddam because he has a very effective security apparatus. By 1995, Saddam's survival becomes a political liability to Bill Clinton, and he was coming up for re-election in '96, and he turned to the CIA and said get rid of Saddam by the summer of 1996: I need that man gone. And the CIA worked with British intelligence, they brought in somebody named Ayad Allawi. It might be a name familiar to people - he was for a period of time the interim Prime Minister of Iraq after the American occupation. Before he was interim Prime Minister, however, he was a paid agent of British intelligence and the CIA, and he worked with them to orchestrate this coup d'état that required them to recruit people on the inside of Iraq to be ready to take out Saddam.
But you needed a trigger, and the trigger was a UN weapons inspection that I helped organise.
We thought we were going after the concealment mechanism, but it turned out that the CIA was setting us up so that we would go to facilities that housed Saddam's security. It was anticipated they would block us, and then when we withdrew, there would be a military strike that would decapitate the security of Saddam.
The one place that we wanted to go to, the Third Battalion, we weren't allowed to. The CIA said don't worry about that, we know those guys, they're not bad. And they were supposed to rise up and take Saddam out. Well, the Iraqi intelligence service was very effective at infiltrating this coup, they wrapped it up, and nothing happened in terms of getting rid of Saddam. Except one thing, the Iraqis were fully aware of the role played by the CIA in infiltrating UNSCOM and using UNSCOM for devices. And the ultimate tragedy of this is that from that point on, every time a UN weapons inspector went into Iraq - somebody with a blue hat - they weren't viewed by the Iraqis as somebody who was trying to disarm Iraq, they were viewed by the Iraqis as somebody trying to kill their President, and they were right.
Hersh: When did you learn about this?
Ritter: We always knew about regime change. I mean, when I first came in, we knew about regime change. In terms of the infiltration, you know, some people say it's my fault because I'm the guy who brought in the character I call Modaz and the special activities staff, the covert operators of the CIA. We used them in 1992, we used them in 1993 because it's tough to do inspections in Iraq. You know, they're not necessarily the friendliest people in the world when you're trying to go to a site that they don't want you to get in. And you can't have a bunch of thin-necked, geeky scientists trying to do this job. You need guys with thick necks and thick arms, and the CIA had plenty of these guys who could do logistics, they could do planning, they could do communications in austere environments. So we used these guys, and we used them in June.
The problem came afterwards when we started doing up follow-up inspections. First of all, the Iraqis would come to me, and they would say, "Ritter, what are you doing? You know, you're supposed to be an inspector, and yet you're doing all this bad stuff. We know about the CIA's coup attempts.... We know what happened in June."
Well, what happened in June? And suddenly we started inspecting sites, and I see documents that start sending off signals in my head about, oh, my gosh, the unit the CIA didn't want us to go to was the unit that was liquidated by Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the failed coup because that was the unit that was trying to take out Saddam. It's silly, the light goes on, and you're sitting there going we've had the wool pulled over our eyes, we've been used. We were used by the United States, though, and they're the most powerful nation on the Security Council that we as inspectors worked for.
So how do you turn to your boss and say, Hey, you've used us? We won't tolerate that. Well, you can't do that. What you have to do is continue to plod forward and just redouble your efforts to maintain the integrity of a process that tragically had been terminally corrupted by that point.
Hersh: The question is, if Clinton wasn't so good, where are we now?
Ritter: Well, I mean, I'll start off, and I want to highlight that point that Clinton wasn't so good. You know, there's a lot of talk today in the Democratically controlled judiciary committee about going after the Bush Administration for crimes, for lying to Congress, and etc. And I'm all in favour of that, bring on the indictments, but don't stop at the Bush Administration. If you want to have a truly bipartisan indictment, you indict Madeleine Albright, you indict Sandy Berger, you indict every person on the Clinton Administration that committed the exact same crime that the Bush Administration has committed today. Lying during the course of your official duty: That's a felony, that's a high crime and misdemeanour. That's language in the Constitution that triggers certain events like impeachment. So let's not just simply turn this into a Bush-bashing event. This is about a failure of not only the Bush Administration but of the United States of America, and we have to look in the mirror and recognise that, well, all the Bush Administration did is take advantage of a systemic failure on the part of the United States as a whole, a failure that not only involves the executive, but it involves the legislative branch, Congress.
Congress has abrogated its responsibilities under t
// TAKE OVER!
"WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE
JUST GIVE HIM A BLOW JOB
SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM?!"
- a sign carried in a Washington demo.
UP!
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
u cant understand the world without innerstanding yourself
UP! 234 // nov 3, 05
Wa’rgate Begins
la- la- la- lap-toppling da system!
u cant innerstand yourself without understanding the world
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
p. 06 The Ghastly Truth About Vaccines
p.14 Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter discuss the fact that
This Administration Has Learned Nothing ,
What's Worse Is Congress Has Learned Nothing!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005X.shtml
Frank Rich: To believe that the Bush-Cheney scandals will be behind us anytime soon you'd have to believe that the Nixon-Agnew scandals peaked when G. Gordon Liddy and his bumbling band were nailed for the Watergate break-in.
>> couldn’t have put it more succinctly.
UP!
\)))))(/
___,,,,_{ô¿ô}_,,,,____
watch them fall, one by one as …
wa’rgate begins!
first impressions : the internet’s been buzzing about 28 indictments coming and we got only one. and it doesn’t even deal with the plame affair itself but with libby’s cover-UP.
first reaction: if fitzgerald had produced all the indictments then bush coulda done a reagan, fired his entire cabinet, and started again with clean hands and a new spin campaign. this way the investigation goes on (and on) (and on) and we are definitely (i say) into the wa’rgate scenario where, as each guy was nailed, he turned state evidence and named the guy above. only this time we’re already only 2 steps from bush hisself. and soone enuff there’ll be ongoing investigation of the cover-ups that will be going on right now in the white house.
"There may be as many as 23 sealed indictments because of the national security end of the investigation. Now some people are going to say, 'well, you guys predicted 20 indictments or 10 indictments.' Ladies and gentlemen, we stand by that prediction. Scooter Libby is a bigger player than Karl Rove can ever be because Libby, of course, is the attorney for Mark Rich. And Mark Rich is the well known con man and international swindler who has basically been the financial backer for both the Bush and Clinton crime syndicates." Federal whistle blower Tom Heneghan
i must be careful about my (lack of) knowledge of american politics.
the animals went out one by one…
fitzgerald has to slowly weaken the elite band of thugs around bush, and he can best do this one step at a time. by which i mean not just one guy after another but even one crime after another. by not seeming to focus on plamegate but on the criminal nature around it (the early beginnings of the ongoing cover up) (or did u think fitzgerald is too dumb to think of such angles?)
"One of the reasons they wanted the other indictments sealed, over and above this national security question, was to soften the blow to the American people so that they don't go completely berserk when they realize that the occupant of the White House, the fictitious President and the fictitious Vice-President are actually under indictment but its sealed for the moment. In other words, they’re worried the American people will create an insurrection realizing their government is fictitious," Sherman Skolnick.
remember that watergate began as a little column on p. 13 of the washington post before the election which nixon won handsomely. but from there it grew and grew until, after a year, it finally made it onto the front pages and the general public began to pay attention. i was living (it up) in ibiza at the time and i used to cycle into town nearly every day to follow the latest development in the Herald Tribune. i knew from the beginning it was history-making and i still have ALL those herald tribunes going yellow under my bed. when bush finally faces the firing squad (or gets ‘mercified’ by the new president ralph nader) (wanna bet?) and sent for life to the Guantanamo Memorial Prison For Forecefully Retired ‘Democratic’ Dictators on the malvinas, the falkland isles, they’ll be worth their weight in gold.
another 6 months and nixon was gone, pardoned by his vice president Ford (who couldn’t walk and chew gun at the same time, remember?). to cynics like peter password who wrote in last week, i say: that can’t happen this time because the VP will be among the first to go.
and there will, of course, have to be a new election. republican party dead forever, or the empire-building Dino wing certainly, democrats hardly any better, who will a scandalised people turn to?! (wanna bet?)
is the whole iran nonsense drummed up to distract attention? the iranian president said something he’s said a thousand times before, as has most of the iranian and indeed middle eastern population (namely that we have to wipe the jews-only racist state called “israel ” off any map called civilisation, which 90% of the planet believe). he said it at an anti-zionist conference, and the next day was the culmination of Jerusalem Day, an annual Palestinian Solidarity day in iran. now ask yourself: did not the brit and american governments know these events were coming up? and did they not know that the pres would be saying something like “israel has to be stopped ”? and could they not have prepared to make it look like SOMETHING NEW! something we must react to?
call it the Chirac Moment in the build-up to war. remember when chirac said “we will never agree to this UN resolution until the inspectors tell us they’ve finished their work” and blair took it entirely out of context and, with the brit press backing him to their lying hilt, announced that since chirac had just admitted he would “never agree the resolution ” we could now advance without it?! ugh.
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"Beyond Chutzpah is a brilliantly illuminating study of the lengths to which some American Jews will go to present Israel in a favourable light. On display are all the sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills." Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University
UP!
Our 27 Months Of Hell
by Joseph C. Wilson IV
Joseph Wilson, the diplomat whose wife's name was leaked by Bush administration officials, describes the, "2-year smear campaign orchestrated by senior officials in the Bush White House against my wife and me."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102905A.shtml
UP!
"If the Success or Failure of this Planet,
and of Human Beings,
Depended on How I Am and What I Do;
How Would I Be? What Would I Do?"
Buckminster Fuller.
UP!
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
T EX T J OC KE Y // TJ PHRASER (Fraser Clark) & THE MEDIA EVOLUTION
MIXING THE TRACTS LIVE ON THE KEYBOARD
@ A MEDIA-MEME RATE OF 160 IPP *
* Ideas Per Paragraph
TO SUBSCRIBE SOMEONE, WRITE I wanna get UP! TO fraser@parallel-youniversity.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, HIT REPLY WITH REMOVE IN THE SUBJECT BOX
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
Bill Gates Dumps Dollar For Euro
The dollar’s downward trend has not been broken this year. Now Microsoft’s co-founder Bill Gates, whose net worth of $46.6 billion makes him the world’s richest person, has openly stated he’s pulling out of the dollar and is instead investing in euros.
“I’m short the dollar,” Gates told Charlie Rose in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “The ol’ dollar, it’s gonna go down.”
Gates’s concern that widening U.S. budget and trade deficits are undermining the dollar was echoed in Davos by policymakers including European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
The US trade deficit swelled to a record $609.3 billion last year, and total U.S. government debt rose 8.7% to $7.62 trillion in the past 12 months.
“It is a bit scary,” Gates said. “We’re in uncharted territory when the world’s reserve currency has so much outstanding debt.”
http://www.sebimeyer.com/?p=1229
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"A very solid, important and highly informative book. Norman Finkelstein provides extensive details and analysis, with considerable historical depth and expert research, of a very wide range of issues concerning Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S." Noam Chomsky.
UP!
YOUR STOP-AND-SEARCH RIGHTS
* An officer must tell you what law they are using and your rights, their name,
the station they work for, why they chose you and what they are looking for.
* If you are asked to remove more than a coat or jacket and gloves,
police must search you out of public view. Officer must be of same sex.
* Unless told you are being arrested for an offence,
you do not have to give your name and address.
* Police will give you a form with all details of the stop-and-search.
* They should treat you fairly and with respect.
* You can complain about your treatment. See:
www.apa.police.uk
>> there is an alternative view of your rights. they are, it is often said,
whatever the cop in question decides them to be.
UP!
london
AFRICAN ESSENCE
Resonance FM Tuesdays 17.00-18.30 UK time. Repeated Mondays 08.00hrs UK time
www.resonancefm.com 104.4fm London wide
UP!
Thanks for your courage and enthusiasm. I discovered you whilst I lived in the UK for 3 years, and am now back in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Keep up the good work!”
David, Miami.
UP!
>>>> for the Great (BETRAYED! ) American Public will never forgive them, NEVER! Capital Punishment for Saddam because that’s the law in Iraq? well, maybe americans can be persuaded to send all involved (!!!!) to the Falkland Islands for life.
>>> Why to Argentina?
Hugo Colunga @ciudad.com.ar
>> r u argentinian? izzat wot ‘ar’ means? ho ho. well, the falklands are very isolated is the main reason - whoever owns them
but i remember b4 the falklands war the idea was mooted from among us peaceniks that it would cost less to give every falkland islander a million bucks each to leave. so am sure we can work out something here, no?
> I knew you 'd answer. I really admire most of wot U think. Praps not admire, agree. But when I saw "send all involved (!!!!) to the Falkland Islands for life." I thot, what???? This guy supporting imperialism? As I knew you'd answer I now knowyou'llmake some reading and then acknowledge that Malvinas are Argentinian.
The rest, great, I agree with you in almost everything. I wish all the people in the UK and/or USA thought your way & the world'd be a better place....
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"Finkelstein is absolutely right to assert the absurdity of linking criticism of Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians to anti-Semitism. And his documentation of human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories is invaluable." Tikkun.
UP!
Larry Cloud Morgan
Hi fraser
Here's something I thought you might like. 15 years ago my younger brother took a trip to Libya to attend a 2 week seminar and cheque-giving ceremony for all the freedom fighters of the world. Not that he's a freedom fighter, he went along for the ride.
He met people from all over the world and had a little romance with a beautiful Venezuelan freedom fighter, a difference of opinion with the Black Muslims of America (Farakan), a famously great time with Coltrane the then leader of the Black Power movement, taught the young boys of the ANC how to swim, and met a fantastic individual by the name of Larry Cloud Morgan aka White Feather, who was leading the American Indian contingent. My brother was very taken with Larry and booked him as one of the most charismatic, intelligent, informed and caring people he’d ever met.
I was so taken with the story that I decided to write it up as a screenplay and began my research. My first port of call was obviously LCM, I figured he wouldn't be hard to find and he wasn’t, except that he’d died 6 years before.
His people, however, did get back to me, sending the poem below, which summed up the man of whom my brother had spoken so highly. It touched me in a way that poetry rarely has.
lcm
when there is a political rally crowd, we look for lcm and we miss him
when the wind blows and brings a feather to our feet we think of lcm and we miss him
when we smell sage and sweet grass we think of doing ceremony with lcm and we miss him.
when we see a fine pair of black leather gloves we think of lcm and we miss him
when we see that our political leaders have lost their integrity and we need a profound vision
we think of lcm and we miss him
when we hear amazing grace, we think of lcm and we miss him
when the sun doesn’t shine and lcm would call to ask if we’d hidden it in our drawer,
we think of lcm and we miss him
when the seasons change, the flowers bloom, the leaves crackle under our feet,
when the trees are iced, we think of lcm and we miss him.
as long as we be, lcm shall live in our hearts and personal forevers
He must have been quite a guy, I miss him and I didn't even know him.
Regards Sean
UP!
www.warp-experience.com
The Warp text, and a new novel by Neil Oram, PLUS poems, philosophical articles etc are now available on Neil’s web site which, he tells fraser, “is a tribute to your vision.”
www.warp-experience.com
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"What is the controversy about? . . . .On the one hand, the controversy surrounding Beyond Chutzpah seems to be a reaction to Dr. Finkelstein's attempt to expose how elements in academia have played an active role in concealing Israel's abuse and, by extension, the abuse of other rogue regimes, not least the United States itself. Obviously those intellectuals who resort to this tactic prefer to operate in the dark. On the other hand, the heated response to his book is just another example of how the literature discussing the new anti-Semitism delegitimises those who expose Israel's egregious violations of international law. The major irony informing this saga is that Dr. Finkelstein's book, not Mr. Dershowitz's, constitutes the real case for Israel, that is, for a moral Israel." National Catholic Reporter.
UP!
Monkey’s Trip FEEDBACK
Fraser,
Having just listened to your broadcast on the 'Big Lie', I have to agree, I can't pass the test either! So to reach out in a spirit of 'one love', I do indeed hope we can reclaim our true potential and reject the fear and the lies.
Thanks for the alternative vision.
James Davidson, Paris.
UP!
I finally got the paradigm-shifting idea that Psychedelics may have triggered man's evolution.
I like it, Fraser, yes, I do. I have slightly varied views of our origins, not holding STRICTLY to the naturally evolved ape theory, and believe instead in some genetic interference and possibly a bit of other input, and Mushies and the other allies could well fit the bill.
It is good to see the Beastmen in trouble at last, but whatever comes of it, no guarantee things are going to change much on the World Ugly scene.
Wonder if your Bliar and our Johnny Howhard will ride the storm out back home, expect Howhard will ,and like everyone in the NWO we have no credible opposition.
Rabbit, Australia.
>> glad u r there now, steve
it is easily the most radical idea around - by far! and it reverses everything we been taught, and u have to break a force field to get there.have to admit am congenitally an optimist but i see the Fall of the Dinos Last Stand as exactly what everything has been heading towards. and had to.
and i don't exackly see them as beastmen, but apes who've regressed further back (by removing mushies from their diet) than the original apes cos they've lost even the sense of community.
UP!
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o
the UP! is a global edutainment round-up, broadcast weekly to =[13,698]=
Alternative// Activist// Zippy// Trance// New Age// Peace folks
recommended to the Parallel YOUniversity// Megatripolis Dance Dept as
"showing signs of life".
Since recipients forward it widely to their own lists & sites,
we conservatively estimate 50,000+ direct recipients.
A further 40,000 read it on the YOUniversity's site.
And, because of its 'mix' of 'specialist' & 'general' content,
it's increasingly being posted on a variety of sites worldwide,
making an estimated total weekly readership of =[275,000]=
(\o/)(\o/)\(o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o
Glass Ceiling?
Imagine a future in which the rooftops of residential homes and commercial buildings can be laminated with inexpensive, ultra-thin films of nano-sized semiconductors that will efficiently convert sunlight into electrical power and provide virtually all of our electricity needs. Researchers with Berkeley Lab and the University of California, Berkeley, have developed the first ultra-thin solar cells comprised entirely of inorganic nanocrystals and spin-cast from solution.
These dual nanocrystal solar cells are as cheap and easy to make as solar cells made from organic polymers, and offer the added advantage of being stable in air because they contain no organic materials.
http://www.semiconductoronline.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID={AFBE77F6-8C42-44DE-BC28-E3A0C20B91EC}&Bucket=&Featured=&VNETCOOKIE=NO
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"Beyond Chutzpah is the most comprehensive, systematic, and well-documented work of its kind. It is one of the harshest - rational and nonemotional - texts about the daily practices of the occupation and colonisation of the Palestinian territories by Israel, and it is an excellent demonstration of how and why the blind defenders of Israel, by basing their arguments on false facts and figures, actually bring more damage than gains to their cause." Baruch Kimmerling, George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
UP!
I just wanted to say that the 'Important' bit in your signature at the end of your email is hilarious. I don't know who wrote it but I'd like to. Maybe, if they're interested in meeting other writers, you could pass on my email to whoever, maybe we could collaborate on some comedy stuff. My recent work has been an historical drama so a bit of comedy would be nice. Comedy tends to be a collective, rather than singular pursuit, so I'm always on the lookout for funny writers. Sadly, they’re scarcer than hens teeth which is why I'm making this enquiry.
Sean Casey
UP!
>> how long, we all wondered, b4 the overground media would finally report the Wa'rgate Story - Time seemed to totter/yawn, pausing, 3am eternal, on the Tectonic Cusp of His Story.
Just saw this story on the itv evening news. Looks like the sh*t is about to hit the fan! Wow!! It’s so exciting!!! Is it normal to feel like this???
Keep doing what you do.
Chris, London.
>> yes, is perfectly normal. actually we should all feel this much more often
UP!
The Ghastly Truth About Vaccines
DON’T READ THIS
If You Want To Sleep Tonight
Jon Rappoport Interviews Ex Vaccine Researcher
“ The medical cartel, at the highest level,
is not out to help people,
it is out to harm them, to weaken them”
In India in the early ‘70s I got into a deep conversation with a natural doctor. He asked me at one point if I knew what the Polio Vaccine consisted of. I parroted, like the young student I had just stopped being, that it contained “a little of the disease” in order “to allow the body to build up its defences against it.” Yes, he nodded patiently, but he had meant did I know what was actually IN the vaccine. I had to admit ignorance.
“They inject massive amounts of syphilis into a cow” he said, which of course is a holy animal to the hindus. “And when the cow’s body breaks out in massive syphilitic sores they burst these sores and extract the pus and that is what they inject into your body” he explained.
I was shocked. But less shocked than he was, it seemed. The entire West, he shuddered, is injecting these killer diseases into its own bloodstream, its own children, and it won’t even be able to measure their effect for possibly hundreds of years to come!
Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.
A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines, I won't say which ones.
Q: Why not?
A: I want to preserve my privacy.
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
A: I believe I could lose my pension.
Q: On what grounds?
A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.
Q: Harassed by whom?
A: The FBI.
Q: Really?
A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.
Q: So much for free speech.
A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.
Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?
A: Vaccines are the last defence of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honourable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.
Q: And then?
A: I did my own investigation.
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
Q: What conditions?
A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
A: Despair. I realised I was working in a sector based on a collection of lies.
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases - say, meningitis - that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that’s been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.
Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumours - that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.
Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.
Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time - which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defences.
Q: How were your findings received?
A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminium which are purposely put into vaccines.
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."
Q: The immune system is?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.
Q: What was the turning point for you?
A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
Q: And that is what you found?
A: Yes. You’re dealing with correlations, most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.
Q: Has it been enough?
A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
Q: Which is?
A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realise that these are NOT isolated situations.
Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
A: Yes I did.
Q: What happened?
A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labelled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.
Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. At different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on.
But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.
Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?
A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realising the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.
Q: This network you speak of.
A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.
Q: And in the industrialised nations?
A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarfare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.
Q: The furore over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one good avenue.
A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine - and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles - is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.
Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.
Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.
A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.
Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.
A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.
A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?
A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funnelled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.
Q: A good idea.
A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.
Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?
A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.
Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?
A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.
Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?
A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.
Q: The things that are not there.
A: Yes.
Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.
A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?
A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. f you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition.
But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe. In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.
Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?
A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.
Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?
A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.
A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.
Q: So we come to the level playing field.
A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.
Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.
A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.
_________________________________________________________________
Dr. Mark Randall (pseudonym) was a vaccine researcher for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.
He retired during the last decade.
He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory --with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings - he has decided to break his silence.
He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.
UP!
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman G. Finkelstein REVIEW
"The scholarship is simply superb. Finkelstein has clearly done his homework, and consulted and mastered a breathtaking range of material: primary sources and documents, scholarly works, reports old and new, correspondence with relevant individuals, and numerous other sources too. He has left no stone unturned." Mouin Rabbani, Contributing Editor, Middle East Report
UP!
This Administration Has Learned Nothing ,
What's Worse: Congress Has Learned Nothing!
This conversation between legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter was based on revelations in Ritter's new book, Iraq Confidential. They discuss how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve a hidden foreign policy agenda in the Middle East.
Hersh: So, Scott, to begin, before we even talk about how we got to where we are, my own personal view is we have two options in Iraq. Option A - we get all our troops out by midnight tonight, and option B, we get them all out by tomorrow night. And so I wonder where you sit on that?
Ritter: Well, I view that Iraq is a nation that's on fire. There's a horrific problem that faces not only the people of Iraq but the United States and the entire world. And the fuel that feeds that fire is the presence of American and British troops. This is widely acknowledged by the very generals that are in charge of the military action in Iraq. So the best way to put out the fire is to separate the fuel from the flame. So I'm a big proponent of bringing the troops home as soon as possible.
Today's the best day we're going to have in Iraq. Tomorrow's going to be worse, and the day after that's going to be even worse. But we also have to recognise that one of the reasons why we didn't move to Baghdad in 1991 to take out Saddam was that there was wide recognition that if you get rid of Saddam and you don't have a good idea of what's going to take his place, that Iraq will devolve into chaos and anarchy. Well, we've done just that. We got rid of Saddam, and we have no clue what was going to take his place. And pulling the troops out is only half of the problem.
We also have to deal with three critical issues that have emerged since we invaded:
The Shia, and I'm not talking about the mainstream Shia of Iraq. I'm talking about this political elite that's pro-Iranian that has conducted a coup d'état. They're running the government today.
The Sunni. We took a secular bulwark against the expansion of radical anti-American Islamic fundamentalism, and we've radicalised them. And if we just pull out and leave the situation as it is, we've turned the Sunni heartland into a festering cesspool of anti-American sentiment. It's the new Afghanistan, the new breeding ground for Al Qaeda.
The Kurds, the one that nobody talks about in the media. We have somehow given the Kurds this false sense that they're going to have an independent homeland, and yet our NATO ally, Turkey, has said this will never happen. And if we allow the Kurds to move forward towards independence, we're compelling the Turks to radical military intervention at a time when Turkey has just been invited to enter into the 15-year negotiation with the European Union about becoming a member of the European community. If the Turks move against the Kurds, that negotiation's over, which means that Turkey has been rejected by Europe and will be heading towards the embrace of radical anti-American Islam.
So it's not just about getting the troops out. We have to recognise that there are 3 huge ongoing issues in Iraq that affect the national security of the United States, and we need a policy to address these. But keeping our troops in Iraq is not part of that policy.
Hersh: How do you get them out, how quickly?
Ritter: The quicker the better. I mean, I'd leave it up to military professionals to determine how you reduce perimeters. There are some areas of the country where you can just literally up and run. But we have a significant force in place, and significant infrastructure, and we have an active insurgency that would take advantage of any weaknesses. But I guarantee you this, if we went to the insurgents - and I do believe we're having some sort of interaction with the insurgents today - and said we're getting out of here, all attacks would stop. They'd do everything they can to make sure that the road out of Iraq was as IED-free as possible.
Hersh: One of the things about your book that's amazing is that it's not only about the Bush Administration, and if there are any villains in this book, they include Sandy Berger, who was Clinton's national security advisor, and Madeleine Albright.
Another thing that's breathtaking about this book is the amount of new stories and new information. Scott describes in detail and with named sources, basically, a two or three-year run of the American government undercutting the inspection process. In your view, during those years, '91 to'98, particularly the last 3 years, was the United States interested in disarming Iraq?
Ritter: Well, the fact of the matter is the United States was never interested in disarming Iraq. The whole Security Council resolution that created the UN weapons inspections and called upon Iraq to disarm was focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is a vehicle for the maintenance of economic sanctions that were imposed in August 1990 linked to the liberation of Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait, I participated in that conflict. And one would think, therefore, the sanctions should be lifted.
The United States needed to find a vehicle to continue to contain Saddam because the CIA said all we have to do is wait 6 months and Saddam is going to collapse on his own volition. That vehicle is sanctions. They needed a justification; the justification was disarmament. They drafted a Chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq and saying in Paragraph 14 that if Iraq complies, sanctions will be lifted. Within months of this resolution being passed - and the United States drafted and voted in favour of this resolution-within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, are saying publicly, not privately, publicly that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
That is proof positive that disarmament was only useful insofar as it contained through the maintenance of sanctions and facilitated regime change. It was never about disarmament, it was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It started with George Herbert Walker Bush, and it was a policy continued through 8 years of the Clinton presidency, and then brought us to this current disastrous course of action under the current Bush Administration.
Hersh: One of the things that's overwhelming to me is the notion that everybody believed before March of '03 that Saddam had weapons. This is just urban myth. The fact of the matter is that, in talking to people who worked on the UNSCOM and also in the International Atomic Energy Agency, they were pretty much clear by '97 that there was very little likelihood that Saddam had weapons. And there were many people in our State Department, in the Department of Energy, in the CIA who didn't believe there were weapons. And I think history is going to judge the mass hysteria we had about Saddam and weapons. And one of the questions that keeps on coming up now is why didn't Saddam tell us? Or did he tell us?
Ritter: Well, of course he told us. Look, let's be honest, the Iraqis were obligated in 1991 to submit a full declaration listing the totality of their holdings in WMD, and they didn't do this. They lied. They failed to declare a nuclear weapons program, they failed to declare a biological weapons programs, and they under-declared their chemical and ballistic missile capabilities. Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran but also to focus on Israel. What he didn't count on was the tenacity of the inspectors. And very rapidly, by June 1991, we had compelled him into acknowledging that he had a nuclear weapons program, and we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door, flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so he could tell the cops, "I don't have any drugs," the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet.
They blew up all their weapons and buried them in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth. And by 1992 they were compelled again, because of the tenacity of the inspectors, to come clean. People ask why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them, but the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.
And furthermore, the CIA knew this, the British intelligence knew this, Israeli intelligence knew this, German intelligence, the whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed because nobody could say that, but they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding WMD had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it, and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.
Hersh: The other element in all of this, of course, is that, as Scott writes in his book, there were things going on inside his own organisation that he didn't know about, operations being run by the CIA. One of the things that was going on is, as we provoked Saddam and demanded to get into the palaces, their concern was, of course, that the real meaning of the effort was to assassinate him, and, lo and behold -
Ritter: Well, that's exactly what happened. I mean, look, the American policy was regime change. At first they wanted to be passive, we're just going to contain Saddam through economic sanctions, and he's going to collapse of his own volition in six months. That failed. We're going to put pressure on the Iraqis, and we're going to get some Sunni general to apply the 75-cent solution - the cost of a 9 mm bullet put in the back of Saddam's head - and the Sunni general will take over. If you want proof positive about the corrupt nature of our regime-change policy, understand this, it wasn't about changing the regime. It wasn't about getting rid of the Baathist party or transforming Iraq into a modern democracy back in the early 1990s. It was about getting rid of one man, Saddam Hussein. And if he was replaced by a Sunni general who governed Iraq in the exact same fashion, that was okay. And that shows the utter hypocrisy of everything we did.
But the CIA was having a difficult time getting near Saddam because he has a very effective security apparatus. By 1995, Saddam's survival becomes a political liability to Bill Clinton, and he was coming up for re-election in '96, and he turned to the CIA and said get rid of Saddam by the summer of 1996: I need that man gone. And the CIA worked with British intelligence, they brought in somebody named Ayad Allawi. It might be a name familiar to people - he was for a period of time the interim Prime Minister of Iraq after the American occupation. Before he was interim Prime Minister, however, he was a paid agent of British intelligence and the CIA, and he worked with them to orchestrate this coup d'état that required them to recruit people on the inside of Iraq to be ready to take out Saddam.
But you needed a trigger, and the trigger was a UN weapons inspection that I helped organise.
We thought we were going after the concealment mechanism, but it turned out that the CIA was setting us up so that we would go to facilities that housed Saddam's security. It was anticipated they would block us, and then when we withdrew, there would be a military strike that would decapitate the security of Saddam.
The one place that we wanted to go to, the Third Battalion, we weren't allowed to. The CIA said don't worry about that, we know those guys, they're not bad. And they were supposed to rise up and take Saddam out. Well, the Iraqi intelligence service was very effective at infiltrating this coup, they wrapped it up, and nothing happened in terms of getting rid of Saddam. Except one thing, the Iraqis were fully aware of the role played by the CIA in infiltrating UNSCOM and using UNSCOM for devices. And the ultimate tragedy of this is that from that point on, every time a UN weapons inspector went into Iraq - somebody with a blue hat - they weren't viewed by the Iraqis as somebody who was trying to disarm Iraq, they were viewed by the Iraqis as somebody trying to kill their President, and they were right.
Hersh: When did you learn about this?
Ritter: We always knew about regime change. I mean, when I first came in, we knew about regime change. In terms of the infiltration, you know, some people say it's my fault because I'm the guy who brought in the character I call Modaz and the special activities staff, the covert operators of the CIA. We used them in 1992, we used them in 1993 because it's tough to do inspections in Iraq. You know, they're not necessarily the friendliest people in the world when you're trying to go to a site that they don't want you to get in. And you can't have a bunch of thin-necked, geeky scientists trying to do this job. You need guys with thick necks and thick arms, and the CIA had plenty of these guys who could do logistics, they could do planning, they could do communications in austere environments. So we used these guys, and we used them in June.
The problem came afterwards when we started doing up follow-up inspections. First of all, the Iraqis would come to me, and they would say, "Ritter, what are you doing? You know, you're supposed to be an inspector, and yet you're doing all this bad stuff. We know about the CIA's coup attempts.... We know what happened in June."
Well, what happened in June? And suddenly we started inspecting sites, and I see documents that start sending off signals in my head about, oh, my gosh, the unit the CIA didn't want us to go to was the unit that was liquidated by Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the failed coup because that was the unit that was trying to take out Saddam. It's silly, the light goes on, and you're sitting there going we've had the wool pulled over our eyes, we've been used. We were used by the United States, though, and they're the most powerful nation on the Security Council that we as inspectors worked for.
So how do you turn to your boss and say, Hey, you've used us? We won't tolerate that. Well, you can't do that. What you have to do is continue to plod forward and just redouble your efforts to maintain the integrity of a process that tragically had been terminally corrupted by that point.
Hersh: The question is, if Clinton wasn't so good, where are we now?
Ritter: Well, I mean, I'll start off, and I want to highlight that point that Clinton wasn't so good. You know, there's a lot of talk today in the Democratically controlled judiciary committee about going after the Bush Administration for crimes, for lying to Congress, and etc. And I'm all in favour of that, bring on the indictments, but don't stop at the Bush Administration. If you want to have a truly bipartisan indictment, you indict Madeleine Albright, you indict Sandy Berger, you indict every person on the Clinton Administration that committed the exact same crime that the Bush Administration has committed today. Lying during the course of your official duty: That's a felony, that's a high crime and misdemeanour. That's language in the Constitution that triggers certain events like impeachment. So let's not just simply turn this into a Bush-bashing event. This is about a failure of not only the Bush Administration but of the United States of America, and we have to look in the mirror and recognise that, well, all the Bush Administration did is take advantage of a systemic failure on the part of the United States as a whole, a failure that not only involves the executive, but it involves the legislative branch, Congress.
Congress has abrogated its responsibilities under t
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 2/2 03-Nov-05 @ 06:39 PM - RE: parallel universe stuff - 11
next bit:
Congress has abrogated its responsibilities under the Constitution, and they've abrogated it for years. Then there's the media, and, yes, we can turn this into a media-bashing event. But you know what? The media only feeds the American people the poison they're willing to swallow. And we the people of the United States of America seem to want our news in no more than three-minute chunks with sound bites of 30 seconds or less, and it can't be too complicated. So what we did is allowed ourselves during the decade of the 1990s to be pre-programmed into accepting at face value without question anything that was negative about Saddam Hussein's regime, and this made selling the war on Iraq on the basis of a lie the easiest task ever faced by the Bush Administration.
Hersh: There's always the argument that one virtue of what we did, no matter how bad it is, we've got rid of a very bad dictator. What's your answer to that one?
Ritter: That invokes the notion of the ends justify the means. I mean, that's basically what we're saying here is that who cares about the lie, who cares about the WMD. You know, we got rid of a bad guy. The ends justify the means. And I have to be frank. If there's anybody here who calls themselves a citizen of the United States of America and you endorse the notion of the ends justify the means, submit your passport for destruction and get the hell out of my country. Because this is a country founded on the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution that the men and women who serve us swore an oath of allegiance to, the Constitution that our government, every government official swears an oath of allegiance to, and it's about due process. Democracy is ugly. Sometimes it doesn't work as smoothly as we want it to. But if you're sitting here and saying that when it comes to Saddam, that the ends justify the means, where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line?
And you can't tell me that it's only going to stop here. It's about the rule of law, it's about the Constitution. And if we wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, then we should have had a debate, discussion, and dialogue about the real reasons and not make up some artificial WMD.
Hersh: But let me ask you this, as somebody who knows the military pretty well, what about the failure of the military to speak out?
Ritter: Well, I'm not saying that they shouldn't speak out. I mean, it would be wonderful if soldiers came back from Iraq and said this is a war that's not only unwinnable, but this is a war that's morally unacceptable, and I can no longer participate in this conflict. But it's a very difficult thing to ask a soldier to do what the average American citizen won't.
I mean, why do we put the burden on the soldier to speak out instead of putting the burden on the American public to become more empowered, to become enraged about what's happening? We've got an election coming up in 2006. Rather than waiting for soldiers to resign, why don't we vote out of Congress everybody who voted in favour of this war?
Hersh: Do you have any optimism at this point?
Ritter: No. I wish I did. I mean, the sad fact is, one of the reasons why I was arguing against this war was not just that it was based on a lie, but it's a reflection of the reality that was recognised in 1991: If you remove Saddam and you don't have a clue what's going to replace Saddam, you're going to get chaos and anarchy. People continue to say they want the elegant solution in Iraq. I mean, that's the problem, everybody's like, well, we can't withdraw because we got to solve all the problems.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's not going to be an elegant solution in Iraq. There's no magic wand that can be waved to solve this problem. If we get out and we have a plan, you know, it's still going to cost 30,000 Iraqi lives. Let's understand that, there's going to be blood shed in Iraq. They're going to kill each other, and we're not going to stop it.
If we continue to stay the course, however, that 30,000 number may become 60,000 or 90,000. At the end of the day, we've created a nightmare scenario in Iraq, and the best we can do is mitigate failure. And that's what I'm talking, and, unfortunately, that's a politically unacceptable answer. People say, no, we have to win, we have to persevere, there has to be victory. There's not going to be victory.
Hersh: What about the chances of expanding the war? What about the chances of expanding the war into Syria or even into Iran?
Ritter: Well, the sad thing right now is that we have a Bush Administration that's populated by people who don't understand war. They've never been in the military, they've never served in combat, and they don't know what it means to have a son die or to have a friend die or have a brother die or have a comrade die.
And so that's why you have a Secretary of State like Condoleezza Rice who has the gall to stand before the American people and say that war is the only guarantor of peace and security. And now she’s testified before the US Congress, and she said that not only is Iraq probably going to be another ten-year investment of time, blood, and national treasure for the American public, but that Syria and Iran may very well be the next targets of the Bush Administration. So this Administration has learned nothing, but what's worse is that Congress has learned nothing.
There were no tough questions to Condoleezza Rice. And now we have the American people. What lessons have we learned, what actions are we going to take?
UP!
a l l g o o d t h i n g s c o m e t o a n e n d
which don't justify nuttin'
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
YOUR PLANET NEEDS //YOU!This HipList grows purely by recommendation.
SO RECOMMEND SOMEONE 2DAY!!!!!!!!!!
TO DEBATE ANYTHING in the UP! , visit the GroupMind Debating Board on
WWW.PARALLEL-YOUNIVERSITY.COM
Parallel YOUniversity, Box 833, London NW6, UK
fraser@parallel-youniversity.com
www.parallel-youniversity.com
www.parallel-youniversity.com/fraser
Congress has abrogated its responsibilities under the Constitution, and they've abrogated it for years. Then there's the media, and, yes, we can turn this into a media-bashing event. But you know what? The media only feeds the American people the poison they're willing to swallow. And we the people of the United States of America seem to want our news in no more than three-minute chunks with sound bites of 30 seconds or less, and it can't be too complicated. So what we did is allowed ourselves during the decade of the 1990s to be pre-programmed into accepting at face value without question anything that was negative about Saddam Hussein's regime, and this made selling the war on Iraq on the basis of a lie the easiest task ever faced by the Bush Administration.
Hersh: There's always the argument that one virtue of what we did, no matter how bad it is, we've got rid of a very bad dictator. What's your answer to that one?
Ritter: That invokes the notion of the ends justify the means. I mean, that's basically what we're saying here is that who cares about the lie, who cares about the WMD. You know, we got rid of a bad guy. The ends justify the means. And I have to be frank. If there's anybody here who calls themselves a citizen of the United States of America and you endorse the notion of the ends justify the means, submit your passport for destruction and get the hell out of my country. Because this is a country founded on the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution that the men and women who serve us swore an oath of allegiance to, the Constitution that our government, every government official swears an oath of allegiance to, and it's about due process. Democracy is ugly. Sometimes it doesn't work as smoothly as we want it to. But if you're sitting here and saying that when it comes to Saddam, that the ends justify the means, where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line?
And you can't tell me that it's only going to stop here. It's about the rule of law, it's about the Constitution. And if we wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, then we should have had a debate, discussion, and dialogue about the real reasons and not make up some artificial WMD.
Hersh: But let me ask you this, as somebody who knows the military pretty well, what about the failure of the military to speak out?
Ritter: Well, I'm not saying that they shouldn't speak out. I mean, it would be wonderful if soldiers came back from Iraq and said this is a war that's not only unwinnable, but this is a war that's morally unacceptable, and I can no longer participate in this conflict. But it's a very difficult thing to ask a soldier to do what the average American citizen won't.
I mean, why do we put the burden on the soldier to speak out instead of putting the burden on the American public to become more empowered, to become enraged about what's happening? We've got an election coming up in 2006. Rather than waiting for soldiers to resign, why don't we vote out of Congress everybody who voted in favour of this war?
Hersh: Do you have any optimism at this point?
Ritter: No. I wish I did. I mean, the sad fact is, one of the reasons why I was arguing against this war was not just that it was based on a lie, but it's a reflection of the reality that was recognised in 1991: If you remove Saddam and you don't have a clue what's going to replace Saddam, you're going to get chaos and anarchy. People continue to say they want the elegant solution in Iraq. I mean, that's the problem, everybody's like, well, we can't withdraw because we got to solve all the problems.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's not going to be an elegant solution in Iraq. There's no magic wand that can be waved to solve this problem. If we get out and we have a plan, you know, it's still going to cost 30,000 Iraqi lives. Let's understand that, there's going to be blood shed in Iraq. They're going to kill each other, and we're not going to stop it.
If we continue to stay the course, however, that 30,000 number may become 60,000 or 90,000. At the end of the day, we've created a nightmare scenario in Iraq, and the best we can do is mitigate failure. And that's what I'm talking, and, unfortunately, that's a politically unacceptable answer. People say, no, we have to win, we have to persevere, there has to be victory. There's not going to be victory.
Hersh: What about the chances of expanding the war? What about the chances of expanding the war into Syria or even into Iran?
Ritter: Well, the sad thing right now is that we have a Bush Administration that's populated by people who don't understand war. They've never been in the military, they've never served in combat, and they don't know what it means to have a son die or to have a friend die or have a brother die or have a comrade die.
And so that's why you have a Secretary of State like Condoleezza Rice who has the gall to stand before the American people and say that war is the only guarantor of peace and security. And now she’s testified before the US Congress, and she said that not only is Iraq probably going to be another ten-year investment of time, blood, and national treasure for the American public, but that Syria and Iran may very well be the next targets of the Bush Administration. So this Administration has learned nothing, but what's worse is that Congress has learned nothing.
There were no tough questions to Condoleezza Rice. And now we have the American people. What lessons have we learned, what actions are we going to take?
UP!
a l l g o o d t h i n g s c o m e t o a n e n d
which don't justify nuttin'
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
YOUR PLANET NEEDS //YOU!This HipList grows purely by recommendation.
SO RECOMMEND SOMEONE 2DAY!!!!!!!!!!
TO DEBATE ANYTHING in the UP! , visit the GroupMind Debating Board on
WWW.PARALLEL-YOUNIVERSITY.COM
Parallel YOUniversity, Box 833, London NW6, UK
fraser@parallel-youniversity.com
www.parallel-youniversity.com
www.parallel-youniversity.com/fraser
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Viewing all 2 messages - View by pages of 10: 1
There are 2 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
