Steven Gaal

Qatar's Agenda in Syria By Editorial Dept | Fri, 01 February 2013 20:15 | Oilprice.com Situation: Qatar continues to funnel weapons and facilitate other assistance to Syrian rebels and Salafi jihadists fighting the Assad regime in Syria. Bottom Line: Determining the outcome of the conflict in Syria is very difficult due to the sheer number of private players in this theater and the varying agendas. Determining the extent to which Qatar is willing to go is made easier by understanding what it wishes to achieve: Global stature—and a pipeline through Syria. Analysis: Right before the conflict in Syria broke out, Iran had cut a deal with Iraq for an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline to pump natural gas from the world’s largest gas field, South Pars, which is shared by Qatar and Iran. Qatar could not allow this to happen. It would have given Iran the upper hand in its perceived quest to form a “Shi’ite crescent”. Qatar wanted the pipeline first. Qatar’s original plan was a pipeline from South Pars through Iraq and on to Turkey, and then to European markets. This pipeline, however, would have to traverse southern/central Iraq and Northern Iraq. This has become problematic due to the oil-resources power struggle between the Kurds of Northern Iraq and the Iraqi central government. A pipeline through Syria would be much easier. It would also be convenient for Jordan, which has apparently been promised free Qatari gas for its help in training Syrian rebels on its territory and allowing them to use Jordanian territory to launch offensives… +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IRAN-IRAQ: Pipeline to Syria Ups Ante in Proxy War with Qatar By Editorial Dept | Fri, 22 February 2013 Bottom Line: Iraq’s agreement to allow Iran to build a pipeline through its territory and on to Syria is in direct competition with Qatar’s similar designs for a Syria pipeline that would connect to Turkey. This pipeline is another proxy in the Syrian conflict theater and Iran’s response to its loss of ground here. It is also a sign of Iran’s growing foothold in Iraq. Qatar will respond in kind. Analysis: This week the Iraqi Cabinet green lighted Iran’s $10 billion pipeline project, which will supply gas from the South Pars field (which is the largest in the world, and which, as mentioned above, it shares with Qatar) to Syria and beyond to other export markets. There is talk of extending the pipeline to Lebanon. The first part of the pipeline—some 225 kilometers—through Iraq will reportedly be completed in June 2013. The pipeline will connect the southern Iranian port of Assolouyeh to Iraq and then to Syria—for now. It will have a 110 million cubic meter/day capacity. The plan is to give Iraq 20 million cubic meters/day of Iranian gas for its power plants, with 20-25 million cubic meters/day going to Syria. In a direct slap in the face to Qatar’s plans, Iraqi authorities also said the pipeline could eventually be extended to Europe. This is where it gets quite interesting: the current sanctions regime of course would not allow this Iranian gas into the European market, but it certainly will be… ########################### Im sorry I assumed you know common facts re Syria/Al-Jazeera news coverage. BAD ME ! LOTS OF EDUCATION NEEDED I SEE. Al Jazeera reporter resigns over "biased" Syria coverage | Al Akhbar ... english.al-akhbar.com/node/4941Cached Mar 8, 2012 – Al Jazeera Arabic's Beirut correspondent, Ali Hashem, resigned on Tuesday after leaked emails revealed his frustrations over the news ... In Syria, al Jazeera's Credibility Implodes » Counterpunch: Tells the ... www.counterpunch.org/.../in-syria-al-jazeeras-credibility-implodes/Cached ... today and get. CounterPunch by email for only $35 per year. March 05, 2012. The guy who runs al Jazeera's Syrian coverage is the brother of a SNC bigwig ... Al-Jazeera's political independence questioned amid Qatar ... www.guardian.co.uk › Media › Al-JazeeraCached Sep 30, 2012 – Al-Jazeera English journalists protest after being ordered to re-edit UN ... its English channel's coverage of the debate on Syrian intervention.

PATTERN PATTERN PATTERN. CT PEOPLE CALL THE PEOPLE OF willful unbelief in Conspiracy, COINCIDENSE KOOKS (CK). I predict a CK will respond with another weak response. PLEASE NOTE WHEN THE CIA/NSA/FBI ARE HAVING, "supposed faulty investigations" that aid the terrorists, there is additional parallel activity of warnings,State Department passport approval ,foreknowledge and military exercises that help the terror attack of 911. Willful unbelief is the only explanation (or being paid to have a false position) for non-belief in 911 false flag. Belief in 911 false flag is the only intelligent Gordian knot cutting of the known datum. ###################################### The Warning from Mossad The Mossad’s emblem. The motto states, “By way of deception, thou shalt do war” At the same time that the FBI was getting close to investigating Alhazmi and Almihdhar, the Mossad, Israel’s feared secret service, gave the US an urgent warning, according to recent reports from Germany. These reports say that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad gave the CIA a list of terrorists living in the US and said that they appeared to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. The list of terrorists contained 19 names. It is unknown if these are the same exact 19 names as the actual hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, four names on the list are known and were names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. It appears that a spy ring run by the Mossad had been closely following these terrorists for many months. In December 2000, Mossad agents rented an apartment in Hollywood, Florida, close to where Atta and Alshehhi were staying and attending flight school. They were closely spied upon until at least April 2001, when many of the Israeli agents were thrown out of the country. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02] It has not been stated how the Mossad knew of Alhazmi and Almihdhar, but a Drug Enforcement Administration report on the Israeli spy ring internally released in June 2001 (and leaked after 9/11) noted the presence of Israeli spies in San Diego, California and Phoenix, Arizona at times when Alhazmi and Almihdhar would have been in those cities. [DEA Report, 6/01] Yet, apparently this warning and list were not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also not passed on to the FBI. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02] The Israeli Ambassador to the US reacted to these reports by denying there were any Mossad agents in the US, [Haaretz, 10/3/02] despite widespread reports saying there were (see for instance, [Fox News, 12/12/01, Le Monde, 3/5/02, Reuters, 3/5/02, Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02,Forward, 3/15/02, Salon, 5/7/02, ABC News, 6/21/02]). Die Zeit, however, claims that the Congressional inquiry on 9/11 has learned about these Mossad agents and warnings, and presumably will discuss them in a future session about warnings from foreign governments. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02] Up until now, the inquiry claims no evidence has surfaced that any US intelligence agency knew the names of any of the hijackers before 9/11, except for Alhazmi, Almihdhar and Salem Alhazmi, Nawaf’s brother. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The “All-Points Bulletin” On August 23, 2001, perhaps goaded by the Mossad warning given on the same day, the CIA sent out what Newsweek later called an “all-points bulletin” to the State Department, Customs, INS and FBI, instructing them to put Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar on the terrorist watch list “due to their confirmed links to Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives and suspicious activities while traveling in East Asia.” [Newsweek, 6/2/02, Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] If the Mossad warning is true, it is very curious that Atta and Alshehhi’s names were not also added to the watch list at the same time, especially given media reports that Atta was already under surveillance in Germany in early 2001. [Observer, 9/30/01, Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01] Strangely, the FAA and the airlines were not notified about anyone at this time, even though procedures were in place for law enforcement agencies to share watch list information with the airlines and airports and despite the fact that such sharing was commonplace.[Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01]As a result, two days later, no flags were raised when Almihdhar booked a reservation in his real name over the American Airlines web site for his 9/11 flight. [Washington Post, 9/16/01] On September 27, two days after that, Alhazmi purchased two airline tickets with his credit card, also using his real name.[Newsweek, 6/2/02, MSNBC, 12/11/01] An official later stated, “Had we had information that those two individuals presented a threat to aviation or posed a great danger, we would have put them on the list and they should have been picked up in the reservation process.” [Washington Post, 10/2/02] The CIA claimed the bulletin was labeled “immediate,” the second most urgent category. An intelligence official told the Los Angeles Times that the label meant, “It’s an emergency,” adding, “It’s rare you would get a cable anything higher. This is the upper end of the scale.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/01] But the FBI denied that the warning was marked “immediate.” Nor did Congress’s Joint Inquiry Staff report indicate that the label had been used either. In fact, it seems that most agencies treated the alert as a routine matter. [Los Angeles Times, 10/18/01, Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The bulletin also requested that Khallad bin Atash be added to the watch list—eight months after he was determined to have been the main planner of the Cole bombing. One other person from the Malaysian meeting was also included, but that name remains confidential (could it be Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11?). [New York Times, 9/21/02] Interestingly, the CIA’s warning to the FBI came exactly one day after John O’Neill had been forced out of the FBI. Because he had fallen out of favor a few months earlier, he was never told about Ken Williams’s flight school memo, nor the internal conflict over Zacarias Moussaoui. [PBS Frontline, 10/3/02] Nor was he at a meeting in June when the CIA revealed some of what they knew about Alhazmi and Almihdhar. [PBS Frontline, 10/3/02] One can only wonder what the government’s “most committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists” would have done with the watch list warning. [New Yorker, 1/14/02] A Halfhearted Search Gets Blocked At the time the bulletin was issued, the CIA believed that Almihdhar was probably already in the US. While the inclusion of his name on the watch list would have prevented him from leaving the country, it couldn’t help find him inside the US. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] So a search for them was needed. But, as the Wall Street Journal explained, the search “consisted of little more than entering their names in a nationwide law enforcement database that would have triggered red flags if they were taken into custody for some other reason.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01] It apparently did little good—not even a speeding ticket that had been issued to Alhazmi the previous April was detected. [Daily Oklahoman, 1/20/02] Nor was a recorded interaction between Alhazmi and local police in Fairfax, Virginia in May that could have led investigators to Alhazmi’s East Coast apartment. [san Diego Union-Tribune,9/27/02] Despite the presumed urgency of the alert, the FBI field offices in Southern California were not notified of the status of the two men on the watch list, even though the two had entered the US through the Los Angeles International Airport. [Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01] The Los Angeles Times pointed out that the FBIs “aggressive action” did not even include checking California drivers license records or VISA card records (the VISA cards were used to buy 9/11 tickets), both of which contained the names of Almihdhar and Alhazmi. [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/01] FBI and CIA officials talk about the Alhazmi and Almihdhar case behind screens to shield their identities from the general public. [New York Times] On August 28, a report was sent to the FBI’s New York office recommending that an investigation be launched “to determine if Almihdhar is still in the United States.” The New York office tried to convince FBI headquarters to open a criminal investigation, but they were immediately turned down, the reason being that Almihdhar could not be tied to the Cole investigation without the inclusion of sensitive intelligence information. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The reason for this had to do with the barrier, or so-called “wall,” that allowed the CIA to withhold information from its domestic counterpart when the former had cause to believe that a criminal investigation could disclose the “methods” and “sources” of its intelligence. Instead of a criminal case, the New York office was forced to open an “intelligence case,” thus excluding all the “criminal case” investigators from the manhunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi. As such, all “criminal case” agents were prohibited from taking part in the search for the two Saudis. [FBI Agent Testimony, 9/20/02] Expressing his frustration at the impasse, one FBI agent wrote in an e-mail on August 29, “Whatever has happened to this—someday someone will die—and wall or not—the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ Let’s hope the [FBI’s] National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [usama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection.’” [New York Times, 9/21/02, FBI Agent Testimony, 9/20/02] On August 28, the FBI contacted both the State Department and INS in an effort to determine where Almihdhar had entered the US. However, neither agency was asked “to assist in locating the individuals, nor was any other information provided [that] would have indicated either a high priority or imminent danger,” explained the Joint Inquiry Staff report. Even more disturbing was the revelation that the INS felt that “if it had been asked to locate the two suspected terrorists, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, in late August on an urgent, emergency basis, it would have been able to run those names through its extensive database system and might have been able to locate them.” Similarly, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the State Department said, “that it ha[d] extensive means of locating individuals who are involved in visa fraud or visa violations and also contend[ed] that it might have been able to locate the two suspected terrorists if it had been asked to do so.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The next day, August 29, the FBI learned that when Almihdhar arrived in the US on July 4, 2001, he had indicated that he would be staying at a Marriott hotel in New York City. But by September 5, the records of all New York area Marriott hotels had been investigated and not one contained any reference to the wanted Saudi. Then on September 10, the FBI New York office asked the FBI Los Angeles office to check registration records for all Sheraton Hotels in Los Angeles (where Almihdhar said he would be staying when he had entered the country in January 2000). [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The Los Angeles office did not receive the request until shortly after the attacks. [senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] The search was conducted after 9/11 with negative results. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The San Diego office wasn’t notified about the two Saudis wanted status until September 12, and even then they were only provided with “sketchy” information. [Los Angeles Times, 9/16/01] To the dismay of several distraught investigators, after 9/11 it was discovered that Alhazmi and Almihdhar had actually lived remarkably open lives—so open in fact that had the FBI searched the public records in San Diego, they would have quickly come across their names. Alhazmi’s name in particular was quite visible. It was everywhere—he had used it to register a car, get a drivers’ license, a credit card, [south Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/01] open a bank account- it was even in the phone book. [Newsweek, 6/2/02] It is even possible that the FBI—had they located these records—would have found them at their official residences. According to some accounts, Alhazmi and Almihdhar, were living in San Diego until the very week of the attacks. On the morning of 9/11, Alhazmi and Almihdhar raised no special alarms or special security screening when they arrived at Dulles Airport before the scheduled 8:10 a.m. departure of the flight they would help hijack. [Cox News, 10/21/01] Two Places at Once? The current historical record provides a very ambiguous and problematic account of Hani Hanjour, Alhamzi and Almihdhar’s whereabouts and activities in the days and weeks preceding 9/11. The official story has them on the East Coast during all of August and September. The Wall Street Journal reported that on August 1, Almihdhar, along with Hanjour, was in Falls Church, Virginia, using an illegal scheme to obtain Virginia driver’s licenses. [Wall Street Journal, 10/16/01] On August 10, Alhazmi and Hanjour, and perhaps others, flew to Las Vegas. [New York Times, 11/6/01] where they met with Atta and other hijackers until August 14. They then returned to Baltimore [New York Times, 11/6/01] and on August 20, Alhazmi and Hanjour rented a car in New Jersey for the next ten days. [CNN, 9/26/01, New York Times, 9/21/01, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/01] On September 1, Alhazmi stayed at the Pin-Del hotel in Laurel, Maryland [Newsday, 9/23/01] and then joined others at another hotel in Valencia, Maryland where they stayed until 9/11. [st. Petersburg Times, 9/27/01, Newsday, 9/23/01] During this time, from September 2 through 6, Almihdhar and Alhazmi, as well as Salem Alhazmi, Majed Moqed, and Hani Hanjour, were all seen working out at Gold’s Gym in Greenbelt, Maryland. [AP, 9/21/01, Newsday, 9/23/01] Credit card receipts revealed that Nawaf Alhazmi shopped at a Macy’s and a Champs store at a mall in Wayne, New Jersey on September 9. [CNN, 9/26/01] However, neighbors at the Parkwood Apartments in San Diego were clear in their assertions that Alhazmi, Almihdhar and even Hanjour had all stayed in San Diego until days before 9/11. One report suggested they left Parkwood Apartments around September 1. [san Diego Union-Tribune, 9/16/01] But most other accounts placed their departure later. One report stated, “Authorities believe Almihdhar, Hanjour and Alhazmi… moved out a couple of days before the East Coast attacks.” [san Diego Channel 10, 11/1/01] Ed Murray, a resident at the complex, said that all three “started moving out Saturday night—- and Sunday [september 9] they were gone.” (This is the same day that Alhazmi was shopping in New Jersey!)[san Diego Channel 10, 9/14/01, San Diego Channel 10, 9/20/01] These accounts corroborate a neighbor’s recollection of seeing them get into a limousine late one night only a few days before 9/11. These neighbors had seen them on other occasions in previous months, and gave no indications to suggest they’d been gone for long stretches of time. [Time, 9/24/01] Yet supposedly, Alhazmi and Hanjour leased an apartment in Paterson, New Jersey during the six-month period preceding the attacks. [ABC News, 9/23/01] One might argue that they had multiple addresses and that these inconsistencies can be explained by frequent cross-country flights and inaccurate eyewitness testimonies. This may be. However, one should also allow for the possibility that there were multiple people using the same names at the same time. Could one set of hijackers using the names of Almihdhar, Alhazmi and possibly Hanjour have been living in San Diego, while another set with the same names were living on the East Coast? The media has shown these three pictures of Almihdhar. Could the man in the far right picture be the “other” Khalid Almihdhar? The Truth Must Come Out The recent Congressional Intelligence Committee report on who knew what and when about Alhazmi and Almihdhar resembles more a whitewash than a true investigation. The FBI, CIA and others are taken at their word, even though they are known to have lied about this very issue in the past. For instance, up until June 2002, the CIA maintained that it had not learned of Almihdhar’s connections to al-Qaeda or his visits to the US until August 2001. [New York Times, 6/3/02] But as is well-known now, these links had been established by US intelligence before the January 2000 meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. If it had not been for leaks and the diligent work of investigative journalists, this information would never have made it to the public. Another example of their tendency to misrepresent the truth was made apparent when the FBI claimed it had begun “an aggressive, ‘full field’ investigation” immediately after the August 23 bulletin. But to the embarrassment of the FBI, it was discovered that the agency did not conduct even the simplest and most basic of searches, neglecting to check national databases of bank records, credit card records, and so on. [Newsweek, 6/2/02] The CIA and FBI’s inability to concur on whether or not the August 23 warning was labeled “immediate” is another case in point. Another curious inconsistency is that the Congressional inquiry failed to mention that both Alhazmi and Almihdhar lived in California with FBI informant Abdussattar Shaikh from September until December 2000. The Congressional report stated that while Alhazmi had lived in the informant’s home until December, “official records have Almihdhar leaving the US on June 10, 2000, and not returning until July 4, 2001.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] But this is in complete contradiction to all previous media reports, the accounts from neighbors, and quotes from Abdussattar Shaikh himself! [Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01, Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/01, San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/16/01, Newsweek, 9/9/02] There is a similar unwillingness to admit that Hanjour was in the US in the year 2000 before December, again because that would contradict immigration records. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] With actions like this, the investigation is further obscuring the truth, not uncovering it. The Congressional committee, the mainstream media, and major US officials have all repeatedly stated that there was no “smoking gun”—no single thing they could have done differently to stop the attacks. For instance, on June 7, 2002, President Bush purported, “Based on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September the 11th.” [sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02] This is clearly wrong. Alhazmi and Almihdhar were the smoking gun—many times over. The Wall Street Journal claimed that even if the FBI knew the two had entered the US early on, “more-vigilant law enforcement is unlikely to have caught all of them.” Then they alleged, “it’s difficult to imagine how to prevent [terrorists] from operating here in the future without making the nation less free, less open and less tolerant of outsiders.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01] But with what we now know of the connections between Alhazmi and Almihdhar and the other hijackers, it is clear all of them could have been caught, as FBI agents themselves have conceded. The gross failures and even crimes of intelligence officials should not be used as an excuse to destroy our freedoms. Questions, Questions The most serious questions have not even been asked by the Congressional committee. What does FBI informant Abdussattar Shaikh really know? Why does he contradict neighbors’ claims that Mohamed Atta was a frequent visitor to his house? Who do phone records show Alhazmi and Almihdhar called so frequently? Was there a deliberate sabotage of John O’Neill’s investigation in Yemen? Why did the CIA fail to share information on Alhazmi and Almihdhar? Why were even well known, top level terrorists like Khallad bin Atash not put on watch lists, much less investigated? Could the meetings in late night limousines have been the communication link between the hijackers and some group outside of al-Qaeda? Do we really know the true identities of the hijackers? Why can’t we see the video footage of them passing through airport security? Why does the FBI still use a photo of an innocent man for Salem Alhazmi? Is there any reason to believe Khalid Almihdhar is still alive? Most importantly, at what point do incompetence and bureaucratic barriers cease to be reasonable explanations for so many failures surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar? Could the US government have been protecting these two for some reason? When will investigators and the media start asking these difficult questions?

=================================== (Colby's rants aside. problems with fluoride are a real issue.Gaal) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb SOURCE: Waste Not # 414 | September 1997 | By Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths Introduction: The following article was commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor in the spring of 1997. Despite much favorable comment from editors, and full documentation, the story remains unpublished by the Monitor. By any yardstick, this report was an award-winning scoop for any national paper. The report offers a glimpse into the history of fluoride, a bio-accumulative toxic that Americans ingest every day. The authors, Griffiths and Bryson, spent more than a year on research. With the belief that the information should be withheld no longer, the authors gave their report to Waste Not, and others, with a short note: “use as you wish.” This introduction is taken from Waste Not #414 (September 1997) where the article was first published. The article went on to be nominated as the year’s 18th most censored story in the 1998 Project Censored Series. Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb by Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children’s teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still-controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age. Today, two thirds of U.S. public drinking water is fluoridated. Many municipalities still resist the practice, disbelieving the government’s assurances of safety. Since the days of World War II, when this nation prevailed by building the world’s first atomic bomb, U.S. public health leaders have maintained that low doses of fluoride are safe for people, and good for children’s teeth. That safety verdict should now be re-examined in the light of hundreds of once-secret WWII documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson –including declassified papers of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. military group that built the atomic bomb. Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride– millions of tons– were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program–both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal. Other revelations include: * Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show. * Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water–conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named “Program F,” they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel. * The original secret version–obtained by these reporters–of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) –considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies– for reasons of national security. * The bomb program’s fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which “national security” was paramount. * The U.S. government’s conflict of interest–and its motive to prove fluoride “safe” — has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950′s, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists. The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence, and a chorus of questions, about the health effects of fluoride in the environment. Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste, but to environmental pollution by major industries from aluminum to pesticides: fluoride is a critical industrial chemical. The impact can be seen, literally, in the smiles of our children. Large numbers of U.S. young people–up to 80 percent in some cities–now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases.) Less-known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones –”The teeth are windows to what’s happening in the bones,” explains Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (N.Y.). In recent years, pediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among U.S. young people. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride –linked to bone damage by studies since the 1930′s– may be a contributing factor. The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original proof that low-dose fluoride is safe for children’s bones came from U.S. bomb program scientists, according to this investigation. Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride. “Information was buried,” concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990′s indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix’s results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride’s effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that “fluoride does not have central nervous system effects.” Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise. An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…. It seems most likely that the F component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor." The memo --stamped "secret"-- is addressed to the head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Colonel Warren is asked to approve a program of animal research on CNS effects: "Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure...This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties." On the same day, Colonel Warren approved the CNS research program. This was in 1944, at the height of the Second World War and the nation's race to build the world's first atomic bomb. For research on fluoride's CNS effects to be approved at such a momentous time, the supporting evidence set forth in the proposal forwarded along with the memo must have been persuasive. The proposal, however, is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. "If you find the memos, but the document they refer to is missing, its probably still classified," said Charles Reeves, chief librarian at the Atlanta branch of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, where the memos were found. Similarly, no results of the Manhattan Project's fluoride CNS research could be found in the files. After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted." She went on, "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies --"that kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties--I can't imagine that would be ignored"-- but that the results were buried because they might create a difficult legal and public relations problem for the government. The author of the 1944 CNS research proposal was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, at the time chief of fluoride toxicology studies for the University of Rochester division of the Manhattan Project. Nearly fifty years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Mullenix was introduced to a gently ambling elderly man brought in to serve as a consultant on her CNS research--Harold C. Hodge. By then Hodge had achieved status emeritus as a world authority on fluoride safety. "But even though he was supposed to be helping me," says Mullenix, "he never once mentioned the CNS work he had done for the Manhattan Project." The "black hole" in fluoride CNS research since the days of the Manhattan Project is unacceptable to Mullenix, who refuses to abandon the issue. "There is so much fluoride exposure now, and we simply do not know what it is doing," she says. "You can't just walk away from this." Dr. Antonio Noronha, an NIH scientific review advisor familiar with Dr. Mullenix's grant request, says her proposal was rejected by a scientific peer-review group. He terms her claim of institutional bias against fluoride CNS research "farfetched." He adds, "We strive very hard at NIH to make sure politics does not enter the picture." [b][i]Fluoride and National Security[/i][/b] The documentary trail begins at the height of WW2, in 1944, when a severe pollution incident occurred downwind of the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb. The farms downwind in Gloucester and Salem counties were famous for their high-quality produce -- their peaches went directly to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. Their tomatoes were bought up by Campbell's Soup. But in the summer of 1943, the farmers began to report that their crops were blighted, and that "something is burning up the peach crops around here." Poultry died after an all-night thunderstorm, they reported. Farm workers who ate the produce they had picked sometimes vomited all night and into the next day. "I remember our horses looked sick and were too stiff to work," these reporters were told by Mildred Giordano, who was a teenager at the time. Some cows were so crippled they could not stand up, and grazed by crawling on their bellies. The account was confirmed in taped interviews, shortly before he died, with Philip Sadtler of Sadtler Laboratories of Philadelphia, one of the nation's oldest chemical consulting firms. Sadtler had personally conducted the initial investigation of the damage. Although the farmers did not know it, the attention of the Manhattan Project and the federal government was riveted on the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret documents obtained by these reporters. After the war's end, in a secret Manhattan Project memo dated March 1, 1946, the Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, Harold C. Hodge, worriedly wrote to his boss Colonel Stafford L. Warren, Chief of the Medical Division, about "problems associated with the question of fluoride contamination of the atmosphere in a certain section of New Jersey. There seem to be four distinct (though related) problems," continued Hodge; A question of injury of the peach crop in 1944. A report of extraordinary fluoride content of vegetables grown in this area. A report of abnormally high fluoride content in the blood of human individuals residing in this area. A report raising the question of serious poisoning of horses and cattle in this area. The New Jersey farmers waited until the war was over, then sued du Pont and the Manhattan Project for fluoride damage -- reportedly the first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program. Although seemingly trivial, the lawsuits shook the government, the secret documents reveal. Under the personal direction of Manhattan Project chief Major General Leslie R.Groves, secret meetings were convened in Washington, with compulsory attendance by scores of scientists and officials from the U.S War Department, the Manhattan Project, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture and Justice Departments, the U.S Army's Chemical Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal, the Bureau of Standards, and du Pont lawyers. Declassified memos of the meetings reveal a secret mobilization of the full forces of the government to defeat the New Jersey farmers: These agencies "are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in ... New Jersey," stated Manhattan Project Lieutenant Colonel Cooper B. Rhodes, in a memo c.c.'d to General Groves. [indent=1] [i]27 August 1945[/i] [i]Subject: Investigation of Crop Damage at Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey[/i] [i]To: The Commanding General, Army Service Forces, Pentagon Building, Washington D.C.[/i] [i]"At the request of the Secretary of War the Department of Agriculture has agreed to cooperate in investigating complaints of crop damage attributed... to fumes from a plant operated in connection with the Manhattan Project."[/i] [i]Signed, L.R. Groves, Major General U.S.[/i][/indent] "The Department of Justice is cooperating in the defense of these suits," wrote General Groves in a Feb. 28, 1946 memo to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy. Why the national-security emergency over a few lawsuits by New Jersey farmers? In 1946 the United States had begun full-scale production of atomic bombs. No other nation had yet tested a nuclear weapon, and the A-bomb was seen as crucial for U.S leadership of the postwar world. The New Jersey fluoride lawsuits were a serious roadblock to that strategy. "The specter of endless lawsuits haunted the military," writes Lansing Lamont in his acclaimed book about the first atomic bomb test, "Day of Trinity." In the case of fluoride, "If the farmers won, it would open the door to further suits, which might impede the bomb program's ability to use fluoride," said Jacqueline Kittrell, a Tennessee public interest lawyer specializing in nuclear cases, who examined the declassified fluoride documents. (Kittrell has represented plaintiffs in several human radiation experiment cases.) She added, "The reports of human injury were especially threatening, because of the potential for enormous settlements -- not to mention the PR problem." Indeed, du Pont was particularly concerned about the "possible psychologic reaction" to the New Jersey pollution incident, according to a secret 1946 Manhattan Project memo. Facing a threat from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to embargo the region's produce because of "high fluoride content," du Pont dispatched its lawyers to the FDA offices in Washington, where an agitated meeting ensued. According to a memo sent next day to General Groves, Du Pont's lawyer argued "that in view of the pending suits...any action by the Food and Drug Administration... would have a serious effect on the du Pont Company and would create a bad public relations situation." After the meeting adjourned, Manhattan Project Captain John Davies approached the FDA's Food Division chief and "impressed upon Dr. White the substantial interest which the Government had in claims which might arise as a result of action which might be taken by the Food and Drug Administration." There was no embargo. Instead, new tests for fluoride in the New Jersey area would be conducted -- not by the Department of Agriculture -- but by the U.S. Army's Chemical Warfare Service because "work done by the Chemical Warfare Service would carry the greatest weight as evidence if... lawsuits are started by the complainants." The memo was signed by General Groves. Meanwhile, the public relations problem remained unresolved -- local citizens were in a panic about fluoride. The farmer's spokesman, Willard B. Kille, was personally invited to dine with General Groves --then known as "the man who built the atomic bomb" -- at his office at the War Department on March 26, 1946. Although he had been diagnosed with fluoride poisoning by his doctor, Kille departed the luncheon convinced of the government's good faith. The next day he wrote to the general, wishing the other farmers could have been present, he said, so "they too could come away with the feeling that their interests in this particular matter were being safeguarded by men of the very highest type whose integrity they could not question." In a subsequent secret Manhattan project memo, a broader solution to the public relations problem was suggested by chief fluoride toxicologist Harold C. Hodge. He wrote to the Medical Section chief, Col. Warren: "Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester counties through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?" Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War. The New Jersey farmers' lawsuits were ultimately stymied by the government's refusal to reveal the key piece of information that would have settled the case --how much fluoride du Pont had vented into the atmosphere during the war. "Disclosure... would be injurious to the military security of the United States," wrote Manhattan Project Major C.A Taney, Jr. The farmers were pacified with token financial settlements, according to interviews with descendants still living in the area. "All we knew is that du Pont released some chemical that burned up all the peach trees around here," recalls Angelo Giordano, whose father James was one of the original plaintiffs. "The trees were no good after that, so we had to give up on the peaches." Their horses and cows, too, acted stiff and walked stiff, recalls his sister Mildred. "Could any of that have been the fluoride ?" she asked. (The symptoms she detailed to the authors are cardinal signs of fluoride toxicity, according to veterinary toxicologists.) The Giordano family, too, has been plagued by bone and joint problems, Mildred adds. Recalling the settlement received by the Giordanos, Angelo told these reporters that "my father said he got about $200." The farmers were stonewalled in their search for information, and their complaints have long since been forgotten. But they unknowingly left their imprint on history -- their claims of injury to their health reverberated through the corridors of power in Washington, and triggered intensive secret bomb-program research on the health effects of fluoride. A secret 1945 memo from Manhattan Project Lt. Col. Rhodes to General Groves stated: "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by hydrogen fluoride fumes in [the New Jersey] area, although there are no pending suits involving such claims, the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride." Much of the proof of fluoride's safety in low doses rests on the postwar work performed by the University of Rochester, in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. [i]Fluoride and the Cold War.[/i] Delegating fluoride safety studies to the University of Rochester was not surprising. During WWII the federal government had become involved, for the first time, in large-scale funding of scientific research at government-owned labs and private colleges. Those early spending priorities were shaped by the nation's often-secret military needs. The prestigious upstate New York college, in particular, had housed a key wartime division of the Manhattan Project, studying the health effects of the new "special materials," such as uranium, plutonium, beryllium and fluoride, being used to make the atomic bomb. That work continued after the war, with millions of dollars flowing from the Manhattan Project and its successor organization, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (Indeed, the bomb left an indelible imprint on all U.S. science in the late 1940's and 50's. Up to 90% of federal funds for university research came from either the Defense Department or the AEC in this period, according to Noam Chomsky's 1996 book "The Cold War and the University.") The University of Rochester medical school became a revolving door for senior bomb program scientists. Postwar faculty included Stafford Warren, the top medical officer of the Manhattan Project, and Harold Hodge, chief of fluoride research for the bomb program. But this marriage of military secrecy and medical science bore deformed offspring. The University of Rochester's classified fluoride studies -- code- named Program F -- were conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed in Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. Revelation of this experiment in a Pulitzer prize-winning account by Eileen Welsome led to a 1995 U.S. Presidential investigation, and a multimillion-dollar cash settlement for victims. Program F was not about children's teeth. It grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury. Program F's director was none other than Harold C. Hodge, who had led the Manhattan Project investigation of alleged human injury in the New Jersey fluoride-pollution incident. Program F's purpose is spelled out in a classified 1948 report. It reads: "To supply evidence useful in the litigation arising from an alleged loss of a fruit crop several years ago, a number of problems have been opened. Since excessive blood fluoride levels were reported in human residents of the same area, our principal effort has been devoted to describing the relationship of blood fluorides to toxic effects." The litigation referred to, of course, and the claims of human injury were against the bomb program and its contractors. Thus, the purpose of Program F was to obtain evidence useful in litigation against the bomb program. The research was being conducted by the defendants. The potential conflict of interest is clear. If lower dose ranges were found hazardous by Program F, it might have opened the bomb program and its contractors to lawsuits for injury to human health, as well as public outcry. Comments lawyer Kittrell: "This and other documents indicate that the University of Rochester's fluoride research grew out of the New Jersey lawsuits and was performed in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. Studies undertaken for litigation purposes by the defendants would not be considered scientifically acceptable today, " adds Kittrell, "because of their inherent bias to prove the chemical safe." Unfortunately, much of the proof of fluoride's safety rests on the work performed by Program F Scientists at the University of Rochester. During the postwar period that university emerged as the leading academic center for establishing the safety of fluoride, as well as its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay, according to Dental School spokesperson William H. Bowen, MD. The key figure in this research, Bowen said, was Harold C. Hodge-- who also became a leading national proponent of fluoridating public drinking water. Program F's interest in water fluoridation was not just 'to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents,' as Hodge had earlier written. The bomb program needed human studies, as they had needed human studies for plutonium, and adding fluoride to public water supplies provided one opportunity. [b][i]The A-Bomb Program and Water Fluoridation[/i][/b] Bomb-program scientists played a prominent -- if unpublicized -- role in the nation's first-planned water fluoridation experiment, in Newburgh, New York. The Newburgh Demonstration Project is considered the most extensive study of the health effects of fluoridation, supplying much of the evidence that low doses are safe for children's bones, and good for their teeth. Planning began in 1943 with the appointment of a special New York State Health Department committee to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburgh's drinking water. The chairman of the committee was Dr. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project. Subsequent members included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Project's Medical section, and John W. Fertig, in 1944 with the office of Scientific Research and Development, the Pentagon group which sired the Manhattan Project. Their military affiliations were kept secret: Hodge was described as a pharmacologist, Barnett as a pediatrician. Placed in charge of the Newburgh project was David B. Ast, chief dental officer of the State Health Department. Ast had participated in a key secret wartime conference on fluoride held by the Manhattan Project, and later worked with Dr. Hodge on the Project's investigation of human injury in the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret memos. The committee recommended that Newburgh be fluoridated. It also selected the types of medical studies to be done, and "provided expert guidance" for the duration of the experiment. The key question to be answered was: "Are there any cumulative effects -- beneficial or otherwise, on tissues and organs other than the teeth -- of long-continued ingestion of such small concentrations...?" According to the declassified documents, this was also key information sought by the bomb program, which would require long-continued exposure of workers and communities to fluoride throughout the Cold War. In May 1945, Newburgh's water was fluoridated, and over the next ten years its residents were studied by the State Health Department. In tandem, Program F conducted its own secret studies, focusing on the amounts of fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues - key information sought by the bomb program: "Possible toxic effects of fluoride were in the forefront of consideration," the advisory committee stated. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Program F team at the University of Rochester. The samples were collected by Dr. David B. Overton, the Department's chief of pediatric studies at Newburgh. The final report of the Newburgh Demonstration Project, published in 1956 in the Journal of the American Dental Association, concluded that "small concentrations" of fluoride were safe for U.S.citizens. The biological proof -- "based on work performed ... at the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project" -- was delivered by Dr. Hodge. Today, news that scientists from the atomic bomb program secretly shaped and guided the Newburgh fluoridation experiment, and studied the citizen's blood and tissue samples, is greeted with incredulity. "I'm shocked -- beyond words," said present-day Newburgh Mayor Audrey Carey, commenting on these reporters' findings. "It reminds me of the Tuskegee experiment that was done on syphilis patients down in Alabama." As a child in the early 1950's, Mayor Carey was taken to the old firehouse on Broadway in Newburgh, which housed the Public Health Clinic. There, doctors from the Newburgh fluoridation project studied her teeth, and a peculiar fusion of two finger bones on her left hand she had been born with. Today, adds Carey, her granddaughter has white dental-fluorosis marks on her front teeth. Mayor Carey wants answers from the government about the secret history of fluoride, and the Newburgh fluoridation experiment. "I absolutely want to pursue it," she said. "It is appalling to do any kind of experimentation and study without people's knowledge and permission." Contacted by these reporters, the director of the Newburgh experiment, David B. Ast, says he was unaware Manhattan Project scientists were involved. "If I had known, I would have been certainly investigating why, and what the connection was," he said. Did he know that blood and placenta samples from Newburgh were being sent to bomb program researchers at the University of Rochester? "I was not aware of it," Ast replied. Did he recall participating in the Manhattan Project's secret wartime conference on fluoride in January 1944, or going to New Jersey with Dr. Hodge to investigate human injury in the du Pont case--as secret memos state? He told the reporters he had no recollection of these events. A spokesperson for the University of Rochester Medical Center, Bob Loeb, confirmed that blood and tissue samples from Newburgh had been tested by the University's Dr. Hodge. On the ethics of secretly studying U.S citizens to obtain information useful in litigation against the A-bomb program, he said, "that's a question we cannot answer." He referred inquiries to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), successor to the Atomic Energy Commission. A spokesperson for the DOE in Washington, Jayne Brady, confirmed that a review of DOE files indicated that a "significant reason" for fluoride experiments conducted at the University of Rochester after the war was "impending litigation between the du Pont company and residents of New Jersey areas." However, she added, "DOE has found no documents to indicate that fluoride research was done to protect the Manhattan Project or its contractors from lawsuits." On Manhattan Project involvement in Newburgh, the spokesperson stated, "Nothing that we have suggests that the DOE or predecessor agencies -- especially the Manhattan Project -- authorized fluoride experiments to be performed on children in the 1940's." When told that the reporters had several documents that directly tied the Manhattan Project's successor agency at the University of Rochester, the AEP, to the Newburgh experiment, the DOE spokesperson later conceded her study was confined to "the available universe" of documents. Two days later spokesperson Jayne Brady faxed a statement for clarification: "My search only involved the documents that we collected as part of our human radiation experiments project -- fluoride was not part of our research effort. "Most significantly," the statement continued, relevant documents may be in a classified collection at the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory known as the Records Holding Task Group. "This collection consists entirely of classified documents removed from other files for the purpose of classified document accountability many years ago," and was "a rich source of documents for the human radiation experiments project," she said. The crucial question arising from this investigation is: Were adverse health findings from Newburgh and other bomb-program fluoride studies suppressed? All AEC-funded studies had to be declassified before publication in civilian medical and dental journals. Where are the original classified versions? The transcript of one of the major secret scientific conferences of WW2--on "fluoride metabolism"--is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. Participants in the conference included key figures who promoted the safety of fluoride and water fluoridation to the public after the war - Harold Hodge of the Manhattan Project, David B. Ast of the Newburgh Project, and U.S. Public Health Service dentist H.Trendley Dean, popularly known as the "father of fluoridation." "If it is missing from the files, it is probably still classified," National Archives librarians told these reporters. A 1944 WW2 Manhattan Project classified report on water fluoridation is missing from the files of the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project, the U.S. National Archives, and the Nuclear Repository at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The next four numerically consecutive documents are also missing, while the remainder of the "MP-1500 series" is present. "Either those documents are still classified, or they've been 'disappeared' by the government," says Clifford Honicker, Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, in Knoxville, Tennessee, which provided key evidence in the public exposure and prosecution of U.S. human radiation experiments. Seven pages have been cut out of a 1947 Rochester bomb-project notebook entitled "Du Pont litigation." "Most unusual," commented chief medical school archivist Chris Hoolihan. Similarly, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by these authors over a year ago with the DOE for hundreds of classified fluoride reports have failed to dislodge any. "We're behind," explained Amy Rothrock, FOIA officer for the Department of Energy at their Oak Ridge operations. Was information suppressed? These reporters made what appears to be the first discovery of the original classified version of a fluoride safety study by bomb program scientists. A censored version of this study was later published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association. Comparison of the secret with the published version indicates that the U.S. AEC did censor damaging information on fluoride, to the point of tragicomedy. This was a study of the dental and physical health of workers in a factory producing fluoride for the A-bomb program, conducted by a team of dentists from the Manhattan Project. [b]*[/b] The secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities. [b]* [/b]The secret version says the men had to wear rubber boots because the fluoride fumes disintegrated the nails in their shoes. The published version does not mention this. * The secret version says the fluoride may have acted similarly on the men's teeth, contributing to their toothlessness. The published version omits this statement. The published version concludes that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view." Asked for comment on the early links of the Manhattan Project to water fluoridation, Dr Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute for Dental Research, the U.S. agency which today funds fluoride research, said, "I wasn't aware of any input from the Atomic Energy Commission." Nevertheless, he insisted, fluoride's efficacy and safety in the prevention of dental cavities over the last fifty years is well-proved. "The motivation of a scientist is often different from the outcome, " he reflected. "I do not hold a prejudice about where the knowledge comes from." After comparing the secret and published versions of the censored study, toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix commented, "[b]This makes me ashamed to be a scientist."[/b] Of other Cold War-era fluoride safety studies, she asks, "Were they all done like this?" [i]Archival research by Clifford Honicker[/i] [b]About the authors :[/b] Joel Griffiths is a medical writer in New York City, author of a book on radiation hazards and numerous articles for medical and popular publications. Joel can be contacted at 212-662-6695. Chris Bryson holds a Masters degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and has worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation, The Manchester Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor and Public Television. Chris can be contacted at 212-665-3442

Novella, I did a double take. NOPE DONT TRUST THIS FELLOW. HE IS FROM YALE ?? IS YALE CLOSE TO NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ?? ANSWER YES ================================= Read the nanothermite paper at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049 Here's the web site Steve Novella sent me: http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html And the independent analysis of dust at the WTC site: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

++++++++++++++++++++ THE MSM SHOULD HAVE USED THE INCIDENT FOR THE PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL ,BUT DID NOT <THUS THE MSM WANTED TO DOWNPLAY THIS INCIDENT.

+++++++++++++++++++ Well I put up the video in post # 44 for a reason. You did not make any intelligent comment (as I thought you might not ). AND AND IM taking on the whole MSM narrative re Syria. (AND AND YOU SWALLOW MSM whole). +++++++++++++++++++ OK LETS EDUCATE +++++++++++++++++++ Al Jazeera , literally "The Island", abbreviating "The [Arabian] Peninsula"), also known as Aljazeera and JSC (Jazeera Satellite Channel), is a broadcaster owned by the privately held Al Jazeera Media Network and headquartered in Doha, Qatar. (wiki) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Why Qatar wants to invade Syria By Pepe Escobar Global Research, September 27, 2012 Asia Times http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-qatar-wants-to-invade-syria/5306223 (few links in blue words at link) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Make no mistake; the Emir of Qatar is on a roll. What an entrance at the UN General Assembly in New York; Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani called for an Arab coalition of the willing-style invasion of Syria, no less. [1] In the words of the Emir, “It is better for the Arab countries themselves to interfere out of their national, humanitarian, political and military duties, and to do what is necessary to stop the bloodshed in Syria.” He stressed Arab countries had a “military duty” to invade. What he means by “Arab countries” is the petromonarchies of the Gulf Counter-Revolution Club (GCC), previously known as Gulf Cooperation Council – with implicit help from Turkey, with which the GCC has a wide-ranging strategic agreement. Every shisha house in the Middle East knows that Doha, Riyadh and Ankara have been weaponizing/financing/providing logistical help to the various strands of the armed Syrian opposition engaged in regime change. The Emir even quoted a “similar precedent” for an invasion, when “Arab forces intervened in Lebanon” in the 1970s. By the way, during a great deal of the 1970s the Emir himself was engaged in more mundane interventions, such as letting his hair down alongside other Gulf royals in select Club Med destinations, as this photo attests (he’s the guy on the left). So is the Emir now preaching an Arab version of the R2P (“responsibility to protect”) doctrine advanced by The Three Graces of Humanitarian Intervention (Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power)? This is certainly bound to go down well in Washington – not to mention Ankara and even Paris, considering French president Francois Hollande has just called for UN protection of “liberated zones” in Syria. As for the Emir’s Lebanon precedent, that’s not exactly uplifting, to say the least. The so-called Arab Deterrent Force of 20,000 soldiers that entered Lebanon to try to contain the civil war overstayed its welcome by no less than seven years, turned into a Syrian military occupation of northern Lebanon, left officially in 1982 and still the civil war kept raging. Imagine a similar scenario in Syria – on steroids. A ‘pretty influential guy’ As for the Emir’s humanitarian – not to mention democratic – ardor, it’s enlightening to check out what US President Barack Obama thinks about it. Obama – who defines the Emir as a “pretty influential guy” – seems to imply that even though “he himself is not reforming significantly” and “there’s no big move towards democracy in Qatar”, just because the emirate’s per capita income is humongous, a move towards democracy is not so pressing. So let’s assume the Emir is not exactly interested in turning Syria into Scandinavia. That opens the way to an inevitable motive – connected to, what else, Pipelineistan. Vijay Prashad, author of the recent Arab Spring, Libya Winter, is currently writing a series on the Syria Contact Group for Asia Times Online. He got a phone call from an energy expert urging him to investigate “the Qatari ambition to run its pipelines into Europe.” According to this source, “the proposed route would have run through Iraq and Turkey. The former transit country is posing to be a problem. So much easier to go north (Qatar has already promised Jordan free gas).” Even before Prashad concludes his investigation, it’s clear what Qatar is aiming at; to kill the US$10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, a deal that was clinched even as the Syria uprising was already underway. [2] Here we see Qatar in direct competition with both Iran (as a producer) and Syria (as a destination), and to a lesser extent, Iraq (as a transit country). It’s useful to remember that Tehran and Baghdad are adamantly against regime change in Damascus. The gas will come from the same geographical/geological base – South Pars, the largest gas field in the world, shared by Iran and Qatar. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – if it’s ever built – would solidify a predominantly Shi’ite axis through an economic, steel umbilical cord. Qatar, on the other hand, would rather build its pipeline in a non-”Shi’ite crescent” way, with Jordan as a destination; exports would leave from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Gulf of Suez and then to the Mediterranean. That would be the ideal plan B as negotiations with Baghdad become increasingly complicated (plus the fact the route across Iraq and Turkey is much longer). Washington – and arguably European customers – would be more than pleased with a crucial Pipelineistan gambit bypassing the Islamic Gas Pipeline. And of course, if there’s regime change in Syria – helped by the Qatari-proposed invasion – things get much easier in Pipelineistan terms. A more than probable Muslim Brotherhood (MB) post-Assad regime would more than welcome a Qatari pipeline. And that would make an extension to Turkey much easier. Ankara and Washington would win. Ankara because Turkey’s strategic aim is to become the top energy crossroads from the Middle East/Central Asia to Europe (and the Islamic Gas Pipeline bypasses it). Washington because its whole energy strategy in Southwest Asia since the Clinton administration has been to bypass, isolate and hurt Iran by all means necessary. [3] That wobbly Hashemite throne All this points to Jordan as an essential pawn in Qatar’s audacious geopolitical/energy power play. Jordan has been invited to be part of the GCC – even though it’s not exactly in the Persian Gulf (who cares? It’s a monarchy). One of the pillars of Qatar’s foreign policy is unrestricted support for the MB – no matter the latitude. The MB has already conquered the presidency in Egypt. It is strong in Libya. It may become the dominant power if there’s regime change in Syria. That brings us to Qatar’s help to the MB in Jordan. At the moment, Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy is wobbly – and that’s a transcendental understatement. There’s a steady influx of Syrian refugees. Compound it with the Palestinian refugees that came in waves during the crucial phases of the Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Then add a solid contingent of Salafi-jihadis fighting Damascus. Only a few days ago one Abu Usseid was arrested. His uncle was none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the infamous former head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, killed in 2006. Usseid was about to cross the desert from Jordan to Syria. Amman has been mired in protests since January 2011 – even before the spread of the Arab Spring. King Abdullah, also known as King Playstation, and photogenic Washington/Hollywood darling Queen Rania, have not been spared. The MB in Jordan is not the only player in the protest wave; unions and social movements are also active. Most protesters are Jordanians – who historically have been in control of all levels of state bureaucracy. But then neo-liberalism reduced them to road kill; Jordan went through a savage privatization drive during the 1990s. The impoverished kingdom now depends on the IMF and extra handouts from the US, the GCC and even the EU. Parliament is a joke – dominated by tribal affiliation and devotion to the monarchy. Reforms are not even cosmetic. A prime minister was changed in April and most people didn’t even noticed it. In an Arab world classic, the regime fights demands for change by increasing repression. Into this quagmire steps Qatar. Doha wants King Playstation to embrace Hamas. It was Qatar that promoted the meeting in January between the King and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal – who had been expelled from Jordan in 1999. That left indigenous Jordanians wondering whether the kingdom would be swamped by yet another wave of Palestinian refugees. Arab media – most of it controlled by the House of Saud – has been drowning in stories and editorials predicting that after the MB ascends to power in Damascus, Amman will be next. Qatar, though, is binding its time. The MB wants Jordan to become a constitutional monarchy; then they will take over politically after an electoral reform that King Abdullah has been fighting against for years. Now the MB can even count on the support of Bedouin tribes, whose traditional allegiance to the Hashemite throne has never been wobblier. The regime has ignored protests at its own peril. The MB has called for a mass demonstration against the King on October 10. The Hashemite throne is going down, sooner rather than later. It’s unclear how Obama would react – apart from praying that nothing substantial happens before November 6. As for the Emir of Qatar, he has all the time in the world. So many regimes to fall – and become Muslim Brothers; so many pipelines to build. Notes: 1. Qatar’s emir calls for Arab-led intervention in Syria, The National, Sep 26, 2012. 2. Syria’s Pipelineistan war, Al Jazeera, Aug 6, 2012. 3. Qatar: Rich and Dangerous, Oilprice.com, Sep 17, 2012. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DOES THE MSM EVER COVER THIS IDEA ??? (and its only part of reasons for the Syrian action) DOES THE MSM EVER COVER THIS IDEA ??? DOES THE MSM EVER COVER THIS IDEA ??? DOES THE MSM EVER COVER THIS IDEA ??? DOES THE MSM EVER COVER THIS IDEA ??? NOPE NEVER (Gaal) WE DONT FIGHT FOR SELF INTEREST WE ONLY FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ,genuflect,genuflect.........(MSM SWALLOWER)

When you thought the official story was that she was demoted // end Colby NO I KNEW MADSEN HAD SAID SO and I knew from my MOM, going to England for a middle age female after a desk job is a JOY. Thus I never thought it was demotion and when I found the Baltimore Sun article I LOLed,saying to myself seems something off here. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From this thread we see: Lets see McNamara (NSA) blocks info, Blee (CIA) blocks info, CIA blocks Morgenthau DA. I see a pattern. Pattern ? Pattern ?? see below ==================================================== The CIA Deliberately Misspells Terrorists' Names and Bypasses TSA to Let Terrorists Fly By / January 13th, 2010 ========== The CIA Misspells Al Qaeda Terrorists Names and Bypasses TSA to Let Terrorists Fly – A DCBureau.org Exclusive 11 Jan 2010 DCBureau.org Press Release WASHINGTON – (Business Wire) One of the 9/11 hijackers appeared on the no-fly list with a deliberately misspelled name. The CIA supplied that name just like they did Umar Farouk Abulmutallab’s. DCBureau is publishing the page from the 2006 no-fly list with the misspelled 9/11 hijacker’s name. Veteran investigative reporters Susan and Joseph Trento, who first obtained and exposed the flaws in the no-fly list in 2006, have completed a new investigation of the CIA’s role in airline security. It reveals that the CIA is bypassing other government agencies and following terrorists on airplanes without telling TSA or the airlines involved. It shows how terrorists and nuclear proliferators have been allowed to fly because the CIA has refused to add their correct names or aliases to the no-fly list. Part I of their two-part investigation –“The No Fly List”– is posted on the DCBureau.org Web site. The two part investigation reveals: The CIA deliberately misspells names and does not provide aliases of suspected terrorists and criminals who are being targeted for recruitment or have relationships with the agency when it passes names on to the National Counterterrorism Center to be integrated in the Terrorism Identity Datamart Environment (TIDE), Selectee, and no-fly lists. Khalid al-Mihdhar was known to the CIA as one of two men who had attended a meeting of Al Qaeda officials in Malaysia before coming to the United States. That hijacker was also a Saudi Arabian intelligence agent with the General Intelligence Directorate, the Saudi agency that works closely with the CIA. Al-Mihdhar was on the no-fly list as “al-Midham.” Al-Mihdhar helped fly American Airline Flight 77 into the Pentagon on 9/11. Fourteen other 9/11 hijackers appeared on the list five years after they had supposedly died in the attacks. The report also discloses the CIA refused to share language software that would vastly ease problems in matching Arab names to other government agency lists. DCBureau reveals that the CIA in 2006 deliberately allowed a flight school associate of the 9/11 hijackers to fly to New Zealand and lost track of him only to have New Zealand authorities learn that he had signed up for airline training. DCBureau reports that Issa Abdullah (Cleven Holt) is not on the no-fly list even though he was a suspect in the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing and was suspected of planning attacks on US troops in Bosnia during a visit by President Clinton. Holt visited the United States last fall and had no trouble flying into the country. All articles published by DCBureau.org can be reprinted for free with attribution by any outlet. DCBureau.org Joseph Trento, 202-466-4310 mobile: 202-255-2441 http://www.earthtime...a,1114977.shtml

9/11 and Skeptic Magazine’s ‘Science’ of Controlled Demolitions Written by Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal Wednesday, 07 December 2011 15:20 http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/44-press-items/584-911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions.html

################### TL:DR ******************************* FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire? News- News Releases By AE911Truth Written by Chris Sarns, Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts Wednesday, 13 March 2013 18:45 ************************************************************************************************************************************* No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations.Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true. NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work. 1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall. NIST’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred. It began when the point NIST was using [1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner. Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration. Read more... *****************************

The USA's foreign policy.......what a horror. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBv49PrR_nY&feature=player_detailpage Victor Jara words by Adrian Mitchell, music by Arlo Guthrie Victor Jara of Chile Lived like a shooting star He fought for the people of Chile With his songs and his guitar His hands were gentle, his hands were strong Victor Jara was a peasant He worked from a few years old He sat upon his father's plow And watched the earth unfold His hands were gentle, his hands were strong Now when the neighbors had a wedding Or one of their children died His mother sang all night for them With Victor by her side His hands were gentle, his hands were strong He grew up to be a fighter Against the people's wrongs He listened to their grief and joy And turned them into songs His hands were gentle, his hands were strong He sang about the copper miners And those who worked the land He sang about the factory workers And they knew he was their man His hands were gentle, his hands were strong He campaigned for Allende Working night and day He sang "Take hold of your brothers hand You know the future begins today" His hands were gentle, his hands were strong Then the generals seized Chile They arrested Victor then They caged him in a stadium With five-thousand frightened men His hands were gentle, his hands were strong Victor stood in the stadium His voice was brave and strong And he sang for his fellow prisoners Till the guards cut short his song His hands were gentle, his hands were strong They broke the bones in both his hands They beat him on the head They tore him with electric shocks And then they shot him dead His hands were gentle, his hands were strong Repeat first verse go to http://www.last.fm/music/Victor+Jara

WOW !!!

THE CIA INSIDE THE CIA Posted 29 August 2011 - 07:50 PM Blee helped early and late (just before 911) by hiding/delaying/disinforming on AQ/911 people. Blee part of a Secret Team ??? You see just after planning 911 the plotters had to be protected. Blee helps them flee. *******************************oooooooo******************************************* Link below shows numerous attempts by CIA to stop investigations. link http://www.historyco...malaysia_summit --------------------oooooooo------------------------------+ samples of link datum (1) January 12, 2000: CIA’s Bin Laden Unit Chief Falsely Claims Malaysia Surveillance Is Continuing Richard Blee, head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, gives an incorrect briefing to his CIA superiors about surveillance of al-Qaeda operatives in Southeast Asia. He claims that Malaysian authorities and the CIA are continuing to monitor al-Qaeda operatives who gathered for a summit in Kuala Lumpur (see January 5-8, 2000). In actual fact, three of the summit’s attendees, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Khallad bin Attash, have already left Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and have disappeared there (see January 8, 2000). The 9/11 Commission will say that Blee is “unaware at first even that the Arabs had left Kuala Lumpur, let alone that their trail had been lost in Thailand” and that he “may not have known that in fact Almihdhar and his companions had dispersed and the tracking was falling apart.” These statements will be sourced to an interview with Blee in December 2003 and contemporary CIA documents. However, Alec Station is well aware of the departure of the three men, as it was notified of this and sent a follow-up cable on January 9 telling the CIA station in Bangkok to find them there (see January 9, 2000). It is unclear why Blee gives such an inaccurate briefing, but he gives a similar one two days later (see January 14, 2000), after Alec Station is again reminded that the three radicals are in Thailand, not Malaysia (see January 13, 2000). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 181, 354, 502 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo********ooooooooooooooooooooooooo+ (2) January 14, 2000: CIA’s Bin Laden Unit Chief Again Falsely Claims Malaysia Surveillance Is Continuing Richard Blee, head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, again wrongly informs his CIA superiors about surveillance of al-Qaeda operatives in Southeast Asia. Repeating a claim made in a briefing two days previously (see January 12, 2000), he says that Malaysian authorities and the CIA are continuing to monitor al-Qaeda operatives who gathered for a summit in Kuala Lumpur (see January 5-8, 2000). In actual fact, three of the summit’s attendees, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Khallad bin Attash, have already left Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok (see January 8, 2000). Alec Station is well aware of the departure of the three men, as it was notified of their departure and sent a follow-up cable on January 9 telling the CIA station in Bangkok to find them there (see January 9, 2000). In addition, one day before this briefing the CIA station in Bangkok sent Alec Station a cable saying it was unable to locate the men in Thailand (see January 13, 2000). The 9/11 Commission will also point out that “there is no evidence of any tracking efforts actually being undertaken by anyone after the Arabs disappeared into Bangkok.” It is unclear why Blee gives such an inaccurate briefing. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 181, 354]

Their principle contention that the idea of fluoridating water only began with the Manhattan project is false. http://en.wikipedia....er_fluoridation END Colby LOL you said I was wrong but highlighted the part that confirms what I said. // end COLBY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HUH ?? THE THRUST OF THE ARTICLE IS scientific obfuscation and not the idea of fluoridating water ,as you contend. YES the FLORIDATION IDEA OCCURED EARLIER <HOWEVER THE SCIENTIFIC THRUST LIES/BASIS OF FLORIDATION CAME FROM THE MANHATTEN PROJECT > THIS IS THE THRUST OF THE ARTICLE . THUS post #4 and # 13 and now # 15 shows per reading comprehension that the proverbial empty Colby can rattles loudest.

NATIONAL OUTLET ?? == LARGEST I SAW THAT COVERED EXTENT OF UNREST = ONLY USA TODAY.

2) the "official story" is that she was promoted and that you'd have to stupid to believe that because she obviously was demoted. BUT NOT DEMOTED TO HER ( AS A MIDDLE AGED PROFESSIONAL WOMAN HAVING THE ENGLAND EXPERIENCE) AND IT KEPT HER OUTTA TOWN FOR MOST INQUIRIES (OFFICIAL/UNOFFICIAL) YOUR 2) BELIEVE THIS ?? THIS IS THE TRUTH. Wayne Madsen in an audio I heard stated that she was demoted. Madsen gets leaked info both true and false. I 'believe' he puts both out to keep contact with his former intel community (and also the amount of info he processes allows him to continue operations $$ to garner more info. A complex situation). With a deep background in CT true/false can be judged. IS IT SPINNING OR REAL INFO ? THIS TAKES THOUGHT. (MORE THOUGHT THAN JUST SWALLOWING WASHPO/NYT WHOLE HOG)

Their principle contention that the idea of fluoridating water only began with the Manhattan project is false. // end COLBY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOPE, THE THRUST OF THE ARTICLE IS scientific obfuscation post #4 and now # 13 shows per reading comprehension that the proverbial empty Colby can rattles loudest. Recently declassified government documents have shed new light on the decades-old debate over the fluoridation of drinking water, and have added to a growing body of scientific evidence concerning the health effects of fluoride. Much of the original evidence about fluoride, which suggested it was safe for human consumption in low doses, was actually generated by “Manhattan Project” scientists in the 1940s. As it turns out, these officials were ordered by government powers to provide information that would be “useful in litigation” and that would obfuscate its improper handling and disposal. The once top-secret documents, say the authors, reveal that vast quantities of fluoride, one of the most toxic substances known, were required for the production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. As a result, fluoride soon became the leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities. Studies commissioned after chemical mishaps by the medical division of the “Manhattan Project” document highly controversial findings. For instance, toxic accidents in the vicinity of fluoride-producing facilities like the one near Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey, left crops poisoned or blighted, and humans and livestock sick. Symptoms noted in the findings included extreme joint stiffness, uncontrollable vomiting and diarrhea, severe headaches, and death. These and other facts from the secret documents directly contradict the findings concurrently published in scientific journals which praised the positive effects of fluoride.

YES THE MSM SUPPORTS THE SYRIAN TERROR TAKEOVER> THATS WHATS WRONG. ******************************* COLBY, "DONT BROTHER ME I AM GENUFLECTING TO WASHPO/NYT". )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

You haven't posted any legitimate "scientific information on Creationism". +++++++++++++++++++ GEE SHORT MEMORY ?? // AFRAID TO READ THIS BOOK Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design [Paperback] Stephen C. Meyer “Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind. For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate. For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read” — American Spectator Named one of the top books of 2009 by the Times Literary Supplement (London), this controversial and compelling book from Dr. Stephen C. Meyer presents a convincing new case for intelligent design (ID), based on revolutionary discoveries in science and DNA. Along the way, Meyer argues that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as expounded in The Origin of Species did not, in fact, refute ID. If you enjoyed Francis Collins’s The Language of God, you’ll find much to ponder—about evolution, DNA, and intelligent design—in Signature in the Cell. Show more

GREAT POST JOHN. LET ME ADD THIS LINK OF OUR HELPFUL FDA http://www.americanc... Corruption.htm ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gaal has repeatedly shown himself to be anti-science, he for example rejects evolution, // end Colby +++++++++++++++++++ Odd, when I put up scientific information on Creationism Colby said this wasnt the place for religious views.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ EVAN BURTON IS THE TYPE OF POPULATION ELITES WANT: SUBSERVIENT TO AUTHORITY Mr. BUTON HAS POSTED ITS OK FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT TO MONITOR ALL EMAILS. TODAY HE REPEATS HIS ENLARGED OBSEQUIOUS ATTITUDE WHICH IS UNATTRACTIVE TO PEOPLE WHO CHERISH FREEDOM +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Scientists compromised by commercial links 12 October 2009 Concerns are mounting that scientific and technological research funded by business could be undermining universities’ openness and independence. Zoë Corbyn reports The rise in industrial funding of university science is compromising its quality as well as inhibiting research for the wider public good. These are the claims of the pressure group Scientists for Global Responsibility, in a new report out today entitled “Science and the corporate agenda: the detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology”. “We have gathered extensive evidence of the damaging effects of the commercial influence on science and technology,” said Stuart Parkinson, co-author of the report. “Urgent action – by government and others – is needed to resolve these problems. The trustworthiness of science and scientists is at stake.” The study argues that while universities have always relied on business, along with the state and philanthropists, for funding scientific work, government policy to drive much closer links between business and universities has created a relationship that is now “distinctly unbalanced” in favour of commercial interests, undermining universities’ openness and independence. Based on an analysis of five sectors – spanning the pharmaceutical, tobacco, military, oil and gas and biotechnology industries – it found: bias in commercially funded studies, so only results favourable to the funder are reported; an increase in use of commercial confidentiality agreements that impede the free flow of data; and a lack of policing of scientists’ conflicts of interest, so that the true extent to which research is potentially being compromised is unknown. “There can be subterfuge, but often it is simply that when commercial funders are involved there is a bias towards funding researchers who have views that are more sympathetic to the industry,” Dr Parkinson told Times Higher Education. “Researchers who hold different points of view don’t attract the funding, or research that results in a different point of view does not get publicised.” The report also criticises the Government’s emphasis on delivering economic goals from research. “The power and influence of some corporations, and the increased pressure on researchers to bring in funding from business, means that academic departments are increasingly orientating themselves to commercial needs rather than to broader public interest or curiosity-driven goals,” it notes. “The emphasis is undermining the ability of science and technology to deliver a diverse range of social and environmental benefits.” To fix the problems, it makes 16 recommendations, including that universities adopt “minimum ethical standards” in their partnership agreements with business and publish “comprehensive data” on the nature of these partnerships. It also says that a new scientific organisation to distribute funds based on the public interest should be set up and calls for more safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest. zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com ##################### EXAMPLE http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19353 ******************************** EXAMPLE http://blog.al.com/l...ntists_for.html ******************************** EXAMPLE http://www.naturalnews.com/037289_monsanto_corporations_ethics.html

Fire Safety Researchers at Victoria University Disagree with NIST’s WTC 7 Report Posted on March 15, 2012 | Leave a comment Researchers Ian Thomas and David Proe of Victoria University in Australia commented on NIST’s analysis of WTC 7. They conducted several standard fire tests on composite beams and found several major items in the analysis to be conflicting with their observations. They disagree with NIST’s final report. PDF Attached: David Proe and IanThomas WTC7 Comments Former NIST Fire Science Division chief and scholars challenge NIOSH WTC report and calls for peer-review: PDF Attached: Fire Engineering fmr NIST cheif challenges NIOSH WTC report

Morewell than Orwell: Paramilitarization in the United States post-9/11 By Matthew Witt, Ph.D. Adopting the concept of “legitimation crisis” as formulated by Jürgen Habermas (1975), this paper examines how the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011-2012— short lived in popular media, but still alive—has challenged the core logic of the American administrative state and, by extension, signals increasingly prevalent and tectonic challenges to the organization and management of late capitalism in a post- 9/11 world. This paper will examine, in particular, the extensive coordination of police reaction to key Occupy protest events, and how this reaction—militarized police response tactics—was in place as early as 1999 to quash any popular resistance keyed to the Iraq War or world trade policies favored by U.S. trade officials. The militarization of police is now indicative of an emerging ethos of systemic disturbances (analogous to the Solidarity Movement in Poland and similar resistances elsewhere among Soviet satellite states) with the potential to cascade rapidly into escalating and reciprocal state legitimation crises. http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013WittVol36Mar.pdf

Start Vietnam War and keep it going. 911 Blogger site Shocking New Evidence Reveals Depths of 'Treason' and 'Treachery' of Watergate and Iran-Contra Posted by Orangutan. on Mon, 03/11/2013 New evidence continues to accumulate showing how Official Washington got key elements of two major presidential scandals of the Nixon and Reagan administrations wrong. March 10, 2013 | by Robert Parry A favorite saying of Official Washington is that “the cover-up is worse than the crime.” But that presupposes you accurately understand what the crime was. And, in the case of the two major U.S. government scandals of the last third of the Twentieth Century – Watergate and Iran-Contra – that doesn’t seem to be the case. Indeed, newly disclosed documents have put old evidence into a sharply different light and suggest that history has substantially miswritten the two scandals by failing to understand that they actually were sequels to earlier scandals that were far worse. Watergate and Iran-Contra were, in part at least, extensions of the original crimes, which involved dirty dealings to secure the immense power of the presidency. Shortly after Nixon took office in 1969, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover informed him of the existence of the file containing national security wiretaps documenting how Nixon’s emissaries had gone behind President Lyndon Johnson’s back to convince the South Vietnamese government to boycott the Paris Peace Talks, which were close to ending the Vietnam War in fall 1968.In the case of Watergate – the foiled Republican break-in at the Democratic National Committee in June 1972 and Richard Nixon’s botched cover-up leading to his resignation in August 1974 – the evidence is now clear that Nixon created the Watergate burglars out of his panic that the Democrats might possess a file on his sabotage of Vietnam peace talks in 1968. The disruption of Johnson’s peace talks then enabled Nixon to hang on for a narrow victory over Democrat Hubert Humphrey. However, as the new President was taking steps in 1969 to extend the war another four-plus years, he sensed the threat from the wiretap file and ordered two of his top aides, chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, to locate it. But they couldn’t find the file. We now know that was because President Johnson, who privately had called Nixon’s Vietnam actions “treason,” had ordered the file removed from the White House by his national security aide Walt Rostow. Rostow labeled the file “The ‘X’ Envelope” and kept it in his possession, although having left government, he had no legal right to possess the highly classified documents, many of which were stamped “Top Secret.” Johnson had instructed Rostow to retain the papers as long as he, Johnson, was alive and then afterwards to decide what to do with them. Nixon, however, had no idea that Johnson and Rostow had taken the missing file or, indeed, who might possess it. Normally, national security documents are passed from the outgoing President to the incoming President to maintain continuity in government. But Haldeman and Kissinger had come up empty in their search. They were only able to recreate the file’s contents, which included incriminating conversations between Nixon’s emissaries and South Vietnamese officials regarding Nixon’s promise to get them a better deal if they helped him torpedo Johnson’s peace talks. So, the missing file remained a troubling mystery inside Nixon’s White House, but Nixon still lived up to his pre-election agreement with South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu to extend U.S. military participation in the war with the goal of getting the South Vietnamese a better outcome than they would have received from Johnson in 1968. Nixon not only continued the Vietnam War, which had already claimed more than 30,000 American lives and an estimated one million Vietnamese, but he expanded it, with intensified bombing campaigns and a U.S. incursion into Cambodia. At home, the war was bitterly dividing the nation with a massive anti-war movement and an angry backlash from war supporters. Pentagon Papers It was in that intense climate in 1971 that Daniel Ellsberg, a former senior Defense Department official, gave the New York Times a copy of the Pentagon Papers, the secret U.S. history of the Vietnam War from 1945 to 1967. The voluminous report documented many of the lies – most told by Democrats – to draw the American people into the war. The Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers on June 13, 1971, and the disclosures touched off a public firestorm. Trying to tamp down the blaze, Nixon took extraordinary legal steps to stop dissemination of the secrets, ultimately failing in the U.S. Supreme Court. But Nixon had an even more acute fear. He knew something that few others did, that there was a sequel to the Pentagon Papers that was arguably more explosive – the missing file containing evidence that Nixon had covertly prevented the war from being brought to a conclusion so he could maintain a political edge in Election 1968. If anyone thought the Pentagon Papers represented a shocking scandal – and clearly millions of Americans did – how would people react to a file that revealed Nixon had kept the slaughter going – with thousands of additional American soldiers dead and the violence spilling back into the United States – just so he could win an election? A savvy political analyst, Nixon recognized this threat to his reelection in 1972, assuming he would have gotten that far. Given the intensity of the anti-war movement, there would surely have been furious demonstrations around the White House and likely an impeachment effort on Capitol Hill. So, on June 17, 1971, Nixon summoned Haldeman and Kissinger into the Oval Office and – as Nixon’s own recording devices whirred softly – pleaded with them again to locate the missing file. “Do we have it?” a Nixon asked Haldeman. “I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.” Haldeman: “We can’t find it.” Kissinger: “We have nothing here, Mr. President.” Nixon: “Well, damnit, I asked for that because I need it.” Kissinger: “But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.” Haldeman: “We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it.” Nixon: “Where?” Haldeman: “[Presidential aide Tom Charles] Huston swears to God that there’s a file on it and it’s at Brookings.” Nixon: “Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston’s plan [for White House-sponsored break-ins as part of domestic counter-intelligence operations]? Implement it.” Kissinger: “Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.” Nixon: “I want it implemented. … Goddamnit, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.” Haldeman: “They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, you need to –“ Kissinger: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Brookings had the files.” Haldeman: “My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn’t know for sure that we don’t have them around.” But Johnson did know that the file was no longer at the White House because he had ordered Rostow to remove it in the final days of his own presidency. Forming the Burglars On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon even suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in. “You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. … Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock.” Haldeman: “Make an inspection of the safe.” Nixon: “That’s right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up.” For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in never took place, but Nixon’s desperation to locate Johnson’s peace-talk file was an important link in the chain of events that led to the creation of Nixon’s burglary unit under Hunt’s supervision. Hunt later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972. While it’s possible that Nixon was still searching for the file about his Vietnam-peace sabotage when the Watergate break-ins occurred nearly a year later, it’s generally believed that the burglary was more broadly focused, seeking any information that might have an impact on Nixon’s re-election, either defensively or offensively. As it turned out, Nixon’s burglars were nabbed inside the Watergate complex on their second break-in on June 17, 1972, exactly one year after Nixon’s tirade to Haldeman and Kissinger about the need to blow the safe at the Brookings Institution in pursuit of the missing Vietnam peace-talk file. Ironically, too, Johnson and Rostow had no intention of exposing Nixon’s dirty secret regarding LBJ’s Vietnam peace talks, presumably for the same reasons that they kept their mouths shut back in 1968, out of a benighted belief that revealing Nixon’s actions might somehow not be “good for the country.” In November 1972, despite the growing scandal over the Watergate break-in, Nixon handily won reelection, crushing Sen. George McGovern, Nixon’s preferred opponent. Nixon then reached out to Johnson seeking his help in squelching Democratic-led investigations of the Watergate affair and slyly noting that Johnson had ordered wiretaps of Nixon’s campaign in 1968. Johnson reacted angrily to the overture, refusing to cooperate. On Jan. 20, 1973, Nixon was sworn in for his second term. On Jan. 22, 1973, Johnson died of a heart attack. Toward Resignation In the weeks that followed Nixon’s Inauguration and Johnson’s death, the scandal over the Watergate cover-up grew more serious, creeping ever closer to the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Rostow struggled to decide what he should do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.” On May 14, 1973, in a three-page “memorandum for the record,” Rostow summarized what was in “The ‘X’ Envelope” and provided a chronology for the events in fall 1968. Rostow reflected, too, on what effect LBJ’s public silence then may have had on the unfolding Watergate scandal. “I am inclined to believe the Republican operation in 1968 relates in two ways to the Watergate affair of 1972,” Rostow wrote. He noted, first, that Nixon’s operatives may have judged that their “enterprise with the South Vietnamese” – in frustrating Johnson’s last-ditch peace initiative – had secured Nixon his narrow margin of victory over Hubert Humphrey in 1968. “Second, they got away with it,” Rostow wrote. “Despite considerable press commentary after the election, the matter was never investigated fully. Thus, as the same men faced the election in 1972, there was nothing in their previous experience with an operation of doubtful propriety (or, even, legality) to warn them off, and there were memories of how close an election could get and the possible utility of pressing to the limit – and beyond.” [To read Rostow’s memo, click here, here and here.] What Rostow didn’t know was that there was a third – and more direct – connection between the missing file and Watergate. Nixon’s fear about the file surfacing as a follow-up to the Pentagon Papers was Nixon’s motive for creating Hunt’s burglary team in the first place. Rostow apparently struggled with what to do with the file for the next month as the Watergate scandal expanded. On June 25, 1973, fired White House counsel John Dean delivered his blockbuster Senate testimony, claiming that Nixon got involved in the cover-up within days of the June 1972 burglary at the Democratic National Committee. Dean also asserted that Watergate was just part of a years-long program of political espionage directed by Nixon’s White House. The very next day, as headlines of Dean’s testimony filled the nation’s newspapers, Rostow reached his conclusion about what to do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.” In longhand, he wrote a “Top Secret” note which read, “To be opened by the Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, not earlier than fifty (50) years from this date June 26, 1973.” In other words, Rostow intended this missing link of American history to stay missing for another half century. In a typed cover letter to LBJ Library director Harry Middleton, Rostow wrote: “Sealed in the attached envelope is a file President Johnson asked me to hold personally because of its sensitive nature. In case of his death, the material was to be consigned to the LBJ Library under conditions I judged to be appropriate. … “After fifty years the Director of the LBJ Library (or whomever may inherit his responsibilities, should the administrative structure of the National Archives change) may, alone, open this file. … If he believes the material it contains should not be opened for research [at that time], I would wish him empowered to re-close the file for another fifty years when the procedure outlined above should be repeated.” Ultimately, however, the LBJ Library didn’t wait that long. After a little more than two decades, on July 22, 1994, the envelope was opened and the archivists began the long process of declassifying the contents. Yet, because Johnson and Rostow chose to withhold the file on Nixon’s “treason,” a distorted history of Watergate took shape and then hardened into what all the Important People of Washington “knew” to be true. The conventional wisdom was that Nixon was unaware of the Watergate break-in beforehand – that it was some harebrained scheme of a few overzealous subordinates – and that the President only got involved later in covering it up. Sure, the Washington groupthink went, Nixon had his “enemies list” and played hardball with his rivals, but he couldn’t be blamed for the Watergate break-in, which many insiders regarded as “the third-rate burglary” that Nixon’s White House called it. Even journalists and historians who took a broader view of Watergate didn’t pursue the remarkable clue from Nixon’s rant about the missing file on June 17, 1971. Though a few other historians did write, sketchily, about the 1968 events, they also didn’t put the events together. So, the beloved saying took shape: “the cover-up is worse than the crime.” And Official Washington hates to rethink some history that is considered already settled. In this case, it would make too many important people who have expounded on the “worse” part of Watergate, i.e. the cover-up, look stupid. [For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.] The Iran-Contra Cover-up Similarly, Official Washington and many mainstream historians have tended to dismiss Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal as another case of some overzealous subordinates intuiting what the President wanted and getting everybody into trouble. The “Big Question” that insiders were asking after the scandal broke in November 1986 was whether President Reagan knew about the decision by White House aide Oliver North and his boss, National Security Advisor John Poindexter, to divert some profits from secret arms sales to Iran to secretly buy weapons for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. Once, Poindexter testified that he had no recollection of letting Reagan in on that secret – and with Reagan a beloved figure to many in Official Washington – the inquiry was relegated to insignificance. The remaining investigation focused on smaller questions, like misleading Congress and a scholarly dispute over whether the President’s foreign policy powers overrode Congress’ power to appropriate funds). At the start of the Iran-Contra investigation, Attorney General Edwin Meese had set the time parameters from 1984 to 1986, thus keeping outside of the frame the possibility of a much more serious scandal originating during Campaign 1980, i.e., whether Reagan’s campaign undermined President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American hostages in Iran and then paid off the Iranians by allowing Israel to ship weapons to Iran for the Iran-Iraq War. So, while congressional and federal investigators looked only at how the specific 1985-86 arms sales to Iran got started, there was no timely attention paid to evidence that the Reagan administration had quietly approved Israeli arms sales to Iran in 1981 and that those contacts went back to the days before Election 1980 when the hostage crisis destroyed Carter’s reelection hopes and ensured Reagan’s victory. The 52 hostages were not released until Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981. Over the years, about two dozen sources – including Iranian officials, Israeli insiders, European intelligence operatives, Republican activists and even Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat – have provided information about alleged contacts with Iran by the Reagan campaign. And, there were indications early in the Reagan presidency that something peculiar was afoot. On July 18, 1981, an Israeli-chartered plane crashed or was shot down after straying over the Soviet Union on a return flight from delivering U.S.-manufactured weapons to Iran. In a PBS interview nearly a decade later, Nicholas Veliotes, Reagan’s assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, said he looked into the incident by talking to top administration officials. “It was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment,” Veliotes said. In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes came to believe that the Reagan camp’s dealings with Iran dated back to before the 1980 election. “It seems to have started in earnest in the period probably prior to the election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become the new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration,” Veliotes said. “And I understand some contacts were made at that time.” When I re-interviewed Veliotes on Aug. 8, 2012, he said he couldn’t recall who the “people on high” were who had described the informal clearance of the Israeli shipments but he indicated that “the new players” were the young neoconservatives who were working on the Reagan campaign, many of whom later joined the administration as senior political appointees. Neocon Schemes Newly discovered documents at the Reagan presidential library reveal that Reagan’s neocons at the State Department – particularly Robert McFarlane and Paul Wolfowitz – initiated a policy review in 1981 to allow Israel to undertake secret military shipments to Iran. McFarlane and Wolfowitz also maneuvered to put McFarlane in charge of U.S. relations toward Iran and to establish a clandestine U.S. back-channel to the Israeli government outside the knowledge of even senior U.S. government officials. Not only did the documents tend to support the statements by Veliotes but they also fit with comments that former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir made in a 1993 interview in Tel Aviv. Shamir said he had read the 1991 book, October Surprise, by Carter’s former National Security Council aide Gary Sick, which made the case for believing that the Republicans had intervened in the 1980 hostage negotiations to disrupt Carter’s reelection. With the topic raised, one interviewer asked, “What do you think? Was there an October Surprise?” “Of course, it was,” Shamir responded without hesitation. “It was.” And, there were plenty of other corroborating statements as well. In 1996, for instance, while former President Carter was meeting with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Arafat in Gaza City, Arafat tried to confess his role in the Republican maneuvering to block Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations. “There is something I want to tell you,” Arafat said, addressing Carter in the presence of historian Douglas Brinkley. “You should know that in 1980 the Republicans approached me with an arms deal [for the PLO] if I could arrange to keep the hostages in Iran until after the [u.S. presidential] election,” Arafat said, according to Brinkley’s article in the fall 1996 issue of Diplomatic Quarterly. As recently as this past week, former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr reiterated his account of Republican overtures to Iran during the 1980 hostage crisis and how that secret initiative prevented release of the hostages. In a Christian Science Monitor commentary about the movie “Argo,” Bani-Sadr wrote that “Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation … which prevented the attempts by myself and then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 U.S. presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.” Though Bani-Sadr had discussed the Reagan-Khomeini collaboration before, he added in his commentary that “two of my advisors, Hussein Navab Safavi and Sadr-al-Hefazi, were executed by Khomeini’s regime because they had become aware of this secret relationship between Khomeini, his son Ahmad, … and the Reagan administration.” In December 1992, when a House Task Force was examining this so-called “October Surprise” controversy – and encountering fierce Republican resistance – Bani-Sadr submitted a letter detailing his behind-the-scenes struggle with Khomeini and his son Ahmad over their secret dealings with the Reagan campaign. Bani-Sadr’s letter – dated Dec. 17, 1992 – was part of a flood of last-minute evidence implicating the Reagan campaign in the hostage scheme. However, by the time the letter and the other evidence arrived, the leadership of the House Task Force had decided to simply declare the Reagan campaign innocent. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “‘October Surprise’ and ‘Argo.’”] Burying the History Lawrence Barcella, who served as Task Force chief counsel, later told me that so much incriminating evidence arrived late that he asked Task Force chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, a centrist Democrat from Indiana, to extend the inquiry for three months but that Hamilton said no. (Hamilton told me that he had no recollection of Barcella’s request.) Instead of giving a careful review to the new evidence, the House Task Force ignored, disparaged or buried it. I later unearthed some of the evidence in unpublished Task Force files. However, in the meantime, Official Washington dismissed the “October Surprise” and other Iran-Contra-connected scandals, like Contra drug trafficking, as conspiracy theories. [For the latest information on the October Surprise case, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.] As with Watergate and Nixon, Official Washington has refused to rethink its conclusions absolving President Ronald Reagan and his successor President George H.W. Bush of guilt in a range of crimes collected under the large umbrella of Iran-Contra. When journalist Gary Webb revived the Contra-Cocaine scandal in the mid-to-late 1990s, he faced unrelenting hostility from Establishment reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. The attacks were so ugly that Webb’s editors at the San Jose Mercury News forced him out, setting in motion his professional destruction. It didn’t even matter when an internal investigation by the CIA’s inspector general in 1998 confirmed that the Reagan and Bush-41 administrations had tolerated and protected drug trafficking by the Contras. The major newspapers largely ignored the findings and did nothing to help rehabilitate Webb’s career, eventually contributing to his suicide in 2004. [For details on the CIA report, see Robert Parry's Lost History.] The major newspapers have been equally unwilling to rethink the origins – and the significance – of the October Surprise/Iran-Contra scandal. It doesn’t matter how much new evidence accumulates. It remains much easier to continue the politically safe deification of “Gipper” Reagan and the fond remembrances of “Poppy” Bush. Not only would rethinking Iran-Contra and Watergate stir up anger and abuse from Republican operatives and the Right, but the process would reflect badly on many journalists and historians who built careers, in part, by getting these important historical stories wrong. However, there must come a point when the weight of the new evidence makes the old interpretations of these scandals intellectually untenable and when treasured sayings – like “the cover-up is worse than the crime” – are swept into the historical dustbin.

demonstrations not = equal = to unrest

Disinformation against Syria is criminal - English pravda.ru english.pravda.ru › Opinion › ColumnistsCached Jun 9, 2012 – Most mass media accuses the Syrian government for the crimes of more than 90 groups that have assassinated opponents. They are based in ... Media Disinformation: Syria Threatens Israel's Security. One Big ... www.globalresearch.ca/media-disinformation-syria...israel.../18876 Media Disinformation: Syria Threatens Israel's Security. One Big Smokescreen. By Ali Jawad. Global Research, April 27, 2010. 27 April 2010. Region: Middle ... Syria | Disinformation www.disinfo.com/tag/syria/Cached Apr 17, 2012 – United States involvement in Syria has nothing to do with a repressive regime. After all, in 2002 the United States willingly used Assad's regime ... censored tehran peace conference and media ... - Syria 360 syria360.wordpress.com/.../censored-iran-peace-conference-and-med...Cached Aug 16, 2012 – SEE >> 30 NATIONS MEET IN TEHRAN FOR A PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVE TO HILLIARY CLINTON'S ATTACK ON SYRIA ... NATO preparing vast disinformation campaign - Land Destroyer landdestroyer.blogspot.com/.../urgent-repost-nato-preparing-vast.htm...Cached Jul 20, 2012 – Updates on Syria conflict + VoltaireNet's June 2012 warning of vast NATO disinformation campaign now seemingly underway. (Latest updates ...