Thursday, April 28, 2011

OBAMA: Faking it...

If you or I did this in any context, we would spend MANY YEARS in prison. Obama should spend the rest of his life in prison.
I will not allow my country to be screwed with by a low-rent Communist agitator. If law enforcement will not act, then the people must. Obama is in NYC at a campaign fundraiser. He should be arrested and should not step foot in the White House again. Send the daughters to Chicago with their grandmother, because Barack and Michelle Obama are, at this moment, fugitives from justice and should be tried for treason.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Obama is a distant cousin of Bush

Hell froze over. A month of Sundays hit the calendar. Barack Obama and George W. Bush are cousins.
According to, Obama and Bush are 11th cousins, both descended from Samuel Hinckley, who lived in Massachusetts in the 17th century.
Meanwhile, Obama is also related — even more closely — to Dick Cheney. They are eighth cousins, both descended from a French Huguenot named Mareen Duvall who settled in Maryland in the 17th century.

Monday, April 25, 2011

The GUANTANAMO Files: Wikleaks releases over 800 documents on detainees...

In its latest release of classified US documents, WikiLeaks is shining the light of truth on a notorious icon of the Bush administration's "War on Terror" -- the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which opened on January 11, 2002, and remains open under President Obama, despite his promise to close the much-criticized facility within a year of taking office.

In thousands of pages of documents dating from 2002 to 2008 and never seen before by members of the public or the media, the cases of the majority of the prisoners held at Guantánamo -- 758 out of 779 in total -- are described in detail in memoranda from JTF-GTMO, the Joint Task Force at Guantánamo Bay, to US Southern Command in Miami, Florida.

Crucially, the files also contain detailed explanations of the supposed intelligence used to justify the prisoners' detention. For many readers, these will be the most fascinating sections of the documents, as they seem to offer an extraordinary insight into the workings of US intelligence, but although many of the documents appear to promise proof of prisoners' association with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, extreme caution is required.

The documents draw on the testimony of witnesses -- in most cases, the prisoners' fellow prisoners -- whose words are unreliable, either because they were subjected to torture or other forms of coercion (sometimes not in Guantánamo, but in secret prisons run by the CIA), or because they provided false statements to secure better treatment in Guantánamo.

Friday, April 22, 2011

OBAMA suppressing images of US soldiers raping female prisoners, committing sexual assaults with truncheons, wire and phosphorescent tube....

Torture photos: US soldiers raped, sodomized Iraqi prisoners

By Tom Eley
29 May 2009

In an interview with the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph published Wednesday, former US General Antonio Taguba said that photographs the Obama administration is seeking to suppress show images of US soldiers raping and sodomizing Iraqi prisoners.

 Taguba, who conducted the military inquiry of prisoner abuse at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 after some photos of US soldiers torturing prisoners became public, said that among the photos are images of soldiers raping a female prisoner, raping a male detainee, and committing “sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and phosphorescent tube,” according to the Telegraph.

Gen. Taguba said even the description of the photos is explosive. “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency,” Taguba said. “The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

Taguba’s revelations expose the deceit of President Barack Obama’s claim, used to justify the photos’ suppression, that they “are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.”

In all, it is believed that there are some 2,000 photographs depicting about 400 cases of US military personnel torturing Iraqis and Afghans at seven military prisons.

The Bush administration, and now Obama, have sought to block publication of the images.

Obama also claimed that “the most direct consequence of releasing them...would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

 While this may likely be true, the criminal nature of the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is already well known by the nations’ populations, who have died and been made refugees in the hundreds of thousands since being invaded in 2003 and 2001, respectively.

 Indeed, this claim only exposes the true nature of the US occupations: they have never been about establishing democracy, but aimed at stamping out resistance to US control of the strategically important nations through mass bloodletting and terror, the historical modus operandi of every imperialist occupying power.

However, the central reason Obama has chosen to fight the photos’ release is that top US generals announced their opposition to their publication.

 The generals’ intervention came in the midst of increasingly open dissension from the ranks of the military-intelligence apparatus over Obama’s handling of “the war on terror.”

 After Obama released four Bush administration legal memos justifying torture, a campaign, spearheaded by Bush Vice President Dick Cheney, was launched, appealing to the military brass and spies.

Obama responded by promising he would block any investigation of the previous administration’s carefully crafted and controlled torture policies.

 He then reversed an earlier decision to not appeal a judge’s ruling in response to an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) freedom of information lawsuit launched in 2004, which demanded the release of dozens of the torture photos.

An Obama Pentagon spokesman denied that the suppressed images depict rape, while a carefully worded statement seemed to indicate other photos depict precisely such actions.

 Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Telegraph “has completely mischaracterized the images.... None of the photos in question depict the images that are described in that article.” Whitman did not specifically deny Taguba’s claims.

Obama claims that the torture depicted in the photographs was committed by “a small number of individuals,” and that those “involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken.” Here we may safely assume Obama is referring to a small handful of rank-and-file soldiers.

But what of the high-ranking officers who oversaw, endorsed and most likely ordered the torture and rape of prisoners?

If there are 2,000 photographs of prisoner torture that fell under the control of the Pentagon, how many more cases were not photographed?

It is clear that the torture and rape of prisoners went far beyond the actions of “a few bad apples.”

 This torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners—up to and including rape—can only be described as the systematic policy of the US military and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), sanctioned at the highest levels of government. Indeed, the generals’ opposition to further publication of the photos is likely based in part on their own association with the crimes.

The policy of torture came from higher still, however, as recently released Justice Department legal memos and other evidence show.

Various forms of torture, including forced nudity and sexual humiliation were studied, justified, and individually approved by top White House and congressional officials.

A US Senate Armed Services Committee report issued in April reveals that Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally approved 15 “harsh interrogation” methods. A version of Rumsfeld’s document was used, verbatim, at Abu Ghraib, according to the report.

 (See Bush, top cabinet officials monitored torture of detainees”)

In his Telegraph interview, Taguba solidarized himself with Obama’s decision to suppress the photos. Taguba’s own investigation in 2004 was in fact a partial cover-up.

 He later admitted that he was ordered to confine his investigation to low-ranking military police, although he was aware that high-ranking generals had “extensive knowledge” of the torture. And though he was aware of the photographic evidence of torture and rape at the time, Taguba’s report made no mention of them.

Because his report was not a total whitewash, however, the Bush administration forced the major general into retirement in 2007.

 He has since described the actions of the Bush administration in Iraq as war crimes.

“There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes,”

 Taguba wrote in the forward for a report by Physicians for Human Rights. “The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account.”

The photographic evidence of rape substantiates evidence Taguba gathered in his investigation, which only became public due to another freedom of information lawsuit.

 For example, in a sworn deposition Kasim Mehaddi Hilas said he witnessed US military personnel raping a boy.

“I saw [a US military translator rape] a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years.

The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets.

Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [the soldier] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s **** and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

The sworn deposition also described the anal rape of prisoners with phosphorescent tubes and police clubs, as well as the use of wire in sexual torture.

The rape of Iraqi boys by US military personnel is corroborated by other evidence.

 Journalist Seymour Hersh, who played a critical role in breaking the Abu Ghraib story in 2004, has evidently seen all of the photos, and is aware of video footage depicting rape. He has not written publicly on their content, but a 2004 speech he gave to the ACLU indicates the sheer horror of the US military’s methods:

“Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?” Hersh said. “The women were passing messages out saying, ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened,’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded.

The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling.

 And the worst, above all, of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has.

They are in total terror.

It’s going to come out.”

 In another speech, quoted by Rick Pearlstein, Hersh spoke of “horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.”

The unfathomable crimes depicted in the photos arise inexorably from the project of aggressive wars based on lies.

 As such, they are the flip side of the conspiracy against the democratic rights of the American people.

Both arise from the deepening crisis of US capitalism, which the ruling elite seeks to offset by seizing hold of key resources and strategic advantage over its rivals.

One can only react with horror.

Contained in the stories and images of the torture of defenseless prisoners, some of them boys and women, is the true face of US imperialism, which finds no crime beneath its dignity in its effort to subjugate Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just as the Vietnam War conjures up images of napalmed children fleeing US soldiers, and Nazi Germany invokes images of emaciated prisoners near death, the images of sexual torture will forever be associated with the American “war on terror.”

In acting to suppress the images and protect the torturers, Obama has made himself an accomplice in these crimes.

Moreover, in the absence of criminal investigation, there is every reason to believe that similar crimes continue in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Indeed, the American ruling class is now engaged in an acrimonious debate over whether or not to openly embrace torture and other illegal aspects of the war on terror—the position advocated by Cheney—or to construct a quasi-legal framework within which similar policies can be carried forward—the position advocated by Obama.

IMAGES OF WAR: by Chris Hondros..

Absolutely stunning shots taken by Chris Hondros before he died of face to face fighting in patient they take a few moments to unload.

Getty Images Photographer Chris Hondros, 41, was mortally wounded Wednesday in Misurata, Libya, not long after filing intimate, striking images of the fighting between rebel and government forces. Tim Hetherington, the director and producer of the documentary "Restrepo," was killed in the same attack. While Hetherington's photos were not available to us, we honor both his and Hondros' intense commitment to creating inspiring, touching, storytelling images with this post. The images that follow were made by Hondros in Misurata, Libya, the last three days of his life. Hondros and Hetherington will be missed by colleagues and millions worldwide who have been impacted through simply seeing their work. -- Paula Nelson

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

OBAMA war monger.. seeking to prolong the occupation of Iraq...

Obama administration officials tried to keep S&P rating at ‘stable’

Obama administration privately urged Standard & Poor’s in recent weeks not to lower its outlook on the United States — a suggestion the ratings agency ignored Monday, two people familiar with the matter said.

Treasury Department officials had been discussing with S&P whether the ratings agency should change its outlook on the United States to “negative” from “stable,” an indication that the country could lose its crucial AAA rating in coming years over its soaring debt levels.

Treasury officials told S&P analysts that they were underestimating the ability of politicians in Washington to fashion a compromise to curb deficits, a Treasury official said. They argued a change in ratings was not needed at this time because the debt was manageable and the administration had a viable plan in the works, the official said.

But S&P analysts told Treasury officials on Friday that they were unmoved — and released a report that expressed skepticism that the political parties could come together on how to bring spending in line with revenue.

Any doubts by credit rating agencies about government debt has the potential to increase borrowing costs for the Treasury.

It is not uncommon for companies and governments to push back when they don’t agree with a decision made by a credit ratings agency. Sometimes, companies that issue debt — which also pay for the ratings — will shop around for the best rating.

But the U.S. government is an unusual case — it doesn’t solicit ratings.

S&P and the other major credit rating agencies offer their judgments notwithstanding.

Spokesmen for the Treasury and S&P declined to comment on the record.

Conflict of Interest: Bush Cousin Presides Over 9/11 Federal Court Case


Book recommendation: Manchurian President : Author Adam Klein...


Aaron Klein has unmasked the most radical -- and therefore dangerous -- president by far this country has ever seen. The radical forces that shaped Obama, as revealed in this telling investigation, were not the best of the radical sixties, but the very worst -- the anti-American, communist-supporting, terrorist fringe. --David Horowitz, bestselling author

Aaron Klein apparently never received the J school memo to acquiesce to political power and to the utopian dream. The Manchurian President is a frightening yet vital primer for those now willing to look behind the curtain to see who is the leader of the free world. --Andrew Breitbart, bestselling author and Internet news entrepreneur --This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.

Product Description

The book uncovers a far-leftist, anti-American nexus that has been instrumental in not only helping build Obama's political career but in securing his presidency. Klein details with shocking precision how this nexus continues to influence Obama and the White House and is involved in drafting policy aimed at reshaping our country.
Highlights of The Manchurian President:
  • Obama's mysterious college years unearthed
  • Shocking details of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and other Weathermen terrorists
  • Obama's ties to Islam and black liberation theology
  • Startling facts about Obama's eligibility to serve as president
  • Obama's membership in a socialist party probed
  • How Obama's "hope" & "change" slogans stem from communist activism
  • Radical socalists involved in drafting stimulus bill, ObamaCare
  • Communists, socialists and other radicals on team Obama, including an expose on Obama's top guns in the White House
  • Never-before-revealed depth of Obama's relationship with ACORN

Shep Smith Blasts U.S. 'Lies' About Middle East, Praises WikiLeaks (VIDEO)

‘US Lobbied to Block Gaza War Report’

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice
The US administration of President Barack Obama has reportedly made efforts to block an independent UN investigation into Israel's war against the Gaza Strip.

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice was behind the move to prevent a more thorough UN investigation of alleged war crimes committed by Israeli troops during the 2008-2009 conflict, Foreign Policy cited diplomatic cables of WikiLeaks website.
In one cable, Rice spoke with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon repeatedly on May 4, 2009 to urge him to block an inquiry into Israel's attacks on UN sites in Gaza.

Rice "underscored the importance of having a strong cover letter that made clear that no further action was needed and would close out this issue," the US diplomatic cable said.

In another cable, Rice issued a veiled warning to the International Criminal Court that an investigation into alleged Israeli crimes could damage its standing with Washington.

The UN probe committee, headed by Richard Goldstone, accused Israel of committing war crimes by using disproportionate force, deliberately targeting civilians and using people as human shields.

The December 2008-January 2009 offensive left more than 1,400 Palestinians, mostly women and children, dead.

Under intensive pressure from the Israelis, Goldstone on April 3 announced that he was wrong to say Israel had deliberately targeted civilians.

Goldstone later announced that he has no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at the moment.
On Thursday, three of the co-authors of the report rejected calls to retract it. The report could pave the way for dragging Israel before the Hague tribunal for war crimes.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship ...

PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state's ballot.

The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would give another black eye to Arizona after last year's controversy over the state's illegal immigration enforcement law.

Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.
"I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.

"In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state," she said. "This is a bridge too far."

The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate.

So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. But Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state.

The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural-born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

Opponents questioned whether Arizona's bill would have added additional requirements.
The measure would have required that political parties and presidential candidates hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age. It also would have required the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

If candidates didn't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

If it couldn't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates were eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would have been able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements were met. The names of candidates could be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state didn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.

The bill didn't explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot.

The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, said he was disappointed by the veto. It would have been reasonable to have the secretary of state — the state's top election officer — decide whether a candidate had adequately documented his or her qualifications, he said.

Because the bill would have required candidates for all offices to submit documentation of their qualifications, he said, "it would have been excellent reform."

Seel had said previously the measure wasn't intended as a swipe against the president and would have helped maintain the integrity of elections.

TAPI gas pipeline : The real stakes in the Afghan war...dying for oil in 2009

France and Germany are wary of sending more troops, but failure in Afghanistan would have wide ramifications for Europe
French and German leaders now face a painful choice.

 Should they finally embrace Nato's efforts in Afghanistan more wholeheartedly – which would mean accepting significantly more human and material sacrifices? Or should they or conclude that the war has already been lost, or that "success" does not merit the cost, and abandon the mission altogether?

For their own good, they should choose the first option.

They should remember that unlike the war in Iraq, which they strongly opposed from the outset, all Nato member states, including themselves, unanimously and unambiguously sanctioned the war effort in Afghanistan in 2001.

But aside from the need to fulfil their alliance duties – and in fact even more important – they have clear national interests at stake in this strategically located central Asian state.

This is not about just about pre-empting future terrorist attacks on European capitals by stopping the Taliban from retaking the country.

At stake in Afghanistan is the survival of the transatlantic alliance, Europe's energy security and independence, and whether the deepening ties between Europe – especially Germany – and Russia, will eventually lead to the western integration of Russia, or instead, to it gaining a stranglehold over European energy security.

In Afghanistan all three issues are interlinked. This fact remains largely ignored.

Let me explain:

Afghanistan is a crucial energy transit corridor in central Asia, potentially connecting the energy-rich central Asian republics with the Arabian Sea and/or the Indian Ocean. Stabilising Afghanistan – not just temporarily to justify withdrawal, but for good – is crucial for the anticipated Trans-Afghanistan pipeline from Turkmenistan to India (known as Tapi) to be built and its security to be guaranteed.

The construction of Tapi is essential for Europe to diversify its energy supplies and reduce its dependence on oil and gas imports from the Gulf and Russia.

Failure in Afghanistan, and by extension in Pakistan, would mean abandoning the construction of Tapi and in turn, pave the way for Russia to reassert its former hegemony in the region.

Should this transpire, European dependence on Russian-controlled energy supplies would increase hugely, giving Russia unprecedented leverage over Europe, both economically and politically.

A Russia-dependent Europe would damage the transatlantic relationship beyond repair, wean the Europeans away from their former American partner, and split the west into two.

On the other hand, should the mission in Afghanistan succeed and Tapi be built, Europe could continue to deepen its economic and political ties with Russia without running the risk of falling hostage to Russia's geostrategic ambitions (which are still very much alive); it would allow Europe to progressively integrate Russia into a united west.

Despite the emphasis in public on the need for more military assistance, the US knows that France and Germany will not be able to raise troop levels to any meaningful level.

President Obama's plea should rather be understood as a more general call for Europeans to do more – namely, to significantly increase their financial support and to bring their technical knowhow and nation-building expertise to bear. But most importantly, the US wants Europe to unmistakably embrace the US and Nato mission in Afghanistan publicly, in order to demonstrate revived western unity and strength.

Maybe the time has now come for French and German leaders to realise that the interests at stake in Afghanistan far outweigh the costs involved in pursuing them, and ensure that in a few years down the line the newspaper headlines will read "Mission accomplished" rather than "Afghanistan: where the west went to die – and did".

With the Lisbon treaty finally having staggered into life, potentially endowing the EU with the political clout in the international arena it has long sought, both France and Germany are now hard-pressed to prove that they can live up to the responsibilities that great power entails.

9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably why were'nt they ?

BLAIR: And the pact of silence...

Revealed: Tony Blairs secret oil links to Middle East...2010

Tony Blair's secret links to Gulf oil giants were revealed today as fresh details emerged of his “carte blanche” support for George Bush's Iraq war.

The former prime minister has been in the pay of the Kuwaiti government and a South Korean oil firm for up to 18 months, a parliamentary watchdog has revealed.

But the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments allowed Mr Blair to keep his contracts secret because of “market sensitivities” and because the Kuwaitis requested confidentiality.

In a further revelation, a classified memo from Mr Blair to President Bush showed the full extent of his support for the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

The personal note — which has been seen by the Chilcot Inquiry but not released by the Government — shows that Mr Blair wrote: “You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'm with you.”

The contents of the memo, which is buried in Andrew Rawnsley's book The End Of The Party, confirm the exact words Mr Blair used to offer his strong backing for Bush in July 2002, eight months before the invasion.

The Chilcot committee was barred from quizzing Mr Blair publicly about the private notes to the US president when he gave evidence in January. Downing Street has refused permission to release the secret documents.

Rawnsley's book shows that Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the US, reacted with astonishment when he saw the note.

He phoned Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning, saying: “Why in God's name has he said that again?”

Sir David replied: “We tried to stop him... but he wouldn't listen.”

9/11 Trial with a complete American blackout ...

Bush and Blair, the devils children, they lied and then they lied some more...

Tony Blair, like father like son, proving the apple never falls far from the tree...if you get caught ,do not give your correct name

Tony Blair on sex offenders list...

Charged under the name 'Lynton Blair' in 1974 Bow Street Magistrate Court....Fine 50.00.....

Under the pseudonym Charles Linton the young Tony Blair pleaded guilty to importuning in public toilets at Bow Street Magistrates Court and was fined GBP 50.00. This occured in 1983.


Prime Minister Tony Blair’s 16-year-old son was arrested for being drunk after police found him face down and vomiting in a London square, Blair’s office said today.

Euan Blair was found at about 11 p.m. Wednesday lying on the ground in Leicester Square, said Alastair Campbell, Blair’s official spokesman.
“He was clearly ill, he had been vomiting,” Campbell said.

The teenager had been out with friends, celebrating the end of school exams, Campbell said.

Questioned by police, Euan gave a false name — Euan John — and provided an old address,

IRAQ: Secret memos expose link between oil firms and in vasion.

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.
The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.
Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".
BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion
* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."
* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."
* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."
* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

Monday, April 18, 2011

Just what is it that 'Mandy' had on Blair ?

Tony Blair former PERVERT.....

'In the autumn of 1983, a young well-dressed man presented himself to Bow St Magistrates' Court on a morals charge. He was given a conditional discharge and bound over to keep the peace. The young man gave his name as Charles Lynton. He is now among the highest in the land.'

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair(Tony Blair,former PM of the UK)

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair(Tony Blair,former PM of the UK)

He was charged and appeared in court at Bow Street magistrates court for importunity in a public toilet with another male. He tried to get sexual favour from the other man, little did he know that the toilet was being watched by police. Blair was fined £500, and walked away with nobody knowing who he really was as he used his middle names to cover who he was. Charles Lynton is the name used, and his friends in court got him off with a fine, because he is one of them.

Blair's middle names are Charles and Lynton. I have asked for the records of the period (the Court no longer exists) but failed to trace any mention there of the 'case' - if indeed it ever existed. Although I found the general attitude of information suppliers to be obstructive, there wasn't any strong feeling of hiding stuff; frankly, I'd be amazed anyway if something incriminating about Tony Blair hadn't been removed by now. Another source wrote to us as follows:
'He was caught importuning in a Westminster toilet. It was all covered up.'
Two things are, however, relevant. Gossip did abound about Blair's sexuality during his time in the rock band Ugly Rumours at Oxford. And while nobody has ever stood them up, it is widely accepted that Derry Irvine (Blair's boss in Chambers) regularly referred to him as "the star closest to Uranus".

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair due on trial in the Hague

On the same day the BBC reported that former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was to go on trial after five years in prison over the deaths of a group of Baghdad merchants in 1992, it was rumoured the former prime minister of Britain will be indicted for crimes against humanity. The list of charges is long and not confined to the many alleged crimes in Iraq. Mr Blair's whereabouts are uncertain; he has been sighted occasionally in occupied East Jerusalem where he is acting as 'peace' envoy for the 'Quartet'. Most recently, he has been facilitating industrial zones for the employment of Palestinians and for the removal of a few of the over 500 Israeli Occupation Force roadblocks.

The charge list includes:
Breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention from the time he became prime minister in 1997 until March 2003 during whichtime draconian sanctions were being applied to the civilian population of Iraq. These sanctions prompted the resignation of Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck who served as assistant secretaries-general of the UN. The former stated that the effect of those sanctions was genocidal. It was established that there was an excess mortality of babies and children of at least 500,000 between 1992 and 2003. This had to do with foul water, poor nutrition and deteriorating medical services, all of which were satisfactory before the sanctions took hold.
Please note, this article contains graphic images which some may find upsetting. 
Conspiracy to join with another power in aggressive war, the supreme international war crime, contrary to the Nuremberg Rules and the provisions of the Charter of the United Nation. This was first made public when he joined Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America, and Britain for bloodied steaks over a barbecue at Crawford Ranch in April 2002.
High treason (betrayal of one's country, sovereign or government) in manufacturing a case for war, the central one of which was the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. This in itself gave no grounds because the possession of such was no basis for a military assault on a sovereign country. Three aggressive nations, the US, UK and Israel, have held weapons of mass destruction for decades; no attempt has been made to disarm them. The grounds for UK military action against Iraq changed as the unlawful operation proceeded under the guise of liberation of the people and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The part played by the 'sofa cabinet', three of whom were unelected, in promulgating a war fought on behalf of Her Majesty is being minutely examined by law officers. One such cabinet member, Mr Charles Powell, recently stated on BBC TV that the aim of the war was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. He would know that was an illegal aim. Ann Clywd MP was appointed Mr Blair's human rights envoy in Iraq. She has continuously claimed a virtuous aim ... [but the fact is that] at least a million Iraqis have been killed, about 40 per cent of whom will have been children. Using a conservative ratio, at least two million will have been maimed.

Mr Blair is charged with a litany of war crimes that followed the invasion, one of which is the failure of the 'coalition of the willing' to halt the further deterioration in the quality and quantity of medical services in Iraq which had already worsened during the 12 years of sanctions. Another obligation of an occupier is to maintain security for the populace. The very opposite happened. Disbanding the Iraqi army and other Baathist structures was central to the violent chaos which followed the invasion. Protecting the heritage of a country is another obligation of an occupier in international law. Mr Blair failed as leader to meet these and he is so charged.

The general charges in this indictment are followed by an annex which details names in which there has been death or extreme injury.

The charges also include collusion in a military and political coalition which has used banned weapons. The use of white phosphorus at Fallujah by the US was admitted. Armour-penetrating tank and cannon shells, as well as "bunker busting" bombs and missiles, have used depleted uranium. Uranium U238 is dispersed widely as a very fine dust; it has been detected as far away as the UK. Iraqi doctors claim that there have been dramatic rises in grotesque deformities in babies born prematurely, in leukaemia and in other malignancies.

The list of charges includes the case of Ali Abbas, then 12 years of age and formerly of the village of Zafaraniya, which is 30 miles from Baghdad, and his deceased family: his mother who was six months pregnant, his father, brother and at least 10 other relatives. It has been reported that, just after midnight on 30 March 2003 and 10 days into "Operation Iraqi Freedom", a weapon or two weapons exploded.

We had all gone to bed and there was this loud noise and smoke. I felt very scared and I was in much pain. I kept shouting for my mother. I did not know at the time what had happened to her.

A photograph taken in hospital in Baghdad shows that Ali was burned across his trunk and that his hands and forearms were incinerated. His head, neck, abdomen and legs were unblemished. Examination of this photograph shows this boy was subjected to the most intense radiated heat,  not contact heat.

It seems likely that his head and lower half were screened from the source of this radiation by a window aperture or similar, given the rectangular pattern of the thermal injuries. The weapon that caused such rapid incineration is unknown. It certainly was not a thermobaric weapon as used currently in Iraq and Gaza. Uranium weapons give rise to a fireball as the dust ignites. This can melt steel but there are no photographs of human victims of such attacks which match the incineration of the arms of Ali Abbas, although these weapons have been used frequently, both in the Gulf War and in the ongoing Iraq War. The clandestine use of a small tactical nuclear weapon cannot not be ruled out.
The authorities will require that Ali Abbas comes to the Hague to give evidence. However, he has not been able to leave Baghdad since last summer. He has of course required someone else to attend to his every toilet need and to his dressing. An uncle provided that for him whilst he grew from boy to man at the private boys school in London and where he excelled scholastically. Another uncle took over last summer but a visa has not been forthcoming from the UK.

The US named Tariq Aziz the Eight of Spades, thus coming 43rd in the United States' set of 55 playing cards. His trial for involvement in the hanging of 40 alleged racketeers started on 29 April under a Kurdish judge and a military occupation.

The central charge against Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is that he has caused the death of thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians, the maiming of many more and the displacement of over four million people. Unlike the treatment of those humans, his hearing will be fair.

It is understood that he will be able to receive a Catholic priest in the cell which was formerly occupied by Slobodan Milosevic. The prison chaplain will encourage further study of 'faith', which with globalization were the topics of Mr Blair's address in Westminster Cathedral. The commander-in-chief of the USA spoke of the "sanctity of life" when he was receiving the Pontiff in Washington recently. This principle will be applied to Anthony Charles Lynton Blair but probably not to the deputy prime minister of Iraq...continued at link..

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Plantation owner Obama humiliates Brazilians


Barack Obama has recently visited Brazil, the largest Latin American country, during his tour of the region. The Brazilian administration hoped that the US president would agree to consider an opportunity for Brazil to become a new constant member at the UN Security Council. Brazilian officials also hoped that Obama would announce an intention to cancel protectionist measures at least from the imports of Brazilian ethanol.

Obama's first visit to Latin America coincided with the 50th anniversary of The Alliance for Progress plan, developed by John Kennedy's administration. The plan stopped the Cuban-style revolutionary process, which was brewing in several countries of the region at that time. Apparently, Mr. Obama decided to stop the process of the anti-American consolidation of Latin Americans. That is why the president announced that his visit would contribute to the creation of new alliances on the entire American continent.

The USA was having tense relations with Brazil during the recent years. The conflict with previous Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was based on the Iranian nuclear program. Lula attempted to act as a mediator to avoid new sanctions against the Iranians. However, the USA promoted the new anti-Iranian resolution through the UN Security Council. The US administration disagreed with Brazil on a number of other issues, such as the coupe in Honduras, the cooperation with Venezuela, and several others.

Lula could not tolerate America's arrogance. US officials described his policies as an interference of a third world country into major international affairs. The ex-Brazilian president did not attend the banquet in honor of the high American guest.

The situation changed after Brazil elected its new President, Dilma Rousseff. The new president announced that she would perhaps revise the plans of the previous government to purchase 36 French-made Rafale fighter jets. Ten days later, Rousseff was contacted by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Rep. Congressmen John McCain and John Barrasso.

A contract worth $6 billion could become a very good start for a new alliance, taking into consideration the fact that Brazil announced the intention to purchase 120 fighter jets. Afterwards, US companies could participate in the development of the recently discovered large oil fields on the shelf near Sao Paulo. Obama vowed that the US would be one of Brazil's "best customers."

However, instead of discussing the issues of economic cooperation, Obama spoke a lot about the situation in Libya. He praised Brazilian democracy and stated that Brazil was an example of how dictatorship could evolve into democracy. The Brazilians were surprised: Obama okayed the aggression, rather than the nation's permanent membership at the UN Security Council.

Many Brazilians were annoyed by inadequate decisions taken by Obama's security. The visit was supposed to start with a large meeting in the center of Rio de Janeiro. Up to 30,000 people were expected to gather to listen to America's first black president. However, the grand spectacle was relocated to the Municipal Theater where it could be viewed by 2,000 people.

There were two reasons for that to happen. First off, there was no interest on the part of potential listeners. Secondly, Obama's security asked their Brazilian colleagues not to work during the speech at all and demanded the presence of US snipers at the event. The Brazilians took it as a token of disrespect.

All the efforts to build the dialogue ended with a failure after the team of the American president made another big mistake. Before a meeting with businessmen, some Brazilian ministers had to undergo the process of pat searching. What kind of cooperation can there be if the USA shows absolutely no respect to its partners? Noteworthy, the Brazilian ministers were searched in spite of the fact that there is a ceremonial diplomatic agreement, which excludes this type of behavior.

Obama did not call the Brazilians the Bolivians, as it happened to Ronald Reagan in the past. Obama spoke a few words in Portuguese in the beginning of his speech. "Good afternoon, marvelous city," he said. This is probably the only positive thing that the Brazilians saw in Obama's visit to their country. The talks failed. It was clear from the very beginning that the US President would not support Brazil's initiative to become a permanent member at the UN Security Council. The reason why is clear: Brazil abstained from the voting on the resolution of "no-fly zone" above Libya.

 Why would the United States have another adversary in the Security Council? Why would the USA cancel the duties on ethanol if there are other types of Brazilian goods and if Brazil is not ready to join the USA in putting pressure on the ALBA countries?


Obama, even your closest neighbors have come to see through your arrogance. I thought that we could never get a president that is worse than George Bush, unfortunately, you topped the bill.  I suggest you stay caged in the US and never risk stepping out. You never know where and who is hiding in a tree ready to pounce!!  You have amassed more enemies in the short-time you took office, than any other president on record. We all would love to know your true origin, and the tree you call homeland!!