[WARNING: THIS NEWSLETTER CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES OF THE VIOLENT DEATHS OF ERIC HARRIS AND DYLAN KLEBOLD]
Greetings to all subscribers!
Once upon a time, America had a president who liked to portray himself as being just a good ol' boy. Sometimes he'd pop up in photos wearing jeans and boots as he ambled about his ranch -- when he wasn't purportedly steering the American ship-of-state.
The press had some reservations about him though. Sometimes he just didn't seem to be, shall we say, fully in control of his mental faculties. He would say things that didn't make much sense. He didn't always know exactly which country he was visiting, or what foreign head-of-state he was talking to. He had a hard time coming up with coherent answers when he wasn't working from a script.
In September of the first year of his administration, a presidential aide was quoted in a respected national news magazine as saying of his boss: "There are some uncomfortable moments, especially with guys like [the Prime Minister of Canada], who have complete mastery of the dossiers and can talk about these things off the top of their heads. The President's not there yet, and my guess is that he won't ever be."
Some time later, one of the country's most influential daily newspapers ran an op/ed piece that read, in part: "This president is treated by both the press and foreign leaders as if he were a child. He earns respect for the ordinary, for what used to be expected. His occasional ability to retain facts is cited as a triumph when it should, in fact, be a routine occurrence."
Who was this mystery president? No ... we're not talking about George "Dumbya" Bush here. The guy we're talking about did actually have verbal communication skills -- he just rarely was lucid enough to know what he was talking about.
We're talking here, of course, about Ronald Reagan -- who, even suffering from the early effects of Alzheimer's, could speak more intelligibly than Bush. The news magazine, by the way, was Newsweek (September 7, 1981) and the newspaper was the Washington Post (June 2, 1983).
Twenty years later, we now have another White House occupant who "earns respect for the ordinary." In fact, he earns praise for what doesn't even rise to the level of the "ordinary." And the press hasn't even taken the token swipes at him that they took twenty years ago at Reagan.
(the U.S. press, that is: http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,4599307,00.html)
What we are witnessing here is a serious dumbing-down of the presidency.
What we are also seeing is a replay of the 1980s -- a not-so-lucid and therefore easily manipulated pawn serving as a front-man for the guys lurking in the shadows of both administrations -- George H.W. Bush and his most trusted cronies, like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
But at least in the good old days of the '80s, we were given a charismatic 'leader' who seemed genuine and who had no shortage of stories to entertain America with (and who was actually elected to his position). The fact that we now have George Bush in the White House illustrates that Washington's power brokers have grown so arrogant that they no longer care how credible their front-man is, or how well he is able to sell their agenda.
So expendable and insignificant is George considered to be that one of the biggest stories of this past week was that he had passed the baton to Dick for no more significant reason than so that he could have his colon probed. I guess it's a good thing that the twenty-fifth amendment wasn't in place when James Buchanan was occupying the White House or ... oh, never mind.
I barely caught myself in time there. I made a solemn pledge to myself that I wouldn't make the president the butt (oops ... sorry) of any cheap jokes just because he opted to have his anus probed.
I'm sure, however, that many of you out there are expecting some tasteless jokes. Regular readers though are aware that this is a dignified newsletter that attempts to maintain a certain amount of decorum. I'm frankly a little insulted that you would think that I would ever stoop so low as to make juvenile, homophobic jokes about the president having his rectum probed.
I am though curious about a couple of things, such as just what level of security clearance is required before someone is permitted to shove things up the president's ass. I also find myself wondering if any large obstructions - such as, say, George's head - needed to be removed before the probe could be inserted.
But enough about that. The important thing is that our irreplaceable leader emerged from his ordeal in good spirits. He was even heard to say: "I don't know what all those people I locked away in the Texas prison system keep complaining about. Having things forcibly inserted into your rectum can actually be kind of fun."
In other news this week, a circuit court decided that having school kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with the line about this being "one nation under God," was unconstitutional. The court was only, of course, stating the obvious -- that the additional line about God that was inserted during the reactionary 1950s is a blatant violation of the concept of the separation of church and state.
That didn't, of course, stop every politician in the country, and every talking head on television, and every avenue of the American media from spending days denouncing the decision, and denouncing the supposedly 'liberal' bent of the California court -- even though the decision was co-authored by an appointee of Richard Nixon, who wasn't exactly known for filling the courts with 'liberals.'
The clamor over the decision was so loud that it all but drowned out news of a far more important (and flagrantly unconstitutional) decision handed down by the Supreme Court - the most overtly fascist branch of the federal government - that proclaimed that school vouchers can be applied towards religious schools.
(for an example of the fascistic thinking of one of the court's most notorious justices, see: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/scal-j05.shtml)
The timing of the circuit court decision was certainly curious, coming - as it did - just before the Supreme Court decision and just in time to stir up a frenzy of false patriotism or that most patriotic of holidays, the Fourth of July.
The big news on the Fourth, after a blizzard of frantic warnings of imminent 'terrorist' attacks, turned out to be a shooting at LAX, right here in my beloved hometown. The details of the incident, which came just days after an announcement of a nearly $10 billion redesign proposal that seeks to transform LAX into a prototype of the ultimate police-state airport, are continuing to trickle out as this is being written (on Friday). It is not yet clear who the gunman was or what motivated the shooting.
That will be considerably more difficult to deduce since the alleged gunman was summarily executed by armed guards at the El Al Israel Airlines terminal. L.A.'s newspaper of record, the Los Angeles Times, openly acknowledged that that is what happened, and seemed to hail it as a good thing.
Here is an account that appeared, without comment, in the newspaper's lead story: "Passengers and others who witnessed the attack said the gunman appeared to grow agitated while talking to a ticket agent at the El Al counter. He pulled out a gun and shot her, then began firing at people in line, witnesses said. 'There were people laying all over the floor. There was blood,' said Arie Golan, who joined a security guard in wrestling the man to the floor. Witnesses said the security guard shot the man once at close range after the attacker had been disarmed and was being held on the floor."
Later in the same article, the same story is told again: "the shooter lost his grip on the gun, which fell and skittered out of reach across the floor. According to witnesses, as the two men struggled to hold down the shooter, who was lying on his back, another El Al security guard ran over, stood over the man and shot him once in the abdomen."
Considering that the actions taken by this guard constitute the commission of a homicide, it was rather amazing for the Times to make such an admission, and to fail completely to offer any words of criticism. Far from it. In fact, the actions of the guard were praised, by both the newspaper and by some very prominent government mouthpieces.
Israel's consul general in Los Angeles proclaimed the guard to be a "hero." Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and the FBI's Los Angeles station chief both offered words of praise. The Times ran a piece entitled "Airline Guards' Response Is Praised," which credited the guard with saving lives.
The newspaper even ran a graphic in the "A" section that detailed exactly how the gunman was executed, after being disarmed and restrained. This was by no stretch of the imagination a case of self-defense; it was, plain and simple, a murder -- as this graphic doesn't even attempt to conceal.
What are we to make of this? Is the erosion of civil liberties and due process rights already so far advanced that we have reached a point where we can now openly cheer the dispensation of vigilante justice? Is it acceptable now to summarily execute someone who is clearly a 'terrorist' -- even after that someone has been disarmed and is pinned to the ground?
Have trials now become obsolete in dealing with this new world that we live in? Is the choice now between indefinite detention on unspecified charges, and summary execution in the field?
Due to the fact that last week's newsletter was a 'special edition,' which didn't contain any links other than those concerning the attack on the Pentagon, I have a large backlog of articles of interest to cover here, and - as always - little time to cover them all.
First up is this fascinating collection of articles on the man who some are saying may be the elusive Anthrax mailer. Why the tightly-controlled media have chosen to target this man, who is a U.S. biowarfare researcher and a career U.S. intelligence asset, remains something of a mystery.
Next up is this collection of articles, containing varying amounts of spin, that focus on the latest appalling U.S. massacre of Afghan civilians -- at a wedding celebration.
And while we're on the subject of Afghanistan, here are two more articles of interest. The first discusses additional evidence of U.S. complicity in the massacre of Taliban POWs, and the second takes a look at the almost surreally fraudulent loya jirga.
Some of the best commentary of the week came from, not surprisingly, Canadian writer Steve Gowans. Gowans weighed in on fascism in America (guess what? It's already here) and on what makes a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory.
And while we're on the subject of conspiracies, it seems that the Salt Lake City police are going out of their way to stress that there is not, lest anyone think otherwise, any "conspiracy" involved in the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case. That's good to know. I suppose there is nothing unusual about the Danielle van Dam case either.
This obscure offering, from a correspondent in Hesperia, California, reveals that it isn't just in the big cities that you will find rampant abuse of police powers.
This fascinating offering reminds us that the worst 'terrorist' attack upon New York prior to September 11, 2001 came on September 16, 1920 -- in the form of an attack upon the heart of the city's financial district. While the author of the piece notes some parallels between the two attacks, there appear to be many more parallels that she is unwilling, or unable, to concede.
I have more postings bookmarked, but they will have to wait until next week, as I really need to follow-up on a couple of issues raised in previous newsletters.
As expected, I got more than the usual amount of feedback on the last newsletter. Two respondents wrote to question my contention that firefighters are spraying water on the Pentagon fire. Though it appears to be water to the untrained eye, it is said to actually be aqueous foam:
"The main reason for my email is regarding the action of the fire trucks at the Pentagon crash site. You mentioned that it was water they were applying which might be concluded from the picture. I believe foam can be dispersed the same way as would water. The pressure and speed makes the foam appear to look like water ... If you look at the pictures there would appear to be a white layer on the ground as well as on the vehicle burning on the side."
"I just joined your mailing list, and also just finished reading your newest newsletter. I wanted to point out something to you in it that may be incorrect. You stated that the firefighters were spraying water onto the fire, and showed pictures to prove such. But in those same pictures it is clearly obvious to the trained eye, that it isn't water, but in fact AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) a standard combatant of class B fires. You can see the white film on the ground (first picture) and even more clearly on the walls (second picture)."
These respondents are quite likely correct in their interpretations of the photos. The previous week's newsletter has been corrected to reflect that fact.
Others have written to direct me to web sites such as this one, (http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/), which feature analysis of five frames of CCTV footage that contain what may be a blurry, grainy image of an approaching aircraft, just before the side of the Pentagon erupts in a fireball.
Some have claimed that this footage proves that it was a military jet, most likely an F-16, that hit the Pentagon. Others claim that the footage proves that it was a 757 that struck the Pentagon. Still others claim that the footage is of such poor quality that it doesn't definitively prove anything.
There appear to be at least four competing theories of what it was that struck the Pentagon:
~ American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 carrying passengers and crew.
~ A military jet, possibly an F-16.
~ A missile fired by a jet, immediately followed by the jet itself.
~ A missile.
The theory that it was a missile was discussed in the last newsletter, and everyone pretty much knows the official story of the hijacked AA flight. But what of the other theories?
The notion that it was a military aircraft (possibly a pilot-less drone, according to some theories) does provide answers to some of the questions that were raised in the last newsletter. Specifically, that would explain: why experienced air traffic controllers thought they were tracking a military aircraft; how the plane was able to execute a high speed, low altitude, horizontal approach to the building; and why many witnesses reported seeing an aircraft smaller than a 757.
It doesn't though explain that inexplicable exit wound in the building, nor the small entry wound coupled with the complete lack of any aircraft debris. The wings of the craft, whether civilian or military, should be visible in the photos of the Pentagon grounds, since the point of entry does not exhibit enough damage for the entire plane to have broken though the facade of the building.
As for the exit wound, some have speculated that it was one of the aircraft's turbines that pierced multiple rings of the building. That seems unlikely, however, as the turbines would presumably have been left behind with the wings. There is also the fact that two firefighters specifically mentioned seeing a nosecone, or parts thereof.
One thing that is for certain is that whatever made that exit hole emerged in recognizable condition. It didn't magically vaporize while punching through that sixth layer of masonry, after having survived the first five penetrations. That surviving evidence has been, notably, thoroughly suppressed.
The other competing theory of the attack is that it was accomplished with both a missile and a military jet, with the aircraft following directly behind - and presumably entering the building through the same hole as - the missile. While this would explain the damage known to have been sustained by the Pentagon, it again doesn't account for the lack of aircraft debris outside the building.
There is not, as near as I can tell, any definitive answer at this time as to what exactly caused the damage to the Pentagon on September 11. About the best that can be said is that the official explanation, of a suicide attack with a Boeing 757, seems the least plausible interpretation of the evidence.
In Newsletter #3, I posed to readers what we shall now call the "Columbine Challenge." The challenge was to solve the mystery of how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were killed in the library of Littleton, Colorado's Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. So far, no one has bothered to respond to that challenge.
There are several possible explanations for this. The first is that readers were too embarrassed to pick up a copy of the National Enquirer to view the death-scene images that were published therein. I have, therefore, thoughtfully included those images in this newsletter -- probably in violation of some kind of copyright.
The second possible explanation is that readers view questions about what really happened at Columbine as fodder for the lunatic fringes of the conspiracy mongering crowd. The fact of the matter is though that these images prove conclusively that the official story of what happened in Littleton on that fateful day is a shameless cover-up.
The third possible reason for a lack of interest in the Columbine case is a feeling among many that there are far more important issues of concern today that need to be addressed, and that focusing on the mass murder that occurred there serves as little more than a distraction.
That would be the case were it not for the fact that what happened on April 20, 1999 and what happened on September 11, 2001 were one and the same. The difference was only one of scale. If you understand what happened at Littleton, then you also will understand what happened at the WTC.
There is abundant evidence, in the form of statements from numerous eyewitnesses, that the carnage at the high school that day was not the work of two disgruntled and suicidal teenagers (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/littleton.htm). What it was, by all appearances, was a covert psychological warfare operation.
The primary aim of such operations is mass trauma-based conditioning, which operates on a fairly simple principle: inflict massive trauma on a society-wide scale, and then bombard the emotionally-charged, highly-suggestible masses with a media blitz designed to steer public opinion in a predetermined direction.
Call it mass mind control, call it brainwashing, call it social conditioning, call it psychological warfare ... call it whatever the hell you want to call it. The point is that it is a highly-effective way of controlling the masses and moving the people ever closer to supporting an unabashedly fascist police state.
The attacks of September 11 did not occur in a vacuum. The only thing different and unique about that day was the ambitious scale of the assault upon the American consciousness. In the final analysis, the 9-11 attacks exist on a continuum with such other high profile events as the Kennedy assassination, the attack on the Oklahoma City federal building and, yes, the mass murder at Columbine High School.
So what really did happen there that day? One thing that we now know for certain is that the two alleged gunmen, Harris and Klebold, did not commit suicide that day, as the official story generally has held. We also know that the alternative scenario of a murder/suicide committed by Harris, put forth by some law enforcement personnel and by the Enquirer, is equally far-fetched.
We know that to be the case because the photos clearly contradict both of those scenarios, as you can see here for yourself:
The remarkable conclusion drawn by the tabloids 'investigators,' whose clear intent was to advance a scenario that involved only the two alleged gunmen, was that Harris killed Klebold before taking his own life with his own shotgun. That is, it must be stated, a rather extraordinary interpretation of the photographic evidence.
The assertion that Harris killed himself is clearly contradicted by the fact that the gun he purportedly used is under his leg. It is clear from the natural positioning of his legs, and the blood that can be seen dripping down on the books behind him, that Harris was shot while sitting upright, after which he slumped over to his left.
How then could the gun have possibly gotten lodged under his leg?
There is also a problem with the notion that it was Klebold who was killed first. As is glaringly obvious in the photos, Harris was in the position that he died in at the time that Klebold was shot. Klebold's blood, brain matter and baseball cap can all be seen splattered over Harris' pant leg.
And Harris obviously couldn't have shot Klebold (through the left side of the head) from the position that he is in. Therefore, we can only conclude either that the boys were killed simultaneously, or that Harris was killed before Klebold. But if Harris was already dead, and investigators have acknowledged that Klebold was murdered, then who shot Dylan Klebold?
The inescapable conclusion is that there had to be at least one additional shooter, and probably two or more. And those additional shooters had to have been known by, and trusted by, the two alleged shooters. How else could they have been in position to execute the two obviously heavily-armed boys?
Klebold had an assault rifle practically in his hands, while Harris had his shotgun resting right alongside his shooting hand. How did the killers get so close to their armed prey?
Harris appears to have been shot through the roof of his mouth. The top of his head appears to be largely blown off, and his hand appears to be curled around his mouth, as though even in death he is attempting to ward off the fatal shot. Klebold, meanwhile, was shot through the left side of his head, apparently while in a reclining position.
The most likely scenario is that the pair were essentially summarily executed, likely at the same time, by two or more shooters who were known accomplices of the boys and were able to catch them off-guard.
The full truth about Columbine has yet to emerge, and likely never will. Enough is known though to state categorically that the official story is a morass of lies. There has unquestionably been a massive cover-up of what really happened there. Those same two conclusions can, of course, be drawn about the events of September 11.To understand one of these events is to understand the other. And so it goes ....