Spinning the spin

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Mark Twain

Instead of telling the truth about the consequences of war, the Pentagon spinners produce a story straight from a Hollywood movie and it's important to know their techniques because they are due to be repeated many times in their race for global control. The star of one of their Iraqi productions was 19-year-old Private Jessica Lynch, from Palestine, West Virginia, who joined the military to have her college fees paid because she wanted to be a kindergarten teacher. The college fee sting was highlighted in an excellent BBC documentary I saw.


The military are now so desperate to recruit more troops to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars as a core mission" that they are targeting and militarizing schools, especially those of the poor and minorities, and enticing them into the military with the promise of paying their college fees. Once they sign on the line, however, these kids become liable to be deployed in war zones.


So it was with Jessica Lynch. Jessica found herself in Iraq working as a supply clerk with the Army's 507th Maintenance Company. She was captured when her unit made a wrong turn near Nasiriya and was ambushed. Oh, what a frenzy of Hollywood scriptwriting exploded from the Pentagon for the media to feed upon. Mitchell Catlin, an Australian correspondent, even called her "Private Ryan", the Demi Moore character, in one report.


The mistake was understandable because that was the way she was portrayed.

"Belying her country-girl smile and petite 5-foot-5 frame, Lynch put up a Rambo-worthy fight when her unit, the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Co., came under attack, according to a new report", screamed one paper.

Lynch opened fire on the Iraqi assailants, picking them off one by one until she ran out of ammunition, reported the Washington Post. Wow. She had continued shooting -even after she was shot and stabbed and her unit members were killed all around her.

"She was fighting to the death", a US official told the Post. "She did not want to be taken alive."

Er, so how come that after doing this to her "assailants", those nasty Iraqis didn't kill her when she ran out of ammunition? And how come she had no bullet or stab wounds?? Do you think US troops would have spared her in the same circumstances? The reports said that Lynch had been shot, stabbed and tortured and the public. were told what a great American little Jessie was.


All this happened at a time when the authorities were being criticized for the way the war was going. However, the Iraqi doctors who treated her told a very different story about the "gun slinging, shot and stabbed" heroine. They said that she suffered fractures to her arms and lower limbs and a "small skull wound", sustained when her vehicle overturned. Her American doctors said she had fractures in her upper right arm, upper left leg, lower left leg and right ankle and foot.


Her father, Greg Lynch Sr., told reporters she had no penetration wounds.

"It was a road traffic accident", said Haitham Gizzy, a physician at the hospital at Nasiriya who treated Lynch for her injuries. "There was not a drop of blood ... there were no bullets or shrapnel or anything like that."

Bryan Whitman, the US Assistant Secretary of Defense, said:

"I'm not going to get into the specific injuries that she sustained; that's up to her and her doctors to discuss at the appropriate time."3

Like never. Discussing her injuries was not a problem, however, when they were telling us she was stabbed and shot. At the hospital, Dr Haitham Gizzy said,

"She was given special care, more than the Iraqi patients." 4

Harith al-Houssona, another doctor who treated Lynch, said:

"She was very frightened when she woke up and she kept saying: 'Please don't hurt me, don't touch me.' I told her that she was safe, she was in a hospital and that I was a doctor, and I never hurt a patient."5

He said he went outside the hospital during the bombing to get supplies of her favorite drink, orange juice, and struggled to persuade her to eat. The doctor said that Iraqi intelligence officers told the hospital that Private Lynch would soon be transferred to Baghdad, but instead he told an ambulance driver to deliver her to one of the American outposts that had already been established on the outskirts of the city. "But when he reached their checkpoint, the Americans fired at him", he said.6


You mean the Pentagon told us a pack of lies? Never.


But Hollywood wasn't finished yet.


The day after the Iraqi ambulance driver had tried to deliver Private Lynch to US troops only to be fired upon, she was "rescued" from her Iraqi hospital bed, we were told, in a daring raid by a team of Navy Seals, Marine commandos, Air Force pilots and Army Rangers working with US Special Forces.


It was the first time an American Prisoner of War was freed from behind enemy lines in half a century, the media trumpeted. But once again the Iraqi doctors who were there tell a rather different tale.

"They made a big show", said Lynch's doctor, Haitham Gizzy. "It was just a drama, a big, dramatic show."7

Gizzy and other doctors said that there were no Iraqi soldiers or militiamen at the hospital when the US Special Operations forces arrived in their helicopters. Most of Saddam's Fedayeen Fighters and the entire Ba'ath Party leadership had fled. There was no one at the hospital when the troops arrived, he said, only doctors. Dr Hassan and others on duty that evening said they heard a "big thumping" near the hospital and the sound of helicopters and tanks before the soldiers began to enter the hospital.


 He said the doctors agreed to stay in one room and not to intervene while the soldiers broke down several doors in the hospital before locating Lynch.


US soldiers videotaped the rescue, but among the many scenes not shown to the press at US Central Command in Doha, Qatar, was one of four doctors who were handcuffed and interrogated, together with two civilian patients, one of whom was immobile and connected to a drip.

"They were doctors, with stethoscopes round their necks", Dr Harith said, "Even in war, a doctor should not be treated like that’s Hardly the story the Pentagon wanted to pedal."


"What the Americans say is like the story of Sinbad the Sailor -it's a myth", said Dr Harith al-Houssona. "They said that there was no medical care in Iraq and that there was a very strong defense of this hospital, but there was no one here apart from doctors and patients, and there was nobody to fire at them."9

The doctor said that the troops cut open a bed specially designed for patients with bed sores that Private Lynch had been using.

"They took samples of sand out of it", Dr Harith said. "It was the only bed like it that we have, the only one in the governorate."

He said he felt sad that he would never see Jessica again, but he felt happy that she was happy and had gone back to her life.

"If I could speak to her I would say: 'Congratulations!'" he said.

Terrible people these Iraqis aren't they?

Diplomatic amnesia

Unfortunately, according to the US government's broadcasting arm, Fox/Fix News and others, Jessica Lynch could not remember what happened to her either when she was captured or during her time at the hospital. 11


A US official said:

"She basically has amnesia, and has mentally blocked out the horrible things we strongly believe she went through."12



Fox News reported that military psychiatrists had been talking to her. I bet they have. It must have been a strangely delayed amnesia because there was apparently no sign of it until she was in the hands of her fellow Americans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. According to her doctor, Isadore Rosenfeld, she began to suffer from a condition called Total Global Amnesia.13


Later they said that she was not suffering from amnesia, she just couldn't remember! It was unlikely, they said, that she ever would.14 It is such a pity especially unless her memory returns she will be unable to confirm that what actually happened to her and what the Pentagon spinners told us had happened, were so different it would be akin to comparing the mind of Einstein with that of President Village Idiot.


Bryan Whitman, the US Assistant Secretary of Defense, said he knew there was some "conflicting information out there, but in due time the full story will be told, I'm sure." But not by you, mate. The military awarded Lynch the Bronze Star for meritorious combat service, a Prisoner of War medal and the Purple Heart, which is usually awarded to those wounded in combat. What's the medal they award for keeping your mouth shut?


While Jessica Lynch and her rescuers were being hailed across the front pages, what of her fellow patients in that Iraqi hospital? Among them, the doctors said, were many civilians, including children, being treated in crowded wards for severed limbs and deep lacerations caused by US tank fire and bombs during the opening week of the 'war'.


The doctors estimated that some 300 civilians were killed in Nasiriya and 1,000 wounded.

Not counting the losses

The war propaganda was not only involved in suppressing the extent of the death and injury suffered by civilians. It also worked to keep secret the number of soldiers who died. This is always the case because the lower the perceived casualties, civilian and military, the more support there will be for the next war. Dr Waiel

S.H. Awwad, a Syrian war correspondent with Al Arabiya television, a part of Middle East Broadcasting Corporation, went missing in Iraq for nine days before making contact with his family. He told Asian News International how he was an "embedded" reporter with a US maintenance division when they were ambushed 20 kilometers north of Basra on their way to the town of Zuber. He said that he and his film crew were taken to the local headquarters of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party before a compassionate tribal leader arranged for their escape.


While was there, he said, he saw 20 British troops killed in Zuber, but the authorities only announced two:

“... I saw it with my own eyes, three tanks were blown [up], three vehicles were blown [up] and six prisoners of war were caught. Now who could give such facts from the ground if we were not there." 16

He also described how the fierce fighting the 'coalition' forces faced in the early stages was underplayed by the western media. The lies told by the American military and people like Rumsfeld with regard to the unfolding military campaign were even highlighted by some mainstream organizations like the BBC, so blatant did they become. How many troops have been killed and injured in Iraq?


We certainly can't trust the authorities to tell us, but what happened in Afghanistan might give us an idea. Mohammed Daud Miraki, the author of Perpetual Death From Ameiica,17 claims that American losses in Afghanistan alone are far higher than admitted. In March 2003, he estimated the number of dead US soldiers in Afghanistan at 1,200 and they are still being killed, and are Afghan civilians in far greater numbers as that conflict continues out of the headlines.


Miraki says the US does not reveal the military losses in Afghanistan because they want to appear invincible as a military force. The US wanted to envisage their military might, he' says, as a force that even the great guerrilla fighters from Afghanistan could not muster the skills needed to hinder their impeccable military machine.


But in fact, he claims, the US military had lost many soldiers by March 2003:

"According to various intelligence agencies, the US has lost over 1,200 soldiers in Afghanistan. The Russian intelligence agency put the figure of dead in the first six months of the war at 373 dead and 585 critically injured. Meanwhile, reports from other intelligence agencies including Iranian and Indian among others put the number of dead US soldiers to be over 600 in the first year, and after 18 months, they report the figure of US losses over 1,200 and 1,500 critically wounded." 18

At the start of the war, he wrote,

"the corpses of US soldiers were transported to Jacobabad and Dalbudin Air Bases in Pakistan and the country's Frontier Post newspaper reported how 45 US troops were killed on just one day during a land operation near Kandahar. It further reported that 26 dead commandos have been delivered to the US-leased military base near the Pakistani town of Jacobabad."19

The IRNA news agency reported on December 2nd 2001 that 124 dead US soldiers were transported from Pakistan to the US:

"The bodies of 124 American troops have been flown back home in a cargo plane on November 29 [2001], claimed a local daily here on Sunday ... The Pakistan Observer reported that the troops were killed during clashes with Taliban fighters when they had landed in Helmand province to help the ex-governor of Kandahar Gul Agha's Lashkar fighters against Taliban." 20

Miraki said he was personally aware of the US losses in Helmand in which four Apache Helicopters were also shot down. Andrei Sukhozhilov, a reporter connected with the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), wrote how he had obtained information about casualties from Khanabad Air Base in southern Uzbekistan.

"Uzbek sources at Khanabad suggest that the teal figures of US casualties are far higher than the Pentagon's official totals,"21 he said, and he went on:

"Uzbek army personnel working at the air base said scores of US casualties have been arriving there. From November 25 to December 2 [2001], an Uzbek orderly working with American medical staff said he had witnessed the arrival of four to five US helicopters carrying between them 10-15 American casualties -each day...

" ... An Uzbek pilot spoke of the death last week of an American soldier who he had become friendly with while he was on the base. The US serviceman, he said, had died in the attempt to end the prison riot on the outskirts of Mazar-e-Sharif two weeks ago. 'A lot of American troops died there -it was a real battle', the pilot said." 22

For sure you will find the same story in Iraq and all wars orchestrated by these re-writers of reality.

Embedded to deceive

Illuminati control of the mainstream media ensured that pretty much the only story the public received was the official version from the Bush cartel. A study by the Washington-based Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting revealed that 76 per cent of the guests on network talk shows in late January and early February 2003 were current or former government officials while those speaking against the war accounted for less than one per cent.23


This is how the game works across the world. You emphasize the 'information' that supports your view and suppress that which challenges it. When you complain that only one side of the debate is being given, the media say:

"No, no, we had a guy on speaking against the war a week last Thursday."

Very important to the required slant are the news agencies that supply 'news' to all media outlets throughout the world. These are owned, of course, by the Illuminati. For instance the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, friend of the Bushes and owner of the Washington Times, bought the newswire UPIY. The connections are endless.


The British media cannot, with some exceptions, be confused with real journalism, but it is still light years ahead of the American version. The bias on networks like CNN and Murdoch's Fox News are simply sickening. Robert Fisk, the outstanding journalist on the UK Independe1lt, described American journalism as increasingly "vapid, hopeless, gutless, unchallenging" since 9/11.24 Having spent a great deal of time in the United States since the mid1990s, the only point I would question is the bit about "since 9/11", although it did certainly worsen after that.


It was the Pentagon's idea to have 'embedded reporters', in other words journalists assigned to military units during the war. Does anyone believe that this was done because the Pentagon wanted the truth to be told? Can elephants fly? They said the policy had "worked well" or, more accurately, worked well in managing the news. Many times I heard reporters talking about "we" did this or "we are doing this" when what they meant was the military with whom they were 'embedded'.


The British ITN correspondent, Bill Neely, wearing full military combat gear and standing in a transport aircraft, told viewers:

"We have just this second crossed the border into Iraq. We'll be landing at our target in about ten minutes time."

Our target?


The idea is that you keep the journalists where you want them, feed them the story you want them to tell, and you get them so close to the troops on whom they depend to survive that they lose objectivity. That is largely what happened.


NBC News correspondent David Bloom, who died of a blood clot in his lung, told his audience:

"[The soldiers] have done anything and everything that we could ask of them, and we in turn are trying to return the favor by doing anything and everything that they can ask of llS."26

The British Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, said the imagery the embedded journalists broadcast was at least partially responsible for the public's change of mood in supporting the war.27 Almost 100 camera crews were 'embedded' with US units and when they needed even more positive images the military shot the pictures themselves and released them to the networks. They showed them like the lap dogs they are.


Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas, pointed out that 'embedding' meant following the rules dictated by the military:

"Those rules said reporters could not travel independently (which meant they could not really report independently), interviews had to be on the record (which meant lower-level service members were less likely to say anything critical), and officers could censor copy and temporarily restrict electronic transmissions for 'operational security' (which, in practice, could be defined as whatever field commanders want to censor." 27


An excellent BBC documentary in the Correspondent series highlighted the manipulation of journalists by the political and military spinners.28 It revealed how journalists assembling with British forces in Kuwait were. ordered not to report what they saw.


Tom Copetas of Bloomberg Television said:

"We were not allowed to take any pictures or describe British soldiers carrying guns. I was told that there was a decision made by Downing Street that the military minders of the journalists down there were to go to any lengths not to portray the British fighting men and women as fighters. They wanted to have them there as 'nation builders'. The media monitors would get very, very upset with you very fast and threats were leveled against you that you would be disembedded."29

The 700 journalists at CentCom military command in Qatar were supposed to be there to get the 'big picture' from those running-the war hundreds of miles from where the bullets were flying. Instead they were played like a violin. The Correspondent program showed a list on the wall of the British military media office at CentCom.


The list was headed "Poo Traps" and reminded the spokesmen of the subjects to avoid in interviews with journalists: These included "depleted uranium", "bombing accuracy" and "market bombings". Don't talk about anything that the public have a right to know; only say what is good for the image you are trying to give them.


Paul Hunter of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said:

"At the end of the day when you try to make a news story out of whatever happens here, you still have to use their message track, the one thing they are going to answer to every single question and it has gone on every single day." 30

Bryan Whitman, the US Assistant Secretary of Defense, said in a briefing paper to his war spinners that "shaping world opinion was priority number one".31 Despite this blatant bias, the British Defense Secretary, Geoff Hoon, had the audacity to say that people should be skeptical about reports that do not come from official sources.32


The American networks were given the front seats in the daily CentCom 'briefings' (of lies), then came journalists from the 'allies', with the others at the back. The spinners watched from the sidelines gesturing to the spokesmen, usually the unbelievably arrogant Genera1"Vincent Brooks. Both the Bush White House and Blair's Downing Street sent representatives to CentCom to spin on their behalf .


Bush's guy was Jim Wilkinson. He looked straight out of high school and was definitely in the Vincent Brooks class of undiluted arrogance. Wilkinson is a civilian, but insisted on prancing around CentCom throughout the war in a military uniform even though the only action he had any chance of seeing, was on the bank of TV screens. He looked like a refugee from Masturbators Anonymous. At one 'briefing' Michael Wolf of the New York Magazine asked Brooks "the question that every reporter was asking, not just every day, but literally every minute" .33


It was this:

"Why should we stay, what's the value to us of what we learn at this million dollar press centre?"

The question brought applause from other journalists equally sick of being manipulated. Brooks replied:

"It's your choice; we want to provide . information that's truthful from the operational headquarters that is running this war."

A lie, Mr. Brooks, yet another one. Michael Wolf told the Correspondent documentary what happened next:

"I was approached by a guy named Wilkinson. He was a civilian, also he was wearing a uniform, which was odd and I said 'aren't you a civilian?' He said 'I'm in the Reserves'. I said, 'but you're not here in the Reserves'. He said 'right, right'. So I said so you're a kind of paramilitary. So we immediately got off to the wrong foot. He said 'this is fucking war asshole. Don't fuck around with things you don't understand'. And then finally it was 'no more questions for you, why don't you just go home?'" 34

This is how journalists are intimidated into line. Play by our rules or you're out of the loop. The rules included pressure not to ask follow up questions that would expose the lies of the official statements by Brooks and Franks.


Wilkinson said the BBC:

"If people didn't like the way we handled it, I would think, one part of it, just a plain case of too bad, and the second probably a little envy on the part of those who were not embedded. The real superstars of this war were the ones who were embedded."

And that is what war is to these idiots: a Hollywood production. The same with many of the 'superstars' of the television networks. They are more concerned with their parting and profile they ever they are with facts. True to their Orwellian methodology the CentCom 'briefings' -the "platform for truth" in the words of General Tommy Franks -were used to tell a stream of lies.


As I have been saying for more than a decade, it's all a mind game and no trick is missed. The backdrop for this daily deception was built at a cost to American taxpayers of $200,000 by George Allison, one of Hollywood's leading art directors.35 He designed the set for ABC's Good Morning America and has worked with MGM and Disney. He was also fresh from his latest Michael Douglas film, It Runs in the Family.


Allison, who has designed White House backdrops for President Bush and, very appropriately, worked with the illusionist David Blaine, was flown into Qatar as part of a reputed one million dollar conversion of a-storage hangar into a high-tech hub for the international media.36


As one report said of the set:

"Gone are the easel and chart, solitary television and VCR' machine with which General Norman Schwarzkopf showed fuzzy images of smart-bomb raids during the 1991 Gulf War. On a set that will become instantly recognizable, generals will present updates from two podiums at the front of a stage adorned with five 50in plasma screens and two 70in television projection screens ready to show maps, graphics and videos of action.

"Behind them will be a soft-focus elongated map of the world, as if to suggest that the world is united behind them. The set was built in Chicago and reputedly shipped over by Federal Express at a cost of $47,000 (£29,000)." 37

While the troops go to war on their victims, their masters go to war on the public mind. We are experiencing a world described so eloquently by George Orwell. It is a world that is about image, not substance, and one in which lies are truth, war is peace and dictatorship is liberation.


The Newspeak, the false enemies, the presentation of fascism as freedom, are all in Orwell's predictions for the society we are now living in.

Too dangerous to investigate

A number of non-embedded journalists, known as "independents" or "unilaterals" were killed or injured while covering the war independently of the military. This suited the authorities because the fewer of those types of reporters to be deployed in future conflicts the better it is for those who want to control information.

"See, it is very dangerous, so stay with us and you'll be fine if you follow the rules."

US spokesman Jim Wilkinson said of the independent journalists: "They were a pain in our rear a lot of times."


They would turn up on the battlefield despite our warnings, Richard Sambrook, head of BBC News, said he would have liked more non-embedded journalists, but it was just "too dangerous".


Funny how so many non-embedded reporters died in such a short war. Ten journalists were killed including ITN's Terry Lloyd, who was shot by American troops in a vehicle clearly marked 'TV'. Ironically, he was only at that location because the military spokesmen had lied about the "fall" of the port town of Umm Qasr. That had been Lloyd's original destination before the false information was fed to the media. The town actually "fell" some 17 days after the mendacious military claimed it was taken.


A US tank attacked the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, the base of the international journalists, killing two cameramen and injuring three others. There is no way this was a mistake and nor was it, as the ludicrous US military claimed, in retaliation for shots coming from the hotel. Strange how no one in a hotel full of journalists saw or heard any such shooting.


Anyway, are these prats in uniform really saying that in response to small arms fire from a hotel full of people you just blast tank shells at the building? It was planned, of course it was, and the same with the missile attacks (sorry accidents) on Arab television facilities in Baghdad in which a journalist from al-Jazeera died. The journalists were killed and injured in daylight at locations known to the Pentagon to be media sites.


The manipulation of information through the media is their greatest weapon for the control of the people and they don't want any maverick independents telling the truth they 'don't want the public to hear. Two 'non-embedded' journalists told Arab News of their outrageous treatment at the hands of American troops.38


Luis Castro and Victor Silva, both reporters working for RTP Portuguese television, were held for four days. They said they were beaten, had their equipment, vehicle and video tapes confiscated, and were then escorted out of Iraq by the 101st Airborne Division.


This was despite holding the proper Unilateral Journalist accreditation issued by the Coalition Forces Central Command.


Castro said:

"I have covered 10 wars in the past six years -in Angola, Afghanistan, Zaire and East Timor. I have been arrested three times in Africa, but have never been subjected to such treatment or been physically beaten before. The Americans call themselves liberators and freedom fighters, but look what they have done to us." 39

The pair had been to Umm Qasr and Basra and were travelling to Najaf when they were stopped by the military police. Castro said accredited identification was checked and they were given the all clear to proceed.

"Suddenly, for no reason, the situation changed", Castro told Arab News.40

The soldiers ordered them to lie on the ground, he said, and they stepped on their hands and backs and handcuffed them.

"The soldiers used our satellite phones to call their families at home", Castro said, "I begged them to allow me to use my own phone to call my family, but they refused. When I protested, they pushed me to the ground and kicked me in the ribs and legs."

Castro said he believed they were detained because they were not embedded with the US forces:

"Embedded journalists are always escorted by military minders. What they write is controlled and, through them, the military feeds its own version of the facts to the world. When independent journalists such as us come around, we pose a threat because they cannot control what we write." 41

Castro said a lieutenant in charge of the military police had told him:

"My men are like dogs, they are trained only to attack, please try to understand."42

What chance do the children in Iraq have, eh? One soldier, who Castro asked not be identified, wrote out a note, which was shown to Arab News.


It said:

"I am so sorry that you had to endure such bad conditions, but remember that I care and pray you can forgive."

Castro said the US troops were "totally crazy" and his treatment was typical of the American attitude, as confirmed to him by British forces.


The attitude was "shoot first and ask questions later." 43

Planting the evidence

Once the liberation of Iraq had left the people without water or electricity and caused tens of thousands to be killed and injured beyond words, the inevitable followed amid the devastation and chaos. Looting erupted on a massive scale, just as the Illuminati place men knew that it would. Iraqi banks were destroyed and with them went the life savings of untold numbers of Iraqis and their families.


But this suited the manipulators perfectly because the more the financial system was dismantled, the easier it would be for the United States to replace it with one in their own image: Businesses and homes of the Iraqi people were looted and destroyed and the government buildings that had not been hit by US and British bombing were looted and burned together with the files of evidence exposing the links between Saddam Hussein's regime and the very forces that had now arrived to take over.


But despite all of this, somehow, miraculously, files were found by journalists in these buildings to link Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden and to claim that the British Labour MP George Galloway took millions in back-hand payments from Saddam.


Galloway just happened to be one of the most vociferous campaigners against the war. I have never met Galloway and I did not care at all for his public support for Saddam Hussein, but finding the evidence against him so easily in such circumstances is extremely convenient and typical of the way these guys operate.


Galloway said:

“... The government enlisted the Murdoch press to launch an assault on me with the journalistic equivalent of a cluster bomb. The central thrust of their attacks, that I am a traitor not fit to sit in parliament, was scattered over the Sun., .News of the World, Times and Sunday Times ... That Tony Blair has taken New Labour into the outer limits of social democratic politics, a kind of twilight zone where, in the dimness, an axis of Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar and Sharon can just be glimpsed, is pretty much a given.


But his alliance with the cheap jingo press, which is spreading racist hatred in this conflict, is a key development in the war for Labour's future. This latest attack on me, for example, was fed to a willing press by Labour sources. I know this because the national newspaper editor who was first offered the 'story' (a transcript of a translated interview I gave to Abu Dhabi TV) turned it down and alerted me. It was then given to the Sun. The transcribed words were mine; the spin was all New Labour's." 44

The Arab satellite television company al-Jazeera also sacked its chief executive, Mohammed Jassem al-Ali, after his name appeared in a document 'found' in the same way that appeared to link him with Iraqi intelligence. Al-Jazeera broadcast· horrendous pictures of Iraqi civilian casualties during the war that western stations would not air. Convenient indeed that with so many files burned and destroyed and amid such chaos, that the 'evidence' was found to incriminate people that Blair, Bush and Co wanted to destroy.


The UK Guardian newspaper reported during the invasion of Afghanistan that journalists had described how they were directed by the authorities to buildings in Kabul and other locations to 'find' apparent proof of al-Qaeda's involvement in the 9/11 hijackings. This included, the paper said, new box cutters still in their packaging and a freshly tom page from an American magazine detailing Florida flying schools.45


Oh, please.


This is what they think about the mentality of the media and, sure enough, these 'finds' were reported as if they were genuine. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, a former naval officer and author of The Handbook of Personal Data Protection,46 produced an excellent analysis of such 'evidence' in the Online16.urnal of April 29th 2003.47


He said that after the United States and Britain were shown to be providing bogus and plagiarized 'intelligence' documents to the UN Security Council that supposedly 'proved' Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, the world's media was now being fed a steady stream of captured Iraqi 'intelligence' documents from the rubble of Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters. The problem with these documents, Madsen wrote, was that they were being provided by the US military to a few reporters working for a "very suspect newspaper", the London Daily Telegraph.


The Sunday edition of the Telegraph on April 27th 2003 had reported how its correspondent in Baghdad, Inigo Gilmore, had been invited into the intelligence headquarters by US troops and miraculously 'found' amid the rubble a document indicating that Iraq invited Osama bin Laden to visit Iraq in March 1998. Gilmore further reported that the CIA had been through the building several times before he found the document and that the intelligence agency must have 'missed' the document in their prior searches.


This was an astounding claim, said Wayne Madsen, since the CIA must have been intimately familiar with the building from their previous intelligence links with the Mukhabarat dating from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.


Also, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, including Britain's MI-6, had refuted claims of a link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq.


Madsen wrote:

"Gilmore told the SSG that he noticed that on the Mukhabarat documents he discovered some information that was 'erased'. The erasures were apparently made with a combination of black marker ink and correction fluid. He said he scraped away at the paper with a razor and miraculously found the name bin Laden in three places. The standard procedure for redacting a classified document is to only use a black indelible marker to mask classified information.


However, the proper procedure for trying to read through such markings is not to scrape away the ink as if the document were an instant lottery ticket. Toner print often bleeds .through the indelible marker ink. If one holds up such a sheet of paper at a 45-degree angle and under a bright phosphorescent light, the lettering under the ink can be 'read' because the lettering almost appears to be 'raised'. If a razor blade were used to scrape away the markings, the indelible ink -and the toner ink would be obliterated. Gilmore's claims appear to be spurious." 48

This Iraqi-al-Qaeda 'smoking gun' was blasted across the news with the help of the CIA-Pentagon stooge, Ahmed Chalabi, head of the CIA-funded Iraqi National Congress. He told Murdoch's Fox News that the document provided enough information that Saddam Hussein was knowledgeable about the September 11th attacks on the United States.


Once again the familiar names appear. Telegraph newspapers are owned by the Hollinger Corporation of Conrad Black, who has been featured in many of my books. He is an extremely active member of the Illuminati Bilderberg Group (see And The Truth Shall Set You Free and The Biggest Secret for the detailed background).


Hollinger owns the Jerusalem Post, a director of which is Richard Perle, the Pentagon advisor who was heavily involved in plans for the war on Iraq. The National Interest, another pro-Bush publication, is also funded by Black.49


Perle's friend, William Kristol, the chairman of the Project for the New American Century, appeared on Fox News to support the significance of the documents 'found' in Iraq. He said the exposure of Galloway for accepting money from Saddam Hussein was the "tip of the iceberg" and suggested with no evidence at all that French President Jacques Chirac, other Western politicians and Arab journalists working for such networks as AI-Jazeera, would soon be 'outed' by further Iraqi intelligence documents.50


He was right about AI-Jazeera, so how did he know that was going to happen? Fox News also said that Galloway might have given classified satellite imagery to al-Qaeda, again with no evidence presented to support the slander.


This was Wayne Madsen's summary of how he believes the propaganda works:

"Phoney documents are 'dropped' into the hands of a right-wing London newspaper owned by Conrad Black. They are amplified by Black's other holdings, including the Jerusalem Post and Chicago Sun-Times. The story is then picked up by the worldwide television outlets of News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney and General Electric and echoed on the right-wing radio talk shows of Clear Channel and Viacom.


Political careers are damaged or destroyed. There is no right of rebuttal for the accused. They are guilty as charged by a whipped up public that gets its information from the Orwellian telescreens of the corporate media ... The media operating in concert with political vermin to whip up popular opinion to stamp out criticism is nothing new. It was practiced by Joseph Goebbels quite effectively in Nazi Germany."51

The United States has been quite active in inviting Telegraph reporters into the Iraqi intelligence headquarters, Madsen pointed out, and other documents 'found' by its reporters 'revealed' that Russian intelligence had passed intercepts of Tony Blair's phone conversations to Iraqi intelligence; that German intelligence offered to assist Iraqi intelligence in the lead-up to the war and that France provided Iraq with the contents of US-French diplomatic exchanges.


All of these 'finds' suited the agenda of the United States and Britain. Madsen said it was amazing that the US military would be so open about letting favored journalists walk freely about the Mukhabarat building when the Pentagon has classified tight security on the Iraqi Oil Ministry. The reason for this was obvious, he wrote.


While the Mukhabarat building could be salted with phony intelligence documents, the Oil Ministry was likely to be rife with documents showing the links between Saddam Hussein and Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton (see Alice in Wonderland and The World Trade Center Disaster).


Halliburton signed more than $73 million in contracts with Saddam's government when Cheney was its chief executive officer through two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co, and this was part of the same UN oil-for-food program involved in the allegations against George Galloway. 52

Destroying the evidence

The worst of the (coordinated) looting frenzy after the American forces arrived targeted some of the most important and priceless artifacts and manuscripts anywhere in the world at the Baghdad museums containing relics and documentation of human history going back to ancient Sumer (4000 to 2000 BC). This was also part of the information and knowledge spin. I have written extensively over the years about the Illuminati bloodline connections to Sumer and Babylon and I will later put that in context with current events.


Enough to say for now that the Illuminati do not want their origins exposed and removing the evidence from public and academic view would be extremely important to them.


Iraq is in the land of ancient Mesopotamia, the 'Land Between the Rivers', on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. The Mesopotamians were the first known people to study the stars, develop the written word and enforce a legal code. It was, say historians, the 'Cradle of Civilization' and the location of the Biblical Garden of Eden. The country's museums, galleries and libraries were looted of their fantastic contents from these ancient societies and torched into empty shells almost overnight while the American forces did nothing.


Dr Moayad Damerji, the professor of archaeology at Baghdad University and the former director general of the Iraqi Department of Antiquities, said the objects and artifacts charting human development had vanished and their loss was immeasurable.

"The Iraqi National Museum is the only museum in the world which shows all the steps in the history of mankind", he said. "These witnesses to our own development have gone, they are gone." 53

Among the most priceless treasures missing are the Vase of Uruk and the Harp of Ur, dating back to between 3000 and 2500 BC and the rule of the Sumerian kings (who connect into the Illuminati bloodlines, see The Biggest Secret and Children of the Matrix).


The exquisite bronze Statue of Basitki from the Akkadian kingdom is also gone, removed despite its enormous weight. The heads of stone statues were decapitated and precious inscribed tablets from the great Sumerian libraries lost the very accounts of human history I have highlighted in my books in connection to the Illuminati bloodlines.


The tablets record Sumerian history, life and belief, and almost certainly the origin of the bloodlines that rule the world today. It was the same story across the country. In Mosul in the north, close to where the Sumerian Tablets were unearthed, the contents of the museum disappeared. The 2,000-year-old statue of King Saqnatroq II, one of Mesopotamia's forgotten monarchs, was taken, along with irreplaceable Assyrian antiquities.


Assyria followed the Sumerian civilization. Compounding the crime is that the Baghdad museum also lost the card catalogue and comp)1ter records, making it far more difficult to track the stolen pieces. Lost, too, are the findings of generations of archaeological study because the details of all excavations in Iraq by international teams of archaeologists had to be reported to the museum.


In the words of one writer:

"It threatens to turn the clock back more than 150 years to the period before scientific archaeology in Mesopotamia." 54

I am sure that some artifacts were removed by museum staff before the invasion, but it was also clear that the looting that followed the bombing was allowed and encouraged to happen by US authorities who wanted to destroy the Iraqi's spirit and sense of identity, as well as stealing the artifacts that are so important to them for historical and ritual reasons. People who knew what they were looking for coldly and deliberately planned much of the looting in the museums and galleries. In the ruins of the Saddam Arts Center in Baghdad, Iraqi artist Moayad al-Haidari said the looting had been well organized.


It was not just theft; the aim was much bigger than that.

"This is to undermine us, our heritage,_ our identity, our pride." 55

Tareq Abdulrazak, a 63-year-old scientist, stood outside the charred and smoldering shell of Iraq's national library, where every book and manuscript has been destroyed.

"Here was Iraq's culture, ancient and modem, all in writing", he said. "The Americans watched this happen; It is not enough to destroy our buildings, our people? Now our history too?" 56

It was one of the key aims of the 'war' to rape the museums of their priceless contents. Moayad Damerji of the Iraqi National Museum rightly said that the raid on his building was planned in advance.

"This was a program, well organized. The Americans protected the oilfields, but did nothing to protect our museum, but they are obliged to protect . these sites", he said.57

Dr Dony George, head of the Museum of History in Baghdad, told the media how professional experts had carried out the looting. He showed journalists a handful of diamond glasscutters found on the premises and believed to have been used by "the professional antiquity thieves" to cut glass and 'access delicate exhibits. The thieves had equipment to lift the heaviest objects and keys to the vaults where the most valuable items were stored.


Dr George said:

"I believe they were people who knew what they wanted. They had passed by the gypsum copy of the Black Obelisk. This means that they must have been specialists. They did not touch those copies."58

He told Britain's Channel 4 News that among the artifacts that have been stolen were the sacred vase of Warka, a 5,000-year-old golden vessel found at Ur, an Akkadian statue base and an Assyrian statue. This has been described as like stealing the Mona Lisa.


The online version of Business Week magazine said:

"It was almost as if the perpetrators were waiting for Baghdad to fall to make their move. Gil J. Stein, a professor of archaeology at the University of Chicago, which has been conducting digs in Iraq for 80 years, believes that dealers ordered the most important pieces well in advance. 'They were looking for very specific artifacts,' he says. 'They knew where to look.'" 59

Experts confirmed that the looters also knew what they were looking for at the museum in Mosul and in less than 10 minutes they had taken several million dollars worth of Parthian sculpture. Where were the American troops? Shortly before the invasion, the American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP), a coalition of American antiquities collectors and arts lawyers, met with officials from the US Defense and State Departments to offer their assistance in preserving Iraq's archaeological collections.60


This is another pig trough operation. Within this group are dealers who wanted to see an end to the strict Iraqi laws on the ownership and export of antiquities. The group's treasurer, William Pearlstein, described the laws as 'retentionist', (i.e. greedy dealers couldn't get their hands on them) and he has said he supported a post-war government that would make it easier to have antiquities dispersed to the US.


Those who care about protecting history rather than profiting from its exploitation have had deep suspicions about this group, which was only created in 2001 after the Bush administration came to illegal power.


Professor Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, a Cambridge archaeologist and director of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, said:

"Iraqi antiquities legislation protects Iraq. The last thing one needs is some group of dealer-connected Americans interfering. Any change to those laws would be absolutely monstrous." 62

The Archaeological Institute of America agreed, saying that any weakening of Iraq's strict antiquities laws would be "disastrous".63


The president, Patty Gerstenblith, said:

"The [American Council for Cultural Policy] agenda is to encourage the collecting of antiquities through weakening the laws of archaeologically-rich nations and eliminate national ownership of antiquities to allow for easier export." 64

News of the meeting with government officials led to fears that restrictions of exporting Iraqi artifacts would be eased after the war, but what happened was even far worse than that. The heritage that belongs to all humanity is now flooding the underground markets in Illuminati hands and the ground is being prepared to allow their legal importation into the United States.


Professor John Merryman of Stanford Law School, a member of the American Council for Cultural Policy, called for a "selective international enforcement of export controls" in US courts that would make it quite lawful to import objects systematically looted from Baghdad if a US court chooses not to recognize Iraqi legislation.65


He argues that the fact that an art object had been stolen did not, in itself, bar it from lawful importation into the United States. Among the reasons for the orchestrated looting was to destroy as much of Islamic history as possible because they know they have to dismantle the power of Islam to bring about their world state.


Washington investigative journalist, Wayne Madsen, was right on when he wrote:

"Bush and his advisers, previously warned that Iraq's ancient artifacts and collation of historical documents and books were in danger of being looted or destroyed, instead, sat back while the Baghdad and Mosul museums and Baghdad Library were ransacked and destroyed. Cult leaders have historically attempted to destroy history in order to invent their own. The Soviets tried to obliterate Russia's Orthodox traditions, taming a number of churches into warehouses and animal barns.


Cambodia's Pol Pot tried to wipe out Buddhism's famed Angkor Wat shrine in an attempt to stamp out his country's Buddhist history. In March 2001, while they were negotiating with the Bush administration on a natural gas pipeline, Afghanistan's Taliban blew up two massive 160o-year old Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Bush administration, itself run by fanatic religious cultists, barely made a fuss about the loss· of the relics. It would not be the first time the cultists within the Bush administration ignored the pillaging of history's treasures.


The ransacking of Iraq's historical treasures is explainable when one considers what the blood cult Christians really think about Islam." 66

However, they are not "Christians", they are practicing Satanists (see my other books) and blood cult sums them up.

Calculated catastrophe

The American government was given highly detailed information about the museums, their location and contents, and the historic archaeological sites around the country. It was supplied by experts who were deeply concerned about the consequences of the US and British invasion. This included the United Nations agency, UNESCO, who provided maps specific to these locations.


Professor Elizabeth C. Stone, the head of the Department of Anthropology of the New York State University at Stony Brook, who carried out research and excavation in Iraq between 1987 and 1990, told Fox News that she had written to the Pentagon and US forces asking them to take all possible measures to safeguard the treasures.


She especially emphasized the Museum of History in Baghdad, the world's only treasure of invaluable antiquities dating back to the first civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia. Professor Stone said that she received assurance from US forces that the museum would be protected as a matter of utmost importance. But when the museum was raped and ransacked by looters, American troops were nowhere to be seen, exactly as always planned.


Professor Stone rightly compared the looting of the Baghdad Museum with the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria by the (Illuminati-controlled) Roman Empire or the rape of Aztec and Inca cultures by the (Illuminati-controlled) conquistadors from Spain. Iraq, said Stone, is a country "who's past has been decapitated".67


Yet, as Dr Irving Finkel of the British Museum told Britain's Channel 4 News, the looting was "entirely predictable and could easily have been stopped".68 British journalist Robert Fisk ran to get US marines in an attempt to save some of the centuries-old illuminated copies of the Koran, other Islamic calligraphy, documents from the Ottoman Empire and other irreplaceable texts when the looting began at the National Library. But the Marines refused to respond.


Fisk wrote in the Independent newspaper:

"I gave the map location, the precise name in Arabic and English. I said the smoke could be seen from three miles away and it would take only five minutes to drive there. Half an hour later, there wasn't an American at the scene and the flames were shooting 200 feet into the air." 69

Nothing was done because it wasn't meant to be done. Fisk told how an "army of thieves" stormed the headquarters of UNICEF, which has been working to improve the lives of Iraqi children since the 1980s,

"throwing brand new photocopiers on top of each other and sending cascades of UN files on child diseases, pregnancy death rates and nutrition across the floors".70

As the occupying power, wrote Fisk, America was responsible for protecting embassies and UN offices in their area of control, but he saw US troops driving past the German embassy as looters carried desks and chairs out of the front gate:

"It is a scandal, a kind of disease, a mass form of kleptomania that American troops are blithely ignoring."

Where are the troops? Try the oil ministry.

American troops allowed the mobs to loot and destroy the Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Irrigation, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Information and they refused to stop the looting of Iraq's priceless historical treasures. But hundreds of soldiers were deployed to defend two ministries and they remained undamaged -the Ministry of Oil and the Ministry of the Interior with its vast library of intelligence information about the country.


A whole company of Marines, along with at least a half-dozen amphibious assault vehicles was assigned to guard the Ministry of Oil, while the ones responsible for trade, information, planning, health and education (all those the US wants to reform in its own image) were left to their fate.


Frank Viviano put it very well in the San Francisco Chronicle long before the Iraq invasion:

"The hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil. The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world's principal energy sources in the 21st century ... It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America's Chevron, Exxon and Arco; France's TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region." 71

Even more so now.

American troops "encouraged" looting. No, really?

BBC News Online reported on May 6th 2003 how General Tommy Franks was threatened with a Belgian war crimes trial alleging that US troops failed to prevent looting in Iraq and the website said it had uncovered information suggesting that his soldiers even" egged on" some looters.


Dr Khalid Majeed described how he tried in vain to persuade American troops to protect the Nasiriya Technical Institute of higher education from a mob of looters, but they refused every time. Dr Majeed, a community health lecturer at the college, said the crowd carried knives and Kalashnikovs and they were shouting, "We need everything from this college".


He said he went to an American checkpoint and asked for help, but they said they could not come. Eventually, he said, a colleague roused some Americans based near the local fire station.


They arrived in five vehicles, but refused to stop the looters. Instead, the soldiers fired several dozen rounds at the college's south wall, Dr Majeed said.

"It was a green light to the looters. It told them, 'We are not going to do anything to stop you.'"

Within five minutes the Americans had gone and the looters had moved in. The college was soon little more than a shell. About 100 air conditioning units and 100 computers were stolen.


Rooms were torched; the science laboratories wrecked; and the main lecture hall looked "like a hurricane has passed through it". But witnesses said that it was not only that the American troops refused to stop the mob, the looting was openly encouraged. Rasool Abdul-Husayn, an unemployed schoolteacher, said he saw an American soldier signaling the crowd to move in, with a repeated wave of the arm.


Another eyewitness, Kareem Khattar, who works in a bread shop across the road from the college, saw the same.

"I saw with my own eyes the Americans signal the people to move in and the looters started clapping. The Americans waved bye-bye and the looters were clapping. They started looting quickly and when one man came out with an air conditioner an American said to him 'Good, very good'." 72

In a statement to BBC News Online, CentCom, the United States Central Command in Doha, Qatar, refused to accept responsibility for the event. Nothing new there then. More confirmation of the encouragement the military gave to looters came from Khaled Bayomi in an interview with Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's largest newspaper based in Stockholm.


Khaled Bayomi has taught and researched about Middle Eastern conflicts for ten years at the University of Lund and had travelled to Baghdad to be a 'human shield' in support of the Iraqis during the conflict.

"I happened to be right there just as the American troops encouraged people to begin the plundering", he told the paper.

He said he went to see some friends who live near a dilapidated area on the west bank of the Tigris on April 8th and the fighting was so intense he couldn't get back. In the afternoon it became quiet and four American tanks took up places on the edge of the slum area. The soldiers shot two Sudanese guards, he said, who stood at their posts outside a local administration building.


Then they blasted apart the doors to the building and from the tanks came "eager calls in Arabic" encouraging people to come close to them:

"The entire morning, everyone who had tried to cross the road had been shot. But in the strange silence after all the shooting, people gradually became curious. After 45 minutes, the first Baghdad citizens dared to come out. Arab interpreters in the tanks told the people to go and take what they wanted in the building. The word spread quickly and the building was ransacked. I was standing only 300 yards from there when the guards were murdered.


Afterwards the tank crushed the entrance to the Justice Department, which was in a neighboring building, and the plundering continued there. I stood in a large crowd and watched this together with them. They did not partake in the plundering but dared not to interfere. Many had tears of shame In their eyes. The next morning the plundering spread to the Modern Museum, which lies a quarter mile farther north. There were also two crowds there, one that plundered and one which watched with disgust."

He was asked if he was saying that American troops instigated the looting:

"Absolutely. The lack of jubilant scenes meant that the American troops needed pictures of Iraqis who in different ways demonstrated hatred for Saddam's regime."

But what about the people who pulled down a large statue of Saddam? he was asked.

"Did they? It was an American tank that did that, right beside the hotel where all the journalists stay. Until lunchtime on April 9, I did not see one destroyed Saddam portrait. If people had wanted to pull down statues they could have taken down some of the. small ones without any help from American tanks. If it had been a political upheaval, the people would have pulled down statues first and then plundered." 74

Baghdad did not fall -it was handed over

Did you notice that the invasion of Afghanistan was to "get Bin Laden", but they didn't? And to "get Mullah Omar", the "spiritual" leader of the Taliban, but they didn't? The whole basis of the invasion of Iraq was, in effect, to "get Saddam Hussein", but they didn't, or least at the time I write long after the 'war'. With so many Saddam look-alikes around, how would we know even if they claimed to?


I think we can see a pattern here. In the opening days of the Iraqi war the American and British forces faced some serious opposition in the southern towns and cities, as they made their way north from Kuwait. If they could face that kind of resistance in the south, it was fairly assumed that they were in for one hell of a battle to take the capital, Baghdad.


But this didn't happen.


Some terrible military decisions were made that sent Iraq troops into conflict with the 'coalition' in the open desert where their firepower had not an earthly chance of competing with the state of the art technology they faced. However, the most effective use of those troops would have caused the British and Americans some serious problems. Was this simply incompetence or was there a deal at the highest levels? Most bizarre was that as the Iraqi troops retreated, not a single bridge was destroyed to thwart or slow the British and American advance.


Why to goodness not???


It is basic defensive warfare that you take out bridges your enemy needs to advance once it is clear you can no longer defend them. This is especially true in Iraq, which is dominated by the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates. Instead, the bridges were left for the British and American troops to cross. Why? Robert Fisk in the UK Independent quoted an Iraqi brigadier-general commanding Baghdad's missile air defenses as saying that entire Republican Guard regiments were withdrawn from the desert west of Baghdad on the orders Saddam's son, Qusay.


These soldiers that were vital to the city's defense took off their uniforms and went home.75

"Our troops were fighting in the south much better than around Baghdad", the general said. "They had help from the people in the villages. The Americans and the British thought these people would support them, not fight against them." 76

He said the defense of Baghdad was planned with two belts of army defenders, one set 100 km from the city, the other at 50km.

"Our southern troops were in real fighting in the south in the first days of the war but on around 30th or 31st March, the Republican Guard were ordered out of the deserts and back into Baghdad. We don't know why. Most had specific orders to stay at home." 77

When the army in the south heard this news, he said, their resistance that had prevented the capture of a single city started to collapse. On April 6th the army was ordered to abandon the south of Iraq and redeploy for the defense of Baghdad.

The Tehran Times also highlighted these anomalies.78 It pointed to the pause in US and British operations amid criticism that the invasion was not turning out to be as easy as it had been sold.


Following this pause, the paper said, suspicions rose when US troops, which had been stopped at the Euphrates, were immediately able to advance toward into the heart of Baghdad without any further significant resistance by Iraqi forces.

"Nobody asked why Tikrit, that was once called the ideological heart of Saddam's government and the last possible trench of the Iraqi army, was never targeted by US and British bombs and missiles", the Times pointed out. "Or why, when the elite Iraqi forces arrived in eastern Iraq from Tikrit, the pace of the invaders advancing toward central Baghdad immediately increased." 79

It was also reported in early April that a plane had been authorized to leave Iraq bound for Russia, the paper said. "Who was aboard this plane?"


The Times continued:

"All these ambiguities, the contradictory reports about Saddam's situation, and the fact that the highest-ranking Iraqi officials were all represented by a single individual -Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed ['Comical Aii'] al-Sahhaf -and the easy fall of Baghdad shows that the center of collusion had been Tikrit, where Saddam, his aides, and lieutenants from the Ba'ath Party had been waiting for al-Sahhaf to join them so that they could receive the required guarantees to leave the country in a secret compromise with coalition forces.’’

"This possibility was confirmed by the AI-Jazeera network, which quoted a Russian intelligence official as saying that the Iraqi forces and the invaders had made a deal. The Russian official told AI-Jazeera that the Iraqi leaders had agreed to show no serious resistance against the US-British troops in return for a guarantee that Saddam and his close relatives could leave Iraq unharmed." 80

The paper pointed to the common theme of Mullah Muhammad Omar and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

"Is there any sign the US is interested in finding them and wiping them out?" 81

One should know that these two, as US henchmen over the past decade, provided enough pretexts for the White House to dominate Afghanistan, even though they are still at large, the report went on. Washington benefited from its inability to find the Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. The same held true with Saddam. A minor dictator like Saddam was like a puppet that has danced for a lifetime to the tune of a certain major dictator like the US and could not act on his own, the paper said.


Saddam did whatever the White House wanted him to do for years, said the Times.

"Therefore, the simple answer to the question 'Where is Saddam?' is nothing but 'Wherever the US desires!'" 82

I have heard it said by 'coalition' spokesmen that the Iraqis collapsed so quickly because they were poorly trained and operating with outdated and unmaintained equipment. But how does that square, then, with Iraq being a threat to the world, including the United States on the other side of the globe? It doesn't because that was a lie.


They lie to cover one question and lie again, using the opposite stance, to cover another.

Doubles crossed?

The obsession with selling a fable to the public means that we have to be cautious about everything we are told -everything, no matter how apparently convincing it may at first appear to be. This includes the deaths of Saddam's sons, Day and Qusay, or any other 'targets', like Saddam himself, who are announced to be dead after publication of this book.


For a start they have many doubles, as widely reported now, and Saddam and his brood have been "killed" a number of times before it was confirmed that they had not. The sons were supposed to have been killed, together with Saddam's 14-year-old grandson and a "bodyguard", in a shoot out with American troops at a house in Mosul.


The official story goes that these four guys, one a 14-year-old, held out in a fire-fight against 200 heavily armed members of the American 101st Airborne Division -supported by attack helicopters -for up to six hours until they were strafed with bullets. Yeah, that makes sense. This residence was a palatial villa belonging to the local tribal leader. Two months earlier American tanks were parked outside because the residence was requisitioned by the military.83


As one Internet report said:

"It's like if Washington has been occupied by the Russians and Bush was hiding in the Oval Office." 84

The military announced at first that the sons were extensively burned, possibly beyond recognition, but then came the confident confirmations that they had 'proved' their identity.


Photographs of them were then released after the bodies had undergone "facial reconstruction" before they were shown to journalists.

"The two bodies have undergone facial reconstruction with mortician's putty to make them resemble as closely as possible the faces of the brothers when they were alive", a military official said.85

What if the authorities say they have confirmed a DNA match in such circumstances?


With their track record, how can you believe them?

'Freedom' to agree

The Illuminati manipulation of reality is not only founded on lies. They must also suppress the exposure of the lies by attacking the freedom of expression. Nothing highlights the Alice in Wonderland illusion in which we live more, than the insane belief that we live in freedom. I am always suspicious when a government has to continually tell the people how free they are. If the society was truly free it would be patently obvious, no words necessary.


Instead the mantra of the 'free world' and the 'Land of the Free' are parroted constantly and there is a good reason for this.


The United States is actually a brutal dictatorship. While the slaughter of the, innocent was claimed to be the 'liberation' of Iraq and the replacement of tyranny with 'freedom', back home, in the Land of the Fee and Home of the Slave, freedom of expression was virtually dead. In truth, it has long been so, but it simply became more blatant. If you spoke out against the carnage and the dismembering of children and their parents you were attacked from all angles.


Natalie Maines, a singer in the country music group, the Dixie Chicks, only said that she was embarrassed that the president came from Texas and all hell ensued. They were vilified. A mob was organized to smash their CDs and much of impetus for the boycott of their records came from radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications of Texas, which has close ties with the Bush family.


So Clear Channel stations also urged people to arrange pro-war rallies. Roxanne Cordonier, who used the name, Roxanne Walker, as a presenter on the Clear Channel station, WMYI-FM/MY 102.5, alleged in a law suit that she was belittled, reprimanded and ultimately fired for disagreeing on air with the invasion of Iraq. The suit cites a state law that declares a person cannot be fired for political opinions.


Cordonier alleges that some of the Clear Channel officers and directors have financial ties with, and are loyal to, President Bush and his policies. The suit alleges that she was forced to participate in a pro-war rally.


Cordonier, the South Carolina Broadcasters Association Radio Personality of the Year for 2002, said she believes it's an employer's right to broadcast what it wants, but that it shouldn't stifle opposing views.

"Either don't talk about it at all or make it fair", she said.87

The Dixie Chicks said during a tearful ABC-TV interview that they feared for their lives after getting death threats and Maines has apologized for her opinion about Bush in an effort to limit the damage. Remember this is the country that claims to be 'liberating' others from tyranny. The Hollywood Reporter told how Ed Gernon, the executive producer of a mini-series about Adolf Hitler, called Hitler:


The Rise of Evil, had been fired because he compared the mood of Americans to that of the Germans who helped Hitler rise to power.88 He had worked for his production company, Alliance Atlantis, for eleven years, but the paper reported that the association ended when Gernon said in an interview that the rise of Hitler "basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war".


Gernon added:

"I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."89

The man was right, of course, but what does that matter to the mind-fascists? This is what the Nazi Propaganda Minister, Dr Joseph Goebbels, said about suppressing dissent:

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequence of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."

This is what we see today.


Actor Tim Robbins and his actress partner, Susan Sarandon, were at the forefront of the anti-war protests in Hollywood, along with people like Martin Sheen and Sean Penn.


Robbins talked about a "climate of fear" for lesser-known actors:

"I know we're lucky. We have money in the bank. We have careers that support us continuing to work. [But] if I was a mid-range or supporting actor, in this kind of environment, it would be a lot scarier for me to risk the progression of my career [by criticizing the war]. I know people like that, and they've said thank you to me for saying the things that they can't." 90

Actually they can. It's just that they choose not to because they fear the effect on their careers. What is more important? It was not only, or indeed primarily, the rich and famous that faced a backlash for their "unacceptable" views. Armed police targeted public protests against the war and other demonstrators were arrested for protesting "without a permit".


Can anyone give me an example of anyone arrested for backing the slaughter without a permit? The UK Guardian reported how a rightwing 'talk show host' on WABC called Curtis Sliwa could hardly speak for laughing when he took a call from a listener describing what he saw while carrying an American flag and yelling support for the troops.91


The caller said he had seen a woman carrying a sign saying, "No blood for oil".

"She was wearing black and she was an older lady", the caller said, "and then our sheriff saw her and she didn't have a permit. So they put her in the back of the truck car and hauled her away."

Oh what a hoot. Isn't it great to live in the land of freedom?


The harassment of those with a different view to that of the Village Idiot are subjected to harassment and arrest, some people even ordered to leave shopping malls because they were wearing anti-war T-shirts.


But it was fine to walk around with badges saying, "Give War a Chance" and "First Iraq, then France", or pathetically rename French fries "freedom fries" because of the French opposition to the mass murder by American and British forces.


In Oakland, California, police opened fire with rubber bullets on people demonstrating against the war and some 40 were injured, one seriously. David Solnit of Direct Action to Stop the War, a network of direct action groups, said the police gave an order to disperse, which was unusual, and then they didn't give people enough time to leave.

"They fired rubber bullets, wooden bullets and beanbags right into the crowd", he said.

What kind of world is it when those opposing the slaughter of children are abused as "disgusting" and "selfish", as they are in the United States?


The Minnesota governor even proposed that arrested activists should cover their own law-enforcement costs and others were concerned, wait for this, that disruptive demonstrations might hamper emergency vehicles from reaching hospitals and compromise security by distracting police forces from terrorist threats!! 92


OK guys, now don't forget, you have to breath every few seconds, come on, in, out, in, out. Write it down, it'll help you remember. A national survey of television viewers by the media-consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates said that only 16 per cent of the 2,034 people polled online felt strongly or somewhat strongly that anti-war coverage should be a priority in local newscasts.93


But then, to be fair, would you believe what a public survey told you? While the most minor pro-war events and statements were widely reported, even massive anti-war protests were all, but ignored by the American propaganda networks. This is how the Illuminati agencies in politics, military and media spin human reality. They tell us what they want us to believe and suppress the people and facts that challenge the deceit.


If we wish to end this Nazi control of information we must refuse to be silenced and give all the support we can to those who are prepared to speak out. Another simple rule to remember is that when a political or military spokesman is telling you what to believe, you can be sure of one thing: they are lying to you.


And when mainstream journalists report the official story, they are merely repeating the lies.


1 Correspondent, BBC2, May 18th 2003

2 "She was fighting to the death", Washington Post, April 3rd 2003

3 Correspondent, BBC2, May 18th 2003

4 "Iraqis Say Lynch Raid Faced No Resistance", Washington Post Foreign Service, April 15th 2003; Page Al?

5 "So who really did save Private Jessica?" The Times, London, April 16th 2003

6 Ibid

7 "Iraqis Say Lynch Raid Faced No Resistance", Washington Post Foreign Service, April 15th 2003; Page A17

8 "So who really did save Private Jessica?", The Times, London, April 16th 2003

9 Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Ibid

12 Ibid

13 Ibid

14 CNN Online, May 9th 2003 Correspondent, BBC 2, May 18th 2003 Asian News International, April 5th 2003

15 Fox News, May 5th 2003 12 Ibid

16 Ibid

17 see


19 Frontier Post, November 8th 2001

20 http:j jwww.rense.comjgeneraI36jdead.htm ~

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 "The Military's Media", by Robert Jensen, journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, The Progressive, May 2003,

24 "The Weird Men Behind George W. Bush's War", by Michael Lind, New Statesman, London, April 12th 2003

25 "The Military's Media", by Robert Jensen, journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, The Progressive, May 2003,

26 Ibid

27 Ibid

28 Correspondent, BBC 2, May 18th 2003

29 Ibid

30 Ibid

31 Ibid

32 Ibid

33 Ibid

34 Ibid

35 "Movie Men Add Special Effects to Media War", Times Online, March 11th 2003

36 Ibid

37 Ibid

Back to Contents