Petition to Congress: A Vote Needs to Be Taken on War with Iraq





(Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.)

Untitled Document

Joyce Appleby, UCLA
Ellen DuBois, UCLA
Stanley Katz, Princeton University
Jack Greene, Johns Hopkins University
Daniel Horowitz, Smith College
Alan Brinkley, Columbia University
William Chafe, Duke University
Jan Lewis, Rutgers University-Newark
Diane Miller Sommerville, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Daniel A. Cohen, Florida International University
Barbara Epstein, University of California, Santa Cruz
Roy Rosenzweig, George Mason University
Christopher Grasso, William and Mary Quarterly
Linda Gordon, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Richard Candida Smith, University of California, Berkeley
Bruce Mazlish, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Clement Alexander Price, Rutgers University
Susan Ware, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University
Melani McAlister, George Washington University
Jessica Wang, UCLA
Ruth Bloch, UCLA
Edith Gelles, Stanford University
Jeanne Boydston, University of Wisconsin
Jeffrey L. Pasley, University of Missouri-Columbia
Andrew Achenbaum, University of Houston
Dolores E. Janiewski, Victoria University of Wellington
Steven Aron, UCLA
Kathryn Kish Sklar, State University of New York, Binghamton
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University
E. Wayne Carp, Pacific Lutheran University
Thomas Dublin, State University of New York at Binghamton
Patricia Cline Cohen, University of California, Santa Barbara
Glenda E. Gilmore, Yale University
Elaine Tyler May, University of Minnesota
Valerie Matsumoto, UCLA
Joan Waugh, UCLA
Gail Bederman, University of Notre Dame
Glenna Matthews,University of California, Berkeley.
Alice Echols, UCLA
Susan Porter Benson, University of Connecticut
David O. Stowell, Keene State College
Estelle B. Freedman, Stanford University
Scott Nelson, College of William and Mary
Ruth Rosen, University of California, Davis
Barry Bienstock, Horace Mann School
Alan Trachtenberg, Yale University
Anne Firor Scott, Duke University
Jean Soderlund, Lehigh University
Ronald D. Cohen, Indiana University Northwest
Alan Rogers, Boston College
Robert McElvaine, Millsaps College
Jean-Christophe Agnew, Yale University
Mary Dudziak, University of Southern California
Robert A. Rosenstone, California Institute of Technology
Nancy F. Cott, Harvard University
Elizabeth Blackmar, Columbia University
Fred Anderson, University of Colorado at Boulder
Bruce Borland, Oxford University Press
Mary Lui, Yale University
Cynthia Cumfer, Reed College
John Snetsinger, California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo
Dee E. Andrews, California State University, Hayward
Susan Englander, Stanford University
Gregory Evans Dowd, University of Michigan
E. Wayne Carp, Pacific Lutheran University
Jon Butler, Yale University
Suellen Hoy, University of Notre Dame1
Mark Spence, Knox College
David A Gerber, State University of New York, Buffalo
Eileen Boris, University of California, Santa Barbara
William R. Everdell, St. Ann's School
Thomas Bender, New York University
Karen Leathem, Atlanta History Center
James M. Banner, Jr., Independent Historian, Washington, D.C.
Edward J. Escobar, Arizona State University
Fredrika J. Teute, Omohundro Institute of Early American History and
Culture
Michael Honey, University of Washington
John Laslett, UCLA
Sara Stidstone Gronim, C.W. Post Campus, Long Island University
Margaret R. Hunt, Amherst College
Norma Basch, Rutgers University, Newark
R.B. Bernstein, New York Law School
Angel Kwolek-Folland, University of Florida
Jonathan Glickstein, University of California, Santa Barbara
Susan Strasser, University of Delaware
David Thelen, Indiana University
Judith E. Smith, University of Massachusetts Boston
Hendrik Hartog, Princeton University
Michelle Moravec, William Paterson University
Kathy Peiss, University of Pennsylvania
Jane Turner Censer, George Mason University
Stacy Braukman, Harvard University
David Nasaw, Graduate Center, City University of New York
Colleen A. Dunlavy, University of Wisconsin
Daniel Walker Howe, Oxford University
John Milton Cooper, jr, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Miriam Cohen, Vassar College
Anna K. Nelson, American University
James Oakes, CUNY Graduate Center
Maureen A. Fitzgerald, College of William and Mary
Jesse Lemisch, John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
City University of New York
Leisa D. Meyer, College of William and Mary
Marilynn S. Johnson, Boston College
Michael Nylan, University of California, Berkeley
Monica D. Fitzgerald, University of California, Davis
Ann Fabian, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Catherine Manning Flamenbaum, State University of New York, Old Westbury
College
Daniel Feller, University of New Mexico
Landon Storrs, University of Houston
Kathleen Wilson, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Eva Garroutte, Boston College
Arlene Lazarowitz, California State University, Long Beach
David Waldstreicher, University of Notre Dame
Amy Gangloff, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Cynthia Poe, University of Wisconsin
Thomas R. Dunlap, Historian
Carole Srole, California State University at Los Angeles
Lawrence W. Levine, George Mason University
Judith Stein, City University of New York Graduate Center
James P. O'Brien, University of Massachusetts Boston1
John Murrin, Princeton University
Stephen Pitti, Yale University
David Barber, University of California, Davis
Daniel Bender, Princeton University
Anne Enke, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mari Jo Buhle, Brown University
Ann J. Lane, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Esther Katz, New York University
Jane Kamensky, Brandeis University
Michael E. Latham, Fordham University
Walter Nugent, University of Notre Dame
Michael Grossberg, Editor, American Historical Review
Cynthia Shelton, UCLA
Jennifer Koslow, Newberry Library
Jasonne Grabher O'Brien, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Anthony Iaccarino, Reed College
Nils Gilman, University of California, Berkeley
Leon F. Litwack, University of California, Berkeley
Matthew Frye Jacobson, Yale University
Elizabeth Jameson, University of Calgary
Douglas Greenberg, Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation
Vivian Bruce Conger, Ithaca College
Virginia Yans, Rutgers University.
Ralph Raico, Buffalo State College,
Seth Wigderson, University of Maine at Augusta
Ileen A. DeVault, Cornell University
Laurel Ulrich, Harvard University
Steven Stoll, Yale University
George Cotkin, California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo
Robert G. Lee, Brown University
Bruce Laurie, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Anita Specht, Kansas Wesleyan University
Wendy Wall, Colgate College
George M. Fredrickson, Stanford University
Michael A. Barnhart, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Choi Chatterjee, California State University, Los Angeles
Sharon Block, University of California, Irvine
Robert H. Zieger, University of Florida
Martha Hodes, New York University
John Dittmer, DePauw University
Carole Turbin, State University of New York, Empire State College
Michael A. Bernstein, University of California, San Diego
Jared Orsi, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Joan R. Gundersen, Independent Historian
Carol Hoffecker, University of Delaware
Sharon Ann Holt, Historian
Ethan Blue, University of Virginia
Catherine Allgor, University of California at Riverside
Kelly Ann Long, Colorado State University
Gary Nash, UCLA
Rachel Klein, University of California, San Diego
William M. Wiecek, Syracuse University College of Law
Alex Lichtenstein, Rice University
Alan Lessoff, Illinois State University
Kevin Gumienny, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, California State University, Hayward
Jeremy Brecher, Historian
Nancy Hewitt, Rutgers University
Richard D. Brown, University of Connecticut Humanities Institute
Barbara Beatty, Wellesley College
Elliott Young, Lewis & Clark College
Bruce Levine, University of California, Santa Cruz
Michael Zuckerman, University of Pennsylvania
John D'Emilio, University of Illinois at Chicago
Andrew Robertson, Lehman College
Homer D. Hill, Drake University
John S. Baick, Western New England College
Robert W. Gordon, Yale University
David Gellman, DePauw University
Patricia U. Bonomi, New York University
Chris Friday, Western Washington University
John K. Brown, University of Virginia
LeRoy Ashby, Washington State University
Jim Feldman, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Cathy Moran Hajo, New York University
Mark Fiege, Colorado State University
Peter Onuf, University of Virginia
April Masten, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Leon Fink, University of Illinois, Chicago
John Pettegrew, Lehigh University
Robert Zieger, University of Florida
Patricia Cooper, University of Kentucky
Louise Pubols, Autry Museum of Western Heritage
Waldo E. Martin, Jr., University of California, Berkeley
Toby L. Ditz, Johns Hopkins University
Sally Hadden, Florida State University
Joshua D. Rothman, University of Alabama
David J. Weber, Southern Methodist University
Lee W. Formwalt, Organization of American Historians
Richard Herr, University of California, Berkeley.
Paul Buhle, Brown University
Patricia Cleary, California State University, Long Beach
Daniel K. Richter, University of Pennsylvania
Hannah Rosen, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Nancy Fitch, History, California State University, Fullerton
Sam Truett, University of New Mexico
Jessica Weiss, California State University, Hayward
Ann M. Little, Colorado State University
Thomas S. Hines, UCLA
Daniel J. Walkowitz, New York University
Jonathan Holloway, Yale University
Jay P. Dolan, University of Notre Dame
Barbara Winslow, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Anne S. Lombard, California State University, San Marcos
James Livingston, Rutgers University
Jane Hood, University of New Mexico
Paul K. Longmore, San Francisco State University
Richard A. Garcia, California State University, Hayward
Simon Doubleday, Hofstra University
Nancy M. Thompson, California State University, Hayward
Susan M. Reverby, Wellesley College
Catherine A. Corman, Harvard University
Kathleen D. McCarthy, Graduate Center, CUNY
Jane De Hart, University of California, Santa Barbara
Frank Towers, Colorado State University
Amy S. Green, Denison University
Susan Hirsch, Loyola University, Chicago
John W. Holtz, University of Illinois at Springfield
John P. Rossi, Pennsylvania State University, Erie
Suzanne Cooper Guasco, College of William and Mary
Kevin Gaines, University of Michigan
Penny Von Eschen, University of Michigan
Eric Avila, UCLA
Joyce Elizabeth Chaplin, Harvard
Bernard Weisberger, Independent Historian
Andrea Foroughi, Union College
Elliott Gorn, Purdue University
Charles Wollenberg, Vista College
Regina Kunzel, Williams College
Ronald Grele, Columbia University
Andrew Feffer, Union College
Beryl Satter, Rutgers-Newark
Anya Zilberstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Hy Berman, University of Minnesota
Zachary Lockman, New York University
Pennee Bender,University of New York
Carla Pestana, Ohio State University
David B. Sicilia, University of Maryland
Linda Alkana, California State University, Long Beach
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Paul Harris, Minnesota State University Moorhead
William F. Cheek, San Diego State University
Norman Markowitz, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Vicki Ruiz, University of California, Irvine
Diane S. Clemens, University of California, Berkeley
Naomi Lamoreaux, UCLA
Martin Jay, University of California, Berkeley
Matthew Dennis, University of Oregon
Joyce Duncan Falk, University of California Education Abroad Program
Katherine Parkin, Monmouth University
Lyde Cullen Sizer, Sarah Lawrence College
Timothy Patrick McCarthy, Harvard University
J. Morgan Kousser, California Institute of Technology
Reeve Huston, University of Arizona
Matthew R. Augustine, Columbia University
Howard B. Rock, Florida International University
Phyllis Palmer, George Washington University
Lewis Erenberg, Loyola University, Chicago
Steven B. Baker, San Diego Mesa College
Brian DeLay, Harvard University
Ellen Wurtzel, Columbian University
Michael S. Dettelbach, Boston University
Philip M. Katz, American Historical Association
Jennifer Fronc, Columbia University
A. Glenn Crothers, Indiana University Southeast
Tracy E. Meyer, University of Louisville
Robert V. Wells, Union College
Gary Stone, New York Legal Services for the Elderly
Mona Siegel, University of Cincinnati
Joshua Piker, University of Oklahoma
Russ Gunsalus, Indiana Wesleyan University
Glen Taul, Georgetown College
John Kuo Wei Tchen, New York University
Ruth M. Alexander, Colorado State University
Susan Armitage, Washington State University
John Majewski, University of California, Santa Barbara
Sherry Vatter, California State University, Long Beach
Clarence E. Walker, University of California, Davis
Rosalyn Baxandall, State University of New York, College at Old
Westbury
Maurice Isserman, Hamilton College
Richard H. Sewell, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dominique Padurano, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Kristen Tegtmeier, Millsaps College
Marc Stern, Bentley College
Joshua B. Freeman, Queens College, CUNY
Gayle Gullett, Arizona State University
Peter Mickula, Rutgers University
Asale Angel-Ajani, New York University
Priscilla Murolo, Sarah Lawrence College
Gregory T. Knouff, Keene State College
Carmen Whalen, Williams College
Gerald N. Grob, Rutgers University
Victoria Saker Woeste, American Bar Foundation
Mary Beth Norton, Cornell University
Laurie Winn Carlson, Washington State University (doctoral student)
Andrew Hunt, University of Waterloo
Seymour Becker, Rutgers University
Ariela J. Gross, University of Southern California Law School
Felice Batlan, New York University
Stacy Kowtko, Washington State University
Don Higginbotham, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lois Banner, University of Southern California
Charles L. Cohen, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Rickie Solinger, Independent Scholar
Reshela DuPuis, Hawai'i Pacific University
Margaret Lavinia Anderson, University of California at Berkeley
Kerry Candaele, California State University at Dominguez Hills
Angelo T. Angelis, Hunter College, City University of New York
Mina Carson, Oregon State University
Lisa Norling, University of Minnesota
Douglas R. Egerton, Le Moyne College
Richard Buel, Wesleyan University
Kevin Gannon, Lamar University
Gabrielle Hecht, University of Michigan
Regina Morantz-Sanchez, University of Michigan
Judith Van Buskirk, State University of New York College at Cortland
Donna Alvah, St. Lawrence University
Constance B. Schulz, University of South Carolina at Columbia
Erik R. Seeman, State University of New York, Buffalo
John Carson, University of Michigan
Zuoyue Wang, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Ira Berlin, University of Maryland
Jack Betterly, Emma Willard School
Patrick D. Jones, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Matthew Osborn, University of California, Davis
Francis G. Couvares, Amherst College
Ned Landsman, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Page Putnam Miller, University of South Carolina
Susan Smulyan, Brown University
Joan Marie Johnson, Newberry Library
Andy Trees, Horace Mann School
Richard B. Sher, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Angela Cavender Wilson, Arizona State University
Peter Messer, Mississippi State University
James Drake, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Heather R. Parker, Hofstra University
James Grossman, Newberry Library
William C. diGiacomantonio, George Washington University
Martin Ridge, Huntington Library
Peter Kolchin, University of Delaware
Jean O'Brien, University of Minnesota
Rebecca Edwards, Vassar College
Helen Horowitz, Smith College
Richard Moser, American Association of University Professors
Eliza Byard, Columbia University
Manuel Callahan, University of Texas at Austin
Kevin Borg, James Madison University
Maziar Behrooz, San Francisco State University
Michael Jarvis, University of Rochester
Kathryn E. Meyer, Washington State University
Julie Boddy, Library of Congress
Anastatia Sims, Georgia Southern University
Teresa Toulouse, Tulane University
Liette Gidlow, Bowling Green State University
Joan Gunderson, Independent Scholar
Christopher Capozzola, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Pamela Tyler, North Carolina State University
Bruce Dorsey, Swarthmore College
Lara Vapnek, Columbia University
Duane Tananbaum, Lehman College, City University of New York
Sarah Deustch, University of Arizona
Carol Berkin, Graduate Center, City University of New York
Jeffrey Sklansky, Oregon State University
John H. Perkins, Evergreen State College
Randall Mason, University of Maryland
Lillian Taiz, California State University, Los Angeles
Sandy Levinson, University of Texas Law School
A. Tom Grunfeld, State University of New York, Empire State College
Stephanie Coontz, Evergreen State College
David Anthony Tyeeme Clark, University of Kansas
Afshin Matin-Asgari, California State University, Los Angeles
Julie A. Charlip , Whitman College
Scott A. Sandage, Carnegie Mellon University
John Gillis, Rutgers University
Jeffrey T. Sammons, New York University
Joan Jacobs Brumberg, Cornell University
Lawrence N. Powell, Tulane University
Adam Rothman, Georgetown University
Marguerite S. Shaffer, Miami University
Kristin Hoganson, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Eli Zaretsky, New School University
Benjamin L. Alpers, University of Oklahoma
Stuart Blumin, Cornell University
Beth Bailey, University of New Mexico
David Quigley, Boston College
Alan Taylor, University of California, Davis
Billy G. Smith, Montana State University
Lisa Cardyn, Yale University
Sheila G. McCoy, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Karen S. Langlois, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Michael H. Burchett, Limestone College
JoEllen Campbell, Texas Christian University
Jennifer Turner, University of Wisconsin
Joyce Antler, Brandeis University
Stefanie Beninato, Independent Scholar, Santa Fe
James T. Kloppenberg, Harvard University
Doreen M. Drury, Independent Scholar
John Saillant, Western Michigan University
Philip Boucher, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Aida Donald, Independent Historian
Mary McCune, State University of New York,Oswego
Lucia Stanton, Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Christopher Ebert, Columbia University
Max Paul Friedman, Florida State University
Karine Walther, Columbia University
Jennifer Tammi, Columbia University
Tristan Traviolia, UCLA
Kate Haulman, Tulane University
Robert Genter, Columbia University
Rachel Devlin, Tulane University
Natasha Zaretsky, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
Madeline H. Caviness, Tufts University
Michael A. Meeropol, Western New England College
Sherry Katz, San Francisco State University
Seth Fein, Yale University
Marion Rust, University of Virginia
Gregory L. Kaster, Gustavus Adolphus College
David Hartzog, Norwood-Norfolk Central School
Robert Higgs, The Independent Institute
Helena M. Wall, Pomona College
Neil Jumonville, Florida State University
Elizabeth Lunbeck, Princeton University
Joan M. Jensen, New Mexico State University
William Ashbaugh, State University of New York, Oneonta
Anita Clair Fellman, Old Dominion University
Edward I. Steinhart, Texas Tech University
Donald F. M. Gerardi, Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Penny M. Von Eschen, University of Michigan
Steven Bachelor, Roosevelt University
Benjamin H. Johnson, Southern Methodist University
Dona Brown, University of Vermont
Mary McGuire, Southern Illinois University,Carbondale
Bruce C. Daniels, Texas Tech University
Glenn Melancon, Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Jean B. Lee, University of Wisconsin
Sara M. Evans, University of Minnesota
Gary Gerstle, University of Maryland
Joshua Brown, City University of New York
Marsha L. Weisiger, New Mexico State University
Edwin G. Burrows, Brooklyn College, City University of New York
David Cochran, John A. Logan Community College
Norman R. Yetman, University of Kansas
Ralph Luker, Independent Historian
Kyle Longley, Arizona State University
Leila J. Rupp, University of California, Santa Barbara
Ellen Herman, University of Oregon
Lisette Blanco-Cerda
James Abbott, Purdue University
Laura Rigal, University of Iowa
Albert Raboteau, Princeton University
Anna R. Igra, Carleton College
Joseph Edward Illick, San Francisco State University
M. L. Tina Stevens, San Francisco State University
Cheryl Greenberg, Trinity College
Holly M. Mickelson, Purdue University
Daniel Herman, Central Washington University
Richard J. Hoffman San Francisco State University
James E. Lewis Jr., Independent Scholar
François Furstenberg, Johns Hopkins University
Karen Ordahl Kupperman, New York University
Marlena DeLong, Papers of James Monroe
Linda Raeder, Palm Beach Atlantic University
Mary F. Corey, UCLA
Elsa Barkley Brown, University of Maryland
Marie Tyler-McGraw, Public Historian
K. Austen Kerr, Ohio State University
Joy Houle, Independent Scholar
John Hausdoerffer, Washington State University
William R. Childs, Ohio State University
David M. Katzman, University of Kansas
Geoffrey Koziol, University of California at Berkeley
Patrick J. Maney, University of South Carolina
Lonnie Bunch, The Chicago Historical Society
Holly Brewer, North Carolina State University
John McMillian, Harvard University
Eileen P. Walsh, Hamline University
Devra Weber, University of California, Riverside
Carol Linskey, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Silvan S. Schweber, Brandeis University
Paul Mapp, College of William and Mary
Tami J. Friedman, Independent Scholar
Spencer Segalla, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Timothy Yates, University of California, Davis
Stephen L. Recken, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Sandra F. VanBurkleo, Wayne State University
Mary Furner, University of California, Santa Barbara
Gerald Markowitz, John Jay College and Graduate Center, CUNY
Laura Croghan Kamoie, American University
Alexander O. Boulton, Villa Julie College
Robert Griffith, American University
Jefferson Cowie, Cornell University
Tom Guglielmo, University of Notre Dame
Rebecca Hartman, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
William P. Jones, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Elaine S. Abelson, New School University
Katherine Preston, WIlliam and Mary College
Brian Bekhen, University of California, Davis
Robert Middlekauff, University of California, Berkeley
Scott Miltenberger, University of California, Davis
Eva Sheppard Wolf, San Francisco State University
Monica Najar, Lehigh University
John Barnhill, Historian, Yukon, Oklahoma
William Toll, University of Oregon
Michael B. Katz, University of Pennsylvania
Richard Bushman, Columbia University
Margot Canaday, University of Minnesota
Stephen Nissenbaum, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Anthony Loveday, College Preparatory School, Oakland
Susan K. Freeman, Florida International University
Roger Simon, Lehigh University
Daniel Kevles, Yale University
Kelly Hopkins, University of California, Davis
Frank J. Byrne, State University of New York at Oswego
Dolph Grundman. Metropolitan State College of Denver
John Dichtl, Organization of American Historians
Fran Shor, Wayne State University
Thomas C. Holt, University of Chicago
Jeanie Attie, Long Island University
Robert F. Jones, Fordham University
Matt Childs, Florida State University
Louise Newman, University of Florida
Alice O'Connor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Nathan Stoltzfus, Florida State University
Robin Bachin, University of Miami
Anne Kornhauser, Columbia University
Vincent DiGirolamo, Princeton University
Richard L. Greaves, Florida State University
Mark Lawrence, University of Texas at Austin
Suzanne Sinke, Florida State University
Jennifer D. Selwyn, University of New Hampshire
Kevin Paul Smith, University of California Santa Barbara
Robert Shaffer, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
Claire Moses, University of Maryland
Paula S. Fass, University of California, Berkeley
Sherri Broder, Brandeis University
Jonathan W. McLeod, San Diego Mesa College
Ross Frank, University of California, San Diego
Mark Pingree, University of California, Davis
Ellen Ross, Ramapo College of New Jersey
Louis Mazzari, University of New Hampshire
James A. Good, North Harris College
Anthony E. Kaye, Pennsylvania State University
David J. Langum, Samford University
Matthew J. Countryman, University of Michigan
Becky Nicolaides, University of California, San Diego
Philip J. Ethington, University of Southern California
Olivier Zunz, University of Virginia
Robbie Lieberman, Southern Illinois University
W. T. Lhamon, Jr., Florida State University
John R. M. Wilson, Vanguard University
Judith Wellman, State University of New York at Oswego
Michael S. Foley, City University of New York, College of Staten Island
Mary Kelley, University of Michigan
Rosalind Remer, Moravian College
James N. Green, Library Company of Philadelphia
Jane Hunter, Lewis and Clark College
Gretchen A. Adams, Texas Tech University
Vincenza Scarpaci, University of Oregon
Catherine Cocks, Independent Historian
Jon A. Peterson, Queens College, City University of New York
Sondra Cosgrove, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Susan E. Gray, Arizona State University
Robert Brent Toplin, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Elun Gabriel, St. Lawrence University
Russ Reeves, Trinity Christian College
Jonathan M. Bryant, Georgia Southern University
Rodney D. Anderson, Florida State University
Martin Halpern, Henderson State University
Richard L. Christensen, Lakeland College
Carolyn Eastman, University of Texas, Austin
Iver Bernstein, Washington University in St. Louis
Lawrence S. Wittner, State University of New York, Albany
Tracy Duvall, Arizona State Museum
Paul Spagnoli, Boston College
T.H. Breen, Northwestern University
Paul Lyons, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Jennifer Imsande, Central Lakes College
Richard White, Stanford University
Sarah Sussman, Stanford University
Gary Stone, Attorney and Historian
Linn Shapiro, Independent Historian
Linda Shopes, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
Michele Mitchell, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
Charles Postel, University of California, Berkeley
Marion Nelson Winship, Virginia Commonwealth University
Michael G. Wade, Appalachian State University
Julie Leininger Pycior, Manhattan College
Paula Wheeler Carlo, Nassau Community College
Catherine E. Kelly, University of Oklahoma
Jo Ann McNamara, Hunter College and Graduate Center, City University of
New York
Harvey J. Graff, University of Texas at San Antonio
Darcy R. Fryer, The Papers of Benjamin Franklin
Ronald Lora, University of Toledo
Julia Maserjian, Historian
Gary Lease, University of California, Santa Cruz
Richard Grossman, DePaul University, Northeastern Illinois University
Juan Cole, University of Michigan
J.F. Saddler, Temple University
John Robertson, Central Michigan University
Bill Tuttle, University of Kansas
Kimberly A. Alidio, University of Texas at Austin
Barbara. Sicherman, Trinity College
Rodney Hessinger, Hiram College
Lendol Calder, Augustana College
Dorothy Ross, Johns Hopkins University
Sarah Hart Brown, Florida Atlantic University
Marylynn Salmon, Smith College
Julie Greene, University of Colorado at Boulder
Christopher Strain, Atlantic University
Greg O'Brien, University of Southern Mississippi
Bill Lang, Portland State University
David Montgomery, Yale University
Michael P. Johnson, Johns Hopkins University
Sydney Soderberg, Kansas Wesleyan University
Edward Countryman, Southern Methodist University.
Leslie S. Rowland, University of Maryland
Christopher Berkeley, Independent Historian
Sandi E Cooper, College of Staten Island and Graduate Center
John M. Cammett, John Jay College and Graduate Center
Wallace Hettle, University of Northern Iowa.
James C. Williams, De Anza College
Ben Lowe, Florida Atlantic University
Betty A. Dessants, Shippensburg University
Chistine Stansell, Princeton University
Douglas Deal, State University of New York at Oswego
Daniel Preston, Mary Washington College
Jon Kukla, Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation
Gary J. Kornblith, Oberlin College
Woody Holton, University of Richmond
Dan Albert, University of Michigan
Serena Zabin, Carleton College
Lori Ginzberg, Pennsylvania State University
Jules Tygiel, San Francisco State University
Carol Groneman, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of
New York
Steven A. Reich, James Madison University
George Chauncey, University of Chicago
Susan Smith, City University of New York
Chad Montrie, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Gaspare J. Saladino, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Dee Garrison, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Joseph M. Gabriel, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Lindy Biggs, Auburn University
Jenise R. DePinto, State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stephen H. Cutcliffe, Lehigh University
Teresa Meade, Union College
William G. Robbins, Oregon State University
David Roediger, University of Illinois
Steven Deyle, University of California, Davis
Karim Michel Tiro, Cincinnati, Ohio
Ricky Jane Manoff, California State University, Northridge and Santa
Monica College
Linda Kerber, University of Iowa
Robert P. Forbes, Yale University
Bruce Nelson, Dartmouth College
Dorothy O. Helly, Hunter College and Graduate Center, City University
of New York
Nancy Gallagher, University of California, Santa Barbara
Jennifer Spear, University of California, Berkeley
Gerald Horne, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Sarah Hart Brown, Florida Atlantic University
Thomas N. Ingersoll, Ohio State University
Sharon E. Wood, University of Nebraska at Omaha
Daryl Scott, University of Florida
Ronald Schultz, University of Wyoming
Kevin Reilly, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Cindy S. Aron, University of Virginia
Joan D. Hedrick, Trinity College
Travis Hedrick, Quinnipiac University
Ronald G. Walters, Johns Hopkins University
Kevin R. Marsh, Boise State University
Robyn Muncy, University of Maryland
Rachel Buff, Bowling Green State University
Karl Jacoby, Brown University
Robert H. Babcock, University of Maine
Jason Loviglio, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Charles Chatfield, Wittenberg University
David Johnson, University of Portland
Cynthia Young, University of Southern California
Marcy Norton, George Washington University
Joyce Seltzer, Harvard University Press
Marci Reaven, City Lore, New York
Mark McGarvie, New York University School of Law
Claire Strom, North Dakota State University
Katherine Jellison, Ohio University
Patricia Hagler Minter, Western Kentucky University
Charlene Boyer Lewis, Kalamazoo College
Jackson Lears, Rutgers University
John S. Gilkeson, Arizona State University
Anne M. Boylan, University of Delaware
Nicholas Turse, Columbia University
John W. Johnson, University of Northern Iowa
Jerome Nadelhaft , University of Maine
Edward G. Gray, Florida State University
Ted Ownby, University of Mississippi
Julia Foulkes, New School University
Michelle Nickerson, Yale University
Kirsten Swinth, Fordham University
Margaret M. Caffrey, University of Memphis
Jacquelyn Miller, Seattle University
Mark Valeri, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia
David Tompkins, Columbia University
Daniel Pope, University of Oregon
Beverly Wilson Palmer, Pomona College
Tyler Stovall, University of California, Berkeley
Len Travers, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
Andrew Hurley, University of Missouri, St. Louis
Donald L. Robinson, Smith College
Edward A. Purcell Jr., New York Law School
Kevin Byrne, Gustavus Adolphus College
Louise C. Wade, University of Oregon
Sean R. Busick, Kentucky Wesleyan College
Andrew M. Schocket, Bowling Green State University
Jennifer M. Guglielmo, William Paterson University
Leigh Ann Wheeler, Bowling Green State University
Richard Judd, University of Maine
Gaddis Smith, Yale University
James C. Juhnke, Bethel College
Mark Jantzen, Bethel College
Gerald Meyer, Hostos Community College, City University of New York
Erika Kuhlman, Utah State University
Janet Ore, Colorado State University
Debra Campbell, Colby College
Wilbur R. Miller, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Allison Gilmore, Ohio State University-Lima
Jeffrey H. Richards, Old Dominion University
Lisa Nocks, Drew University
Stephen Berk, California State University, Long Beach
Jeri L. Reed, University of Oklahoma
Michael Sappol, Independent Historian
Virginia Schelbert, North Park University, Chicago
Leo Schelbert, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Lisa M. Lane, MiraCosta College
Peter Charles Hoffer, University of Georgia
Gail O'Brien, North Carolina State University
Francesca Morgan, Northwestern University
Penelope Adams Moon, Bethel College
Patricia Albjerg Graham, Harvard University.
Nan Enstad, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Seth M. Scheiner, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Adele E. Clarke, University of California, San Francisco
David A.Y.O. Chang, University of Minnesota
Lizabeth Cohen, Harvard University
Shirley Teresa Wajda, Kent State University
Mitchell Lerner, Ohio State University
Jack L. Hammersmith, West Virginia University
Thomas Russell Wingate, Historian
Timothy J. Gilfoyle, Loyola University Chicago
Katherine Hijar, Johns Hopkins University
Henry F. Graff, Columbia University
JoAnne Brown, Dickinson College
David Suisman, Smithsonian Institution
O. Gene Clanton, Washington State University
Susan M. Hartmann, Ohio State University
Rachel Wheeler, Lewis and Clark College
Paul Finkelman, University of Tulsa College of Law
Ian Lekus, Duke University
Deborah K. Paulus, Brooklyn Law School
Marian Mollin, Virginia Tech
Heather Munro Prescott, Central Connecticut State University
Stephen O'Neill, Furman University
Carolyn D. Cuskey, Rose State College
Todd M. Michney, University of Minnesota
Paul Ortiz, University of California, Santa Cruz
Charlene Etkind, Independent scholar
Gary Reichard, California State University, Long Beach
Mark T. Gilderhus, Texas Christian University
Suzanne Borghei, Santa Monica College
Daniel Wickberg, University of Texas at Dallas
Jack N. Rakove, Stanford University
Jacob H. Dorn, Wright State University
Kirsten Fermaglich, Michigan State University
Leo P. Ribuffo, George Washington University
Lesley Kawaguchi, Santa Monica College
Richard R. Follett, Covenant College
Ted Beatty, University of Notre Dame
Carole Collier Frick, Southern Illinois University.
Stephen Charry, Illinois Valley Community College
Stuart D. Hobbs, Ohio Historical Society
David W. Levy, University of Oklahoma
Patrick J. Ryan, University of Texas at Dallas
Eric M. Freedman, Hofstra Law School
Malia Formes, Western Kentucky University
Elna C. Green, Florida State University
Kimberly Welch, University of Redlands
Bradley B. Williams, Independent Scholar, Pasadena
Anne Brophy, Georgia State University
Carl N. Degler, Stanford University
Lisa Hazirjian, Duke University
Victor Greene, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Matthew Basso, University of Richmond
Dennis Kortheuer, California State University, Long Beach
Charles McGovern, Smithsonian Institution
Marjorie Becker, University of Southern California
Lesley A. Rimmel, Oklahoma State University
Peter G. Yackel, Independent Historian
James H. Carrott, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Zachary M. Schrag, Baruch College, City University of New York
Melissa Macauley, Northwestern University
John J. Bukowczyk, Wayne State University
Jung-fang Tsai, College of Charleston
Luther Spoehr, Brown University
John T. McGuire, College at Oneonta, State University of New York
Rupert Charles Loucks, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Edward E. Baptist, University of Miami
Margaret O. McLane, University of Wisconsin-Fond du Lac
Ann Caylor, Glendale Community College
Julia E. Liss, Scripps College
Paul Gaffney, Landmark College
David Newbury, Smith College
John W. Sayer, Independent Historian
Horacio N. Roque Ramírez, UCLA
Frank Costigliola, University of Connecticut
Victoria Bissell Brown, Grinnell College
Bernard V. Burke, Portland State University
Benjamin W. Rehling, Fullerton College
Tom Beaman, Reynolds High School, Troutdale, Oregon
Patricia Chantrill, Eastern Washington University
Lloyd A. Hunter, Franklin College of Indiana
Margaret Lowe, Bridgewater State College
Robert R. Dykstra, State University of New York, Albany
Paul Le Blanc, La Roche, College in Pittsburgh
John R. McKivigan, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
J. Michael Raley, Northeastern Illinois University
Lisa MacFarlane, University of New Hampshire
Deborah Douglas, Historian
Chris J. Magoc, Mercyhurst College
Megan Benson, University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
William Trollinger, University of Dayton
Bruce H. Wendt, Historian
Kenneth A. Osgood, Florida Atlantic University
Carroll Pursell, Case Western Reserve University
Emily S. Rosenberg, Macalester College
Norman L. Rosenberg, Macalester College
Wilbert H. Ahern, University of Minnesota, Morris
Susan Wladaver-Morgan, Portland State University
Mary Ann Dzuback, Washington University
Una M. Cadegan, University of Dayton
David Levering Lewis, Rutgers University
Corie Delashaw, Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Arleen Tuchman, Vanderbilt University
James Connolly, Ball State University
Susan E. Klepp, Temple University
Ralph Levering, Davidson College
David Hsiung, Juniata College
Shafali Lal, Vanderbilt University
Todd, Margo E, Vanderbilt University
John McCarthy, Marquette University
Arthur Schlesinger, jr., Graduate Center, City University of New York
Lisa Kannenberg, College of Saint Rose
James Epstein, Vanderbilt University
Douglas Biehn, University of Southern Maine
Wendy Kozol, Oberlin College
George White, Jr., University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Don Mohr, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Barbara R. Stites, Los Angeles City College
Jan S. Rosin, University of Houston
Jane Landers, Vanderbilt University
Kenneth O'Reily, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Dan Cornford, San Jose State University
Joseph A. Boudreau, San Jose State University
Manfred Jonas, Union College
Anne Paulet, Humboldt State University
Nelson Lichtenstein, University of California, Santa Barbara
Al Griffin, University of New Hampshire
Carole Watterson Troxler, Elon University
Marjorie Sanchez Walker, California State University, Stanislaus
Richard J Blackett, Vanderbilt University
Catherine Rymph, University of Missouri-Columbia
Mary Ann Johnson, Chicago Area Women's History Conference
John J. Little, Saint Augustine's College
Jeffrey K. Stine, Smithsonian Institution
Dr. Michelle DenBeste, California State University, Fresno
James C. Schneider, University of Texas at San Antonio
Paul Sutter, University of Georgia
James E. Sherow, Kansas State University
Todd Shallat, Boise State University
Kerby Miller, University of Missouri-Columbia
Jesse F. Ballenger, Johns Hopkins University
Kim Nielsen, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
E. Bruce Reynolds, San Jose State University
Dickson D. Bruce, Jr., University of California, Irvine
Steve Meyer, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
John Putman, San Diego State University
Cora Coggins Greer, University of Maine, Machias
Mark Wyman, Illinois State University
Carl H. Nightingale, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
James C. Kollros, Moraine Valley Community College and St. Xavier
University
Gayle Olson-Raymer, Humboldt State University
Patricia Evridge Hill, San Jose State University
Stephen Cole, University of San Francisco
Deborah Hall, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Patricia Kelleher, Kutztown University of Pennslyvania
Margaret T. McFadden, Colby College
C. Earl Edmondson, Davidson College
Elizabeth Ansnes, San Jose State University
Betsy Mendelsohn, University of Virginia
Charles G. Nauert, University of Missouri-Columbia
Marjorie Levine-Clark, University of Colorado at Denver
Amanda I. Seligman, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
James Schneider, University of Texas, San Antonio
Joan Jenkins, Collin County Community College
Dan Flores, University of Montana
Kent Newmyer, University of Connecticut
Lori Rosa, Walton High School
Stacy Kerr, University of Southern California
Hedi BenAicha, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Scott Martin, Bowling Green State University
Sheila Phipps, Appalachian State University
Sterling Evans, Humboldt State University
Kevin Smith, Ball State University
Joseph E. Taylor III, Iowa State University
Cynthia Jo Ingham, Florida Atlantic University
Susan Branson, University of Texas at Dallas
Peter M. Buzanski, San Jose State University
Richard D. Dorn, Ohio State University
David R. Applebaum, Rowan University
Warren M. Billings, University of New Orleans
Mary Coomes, California State University, Fresno
Joseph P. Harahan, Public Historian, Washington DC
Randall M. Miller, Saint Joseph's University
Edward A. Gosselin, California State University, Long Beach
Renee M. Sentilles, Case Western Reserve University
Kenneth Mason, Santa Monica College
Steve Hahn, Northwestern University
Martha Howell, Columbia University
Robert Olwell, University of Texas at Austin
Lucy E. Salyer, University of New Hampshire
James Sidbury, University of Texas at Austin
William C. Berman, University of Toronto
Janet Farrell Brodie, Claremont Graduate University
Robert W. Snyder, Rutgers-Newark
John M. Staudenmaier, S.J. University of Detroit Mercy
John Wintterle, San Jose State University
Roy E. Finkenbine, University of Detroit Mercy
Carrie L. Sorensen, Indiana University, Indianapolis
Thompson Smith, Historical Consultant
Diane North, Historian
Patricia A. Schechter, Portland State University
Jacqueline K. Dirks, Reed College
Donna J. Spindel, Marshall University
Bill Issel, San Francisco State University
Harold D. Langley, Independent Historian
Michael Smuksta, Viterbo University
Nancy C. Unger, Santa Clara University
Karin Stallard, Yale University
Alecia P. Long, Historian, New Orleans, Louisiana
Robert W. Cherny, San Francisco State University
Daniel Markwyn, Sonoma State University
Sean Smith, California State University, Long Beach
Juliana F. Gilheany, Manhattan College and Fordham University
William J. Reese, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert Muccigrosso, Brooklyn College
Ken L. Weatherbie, Del Mar College
Diane Krahe, Washington State University
Peter H. Wood, Duke University
Edward Balleisen, Duke University
John Herd Thompson, Duke University
Christine Desan, Harvard Law School
Shelley Amiste Wolbrink, Drury University
Bob Sawrey, Marshall University
Caroline Light, Duke University
Harvey Asher, Drury University
Joel F. Harrington, Vanderbilt University
Raymond Gavins, Duke University
David Rich Lewis, Utah State University
Joyce Follet, Smith College
Kendall Staggs, Utah State University
Michael L. Nicholls, Utah State University
Karin Shapiro, Duke University
Norman Jones, Utah State University
Tim Borstelmann, Cornell University
John Moser, Ashland University
David McNeil, San Jose State University
Cynthia Koch, Public Historian
Matthew Pehl, Western Historical Quarterly, Utah State University
Clyde Griffen, Vassar College
Robert E. Bieder Indiana University-Bloomington
Ellen Baker, Columbia University
Jerald A. Combs, San Francisco State University
David R. Kepley, National Archives and Records Administration
Dan Letwin, Penn State University
Rita Roberts, Scripps College
Steven W. Usselman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Peter Novick, University of Chicago
Thomas M. Spencer, Northwest Missouri State University
Victor C. Dahl, Portland State University
Seth Rockman, Occidental College
John W. Quist, Shippensburg University
S. Joan Moon, California State University, Sacramento
Barbara B. Oberg, Princeton University
Byron J. Nordstrom, Gustavus Adolphus College
Diane F. Britton, University of Toledo
Martin Zanger, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
James R. Wright, Triton College
John Barrington, Furman University
Jonathan Prude, Emory University
Peter Rachleff, Macalester College
David Abraham, School of Law, University of Miami
Margo Anderson, University of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee
Andrew Wiese, San Diego State University
Sarah F. McMahon, Bowdoin College
Gore Vidal, Historian
David A. Nichols, University of Pittsburgh - Greensburg
Perry Leavell, Drew University
Allison L. Sneider, Rice University
Rebecca J. Mead, Northern Michigan University
Kurt Hackemer, University of South Dakota
Philip Morgan, Johns Hopkins University
Ira Gruber, Rice University
John K. Alexander, University of Cincinnati
James H. Madison, Indiana University
Sharon Sundue, Drew University
William H. Leckie, Jr., Independent Scholar
J. Chris Arndt, James Madison University
Gerda Lerner, University of Wisconsin
Michael McGerr, Indiana University--Bloomington
Sue Chapelle , Morgan State University
Casey Nelson Blake, Columbia University
Orville Vernon Burton, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
C. G. Estabrook, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Richard Nation, Eastern Michigan University
Michael Meranz, University of California, San Diego
Michael D. Richards, Sweet Briar College
Steven A. Reich, James Madison University
Raymond "Skip" Hyser, James Madison University
Howard I. Kushner, Emory University
David Hall, Harvard University
Michael J. Galgano, James Madison University
John Bodnar, Indiana University
Jonathan Earle, University of Kansas
David G. Schultenover, Marquette University
Kathleen Brown, University of Pennsylvania,
Michael D. Green, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Alexander Deconde, University of California, Santa Barbara
Andrea Tone, Georgia Institute of Technology
Rosalyn Terborg-Penn. Morgan State University
David C. Dennard, East Carolina University
Chalice Wilkerson , University of Illinois at Chicago
David A. Zonderman, North Carolina State University
James R. Barrett, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, San Jose State University
Michael J. C. Taylor, Dickinson State University
Robert Macieski, University of New Hampshire
Peter W. Bardaglio, Ithaca College
David Harris Sacks, Reed College
Margaret Trenchard-Smith, UCLA
Pamela Steinle, California State University, Fullerton
Joel L. Friedman, Baldwin Senior High School
Mitch Kachun, Western Michigan University
G. Thomas Edwards, Whitman College
Scott Laderman, University of Minnesota
Russell M. Magnaghi, Northern Michigan University
Elizabeth Mancke, University of Akron
Jay R. Case, Malone College
Patricia Norred Derr, Kutztown University
James H. Meriwether, California State University, Bakersfield
Londa Schiebinger, Pennsylvania State University
Sharla Chittick Trainor, North Idaho College
Joseph McCartin, Georgetown University
Barbara M. Posadas, Northern Illinois University
Anthony Baltakis, Louisiana State University at Eunice
Andrea Tuttle Kornbluh, University of Cincinnati
Beatrix Hoffman, Northern Illinois University
David Hochfelder, Rutgers University
Lydia M. Garner, Southwest Texas State University
Jack Brigham, Bakersfield College
H. Russell Cort,
Carl Guarneri, Saint Mary's College of California
Joanne Meyerowitz, Indiana University, Bloomington
Ellen Holmes Pearson, Western Connecticut State University
Roland Guyotte, University of Minnesota, Morris
Aaron Fogleman, Northern Illinois University
Paul Forman, Smithsonian Institution
James R. Anderson, Michigan State University
David Kyvig, Northern Illinois University
Janet M. Manson, Clemson University
William Guthrie Sayen, University of Connecticut
Jim Downs Jr., Columbia University
Barbara Reeves-Ellington, State University of New York, Binghamton
Robert Entenmann, Carleton College
Kristin Ruggiero, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Michael A. Gordon, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Ralph Lee Woodward, Jr., Texas Christian University
Doris Sher, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Susan Schulten, University of Denver
Jo Ann Carrigan , University of Nebraska at Omaha
Donald R. Shaffer, University of Northern Colorado
Patricia M.E. Lorcin, Texas Tech University
Mary Hayes, Trinity College (D.C.)
Wayne Hobson, California State University, Fullerton
John D. Krugler, Marquette University
Rachel D. Shaw, St. Olaf College
Judy Kutulas, St. Olaf College
Cheryll Ann Cody, Houston Community College
Patrick D. Reagan, Tennessee Technological University
Mark Pittenger, University of Colorado
David J. Pivar, California State University at Fullerton
Dr. Rachel D. Shaw, St. Olaf College
Eckard Toy, Independent Historian
Danny E. Rodehaver, Independent Scholar
Robert M. Zecker, Saint Francis Xavier University
Arnold A. Offner, Lafayette College
Mary H. Blewett, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
William G. Shade, Lehigh University
Andrea Reidell, Public Historian
Peter Kuznick, American University
Byron Cannon, University of Utah
Eric Fure-Slocum, St. Olaf College
Aims McGuinness, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Murray A. Rubinstein, Baruch College, City University of New York
Byron Cannon, University of Utah
Jennifer M. S. Lounibos, San Francisco State University
Béla K. Király, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York.
Colleen McDannell, University of Utah
Michael D. Richards, Sweet Briar College
David L. Carlton, Vanderbilt University
Gisela R. Ables, Houston Community College System
Linda Civitello. Independent Historian
David T. Beito, University of Alabama
Harvey M. Wachtell, Wright State University
Amy Feely Morsman, Middlebury College
Sasha Disko, New York University
Herbert T. Hoover, University of South Dakota
Keith Arbour, Independent Historian
Charles Musser Yale University
Larry L. Ping, Southern Utah University
June Namias, University of Alaska Anchorage
Augusto Espiritu, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
David D. Buck, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
John Crain, University of Southern Mississippi
Mark A. Stoler, University of Vermont
Cheryl Elman, University of Akron
Anthony R. Travis, Public Historian
Grand Valley State University
Theron Snell, Public Historian
Molly Berger, Case Western Reserve University
Olivia A. Scriven, Spelman College
Josh Perelman, New York University
Guian McKee, University of Virginia
James McPherson, Princeton University
Mark Peterson, University of Iowa
Marjoleine Kars, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Sean O'Neill, Grand Valley State University
Douglas Slawson, National University
Fred Walters, Luzerne County Community College
Howard Brick, Washington University in St. Louis
Dr. David De Leon, Howard University,
Mark A. Scherer, Historian, Community of Christ
Kriste Lindenmeyer, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Nevin C. Brown, The Education Trust, Washington, DC 20006
Jeffrey L. Richey,Berea College
Thomas Zoumaras, Truman State University
Alexander I. Burckin, University of California, Irvine and California
State University Dominguez Hills
Gretchen Cassel Eick, Friends University
Andor Skotnes, Sage Colleges
K.R. Constantine Gutzman, Western Connecticut State University
Rochelle A. Krueger, University of Nebraska at Kearney
J. William Harris, University of New Hampshire
Kevin M. Casey, Alverno College
Jennifer Reed Fry, King's College
Elizabeth Fones-Wolf, West Virginia University
Anne Sarah Rubin, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Christopher James Tassava, Northwestern University
A. Roger Ekirch, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Carol Bresnahan Menning, University of Toledo
Mary Todd, Concordia University
M. Elaine Lewinnek, Yale University
Tucker Foehl, Yale University
Janet M. Davis, University of Texas at Austin
Carmen Hernandez, Northeast Iowa Community College
Timothy Messer-Kruse, University of Toledo
Ben Johnson, Southern Arkansas University
George Dameron, St. Michael's College
David Burner, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Robert Widen, Independent Historian
Lisa MacFarlane, University of New Hampshire
Mary Todd, Concordia University
Darlis A. Miller, New Mexico State University
Robert McCaa, University of Minnesota
Leslye Joy Allen, Clark Atlanta University
Karl Brooks, University of Kansas
John H. Summers, University of Rochester
David E. Stannard, University of Hawai`i at Manoa
Chris Kienke, American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Harry L. Watson, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Maria A. Perez-Stable, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo
Ricardo A. Herrera, Mount Union College
Maureen A. Tilley, University of Dayton
Anne Mitchell Whisnant, Duke University
Daniel Kallgren, University of Wisconsin - Marinette
Ruth Wallis Herndon, University of Toledo
Stewart Riley, LaSalle University
Marjorie Lasky, Diablo Valley College
Charlotte M. Gradie, Sacred Heart University
Dr. Richard Whaley, Marian College of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
Patricia Behre Miskimin, Fairfield University.
Jacqueline Jones, Brandeis University
Benjamin D.Berry, Virginia Wesleyan College
Scott O'Bryan, University of Alabama
Clarence B. Davis, Marian College
Christie Farnham Pope, Iowa State University
John C. Savagian, Alverno College
Ephraim Schulman, Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations.
Frances Jones-Sneed, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
Gretchen Galbraith, Grand Valley State University
Sarah Hilgendorff List, independent historian
Patricia Oldham, Hostos Community College, City University of New York
Ellen Eisenberg, Willamette University
Jennifer Jopp, Willamette University
Eric Monkkonen, UCLA
Rob Stoddard, University of British Columbia
M. Montgomery Wolf, University of North Carolina
Cynthia J. Van Zandt, University of New Hampshire
Matthew J. Powell, Diablo Valley College
Laura Wittern Keller, Independent Historian
Elizabeth Nybakken, Mississippi State University and Old Dominion
University
Kimberly Little, Michigan State University
Brenda Stevenson, UCLA
Martha May, Western Connecticut State University.
Werner Gundersheimer, Folger Shakespeare Library
Philip Goff, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
Richard F. Hamm, University at Albany, State University of New York
Susan Goodier, Cazenovia College
R.D. Linder, Kansas State University
Ruth E. Sutter, Independent Scholar
Joel Braslow, UCLA
Marcia L. Meldrum, UCLA
Nora Faires, Western Michigan University
Sarah Jo Peterson, University of Oklahoma
John F. Marszalek, Mississippi State University
Edgar B. Firmage, University of Utah
Elizabeth Bishop, American University in Cairo
Jon Roland, Constitutional Scholar
Bruce H. Mann, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Michael James Foret, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Judy Munro-Leighton, Jefferson Community College
Howard N. Meyer, Independent Historian
R. Patrick Reed, McDaniel College
William David Jones, Mt. San Antonio College
Neil Lewis, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point
Charles E. Clark, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Joseph A. Palermo, California State University, Sacramento
Nicholas Sammond, Washington University, St. Louis
Amy J. Kinsel, North Seattle Community College
Glenn W. LaFantasie, Independent Historian
Kay Walters Ofman, Independent Scholar
Tom Osborne, Santa Ana College
Elizabeth Feder. Colorado College
Wayne Cutler, University of Tennessee
Julian J. DelGaudio, Long Beach City College
Jack L. Cross, Independent Historian
Andrew August, Abington College and Pennsylvania State University
Whitney Todd, Valparaiso University
Samuel P. Hays, University of Pittsburgh.
Marilyn Dell Brady, Virginia Wesleyan College
John M. Morra, Independent Scholar
Betsy Beattie, University of Maine
Mark Angelos, Manchester College
Eric Alterman, Stanford University
David A. Hollinger, University of California
Kyle K. Williams Wyatt, California State Railroad Museum, Sacramento
Cynthia Harrison, George Washington University.
Berry Craig, Paducah Community College
Darlene Wilson, Southeast Community College
Anne Kearney, Jefferson Community College-Kentucky Community and
Technical College System
Rebecca C. Glasscock, Lexington Community College
Catherine Blecki, San Jose State University,
Robert A. Coyle, Cy-Fair College
Elizabeth Woodruff, Pennslyvania State University
Shirley A. Leckie, University of Central Florida
Justus D. Doenecke, New College of Florida,
Ivan D. Steen, University at Albany, State University of New York
Sarvananda Bluestone, State University of New York College at Old
Westbury and Roosevelt University
Jack D. Marietta, University of Arizona
David Devine, Ecole Spéciale des Travaux Publics
Stuart McConnell, Pitzer College
Brenna Lissoway, Arizona State University
Michael O'Malley, George Mason University
David E. Ruth, Penn State Abington
Paul Gaston, University of Virginia
Joseph Eldred, Independent Historian
Ronald Schmidt, Sr., California State University, Long Beach
John T. O'Connor, University of New Orleans
Elizabeth Sanders, Cornell University
Arthur Rolston, UCLA
Andrew T. Harris, Bridgewater State College
Nancy Bowman, Bishop's School
Bruce Dudley, Prince George's Community College
Herb Poetzl, State University of New York, Binghamton
Mary Ann Tetreault, Trinity University
Jack Parrish, Independent Historian
Susan Corbesero, University of Pittsburgh
Bruce Cohen, Worcester State College
David F. Barry, Independent Historian
Joanna Vecchiarelli Scott, Eastern Michigan University
Ivan D. Steen, New York State University at Albany
Warren Leming, Near Northwest Arts Council
John E. Parrish, Peddie School
Sarah S. Hughes, Shippensburg University
Brady Alexander Hughes, Hampton University
Nigel Sellars, Christopher Newport University
Jennifer Pitts, Yale University
Rebecca Glasscock, University of Kentucky
Jeffrey Wollock, Solidarity Foundation
Shinn Wu, Orange Coast College
John R. Huff Jr., Independent Historian/Scholar
Darlene Rivas, Pepperdine University
Jeffrey Wollock, Solidarity FoundationSchaedler
Timothy P. Mulligan, National Archives
Jeffrey Bortz, Appalachian State University
Alfred F. Young, Northern Illinois University
Philippe Girard, McNeese State University of Louisiana
Frank McCann, University of New Hampshire
Dawn Marsh Riggs, San Diego State University
David Warren Bowen, University of West Alabama
Sasha Tarrant, Brazosport College
James J. Lorence, Gainesville College
Lana Ruegamer, Indiana University
Eric Strahorn, Florida Gulf Coast University
Christopher Endy, California State University, Los Angeles
Jerrold A. Phillips, Professor of Theatre History, Emeritus
Sandrine Sanos, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Sue McCaffray, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Paul Rykken, Northeastern University
Karen O'Brien, Northwestern University
Mary Felstiner, San Francisco State University
Max Page, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Timothy J. Meagher, Catholic University
John Fattal, Corunna Middle School
James Goodman, Rutgers University, Newark
Ryland Clarke, Collegiate School
Brad Schaedler, Sheridan College, Gillette Campus
Lisa Tendrich Frank, University of North Florida
Ira Chernus, University of Colorado
Robert R. King, Palisades Charter High School
Stacey Robertson, Bradley University
Laura Kennelly, Independent Scholar
Donn Hall, Indiana Vocational Technical State College
J.W.Smurr, California State University, Stanislaus
Andrew Frank, California State University, Los Angeles
Don H. Doyle, Vanderbilt University
E. Richard Hart, Independent Historian


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Richard Rongstad - 3/14/2005

Mike Palmer, that's very quotable. Someday I'm going to sit down and compare the signature list of the Gang of 1300 with the list of signatories from Gang of 400 (self-anointed "Historians in Defense of the Constitution"). Sean Wilentz and Jack Rakove are on both lists, and I'm confident I'll find many more matches.


Richard Rongstad - 3/14/2005

Illoyna Sotack, I think your comparison of the 2003 invasion of Iraq to "Polk's War" is premature.


nisya s ab - 8/6/2004

hey nicole.
i was wondering if you can help me. i m writng an essay on hitler and i m trying to find resources on the positive side of the Nazi but my search hasnt been very promising. i hope you can help. thanks


Bill Cheadle - 11/14/2003

If you know anything about history, surly you know this is not "another undeclared" war on Iraq. It's one this to be in opposition to what's going on, but at least try to use as credible a rhetoric as you can muster. This crap weighs less than helium...


Bill Cheadle - 11/14/2003

Too bad you couldn't say the same back in 1945.


Bill Cheadle - 11/14/2003

Civil debate! But it's ok to refer to the President of the United States as the anti crist, or "nazi vermin"? This charcater is twisted - just (try to) read through his ramblings. But he has every right to display them in any forum that will have them. And this is one of the few that will. But I certainly - or should without interference or censorship - have the right to respond in kind, and at his level if I so choose. But my reference to this vermin as "sick and twisted" does not approach the level of his insipid comments with regard to our government and duly (for once, read the Supreme Court decision, and check out the liberal biased re-count results) elected public servants.

I guess the worst fears of Middle America are coming true - free speach is dead within the PC controled confines of our educational institutions.

You people don't want debate - civil or otherwise. You don't want to hear anybody tell you how wrong you are. You know you're out of step with the mainstream of our soceity. But you're too arrogant and pompous to entertain the possiblity that you might be wrong. So you choose to censor. And when you can't do that, you attack with petty insults, name calling and innuendo. You have no truths, so lies will have to do. And one of you is above that tactic.


B. Cheadle - 11/13/2003

Don't you mean thanks from a by-stander - again!


B. Cheadle - 11/13/2003

Editor: THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT DOES NOT MEET HNN'S STANDARDS OF CIVIL DEBATE AS OUTLINED HERE:

http://hnn.us/articles/982.html#civil


B. Cheadle - 11/13/2003

The problem with the "new left" is that the only thing you are for is to be against anything the mainstream of Americca is for. A negative adgenda can't possibly yield anything positive. Try contributing instead of tearing down for a change. And lose the name calling. It's not only childish, it's mean spirited - something the left has accused the right of for years.

The thought processes that exercise would cause might help you finally realize that moving forward for the betterment of all takes sacrifice, risk and hsrd work - attributes too many in the academic community are unfamiliar with...


B. Cheadle - 11/13/2003

I notice your not quoting the Article in its entirety...


B. Cheadle - 11/13/2003

here we go again - so called intellectuals. Anybody remember that we had a vote? And I don't recall seeing any of your names on a petition asking to be sent to Iraq to take the place of an Iraqi citizen before the war started. But no, you arrogant bastards think they should live in fear and oppression while we enjoy the rights, freedoms, privileges and wealth that past conflict and sacrifice has brought us. Does it matter to any of you limousine liberals that the majority of Iraquis want us there and appreciate the sacrifices we've made in their behalf. Or is name calling and spreading lies the only topic of concern in your pathetic tiny worlds.


Wayne L. Parker - 6/22/2003

Howard Zinn is intentionally misleading people into believing the Founders set up a system of exploitation. His book and his claims are hogwash and he knows it. The Founders recognized that a pure democracy was not workable because the people ARE easily misled. However, they also knew of the obvious dangers of an aristocracy. This is why we originally had an "aristocratic" Senate, selected by the relatively wealthy people in the state legislatures, and the democratically elected House. In a speech during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated, "In every community where industry is encouraged, there will be a division of it into the few and the many. Hence separate interests will arise. There will be debtors and creditors etc. Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself against the other."

Howard Zinn's book "A Peoples History...." does not reference a single original source; but instead references a bunch of articles and books written by people who agree with him. If someone who shares my political views ever wrote such a monstrosity, I'd see to it that he was made to eat every published copy of it. Our nation suffers today because we now DO operate as a democracy. Both the House and Senate are elected by popular vote, and the Electoral College is so perverted that it simply reflects the popular will in each state. All that is left is to influence public opinion (or, more likely, inflame public passions). This is how we just fought a war in Iraq. Marx and Engels stated that communists should strive to "win the battle of democracy." Well, they first had to make our country a democracy; and they've succeeded.


boblett - 3/31/2003

what is this shit why do u say this i carnt beleive this u lie i hope u go to hell for writing this


nicole - 3/26/2003

i am interested in wrting a pro hitler essay and i am intreged that other people may feel that he was not all to blame. i dont agree with what he did but i dont think that hes all at fault.


Howard N Meyer - 3/10/2003

ADD: To wage war without U N Security Council's authority would violate U N Charter which is a Treaty entitled to be complied with under U S Constitution Article VI "treaties...are supreme Law of the Land."


nekka - 3/6/2003

salut ca va


Meredith - 2/24/2003

hi johnny,
i haven't finished all of what you wrote,but what i did read definitely caught my eye. i came to this website because a friend of mine and I are currently organizing a "teach-in" similar to the ones in the sixties. we are looking for people who are knowledgeable about the possible war with Iraq,who might want to speak and inform the public. If you are interested, or want more information, please let me know. Thankyou very much.
peace~ meredith miller


M. Sheila Rabaut - 2/23/2003

We have a reformed alchoholic, born again Christian President with a need to prove to his father that the father was wrong staffed by.......need I say more.


Sheona - 2/22/2003

If you are against the war, visit http://www.angelfire.com/weird/bluemoon/petition.html
Sign the e-petition against war on Iraq!


Fred Alpine - 2/7/2003

Free the Iraqi people! Topple Saddam!


maria - 2/3/2003

i need information on the good of anti-war


pat sankpal - 1/24/2003

The absence of referencing the Clinton/Gore positions on Iraq is even more amazing today as critics grow louder against Bush. Many of the same voices that supported a strong policy back then.


Ingrid Willhoft - 1/23/2003

Glad to read your comment. Keep it up. At least we now know what you are doing these days. Ingrid


Fabrice Cognet - 1/10/2003

Best regards from France


Jesse E. Worley, II - 12/22/2002

Mr. Horowitz,
I suppose that you desire a history profession that would blindly follow, have no opinion (except one that is acceptable to you), and does not have moral or ethical values and beliefs. Sorry the last time I checked I was a human being that was endowed with critical thinking abilites and in possession of certain moral and ethical beliefs that do not meet your acceptance. Granted I am a graduate student but I am annoyed with people on the right that seem to think the only view of history and the only point of view that is acceptable is the one they possess. If you oppose this petition, then I suggest you organize a counter petition that states your goal. But, Mr. Horowitz, do not demean others for their beliefs. That is beneath even you. Your ideal of a society that marches together toward the same goal, sounds rather like the USSR, not the United States. While I admit some of the views here I personally disagree with, I can not help but admire these historians for expressing them. If you desire a regimented society, I am sure you can find an island and institute your ideal. If you can find enough stupid people to blindly follow you.
Jesse E. Worley, II


Jesse E. Worley, II - 12/22/2002

Dr. Palmer,
I never figured you would want to give that much back.


Chris - 12/13/2002

You are all sick. How would you feel if you knew that tomorrow that Iraq was going to send over a nuke. You were all sitting around, like pansies, worrying about something George Bush. You are all ignoring the issue at hand. Our nation is threatened by this Iraqi force, who have in their grasps biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.


Chris - 12/13/2002

You are the coolest. Do these peace loving liberals not realize that president Bush is protecting us? Theses terrorists (terrorists!) have biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. They are a threat to our nation, and must be stopped.


chris robling - 11/20/2002

what is the reaction of the authors of the document to: a) the mid-term election results, b) congressional passage of authority for president bush to use force if necessary in iraq and c) unanimous support from the UNSC for a new resolution? is anyone satisfied that appropriate steps have been taken?


Joseph A. Palermo - 10/31/2002

I remember not too long ago when David Horowitz (who has written the same worthless autobiographical book five or six times now), was so terrified of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and the FMLN in El Salvador that he was out cheerleading for a "covert" war of terror against them that was condemned by the world court. Now, he when he isn't running around college campuses baiting African American students with veiled attacks, he has the nerve to cast his awesome judgment on the historical profession for expressing its concern about preemptive military attacks, war and peace. Mr. Horowitz, would you be willing to send your son to die in Iraq?


Joseph A. Palermo - 10/31/2002

Thank you for your sentiments, I couldn't agree more, RFK's speech of Febraury 8, 1968 about the Vietnam War stands as the most eloquent statement for peace by any public figure in the United States in the 1960s -- historians who are not familiar with RFK freeze him in 1962 when he was over-zealous about Castro and ignore the rest of his adult life, particularly 1965-68 when he became a tribune of the underclass. Please see my book, In His Own Right (Columbia, 2001).


Joseph A. Palermo - 10/31/2002

Well, if one freezes RFK in time to 1962, sure, he was a "hawk" -- but check out his speeches on the Vietnam War, March 2, 1967 and February 8, 1968, and then tell me if you think he's a hawk. You can find them in my book, In His Own Right (Columbia, 2001)


Johnny Wizard - 10/28/2002


Is Enron Behind The War In Afghanistan?
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

--
Look, American soldier..

You now should know, bush and rumsfeld murdered
Americans in New York City, and as consequence, have no
interest in acknowledging as pursued the criminal
investigations. CNN holds no responsibility, as we
witness repeatedly, to American soldiers, but to harbor
those who pirate our rights to openly steal real lives.
If bush makes no mention of himself stealing 50 billion
dollars, murdering American police officers, sabotaging
the weapons inspections process, funding israeli
atrocities against the God loving, and warring our world
as the anti-Christ by running death squads against the
innocent, well, CNN, the american success, sure ain't
gonna be speaking out for your stolen freedoms dying
comrads. For what benefit in market share would there
be to work for your living, dirt bagged? CNN is so
colorfully excited about selling the glossy bush war to
kill the poor stupid people, but for what american
fascist weak binded bushmobbed soldier without
principles? Again, how stupidly dunce does a poor
cowardly american soldier have to be to not believe?
Nobody but a cult corporatized illiterate fascist nazi
vermin parasite, just like Jew hater ariel sharon would
support the murder of American soldiers for a criminal
conflict that doesn't serve to protect. But if it, as
bush nazi evil does with little struggle over the masses
complaining, and america marches off to criminally war
the third world as the bad guys, our World, indeed this
Universe will then know the absolute true cowardice of
american soldiers, as premised upon the weakness of
america's army to not uphold America's own rule of Law
for freedom as themselves included. It only takes One
Soldier to turn this tide to destroy bush Jr., and that
Soldier is where in America partner? Who American
soldier, do you think bush as traitor does steal from as
the duped General public as corporately represented to
be unawares? Do american soldiers have to convince
themselves their families are not worth fighting for,
and instead, lay their lives down in sacrifice to the
bush demon who would also steal from their graves as the
lifeless to speak out for themselves ever? Ever? Did
you know American Soldier, the Pentagon, after receiving
complaints from surviving soldier families, (some of
like the over a thousand documented American troops
slaughtered in Afghanistan) that taps wasn't being
played because of so little real talent present in
american military affairs, and that now, when a cowardly
American nazi soldier dies for the bushmob, the mock
national guard will hold a horn to his lips and act out
the part to your grieving as stolen from family, while
secretly pressing a hidden button, that will play a
cheaper recording? But shhhh...

The fact that you don't see this post, or others nearly
like it at american military internet sites, exemplifies
their fear and weakness to stand as a force worth
reconing with. (Look, we destroy bush and rumsfeld,
stop funding the drug trade and sharon, and begin the
public trials, all in three simple steps.) No, to be an
american soldier in bush's america today, you have to
hide from your cowardice like the 9/11 evidence, and be
something corporate news america is not. Involved.
Just go ahead and die for nothing american soldier, but
for to be unaccounted as hidden without value, while the
bushmob robs from your grand parents as unprotected.
Tis' true it does further seem, american soldiers, on
general terms, are super dumb ass nazi scums, who hold
little of no conviction to protect the America I
remember. Why? Because the unelected war criminal,
American traitor, mass murderer, cop killer bush is
still spewing his blind hatred for the progress of our
civilizations, instilled through law as a function to
gain justice for people. People who are suffering and
dying for bush's contempt for the American dream.

Destroy traitor bush and rumsfeld for escaping to
recommit murder today, and be actually caring for your
world tomorrow, or not, and deem yourself unworthy by
your own admission to play fair as the eternal standing
proud, strong, and free.

Free to be living justly for yourself
truly as caring to know this as everything.

Whew...

Now, how about the Koran?


Johnny Wizard

--
Christ I'm Actually Rising!

Destroy the traitors to our humanity, the unelected
lawless dictator Mr. bush, and rotten rumsfeld the
sadistic savage now American Patriot Soldiers. Stand up
for your country, and live for your family. The
corporate TV news professionals show you, as an American
Soldier a concern for your life as unworthy of
discussion, actively censoring the political reality on
bush's america, while encouraging soldiers to commit
crimes against our being, by keeping us all uninformed
as the sacrificial sheeple. The bushmob have actively
worked to not arrest themselves for 9/11, and in so
doing, are purposefully ignoring the public evidence
that is freely available. Mr. Tenant and Mueller would
have you believe the officers of America, who have
completed the criminal investigations outlining the cop
killer bush, are unworthy as American Patriots serving
the cause for freedom and liberty to not be publicly
acknowledged, while blaming Laden for every terrorist
crime that happens before an police investigation even
begins! See? Evil deceived. What do you think? Is
not a list of all supporters of the bushmob in Congress,
who voted to dismantle the Constitution, and wage a
criminal war, as without just cause to murder Soldier
families for stolen Human values, a good list to be
broadcast? Or shall we sit in doubt while these
talentless demon monsters murder millions of US as
innocent cowards? Who isn't a freedom fighting al-Qaida
member according to the evil tommy franks dum fuk's
conclusion? How stupid can an American Soldier be, to
be asked by rumsfeld and CNN, to destroy their own
principles, and to sacrifice their lives for such
cowardice in whoreship to the evil dictates of the
anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush Jr.? And, to the still
groggy, without the payoffs of corporate america's holy
Larry King even!, or the anti-semitic fascist Saturday
Night Live troop to boot your stupid carcass to the
front line as entertainment? BA HA HA HA (like SNL's
new, it's all so hillarious audience, paid for likely
because the degrading intolerant bigoted news crew, have
so little real talent performing to the robbed and dying
to be devalued and murdered by their inaction to even
joke about it. Why? No money in contributing to the
poor stupid people without TV contracts, or TVs,
electicity, or running water now that the clouds are
being privatized.) $155,000 is the base pay of bush's
now anti-American criminal congressmen, and that's
before corporate bribes, oops, I mean corporate BRIBES
to urge YOUR "willed" sacrifice in corporate america's
"democracy", now that bush's america is convinced
evidence is no longer a requirement to convince US, who
is truly an evil doer, or who actually wins elections on
behalf of the People. You ask yourself, again, who are
you dying for American Patriot Soldier? Know that this
paper, like all the rest, will reach the CNN and Coast
to Coast network staff under one name or another, and
yet, they'll continue to turn against the interests of
American soldiers by not addressing our present top
priority concerns regarding the facts on your schedule
for departure. Only broadcasting the popular, bush
contempt for all American lives as too much trouble, as
unworthy the free time to openly discuss things before
"they" die, all those nasty evil powerless People. I
dare you American, to be a Soldier and email this to
your brothers and sisters, to convince them with tough
Love, how you wouldn't want to see them die unjustly for
Mr. bush Jr., Art Bell, or even me as the Wizard. Or
spew instead, how you would as a traitor to yourself,
your family, your country, and God too, sacrifice your
worthless self as unfactored, but for to be a pitiful
coward, falling to die by your own sword on stupid evil
bush's corporate command over your rights to be
represented fairly. Be your own Saviour!

Big G is cool, or not. You decide Holy.

The truly most as the living god King of all as Creator,
your servant and trying to be friend, a wizard and Thor,
the Secret Flower and Odin, Allah, Omega, Adam, Alpha,
Krishna, Shiva, Mithra, Mahdi, Anu and Yahweh. And even
a blade of grass, a snake and a elephant, a lion, rat,
monkey, giraffe, spider, shark, wolf, and bat, Lucifer
Morningstar, Jesus Christ, Oberon, an all mighty nobody
kinda even all ready.

P.S. Don't miss the awesome magic Johnny Wizard papers,
"Let Love Rule", or "Strange is Strange", slowly now
disappearing from your nearest search engine dealer!
Get your free copy now, before they're all gone to the
slave owners who truly have know power anyway...
Weee!!!

Johnny Wizard

copvcia.com
whatreallyhappened.com
tenc.net
globalresearch.ca

--

George Bush Plans High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
Why We Are Marching on October 26th

By Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard

The authors, attorneys and co-founders of the
Partnership for Civil Justice ~ LDEF, are members of the
national steering committee of the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act
Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition

George W. Bush has declared his intention to wage a
"preemptive" war against Iraq and is now seeking to
strong-arm the international community, the U.N., and
the Congress into support and submission. As members of
Congress rush to show their obedience and member states
of the U.N. line up to receive the anticipated spoils
of war, the administration is now waging a campaign to
convince the people of the United States to fall into
step and finance with money and blood this war brought
for conquest on behalf of the corporate and oil
interests that make up Bush's true constituency.

Bush's preemptive war is a war of aggression. The U.S.
policy supporting the war is not the rule of law, but
the rule of force.

But no U.N. resolution and no Congressional resolution
can legalize an illegal war. With pen to paper and
votes of support, they can only commit to wilful
ratification, complicity and responsibility for illegal
acts by endorsing a criminal enterprise.

A war of aggression violates the United States
Constitution, the United Nations Charter, and the
principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal. It violates the
collective law of humanity that recognizes the
immeasurable harm and unconscionable human suffering
when a country engages in wars of aggression to advance
its government's perceived national interests.

The National Security Strategy: Blueprint for Global
Empire

On September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration issued
its blueprint for global domination and ceaseless
military interventions, in its comprehensive policy
statement entitled "The National Security Strategy of
the United States."

The National Security Strategy sets forth the U.S.
military-industrial complex's ambition for the U.S. to
remain the world's superpower with global political,
economic and military dominance. The stated policy of
the U.S. is "dissuading military competition"1 and
preventing any other world entity or union of states
"from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of
surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United
States."2

The strategic plan elevates free trade and free markets
to be "a moral principle. . . real freedom"3 and
endorses a comprehensive global conquest strategy
utilizing the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade
Act of the Americas, the International Monetary Fund,
the World Bank, among other mechanisms.

The Washington Post reports that the National Security
Strategy gives the United States "a nearly messianic
role" in its quest for global dominance.4

The National Security Strategy confirms and elaborates
what was reflected in the January 2002 Nuclear Posture
Review, that the Bush Administration maintains a policy
of preemptive warfare contemplating the use of
non-conventional weapons of mass destruction as a first
strike measure.5

Turning Logic on Its Head

Bush's preemptive war policy is a war without just
cause. Under international law and centuries of common
legal usage, a preemptive war may be justified as an act
of self defense only where there exists a genuine and
imminent threat of physical attack.

Bush's preemptive war against Iraq doesn't even purport
to preempt a physical attack. It purports to preempt a
threat that is neither issued nor posed. Iraq is not
issuing threats of attack against the United States. It
is only the United States which threatens war.

It is not a war for disarmament. It is the U.S. which
has stockpiled nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
It is the U.S. which is directly threatening to use
these weapons against another country. It is the U.S.
which has bombed Iraq relentlessly for more than ten
years, killing scores of innocent civilians.

The Bush Administration turns logic on its head,
twisting reality in order to create the pretext for its
war of aggression. The Administration claims that the
necessary prerequisite of an imminent threat of attack
can be found in the fact that there is no evidence of an
imminent threat, and therefore the threat is even more
sinister as a hidden threat. The lack of a threat
becomes the threat, which becomes cause for war.

By the U.S. Government's own claims, it destroyed 80%
of Iraq's weapons capability in the earlier Gulf War,
and subsequently destroyed 90% of the remaining capacity
through the weapons inspections process. There has been
no evidence that Iraq is capable of an attack on the
U.S., let alone possessing the intention of carrying out
such an attack.

Bush's Proposed War and Current Threats Violate the U.S.
Constitution, the U.N. Charter and International Law

Bush's preemptive war policy and proposed attack on Iraq
cannot be justified under any form of established law.

The preemptive war policy and Bush's threatened new
military assault on Iraq violates U.S. domestic law and
international law. The warmongering, preparations for
war, and threats of violence coming from Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Rice and other White House and Pentagon hawks,
are in and of themselves violations of international law
and constitute crimes against peace.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that
ratified treaties, such as the U.N. Charter, are the
"supreme law of the land."

The Article 1 of the U.N. Charter establishes



"The purposes of the United Nations are. . . To
maintain international peace and sovereignty, and to
that end: to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removals of threats to the peace, and for
the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches
of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and
in conformity with the principles of justice and
international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to
a breach of the peace. . . ."

Article 2 states that all member states "shall act in
accordance with the following Principles"

"...All members shall settle their international
disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered.

"All members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations...."

Under this framework, acts of aggression, such as Bush's
threatened attack, are to be suppressed and force is
used only as a last and unavoidable resort.

The U.N. Charter was enacted in 1945 in the aftermath
of the devastation and suffering of World War II. The
Charter was enacted to bring an end to acts of
aggression, "to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought
untold sorrow to mankind."

Disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace are
required to be resolved by peaceful means.

Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, "Pacific Settlement of
Disputes," requires countries to "first of all, seek a
resolution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort
to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful
means of their own choice."

No Resolution by the U.N. Security Council can Legalize
a Preemptive War or First Strike Plan

Bush has asked the U.N. Security Council to support
execution of Bush's policy of a potentially nuclear
"preemptive" war, as if that Council could endorse a war
of aggression. The Security Council lacks the legal
authority to grant such permission. The Security
Council, by affirmative vote or by acquiescence to U.S.
policy, cannot abrogate its own mandate. No collective
action by the fifteen permanent and temporary members of
the Security Council can lawfully violate the Charter
which is the sole source of their collective authority.

This is made clear in the U.N. Charter itself, which
provides in Article 24, that "In discharging these
duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with
the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."

While there are, of course, procedures by which
collective use of force may be authorized by the
Security Council to maintain or restore international
peace and security (Articles 41 and 42) those procedures
may not be used to endorse aggression in violation of
the primary purposes of the U.N. Charter. Article 51
of the U.N. Charter acknowledges the right to
self-defense "if an armed attack occurs against a Member
of the United Nations until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace
and security." None of the provisions allow for
authorization for Bush's war plans and first strike
strategies. Any resolution authorizing a preemptive war
of aggression is ultra vires, or null and void as beyond
the authority of the Council to enact.

The very issuance of the Bush doctrine of preemptive
warfare and also the threat to wage war against Iraq
are, each, a violation of international law as a crime
against peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter
as the "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a
war of aggression or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances."

Responsibility for War Crimes

Neither Congress nor the President has the right to
engage the U.S. in a war of aggression and any vote of
endorsement, far from legalizing or legitimizing global
war plans, serves only as ratification of war crimes.
Under the principles of universal accountability
established at Nuremberg, "The fact that a person who
committed an act which constitutes a crime under
international law acted as Head of State or responsible
Government official does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law."6

The execution of economic sanctions by the Bush I, Bush
II and Clinton Administrations, which has caused the
deaths of over one million people, primarily children
and their grandparents, is likewise sanctionable as a
crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter and
under the International Criminal Court Statute as "the
intentional infliction of conditions of life,. . .
the deprivation of access of food to medicine,
calculated to bring about the destruction of a part of a
population."7

The Bush Administration has rejected the International
Criminal Court treaty signed by over 130 countries.
This rejection is an admission of the administration's
consciousness of guilt and of criminal intentions. The
Bush administration acts with a conscious disregard of
humanitarian laws and a stated intention to avoid
accountability for their crimes under international law
prohibiting crimes against the peace, war crimes and
crimes against humanity. The National Security Strategy
promulgated by the Bush administration states that the
United States "will take the actions necessary to ensure
that our efforts to meet our global security commitments
and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential
for investigations, inquiry or prosecution by the
International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction
does not extend to Americans and which we do not
accept."8

Endless War, Aggression and Terror

Once this policy of preemptive wars of aggression is
invoked by the Bush Administration to justify unprovoked
attacks against the centers of population in Iraq, the
doctrine will be used by the hawks in the administration
time and time again, and will also be adopted by nations
and individuals internationally as a justification for
the preemptive use of catastrophic violence against
centers of population worldwide. The legitimization of
preemptive wars of aggression will be used to justify
attacks against U.S. centers of population, and will
bring greater violent retribution upon the cities and
people of the United States for actions that the
government is taking in their names, without their
informed consent.

The risk of suffering harm because of this doctrine is,
of course, not distributed equally among all residents
of the United States. Those who will lose their lives
fighting in wars of aggression will be the young,
disproportionately persons of color, and those who must
enlist in the U.S. military because of bleak economic
opportunity. Those who derive their wealth and security
from the transactions of war, from increased oil profits
caused by global instability or conquest of oil rich
regions, and from the constant re-building and re-arming
necessary to conduct endless wars against countless
peoples premised on imperceptible threats - - they will
have the means to acquire seclusion, protection and
greater safety.

Preemptive war will not stop with Iraq. Constant
military interventions worldwide are necessary to
enforce Bush's stated policy of global economic,
political and military domination. Just four days after
the September 11th attacks, the CIA presented its
"Worldwide Attack Matrix" identifying scores of
countries that the CIA wanted permission to attack.
Bush approved the CIA wish list, and authorized
immediate covert and lethal CIA operations in over sixty
nations.9

Taking to the Streets

As the U.S. moves at breakneck pace in execution of its
stated policy of global domination and over military
interventions, the need for the people to take action is
urgent.

Congress will not stop this policy of aggressive warfare
and global domination. Many in Congress are well served
with the tithing of the war profiteers and their
corporate sponsors who see U.S. military domination as
a way to enforce their interests, to exploit human labor
at starvation wages overseas and to drive down wages
domestically, to mine vast sources of environmental
resources globally, and to impose and expand the reach
of their "free" markets.

The U.S. Constitutional framework provides that,
regardless of who temporarily holds office, all power
remains in the hands of the people. It is time now for
the people to take the reins of power back from those
who have stated their intention to act in violation of
all laws that humankind has struggled to create to end
global conflagration and prohibit wars of aggression.

When law will not restrain the government, the people
must. We must take to the streets in mass numbers in
organized and spontaneous acts of resistance. The
message must be clearly conveyed that if the Bush
administration refuses to be accountable to U.S.
domestic law, to the U.N. Charter, to international
law, to all known standards of just conduct, then the
people of conscience within the United States will rise
up to demand accountability. And the message must be
sent that the people of the U.S. will not allow the
Bush administration to spend the blood of the people of
the United States and the people of Iraq who are not our
enemies, in a needless war for oil.

September, 2002

The authors, Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard,
constitutional law and human rights lawyers, are the
co-founders of the Partnership for Civil Justice Legal
Defense and Education Fund, a public interest legal
organization in Washington, D.C., and authors of the
forthcoming book "Empire at Home: George W. Bush and
John Ashcroft v. the Bill of Rights"

http://www.civil-rights.net

--

My Divine Right

Destroy bush and rumsfeld now American Patriot soldiers,
fire fighters, and NRA members. We all notice CNN and
CBC management refuse to allow open discussions on the
documented facts outlining the cop killers, bush and
rumsfeld treasonous behavior against the great American
people, deliberately forestalling their criminal arrests
for the mass murders of US as innocent in America. (Or
even the recent broken elections in Florida.) Again, I
repeat, I've spoken to corporate cult Americans, Leon
Harris, Bill Hemmer, Daryn Kagan, Sid Beddington, and
Walter Issacson, just to name a few at CNN. All
forementioned cowards, who would watch Americans be
robbed and murdered, and do nothing to protect
ourselves, are personally aware the bushmob was warned
of the terrorist plot specifically, the fact that Laden
investigations were blocked by the WhiteHouse, while the
bushmob in Enron interests, developed a war plan with
General Ahmad to invade Afghanistan, for an oil pipe line
on a premise of blaming Laden for whatever without
evidence as US innocent, a documented truth that existed
also just prior to 9/11, a strategy confessed to fully
implemented, demanding the bushmob not follow the
criminal leads, that point to themselves as traitors.
Like the bad bush act on 9/11. (emperors-clothes.com) No
arguments are given against what I have spoken on, nor
am I even being adressed by our corporate standards as
inter-nationally responsible. Why? Largely, because, we
are adressing what is as documented to be true,
irrespective of ourselves as opinion, Justice infinite
as indivisable, like the stars in the sky, while the
corporate news machine is refusing to be our own as
legit. Mr. bush, the anti-Christ, and rumsfeld did
9/11 to kill ourselves to steal Constitutional American
values, with their silence only further implicating
themselves to the doubters. Neat eh? (I'm also playing
the Creator, who just wants to be at peace with
ourselves as equals.) As for Iraq, it was the American
administration that removed the inspectors from doing
their, going very successful job, not Saddam, while the
corporate media continues to allow cheney, the evil nazi
fascist bassturd, to keep intentionally lying to American
soldiers regarding the facts, like US Air Force
Response, so the bush regime can throw away their lives
as worthless, without meaning. (Agreed, on general
terms, American soldiers are deeply ignorant and
cowardly as cheney continually attests, but they are
still preparing for death, and I understand many can
read human, and haven't been hiding in a undisclosed
location without a television, or newspaper these last
few months.) The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs, found corporate America sold Iraq
anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and
botulism, right up until March 1992, on hopes
apparently, to risk further American soldier
causalities, who were at that present time engaged in
battle with poisoning themselves mostly. 250,000 troops
are planned to criminally invade YOUR humanity, against
now near SIXTY countries, representing around
2,083,093,468 people and counting, (that also includes
freedom fighters, bikers, the Mob, and Jack), US,
clearly aware of bush and tommy franks nazi plans, like
in Afghanistan. To kill indiscriminately, while running
death squads murdering innocent families, including your
children. As for Saddam gassing the two guerilla groups
called Kurds, who were fighting to murder in a war on
behalf of Iran in 1988, labeled by American murdering
nazi savage bush, Saddam's "own people", here is what
the most definitive document on the issue states. It's
a 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the
invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C.
Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R.
Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the
U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

...

Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East

Excerpt, Chapter 5

U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we
find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas
was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims
produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds
-- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover
any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests
solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into
Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.

We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the
Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the
sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at
least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24
hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will
be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of
Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a
bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that
died before adjournment).

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was
influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in
another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at
Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many
deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated
in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack,
even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used
chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the
Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

From another American government report:

"Blood agents [i.e., cyanogen chloride] were allegedly
responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in
the war--the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the
Iraqis have no history of using these two agents--and
the Iranians do--we conclude that the Iranians
perpetrated this attack."

--

The New York Times reported on corporate America's war
project SHAD, where during the Vietnam war, 4000 U.S.
sailors were gassed deliberately by Republicans with
gruesome biological toxins, including sarin.

As for proving that something is not secretly hidden by
a nation as millions.. practically impossible! You
can't ever conclusively prove that something isn't
secretly hidden from perception by variables
admittingly, unknowable. (For whom would be there to
secretly watch the watchers?) When, and under what
madness of bush tyranny as enslavement of our human
species, would anyone be able to try standing up in Iraq
or elsewheres and state, there is no Anthrax anywhere
hidden secretly to kill bush, the false deity super evil
anti-Christ with? Never I declare as the Son of Man,
will evil bush escape the wrath of our fury as this
Universe is, however, it is the supporters of bush's
irrationality with our poltical will unchallenged by
corporate standards, as these nazi monster, lawless
American cop killers wish to use to terrorize 60 nations
of almost 2 billion innocents without any evidence with.
With an intent to use a paultry 250,000 criminal nazi
soldiers mindlessly stupid on drugs probably, while
corporate America won't give anyone two minutes
nationally to speak on the clear strong factual evidence
implicating bush and rumsfeld for murdering over 3,000
AMERICAN flag wavers in Yew York City? Destroy American
traitor bush now!!! The sanctions against the poorest
of poor in Iraq are also irrational. The Republicans
state the innocent people of Iraq must be denied food
and medicine to starve and die because, they are
practically politically powerless to change their state
to be attacked as the unrepresented, while stating
Saddam, if he could, wouldn't help them survive as a
nation as the Republican justification to terrorize
millions, while cheney skirts U.N. sanctions to sell
Saddam whatever supplies privately in secret? So the
suffering of Iraqis, is rightly attributed on American
terrorist activity by all Iraqis, as the direct cause,
working directly against the Republicans publicly stated
purpose to commit such criminal intent. Example: If a
well spoken father who may not like the policies of
Saddam should go to the hospital with his child, he is
told the bush clan wish his family death and suffering
by American will for being born to our world in Iraq as
human. The oil for food program however, is
intelligently based, but it's purpose is defeated with
the Republican atrocities to blindly murder US with.
The demands for the betterment of the Iraq people
through national oil sales, would make sense, if they
weren't directly suffering under assault by the same
terrorist network cancer cell that denies themselves
inalienable rights to life as our own. Like
pathetically weak as unrepresented American cowardly
soldiers, who were provided no evidence to back up the
evil bushmob's criminal allegations, then went murdering
tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan on
the brink of starvation, instead of killing the
documented child killer, heroin pusher, tommy franks, or
bush and rumsfeld for 9/11 in America. Just on bush's
behavior on the day in question, being left unreported
by CNN dictates, should say much to everyone.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers
told reporters at the National Press Club about Iraq's
enormous unknown stockpiles of !secret! corporate
american warfare weapons, "It does not take a lot of
space for some of this work to go on. It can be done in
a very, very small location," he said. "The fact that
you can put it on wheels makes it a lot easier to hide
from people who might be looking for it. So, yes we
have evidence." Evidence of what? Nations with trucks
should be nuked? Richard Myers is a nazi warmongering
irrational fukhead, who wishes the murder of countless
thousands, if not millions in AMERICA, who should be
fired today. You see the nazi bassturd, you fire him, do
you hear me People? AMERICA? Johnny...? Mr. Myers, your
fired!

--

While we now learn from public disclosures on Connie
Chung, apparently, George Tenant, had only 3 CIA officers
investigating Laden just prior to 9/11. While I
remember last year it was alledged on PBS, the CIA had
taxed the American public nearly 10 billion on those
investigations regarding Laden over the previous year,
but, hmmm, bush forbade police agencies, the pursuit of
such investigations with his secret W199i directive.
Guardian Wednesday 7, 2001 - "FBI claims bin Laden
inquiry was frustrated"

George Tenant must be questioned on these matters, and
his relationship to General Ahmad, then arrested
regarding his inaction on the insider stock traders for
9/11. If neither happen in a timely fashion, he too,
will be destroyed by US American Patriots for treason.

--

Excerpt From:

NY Newsday
U.S. Hypocritical on Human-Rights Abuses
by Marie Cocco

...
America's new business partner, Uzbekistan's president
is brutal, and very bad.

The State Department human rights report says the former
Soviet republic now "is an authoritarian state with
limited civil rights ... Both police and the
National Security Services routinely tortured, beat and
otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions ...
Police also used suffocation, electric shock, rape
and other sexual abuse. Neither the severity nor
frequency of torture appeared to have decreased during
the year."

What increased was American aid. It tripled to $160
million, the payoff for allowing U.S. military staging
areas for the war in neighboring Afghanistan. President
Islam Karimov was welcomed to the White House. In July,
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill traveled to Tashkent and
praised Karimov's "efficient leadership."

Bush has singled out one despot for removal.

He says he has many reasons for invading Iraq. Without
a look at some secret new evidence the administration
may or may not have about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, it
is not possible to find truth. That is how the White
House wants it.
--
From a smart thinking, great commenting archive
sifting site somewhere titled,

Print Think

...
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
By Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and
his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime
change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global
Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W
Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The
document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the
neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.

(snip)

The PNAC report also:

(snip)

- hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of
mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which
the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack
-- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ...
combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and
perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that
can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool'

--

Now, as for the corporate world telling US, we believe
Laden is guity without evidence: A reasonable person
doesn't have the justification to believe the
unsubstantiated verdict. This is why the fascists at
CNN propagandized, TERRORIZED, the American public by
falsely alledging that Laden threatened to nuke America,
or that he stated to murder any or all Americans like a
bush would. Laden, like Saddam, or Arafat never was
actually quoted to be that ignorantly stupid as a leader
trying to communicate to the People, but for by CNN, and the
sharon types regarding "Palestinians", as a lie to
themselves to excuse their responsibility to ourselves
as the humans. But EVEN IF TRUE, wouldn't make Laden
responsible for every wrong doings the bushmob was
actually responsible for, like robbing all Americans of
their livelyhoods, unreported by CNN of course, to leave
ourselves to fall victim by the bush regime as shysters
pirating America, by shredding the Holy Constitution.
However, Laden has skated near with the label "Jew", to
be of the criminal, intolerant, offensive, fascist,
bigoted jewish Israeli government, that imprisons or
murders real Jews for being JUST that. Rabbi Hillel
would be jailed by sharon in the israel of today. Wise
Muhammad teachings cover this dumb Jew Christian thing
well, as us all suffering by the illiterate evil
dumbfuks who ignore ourselves, to steal our established
values, while CNN, like Art Bell, forbids debate on
their irrational falsehoods, refusing to protect the
FBI, or the American flag through practicing censorship,
while advocating murder, as Art Bell, the traitor, does
almost daily, while hanging up every human caller.
Next, CNN will be blaming ALL the poor and starving in
the third world, for secret Pentagon frauds through
the removal of the False Claims Act. As, the American nation
contributes the least to the world in aid, in relation
to the GNP. (The give and take.) 5 billion a month to
not feed, but murder innocent people in Afghanistan?
Destroy bush now, and be loved by all as God.

(snpd)
Public rebutals regarding my supreme stupidity are found
in alt.sercurity.terrorism.

Thanks friend,

Johnny Wizard

--
Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?

Look, Americans... You, as a individual, to escape the
wrath of hell, must find strength within yourselves to
protect America from Mr. bush's further criminal acts,
otherwise bush will easily have you all wiped out
really, as unworthy to join the Universal Nations peace
process. Murdering those understood to be innocent
without reason but for to rob from is just wrong, and
abdicating your rights as a living American to not
demand Justice for your own self as the nation, will
surely have all Americans pay the consequences for truly
being so. God, who is kidding who? You, as an
American, must find the will to preserve your own nation
from further bushmob atrocities, and not standing up
like corporate america portrays continually, while bush
tells us he is going to pirate American rights to
further rob and murder for the likes of Enron or
rumsfeld for decades, should to a real American, find
them looking for the quickest way to Washington. CNN is
not reporting on the reality of bush's crime wave, nor
is showing little responsibility to represent soldiers
lives as being risked for as worthless for the
anti-Christ. Again, the public evidence freely
available for 9/11 demands bush and rumsfeld be
immediately executed for escaping public trial, as the
prime suspects for the WTC terrorist act, and guilty as
war criminals completely for blaming Afghanistan without
evidence to substantiate their accusation. The Taliban
rule of Justice for Freedom, was, and is, the American
ideal. They though had some bad laws, that they were
communicative regarding, and had brought much needed as
good stability to the People, who would have told you,
like the State Department, but CNN's Walter Isaccson
forbids the truth to be broadcast. Destroy bush today
American Patriot Soldier, and be loved by your commrads
bush would see fall dead for dummy cowardice.


--
snpd
--

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'

Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday October 9, 2002
The Guardian

President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined
in a televised address to the nation on Monday night,
relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading
of the available US intelligence, government officials
and analysts claimed yesterday.

Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are
being put under intense pressure to produce reports
which back the administration's line, the Guardian has
learned. In response, some are complying, some are
resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into
high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of
unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among
analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the
CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.

In his address, the president reassured Americans that
military action was not "imminent or unavoidable", but
he made the most detailed case to date for the use of
force, should it become necessary.

But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime
were not supported by intelligence currently available
to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already
made by senior members of his administration that Iraq
has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes "for
gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for
nuclear weapons". The tubes were also mentioned by Tony
Blair in his dossier of evidence presented to parliament
last month.

However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and
centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to
be used for making conventional weapons.

"I would just say there is not much support for that
[nuclear] theory around here," said a department of
energy specialist.

David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons
inspector who was consulted on the purpose of the
aluminium tubes, said it was far from clear that the
tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.

Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and
International Security, a Washington thinktank, said:
"There's a catfight going on about this right now. On
one side you have most of the experts on gas
centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in
the CIA."

Mr Albright said sceptics at the energy department's
Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in California had
been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. He
quoted a colleague at the laboratory as saying: "The
administration can say what it wants and we are expected
to remain silent."

There is already considerable scepticism among US
intelligence officials about Mr Bush's claims of links
between Iraq and al-Qaida. In his speech on Monday, Mr
Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaida leader who
received medical treatment in Baghdad this year".

An intelligence source said the man the president was
referring to was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was arrested in
Jordan in 2001 for his part in the "millennium plot" to
bomb tourist sites there. He was subsequently released
and eventually made his way to Iraq in search of
treatment. However, intercepted telephone calls did not
mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.

There is also profound scepticism among US intelligence
experts about the president's claim that "Iraq has
trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and
deadly gases".

Bob Baer, a former CIA agent who tracked al-Qaida's
rise, said that there were contacts between Osama bin
Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early
1990s and in 1998: "But there is no evidence that a
strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of
any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the
United States."

A source familiar with the September 11 investigation
said: "The FBI has been pounded on to make this link."

In making his case on Monday, Mr Bush made a startling
claim that the Iraqi regime was developing drones, or
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which "could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad
areas".

"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using
these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," he
warned.

US military experts confirmed that Iraq had been
converting eastern European trainer jets, known as
L-29s, into drones, but said that with a maximum range
of a few hundred miles they were no threat to targets in
the US.

"It doesn't make any sense to me if he meant United
States territory," said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy
rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at
the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information.

Mr Cannistraro said the flow of intelligence to the top
levels of the administration had been deliberately
skewed by hawks at the Pentagon.

"CIA assessments are being put aside by the defence
department in favour of intelligence they are getting
from various Iraqi exiles," he said. "Machiavelli
warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that
is what is happening now."

------

Johnny Is Marching Home

So, you know cop killer bush has no evidence to back up
his allegations against Iraq, while Saddam repeatedly
offers Americans to come look anywhere, and nazi bush
refuses the offer, instead lies to all Americans through
corporate control as US being worthless without meaning,
without soul as himself, lacking purpose but for
destruction of our Humanity as unworthy to hear from.
Mr. bush tells US secretly, he wishes to sacrifice at
minimum, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in a
criminal war against our dying Planet, 60 countries,
without following evidence to substantiate his claimed
to be therefor super evil allegations, nor, will he
practice legal due process as a terrorist in Our names
by flying the American flag as a true Patriot would.
Destroy nazi bush and rumsfeld the traitors today, and
be loved by every American principle of Freedom, as
Justice for US all. Or be a lifeless coward to watch
the bushmob steal not only from our dumb dorky soldiers
to be wasted as sadistic murdering tommy frank savages,
to be not defenders of the faith or the hopes for a
better future, but also from our murdered sons and
daughters, who could have, at one day, understood the
principles of Freedom and Justice, present in the
forgotten American Constitution as worth fighting for to
be protected as ourselves always. Mr. bush the demon,
is not my false deity, as he is irrationally insisted by
the American corporate cult product schedule to be so.
CBC and CNN we all witness as Humanity daily, refuse to
ever cover the corporately mandated bushmob atrocities,
as documented facts that steal real lives. Our Mr.
bush Jr. has shown little of no concern for the living
people in Afghanistan left alone without an American
commitment to protect our lives, or feed their families,
now prepared to waste hundreds of billions against the
starving in Iraq over something planned close to thirty
years by criminal occupation. Their strategy, like in
Afghanistan, is to put worthless nazi slave soldiers on
the front oil pipe lines only, while murdering students
and teachers who would have suggested clean hydrogen is
practically free nazi dum fuk scums. You think if
Saddam was murdered, the rest of our Humanity the whole
world over, would allow like a cowardly corporate
american slave whore, Mr. bush, rumsfeld, and tommy
franks, to give all of the Iraqi resources, to the
murderous criminal thieving intolerant evil fascist
israeli government of nazi bigot human haters, without
objections from G of all beings? Holy Jewish Jihad
Jesus! We notice the corporate news agenda to rob from
US all, our commitment to human rights, is to never
inform our communities as publicly aware, that nazi
amerika, blocks food and medicine from ALL the Iraqi
people, but yet will afford our time to propagandize our
community with bushmob lies, left uncorrected. Has
Ramsey Clark ever been offered as a legitimate voice of
opposition, to clarify our positions? Does Ramsey Clark
speak untruths, like bush does to kill and plunder the
American People? You'd imagine, if CNN was truly
American, they would tell Americans importantly, bush
has no evidence to conclude OUR position, and murdered
thousands in New York City, while Saddam offers the
World to witness the falsehoods of the bushmob to come
see for ourselves, or just simply give some attention to
bush's true evilness he spouts as his own. The bushmob
is tirelessly working to undermine the UN peace effort,
by trying to suggest, if the World community should get
the weapon inspectors in before mindless nazi forces get
there to blindly murder and terrorize further, untold
thousands in Iraq, slave boy Powell wants inspectors to
include armed nazi soldiers, planes ready to bomb
civilian targets, and openly, secret spies to be
criminals! Something any legitimate inspector would
appose as a ridiculous proposal, undermining of the
peace initiative to be a Just cause, and the UN as an
INTERNATIONAL BODY. And, as so should, motivate wimp
ass Kofi to vocally detest on behalf of US people he
claims to represent as a living person. Europe reports
as human, while CNN as traitors to all of Humanity
refuse to offer the facts. CNN sees no responsibility
to protect America, or our soldiers as worthy the effort
to address their real concerns regarding Our... Godly
is Justice Freedom thing, or this all powerful Mr.
Wizard person even. LOOK, THINK... I'm telling people
around the world, Mr. bush and rumsfeld are documented
to have murdered Americans at 9/11 to thwart Enron's
impending CRIMINAL bankruptcy, while, I've repeatedly
demanded their immediate arrest or execution by the
lovers of Humanity, and don't you think that would make
for a legitimate National news story? ("The Dabhol
Working Group", cheney's secret energy meetings with
Enron, public threats against God as Justice through the
Taliban, BND, September 9 war plan, Ahmad and Ahmed,
and, AMERICAN FBI and CIA investigations.) Why not?
Because I am relying on the evidence like a Police
Officer does, as it is related to Justice indivisible as
ourselves, THE ACTUAL FACTS JACK, and CNN doesn't truly
want American soldiers to know who's dying for who.
Myself, as the dreamy Saviour, am open for dialog,
discussions with what we can measure and what we can
not, debate to put to shame any even on the Nature of
truth and deception, God, and this Universe, something
CNN refuses to all American Patriots as worthy of
deliberation. Like with economics, or basic high school
maths. I've personally contacted the CEOs of both, CBC,
and CNN, who have decided with intent to ignore Our
concerns. Look, one of the first things bush did when
he stole the Presidency, was steal fifty billion
American tax dollars from our grandmothers, and don't
you think that would make for your National news
interest?, as a soldier worth giving your life away to
bush for? You know, Mr. bush, the super evil, false
deity, anti-Christ of biblical folklore? So
unbelievably vile and putrid, the Son of Man as God's
only true born Son, has to come down here to defend
myself as all of Creation exists for this day. Mr.
bush's american whores would work to decimate the
Constitution and sacrifice humanity as Jesus on the
cross, and ask US why?, without listening? CNN won't
allow amerika to be America, but for to be
misrepresented as slaves to die by corporate command,
through the evil practices of the unholy and criminal
dictates of Our Mr. bush Jr., traitor to US all. The
Messiah asks the American people to stand up for
themselves as a nation of individuals, to demand equal
access to our rights for freedom, by reaching out to our
neighbors as soldiers and police officers, to break
through Our international media controls at CNN
headquarters, that silence our concerns as the living to
be justly represented. We demand the immediate firing
of Water Issacson, and Sid Beddington, and Johnny wants
Our voices heard now on our Public airwaves! A word of
wisdom: I wouldn't tick off our King like this for much
longer bushmobsters, you don't want to see the Family,
US, losing our patience by getting really wrangled up
with little corporate america's false deity of hatred
towards the makeitwithart living John man. Johnny'd
rather have American men find courage somewhere to stand
up for themselves against being robbed of their
generosity, but Jesus Christ all mighty, if there is no
real Manly men in corporate america, we'll just have to
come down daring to make all doze men look like the weak
twerpy cowards they are to be deprived so sleepy, as too
afraid of their own little shadows to protect the once
great American dream for Humanity. I thought I knew
America, my father thought he knew America, and bush,
the treasonous unelected fascist nazi mass murdering
savage criminal, he don't know the America we believed
we are of once.

Again, I can not stress enough to the truly proud and
strong American People in the NRA, bush's criminal evil,
and those who support him factually against Justice and
Freedom in Congress and the Senate through the prepared
before hand, unread Patriot Act, and for approving an
unrepresentative blatant criminal war as clearly the
evil doers, is really happening. CNN refuses to report
in American survival interests, while we now know, bush
and rumsfeld hold little reservation murdering American
citizens or soldiers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, if
it then means they can steal further our life's purpose,
and pursuit of happiness by fair play as Justice
instills for all. Mr. bush openly lies as a demon to
our world deliberately while smirking, counting on CNN
at the National level, not correcting his treason
against the entire human race, leaving US isolated as
individuals, with potential doubt always ever present.
But, we can indeed measure, and verify irrespective of
bias or ideology. A fence that is seven feet tall, is a
fence seven feet tall. And, when demon bush advocates
the murder of innocent people to steal our life savings
while destroying the living economy, people do actually
suffer and die. Forget about my fanciful dreams to be a
party King, and think about your own future and family
as we exist in reality, dying unjustly at the hands of
the anti-Christ through corporate cult america that
sacrifices themselves even included as unworthly to
what? They glorify dumminess, as an attribute for
success, sacrificing our dying freedoms to be heard as
the still barely living with concerns. Gee, and you
wonder why they take half of life's investment to
bankers as sacrifice for nothing...

I beg you, to forward this paper to all you know who
should consider this for themselves.

The war criminals, Mr. bush, rumsfeld, and tommy
franks, must be arrested or executed by True American
Patriots immediately. The three traitors to humanity,
that not only have advocated in your name, the murder of
US as innocent people, but have also perpetrated the
criminal acts. Leaving US to judge themselves, as they
have judged, to be treated as they wish to continue
treating Ourselves, or Just you alone, with Rights
granted by living as freedom to be so. God or no God.
Mr. bush, rumsfeld, and tommy franks will immediately
be arrested, or executed by True American Patriots to
stop further bloodshed of our Humanity, as their real
destruction of the American Dream for all as evidenced
to be criminals under the Constitution, is found to be
evidenced by all who understand so.

Glory be to God in the highest order, and if I should
die tomorrow, I'll know I fought to the best of my love
for living in a world where accidents do happen. If my
life should grow unable to win our wager, and I lose all
my fortune to the anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush Jr., my
wanting for a better world will have never diminished.
I'll know that I accepted to do what I could to the best
of my giving. I can only hope these words, were enough
thought as worthy of sharing to others, who believe in
themselves to read this far in agreement with me.. I
make a pretty damn good King eh?

Without risk, we would have nothing to be thankful for.
Do not be afraid of living for freedom my friends, for
most FBI officers support freedom for America, and so
too do soldiers. Those who don't are generally weak,
stupid, incompetent, and very very slow without Love in
their hearts, or the will to be brave. Mr. bush and
rumsfeld don't want to arrest the true culprits by
following the available criminal leads for 9/11, and it
doesn't take much figuring to understand why. We are
all angered by Mr. bush Jr., and the contempt he and
rumsfeld has shown for all those fallen murdered in
America and Afghanistan.

And, just recently in Indonesia, a claim that al-Qaeda
would attack a civilian target like the bushmob does
advocate as practiced, and Laden repeatedly condemns, is
again, with not even a thread of evidence offered on CBC
to conclude such a statement that was made officially,
shows a contempt for the rules of Justice to be
practiced rightly by the ruler, and likely, staging the
criminal investigation to go nowhere. Or, conversely,
this sniper killing civilians in America, being a
reflection of the Nation's true american bushmobster
will to innocent good people going unreported
elsewheres. The sniper is only a small taste my friends
of bush's america as God is my witness. Mr. bush,
america's false deity that corporate america puts all of
every America's blind faith into as slaves without
rights through Justice, had no interest in arresting
himself and rumsfeld for 9/11, instead, with corporate
america backing bush's further criminal intentions,
dropped over 4000 bombs on Afghanistan, including a 14
ton bomb on Kabal. (The brave Ta


Johnny Wizard - 10/15/2002

Johnny Is Marching Home So, you know cop killer bush has no evidence to back up his allegations against Iraq, while Saddam repeatedly offers Americans to come look anywhere, and nazi bush refuses the offer, instead lies to all Americans through corporate control as US being worthless without meaning, without soul as himself, lacking purpose but for destruction of our Humanity as unworthy to hear from. Mr. bush tells US secretly, he wishes to sacrifice at minimum, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in a criminal war against our dying Planet, 60 countries, without following evidence to substantiate his claimed to be therefor super evil allegations, nor, will he practice legal due process as a terrorist in Our names by flying the American flag as a true Patriot would. Destroy nazi bush and rumsfeld the traitors today, and be loved by every American principle of Freedom, as Justice for US all. Or be a lifeless coward to watch the bushmob steal not only from our dumb dorky soldiers to be wasted as sadistic murdering tommy frank savages, to be not defenders of the faith or the hopes for a better future, but also from our murdered sons and daughters, who could have, at one day, understood the principles of Freedom and Justice, present in the forgotten American Constitution as worth fighting for to be protected as ourselves always. Mr. bush the demon, is not my false deity, as he is irrationally insisted by the American corporate cult product schedule to be so. CBC and CNN we all witness as Humanity daily, refuse to ever cover the corporately mandated bushmob atrocities, as documented facts that steal real lives. Our Mr. bush Jr. has shown little of no concern for the living people in Afghanistan left alone without an American commitment to protect our lives, or feed their families, now prepared to waste hundreds of billions against the starving in Iraq over something planned close to thirty years by criminal occupation. Their strategy, like in Afghanistan, is to put worthless nazi slave soldiers on the front oil pipe lines only, while murdering students and teachers who would have suggested clean hydrogen is practically free nazi dum fuk scums. You think if Saddam was murdered, the rest of our Humanity the whole world over, would allow like a cowardly corporate american slave whore, Mr. bush, rumsfeld, and tommy franks, to give all of the Iraqi resources, to the murderous criminal thieving intolerant evil fascist israeli government of nazi bigot human haters, without objections from G of all beings? Holy Jewish Jihad Jesus! We notice the corporate news agenda to rob from US all, our commitment to human rights, is to never inform our communities as publicly aware, that nazi amerika, blocks food and medicine from ALL the Iraqi people, but yet will afford our time to propagandize our community with bushmob lies, left uncorrected. Has Ramsey Clark ever been offered as a legitimate voice of opposition, to clarify our positions? Does Ramsey Clark speak untruths, like bush does to kill and plunder the American People? You'd imagine, if CNN was truly American, they would tell Americans importantly, bush has no evidence to conclude OUR position, and murdered thousands in New York City, while Saddam offers the World to witness the falsehoods of the bushmob to come see for ourselves, or just simply give some attention to bush's true evilness he spouts as his own. The bushmob is tirelessly working to undermine the UN peace effort, by trying to suggest, if the World community should get the weapon inspectors in before mindless nazi forces get there to blindly murder and terrorize further, untold thousands in Iraq, slave boy Powell wants inspectors to include armed nazi soldiers, planes ready to bomb civilian targets, and openly, secret spies to be criminals! Something any legitimate inspector would appose as a ridiculous proposal, undermining of the peace initiative to be a Just cause, and the UN as an INTERNATIONAL BODY. And, as so should, motivate wimp ass Kofi to vocally detest on behalf of US people he claims to represent as a living person. Europe reports as human, while CNN as traitors to all of Humanity refuse to offer the facts. CNN sees no responsibility to protect America, or our soldiers as worthy the effort to address their real concerns regarding Our... Godly is Justice Freedom thing, or this all powerful Mr. Wizard person even. LOOK, THINK... I'm telling people around the world, Mr. bush and rumsfeld are documented to have murdered Americans at 9/11 to thwart Enron's impending CRIMINAL bankruptcy, while, I've repeatedly demanded their immediate arrest or execution by the lovers of Humanity, and don't you think that would make for a legitimate National news story? ("The Dabhol Working Group", cheney's secret energy meetings with Enron, public threats against God as Justice through the Taliban, BND, September 9 war plan, Ahmad and Ahmed, and, AMERICAN FBI and CIA investigations.) Why not? Because I am relying on the evidence like a Police Officer does, as it is related to Justice indivisible as ourselves, THE ACTUAL FACTS JACK, and CNN doesn't truly want American soldiers to know who's dying for who. Myself, as the dreamy Saviour, am open for dialog, discussions with what we can measure and what we can not, debate to put to shame any even on the Nature of truth and deception, God, and this Universe, something CNN refuses to all American Patriots as worthy of deliberation. Like with economics, or basic high school maths. I've personally contacted the CEOs of both, CBC, and CNN, who have decided with intent to ignore Our concerns. Look, one of the first things bush did when he stole the Presidency, was steal fifty billion American tax dollars from our grandmothers, and don't you think that would make for your National news interest?, as a soldier worth giving your life away to bush for? You know, Mr. bush, the super evil, false deity, anti-Christ of biblical folklore? So unbelievably vile and putrid, the Son of Man as God's only true born Son, has to come down here to defend myself as all of Creation exists for this day. Mr. bush's american whores would work to decimate the Constitution and sacrifice humanity as Jesus on the cross, and ask US why?, without listening? CNN won't allow amerika to be America, but for to be misrepresented as slaves to die by corporate command, through the evil practices of the unholy and criminal dictates of Our Mr. bush Jr., traitor to US all. The Messiah asks the American people to stand up for themselves as a nation of individuals, to demand equal access to our rights for freedom, by reaching out to our neighbors as soldiers and police officers, to break through Our international media controls at CNN headquarters, that silence our concerns as the living to be justly represented. We demand the immediate firing of Water Issacson, and Sid Beddington, and Johnny wants Our voices heard now on our Public airwaves! A word of wisdom: I wouldn't tick off our King like this for much longer bushmobsters, you don't want to see the Family, US, losing our patience by getting really wrangled up with little corporate america's false deity of hatred towards the makeitwithart living John man. Johnny'd rather have American men find courage somewhere to stand up for themselves against being robbed of their generosity, but Jesus Christ all mighty, if there is no real Manly men in corporate america, we'll just have to come down daring to make all doze men look like the weak twerpy cowards they are to be deprived so sleepy, as too afraid of their own little shadows to protect the once great American dream for Humanity. I thought I knew America, my father thought he knew America, and bush, the treasonous unelected fascist nazi mass murdering savage criminal, he don't know the America we believed we are of once. Again, I can not stress enough to the truly proud and strong American People in the NRA, bush's criminal evil, and those who support him factually against Justice and Freedom in Congress and the Senate through the prepared before hand, unread Patriot Act, and for approving an unrepresentative blatant criminal war as clearly the evil doers, is really happening. CNN refuses to report in American survival interests, while we now know, bush and rumsfeld hold little reservation murdering American citizens or soldiers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, if it then means they can steal further our life's purpose, and pursuit of happiness by fair play as Justice instills for all. Mr. bush openly lies as a demon to our world deliberately while smirking, counting on CNN at the National level, not correcting his treason against the entire human race, leaving US isolated as individuals, with potential doubt always ever present. But, we can indeed measure, and verify irrespective of bias or ideology. A fence that is seven feet tall, is a fence seven feet tall. And, when demon bush advocates the murder of innocent people to steal our life savings while destroying the living economy, people do actually suffer and die. Forget about my fanciful dreams to be a party King, and think about your own future and family as we exist in reality, dying unjustly at the hands of the anti-Christ through corporate cult america that sacrifices themselves even included as unworthly to what? They glorify dumminess, as an attribute for success, sacrificing our dying freedoms to be heard as the still barely living with concerns. Gee, and you wonder why they take half of life's investment to bankers as sacrifice for nothing... I beg you, to forward this paper to all you know who should consider this for themselves. The war criminals, Mr. bush, rumsfeld, and tommy franks, must be arrested or executed by True American Patriots immediately. The three traitors to humanity, that not only have advocated in your name, the murder of US as innocent people, but have also perpetrated the criminal acts. Leaving US to judge themselves, as they have judged, to be treated as they wish to continue treating Ourselves, or Just you alone, with Rights granted by living as freedom to be so. God or no God. Mr. bush, rumsfeld, and tommy franks will immediately be arrested, or executed by True American Patriots to stop further bloodshed of our Humanity, as their real destruction of the American Dream for all as evidenced to be criminals under the Constitution, is found to be evidenced by all who understand so. Glory be to God in the highest order, and if I should die tomorrow, I'll know I fought to the best of my love for living in a world where accidents do happen. If my life should grow unable to win our wager, and I lose all my fortune to the anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush Jr., my wanting for a better world will have never diminished. I'll know that I accepted to do what I could to the best of my giving. I can only hope these words, were enough thought as worthy of sharing to others, who believe in themselves to read this far in agreement with me.. I make a pretty damn good King eh? Without risk, we would have nothing to be thankful for. Do not be afraid of living for freedom my friends, for most FBI officers support freedom for America, and so too do soldiers. Those who don't are generally weak, stupid, incompetent, and very very slow without God in their hearts, or will to be brave. Mr. bush and rumsfeld don't want to arrest the true culprits by following the available criminal leads for 9/11, and it doesn't take much figuring to understand why. We are all angered by Mr. bush Jr., and the contempt he and rumsfeld has shown for all those fallen murdered in America and Afghanistan. And, just recently in Indonesia, a claim that al-Qaeda would attack a civilian target like the bushmob does advocate as practiced, and Laden repeatedly condemns, is again, with not even a thread of evidence offered on CBC to conclude such a statement that was made officially, shows a contempt for the rules of Justice to be practiced rightly by the ruler, and likely, staging the criminal investigation to go nowhere. Or, conversely, this sniper killing civilians in America, being a reflection of the Nation's true american bushmobster will to innocent good people going unreported elsewheres. The sniper is only a small taste my friends of bush's america as God is my witness. Mr. bush, america's false deity that corporate america puts all of every America's blind faith into as slaves without rights through Justice, had no interest in arresting himself and rumsfeld for 9/11, instead, with corporate america backing bush's further criminal intentions, dropped over 4000 bombs on Afghanistan, including a 14 ton bomb on Kabal. (The brave Taliban, we remember, were supporting the arrest of the actual culprits responsible. A no no to the bushmob circle.) Or like tommy's death squads against Afghan children for Enron, Afghans, who bush and rumsfeld murdered close to 100,000 without CNN daily coverage, as blamed for 9/11 without following the evidence and closing investigations, practicing a war planned terrorist strategy existing at the WhiteHouse it did, two days prior without able excuse anywhere to be found. A junta dictatorship of pure evilness. How stupid and cowardly does an American soldier have to be, before they stand up as one in defense for their own family? Like the Taliban would have? Look at the American military usenet groups to read for yourself regarding Our Mr. bush Jr., little of no disagreement is found with what I have written so far. Sure, corporate america will continue to try, by illusion, to have US all believe we are the minority to stand with conviction to protect ourselves as Humanity. However, the free communications that our internet provides, clearly indicate our truer positions as not entirely devoted to self destruction by ignorance, and criminal behavior against ourselves by dictatorship under the anti-Christ. Help destroy bush, and be loved by all as yourself to be cared for as heard from. As King, I am so much looking forward to retiring as soon as humanly possible, counting on yourself eventually to believe also, for a real better future by only simply trying to win the day for everyone. Can somebody please help ourselves for living's sake? Johnny Wizard -- Bonus Track Did you know, factually, no bull, the national debt accrued through the dilution as willed from Currency, is what is owed to the Nation, not the bankers? The creation of government debt is done by the willed devaluation of your earnings. See, it is a loan made in our names to the banker for ourselves. The public loan is actually made, when the banker is granted as doing so privately. It is not the magician banker who we must pay for nothing, it is the banker who owes the nation as the loan was to begin with to be legitimized by any national policy. Wealth taken as not earned, comes from those who work honestly getting jipped. So, I propose a private banker swindle tax, to cover the administrative costs of running openly public funded gambling enterprises, with 100% cash payouts to actually thwart our falling economies, then, maybe the corporate news industry will see a responsibility to measure how much a lottery official pays themselves secretly with our banked interests accruing. Our governments should be providing what services we want, and are willing to pay for. Stealing from the desperately poor to pay even more as servitude to our further ineptness, is not only firmly established as illegal, but also makes no sense to most anyone I'd bet. Example: VLT's payout 96% as advertized, well not truly, the math as counted says 30% before expenses, but who of the general corporate TV intellect, has our time to figure it honestly? See, it is easy to understand a criminal offence is taking place, but because the corporate mandate is to keep the public more ignorant than Our Mr. bush Jr. on everything as a monetarily rewarding experience, (Larry King is a millionaire) the corporate cult products refuse to practice the interests of Justice for our values to protect our living standards. Accordingly, bush murdered all those New Yorkers for whatever ill reason (who really cares) as the anti-Christ, and corporations refuse to follow the story as evidenced impartially. Too much work for no pay, but the expense is risked by the loss of investment in Humanity to be defended. This is why CNN won't even defend their fellow corporate cult members who lost their human lives at the World Trade Center. Who really cares?, for the value of innocent life?, Your Mr. bush Jr.??? Johnny Wizard -- My Divine Right Destroy bush and rumsfeld now American Patriot soldiers, fire fighters, and NRA members. We all notice CNN and CBC management refuse to allow open discussions on the documented facts outlining the cop killers, bush and rumsfeld treasonous behavior against the great American people, deliberately forestalling their criminal arrests for the mass murders of US as innocent in America. (Or even the recent broken elections in Florida.) Again, I repeat, I've spoken to corporate cult Americans, Leon Harris, Bill Hemmer, Daryn Kagan, Sid Beddington, and Walter Issacson, just to name a few at CNN. All forementioned cowards, who would watch Americans be robbed and murdered, and do nothing to protect ourselves, are personally aware the bushmob was warned of the terrorist plot specifically, the fact that Laden investigations were blocked by the WhiteHouse, while the bushmob in Enron interests, developed a war plan with General Ahmad to invade Afghanistan, for an oil pipe line on a premise of blaming Laden for whatever without evidence as US innocent, a documented truth that existed also just prior to 9/11, a strategy confessed to fully implemented, demanding the bushmob not follow the criminal leads, that point to themselves as traitors. Like the bad bush act on 9/11. (emperors-clothes.com) No arguments are given against what I have spoken on, nor am I even being adressed by our corporate standards as inter-nationally responsible. Why? Largely, because, we are adressing what is as documented to be true, irrespective of ourselves as opinion, Justice infinite as indivisable, like the stars in the sky, while the corporate news machine is refusing to be our own as legit. Mr. bush, the anti-Christ, and rumsfeld did 9/11 to kill ourselves to steal Constitutional American values, with their silence only further implicating themselves to the doubters. Neat eh? (I'm also playing the Creator, who just wants to be at peace with ourselves as equals.) As for Iraq, it was the American administration that removed the inspectors from doing their, going very successful job, not Saddam, while the corporate media continues to allow cheney, the evil nazi fascist bassturd, to keep intentionally lying to American soldiers regarding the facts, like US Air Force Response, so the bush regime can throw away their lives as worthless, without meaning. (Agreed, on general terms, American soldiers are deeply ignorant and cowardly as cheney continually attests, but they are still preparing for death, and I understand many can read human, and haven't been hiding in a undisclosed location without a television, or newspaper these last few months.) The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, found corporate America sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism, right up until March 1992, on hopes apparently, to risk further American soldier causalities, who were at that present time engaged in battle with poisoning themselves mostly. 250,000 troops are planned to criminally invade YOUR humanity, against now near SIXTY countries, representing around 2,083,093,468 people and counting, (that also includes freedom fighters, bikers, the Mob, and Jack), US, clearly aware of bush and tommy franks nazi plans, like in Afghanistan. To kill indiscriminately, while running death squads murdering innocent families, including your children. As for Saddam gassing the two guerilla groups called Kurds, who were fighting to murder in a war on behalf of Iran in 1988, labeled by American murdering nazi savage bush, Saddam's "own people", here is what the most definitive document on the issue states. It's a 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. ... Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East Excerpt, Chapter 5 U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before adjournment). It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds. From another American government report: "Blood agents [i.e., cyanogen chloride] were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war--the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents--and the Iranians do--we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack." -- The New York Times reported on corporate America's war project SHAD, where during the Vietnam war, 4000 U.S. sailors were gassed deliberately by Republicans with gruesome biological toxins, including sarin. As for proving that something is not secretly hidden by a nation as millions.. practically impossible! You can't ever conclusively prove that something isn't secretly hidden from perception by variables admittingly, unknowable. (For whom would be there to secretly watch the watchers?) When, and under what madness of bush tyranny as enslavement of our human species, would anyone be able to try standing up in Iraq or elsewheres and state, there is no Anthrax anywhere hidden secretly to kill bush, the false deity super evil anti-Christ with? Never I declare as the Son of Man, will evil bush escape the wrath of our fury as this Universe is, however, it is the supporters of bush's irrationality with our poltical will unchallenged by corporate standards, as these nazi monster, lawless American cop killers wish to use to terrorize 60 nations of almost 2 billion innocents without any evidence with. With an intent to use a paultry 250,000 criminal nazi soldiers mindlessly stupid on drugs probably, while corporate America won't give anyone two minutes nationally to speak on the clear strong factual evidence implicating bush and rumsfeld for murdering over 3,000 AMERICAN flag wavers in Yew York City? Destroy American traitor bush now!!! The sanctions against the poorest of poor in Iraq are also irrational. The Republicans state the innocent people of Iraq must be denied food and medicine to starve and die because, they are practically politically powerless to change their state to be attacked as the unrepresented, while stating Saddam, if he could, wouldn't help them survive as a nation as the Republican justification to terrorize millions, while cheney skirts U.N. sanctions to sell Saddam whatever supplies privately in secret? So the suffering of Iraqis, is rightly attributed on American terrorist activity by all Iraqis, as the direct cause, working directly against the Republicans publicly stated purpose to commit such criminal intent. Example: If a well spoken father who may not like the policies of Saddam should go to the hospital with his child, he is told the bush clan wish his family death and suffering by American will for being born to our world in Iraq as human. The oil for food program however, is intelligently based, but it's purpose is defeated with the Republican atrocities to blindly murder US with. The demands for the betterment of the Iraq people through national oil sales, would make sense, if they weren't directly suffering under assault by the same terrorist network cancer cell that denies themselves inalienable rights to life as our own. Like pathetically weak as unrepresented American cowardly soldiers, who were provided no evidence to back up the evil bushmob's criminal allegations, then went murdering tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan on the brink of starvation, instead of killing the documented child killer, heroin pusher, tommy franks, or bush and rumsfeld for 9/11 in America. Just on bush's behavior on the day in question, being left unreported by CNN dictates, should say much to everyone. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers told reporters at the National Press Club about Iraq's enormous unknown stockpiles of !secret! corporate american warfare weapons, "It does not take a lot of space for some of this work to go on. It can be done in a very, very small location," he said. "The fact that you can put it on wheels makes it a lot easier to hide from people who might be looking for it. So, yes we have evidence." Evidence of what? Nations with trucks should be nuked? Richard Myers is a nazi warmongering irrational fukhead, who wishes the murder of countless thousands, if not millions in AMERICA, who should be fired today. You see the nazi bassturd, you fire him, do you hear me People? AMERICA? Johnny...? Mr. Myers, your fired! -- While we now learn from public disclosures on Connie Chung, apparently, George Tenant, had only 3 CIA officers investigating Laden just prior to 9/11. While I remember last year it was alledged on PBS, the CIA had taxed the American public nearly 10 billion on those investigations regarding Laden over the previous year, but, hmmm, bush forbade police agencies, the pursuit of such investigations with his secret W199i directive. Guardian Wednesday 7, 2001 - "FBI claims bin Laden inquiry was frustrated" George Tenant must be questioned on these matters, and his relationship to General Ahmad, then arrested regarding his inaction on the insider stock traders for 9/11. If neither happen in a timely fashion, he too, will be destroyed by US American Patriots for treason. -- Excerpt From: NY Newsday U.S. Hypocritical on Human-Rights Abuses by Marie Cocco ... America's new business partner, Uzbekistan's president is brutal, and very bad. The State Department human rights report says the former Soviet republic now "is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights ... Both police and the National Security Services routinely tortured, beat and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions ... Police also used suffocation, electric shock, rape and other sexual abuse. Neither the severity nor frequency of torture appeared to have decreased during the year." What increased was American aid. It tripled to $160 million, the payoff for allowing U.S. military staging areas for the war in neighboring Afghanistan. President Islam Karimov was welcomed to the White House. In July, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill traveled to Tashkent and praised Karimov's "efficient leadership." Bush has singled out one despot for removal. He says he has many reasons for invading Iraq. Without a look at some secret new evidence the administration may or may not have about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, it is not possible to find truth. That is how the White House wants it. -- From a smart thinking, great commenting archive sifting site somewhere titled, Print Think ... Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President By Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. (snip) The PNAC report also: (snip) - hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool' -- Now, as for the corporate world telling US, we believe Laden is guity without evidence: A reasonable person doesn't have the justification to believe the unsubstantiated verdict. This is why the fascists at CNN propagandized, TERRORIZED, the American public by falsely alledging that Laden threatened to nuke America, or that he stated to murder any or all Americans like a bush would. Laden, like Saddam, or Arafat never was actually quoted to be that ignorantly stupid as a leader trying to communicate to the People, but for by CNN, and the sharon types regarding "Palestinians", as a lie to themselves to excuse their responsibility to ourselves as the humans. But EVEN IF TRUE, wouldn't make Laden responsible for every wrong doings the bushmob was actually responsible for, like robbing all Americans of their livelyhoods, unreported by CNN of course, to leave ourselves to fall victim by the bush regime as shysters pirating America, by shredding the Holy Constitution. However, Laden has skated near with the label "Jew", to be of the criminal, intolerant, offensive, fascist, bigoted jewish Israeli government, that imprisons or murders real Jews for being JUST that. Rabbi Hillel would be jailed by sharon in the israel of today. Wise Muhammad teachings cover this dumb Jew Christian thing well, as us all suffering by the illiterate evil dumbfuks who ignore ourselves, to steal our established values, while CNN, like Art Bell, forbids debate on their irrational falsehoods, refusing to protect the FBI, or the American flag through practicing censorship, while advocating murder, as Art Bell, the traitor, does almost daily, while hanging up every human caller. Next, CNN will be blaming ALL the poor and starving in the third world, for secret Pentagon frauds through the removal of the False Claims Act. As, the American nation contributes the least to the world in aid, in relation to the GNP. (The give and take.) 5 billion a month to not feed, but murder innocent people in Afghanistan? Destroy bush now, and be loved by all as God. Hey, great! You've actually read this far. Say, listen... Google, for one reason or another censors my, and who knows who elses, posts for fear from the bushmob. The bushmob through Google 'Groups' has no problem with posts encouraging war crimes by bigots, but my rational posts regarding the nature of Justice, they have determined for US, is inappropriate, while bush prepares to criminally war our world to actually do so as an unelected mass murdering nazi savage. So I ask you to have faith in living, and give us your thoughts on this for yourself. When it's reposted, it makes it far more difficult to disect from public viewing, and gives the likely good people at Google, a viable excuse to not continuing to do so against our better interests. To comment this post with whatever position you may have regarding these important subjects, doesn't mean you agree that we are God, or I'm simply Johnny Wizard, but for open free communications regarding the true political state of ourselves worth being heard from. Murdering innocent people for evil bush and rumsfeld to steal from ourselves, is a sacrifice in cowardice, I for one, refuse to stand for as the living. How about you? Public rebutals regarding my supreme stupidity are found in alt.sercurity.terrorism. Thanks friend, Johnny Wizard copvcia.com whatreallyhappened.com tenc.net globalresearch.ca -- Up to You Look, american service personnel aren't even American enough to publicly defend their treasonous behavior against the good old red, white, and blue. Why? Cowards. We all know the bushmob has tirelessly worked to steal American service personnel's pensions, savings, and lives as worthless of protection, while counting on every American Soldier as Police officer, to not arrest the bushmob ourselves for 9/11 in New York, and the war crimes committed against the innocent in Afghanistan. Mr. tommy franks, the heroin pusher, tells dumfuk soldiers to kill innocent humans, and American soldiers aren't there anywhere to protect themselves? Sadistic nazi war criminal rumsfeld tells us all openly, he wishes to persecute those he knows to be innocent as a true nazi did. With all the blessings of sharon naturally. Why do American soldiers not protect America? Or know the Constitution as Holy? Too weak, stupid and cowardly I told you Johnny. They sit terrified, unwilling to stand for their country, while demon bush and rumsfeld decimate my economy with a regressive tax swindle, and in addition, criminal thefts through the Pentagon and Social Security, while publicly planning to war two billion people of US for no good reason but for sacrifice to corporate america's false deity, the anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush Jr.. While we now all also know, to not only rob, but murder thousands of Americans too, as fair play by the bush backed terrorist protocol, exposes Our Mr. bush Jr. as the most heinously evil demon humanity has ever witnessed factually. All evidenced and everything. So, will Americans live up to protecting their dying rights, or will bush, the anti-Christ, succeed to further steal our God sworn, Patriotic duty to protect our own humanity? Will bush succeed in destroying civilization, or will we succeed in destroying pathetic criminal pirate nazi traitor bush, by the will of our own survival to continue as the People? The godless corporations refuse me to speak publicly in our defence naturally, and people generally, seem to concur as stupidity, to sacrifice their own families purposefully for the banker buildings, while putting their religious faith into corporate dictates for slavery. I am not myself to be G in all worlds, nor, am I all dreams to be so undesirably. I am just a super human being as space time continuum, day tripping all alone, wondering about prospects for a world in which I can live with. I love life, and our ailing planet, but maybe, I did get this story line wrong somewhere, and got taken away too far in fantasy. Maybe, bush's humanity as it exists here in reality, is a nightmare not worth saving for yourself being.. CNN and CBC do work against our communities, documented everyday, by their continual refusal to cover our top priority issues. Corporate radio programs primarily, but not always, insist on only hiring semi-literate ignorant bigot whores as fascist degenerates, who insist on disallowing open communications, or learning to learn with the community, while advocating the murders of American service personnel and innocent civilians, as a patriotic duty to not live up to our personal responsibilities as a member of society. It is all up to ourselves to fight for peace, or be slaughtered on Coast to Coast's alter of apathy to not care so for living justly. We are not at war with ourselves, or a third of humanity as cheney and bush repeatedly claim, but with the warmongers, who wish US all harm, to steal our human values of love and understanding, good will, and compassion. With evil bush, cheney and rumsfeld figuring, there is no way for US all to stand up for yourself, under the banner of Justice as freedom for all. Well, I say, nuts. If God can do it, and I can do it, so can you true! Help yourself up please won't you do it as us living already? Or, maybe for beer? Please do not allow the bushmob to murder millions. The fears to stand proud as Americans, are the fears to stand proud with Love as ourselves being the Universe. Boo! That wasn't so scary, was it? Again, traitors bush and rumsfeld must be immediately arrested for 9/11, and tommy franks, for war crimes in Afghanistan. Like Now. Always forever, the one and only, Johnny Wizard -------- All at Once Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, by simply living to not deprive those same rights from any other. So, Mr. bush Jr. tells you, we're either with us, or with the terrorists. Hmmm. As a member of the general public, bush, as himself, has no more rights to speak openly as the person I am, and therefor, I will except his proposal on equal grounds to communicate freely. So, I'm either with yourself as a would be, could be anyone is, or your factually documented as an unbelievably super evil, anti-American mass murdering fascist dictator, war criminal terrorist recruiter, as the, golly gee, actual, must be for real, warmongering anti-Christ from this Book by John then eh?... No? You, what do you figure Mr. bush Jr.? Can you hear humanity calling you out to publicly explain your vast stupidity? Politics has it as our mutual understanding, loyalty to life through law as living is civilization. Law, as is the only true measurement of freedom for ourselves to know so. Are you alone on this too? Ha, er... um, anyway.. Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, simply by living to not deprive those same rights from others. So we form Governments, and have loyal police officers to practice our will as ruled out to the best of our ability. We need a new national news format to make for this information age approaching, that sets a high priority on ourselves as concerned about where we are going. The Constitution is not just a jumble of tossed blurbs, telling of a day when people didn't care for living as America in spirit also, the Constitutional rights of Justice stand strong through good reason, and are easily defended up at the national news desk, we're sure to say eventually, if we only had the show for something. While we wait, corporate america prepares to never have Chomsky aired, or legitimate critics as the voices for freedom by representation, to gain ourselves progress as we would normally on Watt's happinin for real man. You know, the awesome power of communication, and Chomsky, being a best seller over and over like that, or Ron Paul being a Republican citizen, committed to working for Americans as a true Patriot would under the flag? The Constitutional rights of Justice stand strong through good reason. Ashcroft is truly incompetent. His failure to grasp why a democracy would choose to treat all people fairly, as duly protected with a system of laws practiced to find governing with, leaves us instead as, the ancient bushmob vision of injustice against ourselves that he fails to confess as us innocent until understood otherwise. The crusades were a lesson we never want to be learning over, with Our Mr. bush Jr. at our wills demanding a crashed course we've done and learned from already. I think Ashcroft's personal turn to criminality for America, has to do with sabotaging that FBI investigation, and the fair play consequence of us People arriving to communicate him to justice on behalf of the Nations with questions that need immediate answers. Sabotaging the FBI was not due from insufficient funding, or failure to connect the dots ever as investigators. Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, by simply living to not deprive those same rights from any other. Right? Save America for your own sake Americans! The strength is within ourselves to make this a better world for living. As you are, Johnny Wizard. --- From: TOMPAINE.com Is It Not True? Questions On Iraq From A GOP Congressman Ron Paul is an M.D. and a Republican Member of Congress from Texas Editor's Note: Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002. Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war: 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism? 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed Al Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of Al Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses?" 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may again attack the United States -- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden wanted? 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the United Nations for permission to go to war? 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 U.S. soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 19. Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the United States. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate U.S. policy? 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? 33. Is it not true that since World War II, Congress has not declared war and -- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? Published: Sep 17 2002 -- No Telling Destroy bush and rumsfeld now! Look, the terrorist network runs out of CNN and CBC, both willingly advocate criminal intentions against our community interests, by censorship and dissin' information. (Video Lottery Terminals eat at our souls, and destroy our economy. 100% payouts must be demanded, anything less, is a perpetration that does not stand up to sound fiscal management.) The management of the networks, Walter Issacson and Sid Beddington of CNN, Israel Cinman, Robert Habinovitch, and David Cochten of CBC, are all our humanity's enemy, as the true harborers of terrorist activity, evil scum to US all. These monsters refuse to allow reporters open public discussions on the true current political state of OUR affairs, protecting their false deity, the anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush Jr. from immediate arrest or execution, for perpetrating 9/11, now getting away with open deceit as unchallenged with OUR facts, perverting America's democracy into in junta dictatorship. CBC and CNN play our nations as unworthy of deliberation, while censoring OUR ELECTED officials. Like the recent Florida election. Or those in the American government, responsible for managing to barely protect Social Security, that bush has now illegally had removed from their jurisdiction, while silently telling all Americans, he'll manage to rob from us in secret without telling anyone. Arron Brown, like Larry King, feels the Social Security of our soldiers is unimportant as newsworthy, nor their lives as worth protecting. Or how about when bush stole 50 billion tax dollars from American families, and stated, he wasn't accountable to the people as a legitimate leader? No fukin kidding! Unaccountable to no one evil nazi murderer bush thinks America will not stand up for ourselves without godless national news coverage, nor will American men be brave enough to stand strong to protect their own bereaving families. Again, the bushmob not only threatened directly the Taliban with war in July 2001, for not siding for Enron's interests, but was also caught with the 9/11 war strategy fully developed two days prior to the event in question. Why would Laden, or the Taliban give bush a justification to follow through on his evil nazi threat? How could the irrational, illogical, lawless criminal dumfuk bush, have attacked the students of Afghanistan, then let tommy franks run death squads to murder defenseless children, without 9/11 I ask you? Gee, the Taliban sided for the better pipe line contract for the interest of their nation, and turned down bribes to sell out their brethren, therefor, the bushmob as Enron can steal and murder anyone they want to because, Americans refuse to uphold their own Constitution, of which, true American Patriot Soldiers it was rumored at one time, used to actually give pledge to with their lives if necessary in protection, while crying through a salute to the flag, that bush and ashcroft now spit on deliberately, challenging US to come down there ourselves personally, because Americans, are so unbelievably cowardly! Again, the pension money stolen from American families through Enron is sitting in the Cayman Islands, and the biggest crook of them all is Thomas White, bush's Secretary of the Army. (Thomas, as Secretary, does the financial paper work for the US Army, in case you didn't know.) As for evil dumfuk rumsfeld's statement to justify our unjustified incriminations, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.", no it's not, nor is it impossible that every real man alive will destroy rumsfeld ourselves, before he continues to murder us all irrationally for possiblilities we could maybe might do. Mr. rumsfeld tells us he would without reason to claim so, steal and murder from ourselves as established innocent, of which he himself, would even contend as the criminal! To have rotten rumsfeld tell us he has a belief in our names to persecute innocent people, because he can't substantiate any evidence factually, gives himself no honest justification to hold such a position against our better interests. So goes to show, rumsfeld, the nazi, is a war criminal! Then, of course, there was the statements rotten rumsfeld made, that enrages every loyal member of the NRA when communicated clearly, where rotten rumsfeld stated, that of the Taliban prisoners held illegally at Guantanamo Bay, that even if they were honestly tried, and found innocent in an American court of Law as judged by our peers publicly, rumsfeld would still fight our humanity as a terrorist, and refuse their release as farmers with beards, or protectors of our communities. Or like ashcroft said about terrorists not deserving the same Constitutional Justice protections as everyone else, like facing their accusation in a public court of law to defend themselves against alegations made in our names. What is it then nazi bassturds, is ashcroft saying people in other nations should be terrorized, or is he saying american criminals are getting away unaprehended? Destroy rumsfeld now American Patriots! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38441-2002sep4?language=printer To persecute our humanity for no other reason, but for rumsfeld's paranoia with what is possible, or fear of reprisals for 9/11 by real American Patriot Soldiers, would mark himself openly as a terrorist to everyone, threatening US all with murder for crimes he says he has no evidence to back up as alleged. Mr. rumsfeld, like ashcroft and bush, is a traitor to the Constitution of America, and every living soul in this Universe! While WE know, he didn't go to the NMCC on 9/11, where he knew, and was reminded, he was supposed to be. While WE know, there was no public evidence linking Laden or the Taliban secretly either according to the British Parliment, at the time he ordered the blanket killing of Afghans, (who as a Nation, like "Omar the Just" were in support of following the criminal leads to arrest the true evil doers, (true American Justice!)), as the reason offered to stop all investigations by hiding most of all the evidence that would jeopardize his, and bush's security as demons of pure nazi filth, traitors to US all as the living to be humans. Like the eight black boxes, cockpit recordings, testimony from the ATC, FAA, NORAD, the Air Force, Building Seven, the FBI (Rowley and General Ahmad) and the CIA (Insider trading on the airline companies testified to not be connected to Laden). Or like flight manifests, with the alleged high-jackers who boarded without tickets, using stolen names of people either still alive, or mostly from Saudi Arabia. Gee, why would, would be terrorists steal passports they didn't need, of American trained Saudi national pilots, if they didn't want to be discovered as American trained Saudi national pilots? Why plan to high-jack planes from faraway Boston? Why did the Ladens fly out of America at bush's request right after 9/11 from Boston too? Hmmmm. How is it possible for a terrorist to board a commercial plane without purchasing a ticket? AND, how would the two fbi officers (James Woods), and three cia officers responsible for 9/11 investigations, be able to conclude the false names of the suspects, if they weren't on the manifest? Destroy bush now and be loved by all as God! Yours truly, Johnny Wizard globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI205C.html ----- All Wrapped Up CBC as managed has deliberately with intent, worked to misinform and propagandize our community on what is as, documented provable fact, regarding Mr. bush's complicity to the murder of US as the innocent in New York City. CBC has refused to live up to our responsibility to protect our democracy, and in silence, has pirated our names to murder those understood to be innocent of the accused offence. CBC has refused to allow ourselves as the public to understand, Mr. bush forbade the FBI from pursuing bin Laden investigations, just prior to 9/11 with secret Presidential directive W199I (199I WF213589), which had John O'Neil, the anti-terrorism head for the FBI publicly protest by resigning over. This W199I directive was put into place after the administration had been warned by the BND, and several other legitimate intelligence agencies, of an impending terrorist plot involving the high-jacking of American airplanes to be used as weapons and flown into land marks. In addition to these unreported top priority political issues that stand to be true as documented factually, the bush administration had also secretly put together a sinister war strategy, that was revealed to ourselves as the public, by Canada's own Jim Miklaszewski at MSNBC, to have existed without any doubt as Presidential Directive documents, two days prior to 9/11 at the WhiteHouse. A planned strategy to invade specifically Afghanistan, by blaming bin Laden for a crime, but providing no evidence to back up the allegations. That's right. The super evil criminal bush dictatorship had a plan in place to not follow the actual evidence to arrest the true culprits for a crime that hadn't even yet taken place, but that they were prepared for to close investigations on, as an opportunity to invade specifically Afghanistan, propping up the Northern Alliance who still practice the barbarity of sharia law, with the bush bonuses of selling heroin to our world, and most importantly, building a liquefied natural gas pipe line for bush and his Enron friends, to rob even more further from us all. Legitimate FBI officers unrepresented by Mueller claim General Amad was the principle terrorist funder of Muhammad Atta, responsible for a wire transfer of $100,000, who, incidentally was in unusual meetings, the General was, with the bush administration a week prior to 9/11, who also not only participated in meetings with several top officials in the Senate Intelligence Committee, but also, was reported to participate in building the war strategy of invading Afghanistan, as the reported desperate excuse offered for the General being there just prior to 9/11, and also, was personally responsible for negotiating the non-surrender of bin Laden, of which the ISI claimed, the General advised the Taliban not to do so because, no evidence would be offered, nor public trial for an offence bin claimed he played no part of. We are all in agreement, in truth we rise, evil is just the deceived disguised. Boo! The case is wrapped up, and bush and rumsfeld need to be immediately arrested for 9/11, for murdering countless thousands for stolen gain, at the losses to our humanity, that show through every putrid utterance of scum bucket bush, as contempt for our living as humanity through Law. Where a person accused of a criminal offence without any evidence is clearly innocent. For why I ask you reader, would any unjustified leader of US people blame someone for a crime who wasn't linked to the offense, while working to close investigations, and not follow through with the ample clues to capture the true evil doers? Just how cowardly stupid can soldier families be taken without conviction as themselves worth fighting for? Justice for all, and glory be to godly. Johnny Wizard whatreallyhappened.com globalresearch.ca -- Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum RITTER PUTS HOLES IN CHENEY'S ALUMINUM TUBES STORY Posted By: Rosalinda


Johnny Wizard - 10/7/2002

Pentagon Plans to Gas US Citizens
http://almartinraw.com/column73.html

American soldiers call for rumsfeld's demise
http://rense.com/general30/ass.htm

---------


We Shall Be Not Forsaken

J.W. - "Murdering innocent people for evil bush and
rumsfeld to steal from ourselves, is a sacrifice in
cowardice, I for one, refuse to stand for as the living.
How about you?"

This following paper from LibertyForum is of interest.
Once again, through evaluation we all witness, CNN's
refusal to cover our political issues fairly, instead
siding to propagandize the American people to sacrifice
American soldiers as unrepresented, advocating further
crimes against humanity, as like bigot nazi sharon does
against the Jews of our world, and as bush and rumsfeld
did to Americans in New York City. Look, I've been
going on and on to American and Canadian Soldiers, the
FBI and CIA indirectly, the Secret Service personally,
Police officers, and also, in general terms, with a
little help from my friends, the people around our world
at more than 100 web sites for almost ten months
regarding the factual evidence, and the plea to destroy
bush and rumsfeld the traitors immediately as still
escaping unarrested, while the lifeless corporate cult
professionals refuse to report on our demands for
Justice. Again, I will tell you, nobody of the hundreds
at CBC, or CNN, including the CEO's of both, have
disagreed with the evidence that stands before ourselves
truthfully. They, have though sided, to censor our
voices as the public, leaving us alone, on hopes you
will find ever present doubt with what I am writing, and
further mislead ourselves as the people, to be robbed of
our freedoms, and denied our humanity for your sake.
CNN allows cheney to lie directly to all Americans, and
Walter Isaccson, like Sid Beddington of CNN management,
the true harborers of terrorist activity, refuse to use
the remaining time, to highlight cheney's direct
contempt for ALL the American people, with his
falsehoods, and misgivings, on the true nature of our
communication skills. CNN refuses to open discussions
on the facts regarding Iraq's threat to world peace, and
the bushmob's treasonous act of 9/11. The protests in
Washington site another good example. Corporate America
has refused to represent American interests by covering
the issue impartially. Instead, they ignore every
strong counter argument made, that would easily expose
bush for the super evil anti-Christ he truly is, as a
matter of measurable fact.

I was watching Jerry Springer, you know, that TV show
shown around the world as a marker of American
intellect, and the crowd off guard in agreement with
themselves chanted repeatedly, "bin Laden". Laden, a
man who speaks out for innocent people murdered by
ignorant corporatized Americans who frequent the public
airwaves, who know not even of, the open bigotry, and
hatred practiced for Justice and freedom as THEMSELVES,
they fund through taxes to support in far off lands.
The Art Bell's of America, broadcasted five hours a day,
every day, tell the American masses evidence isn't a
requirement for Americans to learn truly whom loses to
stealing for the People, while their paychecks grow
smaller and smaller as their freedoms really diminish,
and instead, support, as Art Bell has spewn, the
criminal thefts, or murder of US innocent people
unrepresented far away... over where? Art Bell, the
dimwit nazi dumfuk traitor, in giving his reason why he
supports using biological weapons (like gas chambers)
against civilian populations stated, better to get them,
before they get us. Who is Art Bell to be granted such
contempt for living and Justice, while bin Laden remarks
are forbidden by corporate America to be acknowledged as
Patriotic? Is Art Bell what America is Johnny asks?
Pretend your me.. What would you rather be as: an
uncommunicative, barely literate bio warfare proponent,
who practices censorship on your own political affairs
in our names to speak openly with your State, or of a
humanity as diverse innocent souls unrepresented by
UNJUST corporate command, planned to be slaves or
victims under the anti-Christ's evil scheme to steal and
plunder from everyone living in so far SIXTY countries?
SIXTY COUNTRIES!!! Is the anti-Christ, America's false
deity, Our Mr. bush Jr., your merciful God of wisdom
and good will exclusively? Do you actually believe Our
Mr. bush Jr. is Jesus Christ in person, here to save
the world by forgoing the concepts of Justice and
Liberty, while vocally supporting as rumsfeld has, the
illegal persecution of those he admits to be innocent of
an accused offence, to rob himself? And corporate
america would call rumsfeld an American? Would any
Soldier to understand the question? An advocate of
cowardly un-American surrender, Art Bell propheticalizes
under the lawless criminal anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush
Jr., who wishes and practices only hardships and
suffering against humanity as incompetence, or criminal
wrong doings, as directly proven facts to enslave and
murder the once great American People, as no longer
protected, without official representation as the
guiding principles of the forgotten Constitution.
Justice for all, and may Johnny, who just wants a
respectful job somewhere to provide sustenance, and who
couldn't rule God's world if he should at some point go
completely insane, have mercy on our souls. (If you
could spare a measly few dollars for my cause, I sure
can use the financing.) We want our own CNN show! Just
look at whom the America of today has as it's
representors, and you'll begin to see why for God I am
here as the living to be boundlessly free as the
Universe. Mr. bush and rumsfeld, responsible for
murdering thousands in New York City, while
purposefully, criminally thieving and decimating the
living economy, with American soldiers too weak and dumb
to stand United under the American flag as Justice for
US all because, heroin pusher, child killer tommy
franks, does not believe in the American dream to pursue
happiness, nor this as understood by Ourselves,- thou
shall not murder innocent people for stolen cash profit
thing, which naturally, would anger God to include
themselves unheard from as the dying unjustly. American
Military usenet groups seldom are even brave enough to
dispute these claims, for fear of reality would paint
their truer picture, cowardly, and un-American. So, as
cowards, they lie to themselves, and the community as
family. American Soldiers must find strength in bravery
SOON by waking up from their stupidity, or bush's
america can only bring further real destruction through
their cowardice to protect their own family as worthy of
Justice, or Freedom as rightly represented, awake, and
still as bitchin', but with purpose. And, as for my
dumb degenerating corporate cult friends, the bushmob is
robbing from you too, as unreported by your dummy
smiling corporate dictates also, to allow you
understanding who's actually conning who factually. FBI
investigations regarding General Ahmad, and ashcroft
sabotaging Rowley investigations, and the CIA's
pronouncements regarding insider stock trades, are all
off limits as publicly acknowledged by the corporate
elites. Golly gee, how about that. Many of the deaths
at the WTC towers were involved in the top echelon of
corporate business, and what has corporate America done
but spit on their graves in contempt, (while smiling of
course) as unworthy of defence to nab the true culprits.
Like the gone as corporately forgotten, as never even
reported but for brave MSNBC's brief Revelations on Our
Mr. bush Jr.'s war strategy, fully developed on the
ninth of September as Presidential directive documents,
developed with the same General who also funded the head
terrorist Atta, can not be allowed to get out any
further, as generally understood now by the preparing to
die for evil bush troops, right? Otherwise, American
Patriots would rise up and instead, smash Our Mr. bush
Jr. and rumsfeld, the warmongering American nazi
fascist savages, straight into hell where they belong
truly.

What do you think?

J.W. - "Just how cowardly stupid can soldier families
be taken without conviction as themselves worth fighting
for?"

Johnny Wizard

--------

LibertyForum

WholeTruth123
(nonconformist)
10/03/02 02:01 PM
The BIGGEST Lie in America Today [ Post 258755 ]

Category: News & Opinion Topic: International Affairs
Synopsis: Some reasons for the season
Source: ummah.com
Published: September 30, 2002 Author: By 1man4all
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.


The BIGGEST Lie in America Today

By 1man4all


The biggest lie in America today is that terrorists attacked the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon because they were inspired by the teachings of Islam.
You hear that lie repeated constantly in the media and even by our
politicians. Any honest study of Osamah bin Ladin's speeches or interviews
would suggest that although he uses a language rich in religious symbolism,
which is common in the Arab and Islamic World, he was motivated by only a few
factors, none of which are truly religious in nature. They can be summarized,
in order of importance, as follows:

1. American military presence in the Gulf.
2. Suffering and death of Muslims as a result of US foreign policies, which
Osamah bin Ladin sees as a conspiracy between the Western Powers and
Zionists to weaken Arabs and Muslims.
3. Manipulation by Western Powers and the selling out of Arab economic
interests by Gulf monarchs to preserve their own regimes.

In an interview given in June 1999, Osamah, talking about himself, stated the
following:

"This is something brief about Usamah Bin-Ladin. As to what he [Usamah
Bin-Ladin] wants; what he wants and demands is the right of any living
being. We want our land to be freed of the enemies, we want our land be
free of the Americans."

That seems to be his primary motivation and he repeats it over and over
again. The US government and the media purposely ignore this stated goal
because they do not want ordinary Americans to think that Osamah bin Ladin
may have had a legitimate cause to attack the United States. They want to
portray him as a crazy religious zealot who was inspired by fundamentalist
version of Islam, by economic jealousy, and that he was a product of madrasa
education and lack of freedom at home. The 9-11 also gave the enemies of
Islam an opportunity to attack Islam itself and Osamah was made the symbolic
embodiment of what fundamentalist Islam produces. The real issues that Osamah
bin Ladin had been raising were quickly taken off the airways, at the behest
of the American government, and replaced with propaganda about the evils of
the Arab and Muslim world.

What troubled the US administration most, initially, were a litany of
grievances that Osamah bin Ladin outlined, which have been ignored but never
quite refuted by the US. Read this portion of his speech, which gives a good
reflection of his way of thinking:

"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered
from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the
Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that
the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the
hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The
horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh
in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam,
Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in
Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body
and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and
not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear
conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the
iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented
from obtaining arms to defend themselves."

He elaborates on these themes in other portions of the same speech and other
interviews that he has given, which I have summarized here as follows:

1. Israel, supported by the US, has killed Palestinians and the Lebanese
with impunity.
2. The US has bombed Iraq for the past ten years_ at least twice weekly_
which has killed thousands of Arabs, even though the Gulf War is over.
3. The US manipulates Arab regimes and is "looting" Arab wealth.
4. Muslims are suffering all over the world and nobody does anything about
it. And the reason the UN does not do anything about it is because it is
'owned' by the US.
5. In Bosnia, Muslims were brutally killed and raped and the US and the
Europeans watched from satellites and wouldn't allow arms shipments so
that the Bosnians could protect themselves, and only when they agreed to
give up two-thirds of their country did NATO came forward to help.

And THEREFORE, he has a right to declare war on America.

Nowhere in here do you find him telling the world that he wants to attack the
'infidel' America because Quran tells him so.

Clearly, as a first step, he wants the United States to leave his country. It
is interesting that he knows that it was the corrupt and inept Saudi regime
which invited the American troops in the first place [actually Cheney had
scared Saudis into doing so], and he does not want to overthrow it. He goes
to great lengths to explain why that was not his preferred strategy. He is
afraid that any attempts would result in a civil war, which the West would
use to its own advantage, and perhaps would use the pretext of instability to
find a more permanent presence in the Gulf. He systematically outlines his
views on this issue:

"Also to remind the Muslims not to be engaged in an internal war among
themselves, as that will have grieve consequences namely:

1-consumption of the Muslims human resources as most casualties and
fatalities will be among the Muslims people.

2-Exhaustion of the economic and financial resources.

3-Destruction of the country infrastructures

4-Dissociation of the society

5-Destruction of the oil industries. The presence of the USA Crusader
military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf
is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world.
The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the
country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides
and push them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying
the land; therefore spread of the fighting in the region will expose the
oil wealth to the danger of being burned up. The economic interests of
the States of the Gulf and the land of the two Holy Places will be
damaged and even a greater damage will be caused to the economy of the
world. I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons
of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the
battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power
essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's
Permission and Grace. We also warn the aggressors, the USA, against
burning this Islamic wealth (a crime which they may commit in order to
prevent it, at the end of the war, from falling in the hands of its
legitimate owners and to cause economic damages to the competitors of
the USA in Europe or the Far East, particularly Japan which is the major
consumer of the oil of the region).

6-Division of the land of the two Holy Places, and annexing of the
northerly part of it by Israel. Dividing the land of the two Holy Places
is an essential demand of the Zionist-Crusader alliance...

7-An internal war is a great mistake, no matter what reasons are there
for it. the presence of the occupier-the USA- forces will control the
outcome of the battle for the benefit of the international Kufr."

In other words, he wants to protect Muslims from any harm but he would rather
hurt the "enemy" so that they would leave.

What Osamah bin Ladin didn't realize was that the US has been looking for ANY
to gain a permanent foothold in the Gulf as well as in Central Asia to
protect its geo-political interests. First the Gulf War and then the events
of 9-11 provided a golden opportunity to do exactly that; and instead of
quitting Saudi Arabia, the US was able to build additional military bases in
the Muslim World. The US, with great diplomatic skill, propaganda and
economic/military threats, turned the table on Osamah bin Ladin. Muslims,
shamed by the tragic loss of innocent lives and made to feel collective
guilt, forgot critical issues that Osamah bin Ladin had raised, and went
about defending their religion, which hardly had nothing to do with what's
been going on.

Islam was never an enemy of the US, but some people are hell bent in making
it so. All lies get old and die. Let's hope this one would too, and soon.

------

My Divine Right

Destroy bush and rumsfeld now American Patriot soldiers,
fire fighters, and NRA members. We all notice CNN and
CBC management refuse to allow open discussions on the
documented facts outlining the cop killers, bush and
rumsfeld treasonous behavior against the great American
people, deliberately forestalling their criminal arrests
for the mass murders of US as innocent in America. (Or
even the recent broken elections in Florida.) Again, I
repeat, I've spoken to corporate cult Americans, Leon
Harris, Bill Hemmer, Daryn Kagan, Sid Beddington, and
Walter Issacson, just to name a few at CNN. All
forementioned cowards, who would watch Americans be
robbed and murdered, and do nothing to protect
ourselves, are personally aware the bushmob was warned
of the terrorist plot specifically, the fact that Laden
investigations were blocked by the WhiteHouse, while the
bushmob in Enron interests, developed a war plan with
General Ahmad to invade Afghanistan, for an oil pipe line
on a premise of blaming Laden for whatever without
evidence as US innocent, a documented truth that existed
also just prior to 9/11, a strategy confessed to fully
implemented, demanding the bushmob not follow the
criminal leads, that point to themselves as traitors.
Like the bad bush act on 9/11. (emperors-clothes.com) No
arguments are given against what I have spoken on, nor
am I even being adressed by our corporate standards as
inter-nationally responsible. Why? Largely, because, we
are adressing what is as documented to be true,
irrespective of ourselves as opinion, Justice infinite
as indivisable, like the stars in the sky, while the
corporate news machine is refusing to be our own as
legit. Mr. bush, the anti-Christ, and rumsfeld did
9/11 to kill ourselves to steal Constitutional American
values, with their silence only further implicating
themselves to the doubters. Neat eh? (I'm also playing
the Creator, who just wants to be at peace with
ourselves as equals.) As for Iraq, it was the American
administration that removed the inspectors from doing
their, going very successful job, not Saddam, while the
corporate media continues to allow cheney, the evil nazi
fascist bassturd, to keep intentionally lying to American
soldiers regarding the facts, like US Air Force
Response, so the bush regime can throw away their lives
as worthless, without meaning. (Agreed, on general
terms, American soldiers are deeply ignorant and
cowardly as cheney continually attests, but they are
still preparing for death, and I understand many can
read human, and haven't been hiding in a undisclosed
location without a television, or newspaper these last
few months.) The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs, found corporate America sold Iraq
anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and
botulism, right up until March 1992, on hopes
apparently, to risk further American soldier
causalities, who were at that present time engaged in
battle with poisoning themselves mostly. 250,000 troops
are planned to criminally invade YOUR humanity, against
now near SIXTY countries, representing around
2,083,093,468 people and counting, (that also includes
freedom fighters, bikers, the Mob, and Jack), US,
clearly aware of bush and tommy franks nazi plans, like
in Afghanistan. To kill indiscriminately, while running
death squads murdering innocent families, including your
children. As for Saddam gassing the two guerilla groups
called Kurds, who were fighting to murder in a war on
behalf of Iran in 1988, labeled by American murdering
nazi savage bush, Saddam's "own people", here is what
the most definitive document on the issue states. It's
a 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the
invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C.
Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R.
Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the
U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

...

Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East

Excerpt, Chapter 5

U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we
find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas
was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims
produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds
-- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover
any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests
solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into
Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.

We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the
Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the
sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at
least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24
hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will
be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of
Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a
bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that
died before adjournment).

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was
influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in
another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at
Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many
deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated
in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack,
even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used
chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the
Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

From another American government report:

"Blood agents [i.e., cyanogen chloride] were allegedly
responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in
the war--the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the
Iraqis have no history of using these two agents--and
the Iranians do--we conclude that the Iranians
perpetrated this attack."

...

The New York Times reported on corporate America's war
project SHAD, where during the Vietnam war, 4000 U.S.
sailors were gassed deliberately by Republicans with
gruesome biological toxins, including sarin.

As for proving that something is not secretly hidden by
a nation as millions.. practically impossible! You
can't ever conclusively prove that something isn't
secretly hidden from perception by variables
admittingly, unknowable. (For whom would be there to
secretly watch the watchers?) When, and under what
madness of bush tyranny as enslavement of our human
species, would anyone be able to try standing up in Iraq
or elsewheres and state, there is no Anthrax anywhere
hidden secretly to kill bush, the false deity super evil
anti-Christ with? Never I declare as the Son of Man,
will evil bush escape the wrath of our fury as this
Universe is, however, it is the supporters of bush's
irrationality with our poltical will unchallenged by
corporate standards, as these nazi monster, lawless
American cop killers wish to use to terrorize 60 nations
of almost 2 billion innocents without any evidence with.
With an intent to use a paultry 250,000 criminal nazi
soldiers mindlessly stupid on drugs probably, while
corporate America won't give anyone two minutes
nationally to speak on the clear strong factual evidence
implicating bush and rumsfeld for murdering over 3,000
AMERICAN flag wavers in Yew York City? Destroy American
traitor bush now!!! The sanctions against the poorest
of poor in Iraq are also irrational. The Republicans
state the innocent people of Iraq must be denied food
and medicine to starve and die because, they are
practically politically powerless to change their state
to be attacked as the unrepresented, while stating
Saddam, if he could, wouldn't help them survive as a
nation as the Republican justification to terrorize
millions, while cheney skirts U.N. sanctions to sell
Saddam whatever supplies privately in secret? So the
suffering of Iraqis, is rightly attributed on American
terrorist activity by all Iraqis, as the direct cause,
working directly against the Republicans publicly stated
purpose to commit such criminal intent. Example: If a
well spoken father who may not like the policies of
Saddam should go to the hospital with his child, he is
told the bush clan wish his family death and suffering
by American will for being born to our world in Iraq as
human. The oil for food program however, is
intelligently based, but it's purpose is defeated with
the Republican atrocities to blindly murder US with.
The demands for the betterment of the Iraq people
through national oil sales, would make sense, if they
weren't directly suffering under assault by the same
terrorist network cancer cell that denies themselves
inalienable rights to life as our own. Like
pathetically weak as unrepresented American cowardly
soldiers, who were provided no evidence to back up the
evil bushmob's criminal allegations, then went murdering
tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan on
the brink of starvation, instead of killing the
documented child killer, heroin pusher, tommy franks, or
bush and rumsfeld for 9/11 in America. Just on bush's
behavior on the day in question, being left unreported
by CNN dictates, should say much to everyone.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers
told reporters at the National Press Club about Iraq's
enormous unknown stockpiles of !secret! corporate
american warfare weapons, "It does not take a lot of
space for some of this work to go on. It can be done in
a very, very small location," he said. "The fact that
you can put it on wheels makes it a lot easier to hide
from people who might be looking for it. So, yes we
have evidence." Evidence of what? Nations with trucks
should be nuked? Richard Myers is a nazi warmongering
irrational fukhead, who wishes the murder of countless
thousands, if not millions in AMERICA, who should be
fired today. You see the nazi bassturd, you fire him, do
you hear me People? AMERICA? Johnny...? Mr. Myers, your
fired!

----

While we now learn from public disclosures on Connie
Chung, apparently, George Tenant, had only 3 CIA officers
investigating Laden just prior to 9/11. While I
remember last year it was alledged on PBS, the CIA had
taxed the American public nearly 10 billion on those
investigations regarding Laden over the previous year,
but, hmmm, bush forbade police agencies, the pursuit of
such investigations with his secret W199i directive.
Guardian Wednesday 7, 2001 - "FBI claims bin Laden
inquiry was frustrated"

George Tenant must be questioned on these matters, and
his relationship to General Ahmad, then arrested
regarding his inaction on the insider stock traders for
9/11. If neither happen in a timely fashion, he too,
will be destroyed by US American Patriots for treason.

----
Excerpt From:

NY Newsday
U.S. Hypocritical on Human-Rights Abuses
by Marie Cocco

...
America's new business partner, Uzbekistan's president
is brutal, and very bad.

The State Department human rights report says the former
Soviet republic now "is an authoritarian state with
limited civil rights ... Both police and the
National Security Services routinely tortured, beat and
otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions ...
Police also used suffocation, electric shock, rape
and other sexual abuse. Neither the severity nor
frequency of torture appeared to have decreased during
the year."

What increased was American aid. It tripled to $160
million, the payoff for allowing U.S. military staging
areas for the war in neighboring Afghanistan. President
Islam Karimov was welcomed to the White House. In July,
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill traveled to Tashkent and
praised Karimov's "efficient leadership."

Bush has singled out one despot for removal.

He says he has many reasons for invading Iraq. Without
a look at some secret new evidence the administration
may or may not have about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, it
is not possible to find truth. That is how the White
House wants it.

-------
From a smart thinking, great commenting archive
sifting site somewhere titled,

Print Think

...
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
By Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and
his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime
change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global
Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W
Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The
document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the
neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.

(snip)

The PNAC report also:

(snip)

- hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of
mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which
the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack
-- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ...
combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and
perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that
can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool'

-----------

Now, as for the corporate world telling US, we believe
Laden is guity without evidence: A reasonable person
doesn't have the justification to believe the
unsubstantiated verdict. This is why the fascists at
CNN propagandized, TERRORIZED, the American public by
falsely alledging that Laden threatened to nuke America,
or that he stated to murder any or all Americans like a
bush would. Laden, like Saddam, or Arafat never was
actually quoted to be that ignorantly stupid as a leader
trying to communicate to the People, but for by CNN, and the
sharon types regarding "Palestinians", as a lie to
themselves to excuse their responsibility to ourselves
as the humans. But EVEN IF TRUE, wouldn't make Laden
responsible for every wrong doings the bushmob was
actually responsible for, like robbing all Americans of
their livelyhoods, unreported by CNN of course, to leave
ourselves to fall victim by the bush regime as shysters
pirating America, by shredding the Holy Constitution.
However, Laden has skated near with the label "Jew", to
be of the criminal, intolerant, offensive, fascist,
bigoted jewish Israeli government, that imprisons or
murders real Jews for being JUST that. Rabbi Hillel
would be jailed by sharon in the israel of today. Wise
Muhammad teachings cover this dumb Jew Christian thing
well, as us all suffering by the illiterate evil
dumbfuks who ignore ourselves, to steal our established
values, while CNN, like Art Bell, forbids debate on
their irrational falsehoods, refusing to protect the
FBI, or the American flag through practicing censorship,
while advocating murder, as Art Bell, the traitor, does
almost daily, while hanging up every human caller.
Next, CNN will be blaming ALL the poor and starving in
the third world, for secret Pentagon frauds through
the removal of the False Claims Act. As, the American nation
contributes the least to the world in aid, in relation
to the GNP. (The give and take.) 5 billion a month to
not feed, but murder innocent people in Afghanistan?
Destroy bush now, and be loved by all as God.

Hey, great! You've actually read this far. Say,
listen... Google, for one reason or another censors my,
and who knows who elses, posts for fear from the
bushmob. The bushmob through Google 'Groups' has no
problem with posts encouraging war crimes by bigots, but
my rational posts regarding the nature of Justice, they
have determined for US, is inappropriate, while bush
prepares to criminally war our world to actually do so
as an unelected mass murdering nazi savage. So I ask
you to have faith in living, and give us your thoughts
on this for yourself. When it's reposted, it makes it
far more difficult to disect from public viewing, and
gives the likely good people at Google, a viable excuse
to not continuing to do so against our better interests.
To comment this post with whatever position you may have
regarding these important subjects, doesn't mean you
agree that we are God, or I'm simply Johnny Wizard, but
for open free communications regarding the true
political state of ourselves worth being heard from.
Murdering innocent people for evil bush and rumsfeld to
steal from ourselves, is a sacrifice in cowardice, I for
one, refuse to stand for as the living. How about you?
Public rebutals regarding my supreme stupidity are found
in alt.sercurity.terrorism.

Thanks friend,

Johnny Wizard


copvcia.com
whatreallyhappened.com
tenc.net
globalresearch.ca

-----------

Up to You

Look, american service personnel aren't even American
enough to publicly defend their treasonous behavior
against the good old red, white, and blue. Why?
Cowards. We all know the bushmob has tirelessly worked
to steal American service personnel's pensions, savings,
and lives as worthless of protection, while counting on
every American Soldier as Police officer, to not arrest
the bushmob ourselves for 9/11 in New York, and the war
crimes committed against the innocent in Afghanistan.
Mr. tommy franks, the heroin pusher, tells dumfuk
soldiers to kill innocent humans, and American soldiers
aren't there anywhere to protect themselves? Sadistic
nazi war criminal rumsfeld tells us all openly, he
wishes to persecute those he knows to be innocent as a
true nazi did. With all the blessings of sharon
naturally. Why do American soldiers not protect
America? Or know the Constitution as Holy? Too weak,
stupid and cowardly I told you Johnny. They sit
terrified, unwilling to stand for their country, while
demon bush and rumsfeld decimate my economy with a
regressive tax swindle, and in addition, criminal thefts
through the Pentagon and Social Security, while publicly
planning to war two billion people of

US

for no good reason but for sacrifice to corporate
america's false deity, the anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush
Jr.. While we now all also know, to not only rob, but
murder thousands of Americans too, as fair play by the
bush backed terrorist protocol, exposes Our Mr. bush
Jr. as the most heinously evil demon humanity has ever
witnessed factually. All evidenced and everything. So,
will Americans live up to protecting their dying rights,
or will bush, the anti-Christ, succeed to further steal
our God sworn, Patriotic duty to protect our own
humanity? Will bush succeed in destroying civilization,
or will we succeed in destroying pathetic criminal
pirate nazi traitor bush, by the will of our own
survival to continue as the People?

The godless corporations refuse me to speak publicly in
our defence naturally, and people generally, seem to
concur as stupidity, to sacrifice their own families
purposefully for the banker buildings, while putting
their religious faith into corporate dictates for
slavery. I am not myself to be G in all worlds, nor, am
I all dreams to be so undesirably. I am just a super
human being as space time continuum, day tripping all
alone, wondering about prospects for a world in which I
can live with. I love life, and our ailing planet, but
maybe, I did get this story line wrong somewhere, and
got taken away too far in fantasy. Maybe, bush's
humanity as it exists here in reality, is a nightmare
not worth saving for yourself being.. CNN and CBC do
work against our communities, documented everyday, by
their continual refusal to cover our top priority
issues. Corporate radio programs primarily, but not
always, insist on only hiring semi-literate ignorant
bigot whores as fascist degenerates, who insist on
disallowing open communications, or learning to learn
with the community, while advocating the murders of
American service personnel and innocent civilians, as a
patriotic duty to not live up to our personal
responsibilities as a member of society. It is all up
to ourselves to fight for peace, or be slaughtered on
Coast to Coast's alter of apathy to not care so for
living justly. We are not at war with ourselves, or a
third of humanity as cheney and bush repeatedly claim,
but with the warmongers, who wish US all harm, to steal
our human values of love and understanding, good will,
and compassion. With evil bush, cheney and rumsfeld
figuring, there is no way for US all to stand up for
yourself, under the banner of Justice as freedom for
all. Well, I say, nuts. If God can do it, and I can do
it, so can you true! Help yourself up please won't you
do it as us living already? Or, maybe for beer?

Please do not allow the bushmob to murder millions. The
fears to stand proud as Americans, are the fears to
stand proud with Love as ourselves being the Universe.
Boo! That wasn't so scary, was it? Again, traitors
bush and rumsfeld must be immediately arrested for 9/11,
and tommy franks, for war crimes in Afghanistan. Like
Now.


Always forever, the one and only,

Johnny Wizard

--------

All at Once

Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, by simply
living to not deprive those same rights from any other.

So, Mr. bush Jr. tells you, we're either with us, or
with the terrorists. Hmmm. As a member of the general
public, bush, as himself, has no more rights to speak
openly as the person I am, and therefor, I will except
his proposal on equal grounds to communicate freely.
So, I'm either with yourself as a would be, could be
anyone is, or your factually documented as an
unbelievably super evil, anti-American mass murdering
fascist dictator, war criminal terrorist recruiter, as
the, golly gee, actual, must be for real, warmongering
anti-Christ from this Book by John then eh?... No?
You, what do you figure Mr. bush Jr.? Can you hear
humanity calling you out to publicly explain your vast
stupidity? Politics has it as our mutual understanding,
loyalty to life through law as living is civilization.
Law, as is the only true measurement of freedom for
ourselves to know so. Are you alone on this too? Ha,
er... um, anyway..

Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, simply by
living to not deprive those same rights from others. So
we form Governments, and have loyal police officers to
practice our will as ruled out to the best of our
ability.

We need a new national news format to make for this
information age approaching, that sets a high priority
on ourselves as concerned about where we are going. The
Constitution is not just a jumble of tossed blurbs,
telling of a day when people didn't care for living as
America in spirit also, the Constitutional rights of
Justice stand strong through good reason, and are easily
defended up at the national news desk, we're sure to say
eventually, if we only had the show for something.
While we wait, corporate america prepares to never have
Chomsky aired, or legitimate critics as the voices for
freedom by representation, to gain ourselves progress as
we would normally on Watt's happinin for real man. You
know, the awesome power of communication, and Chomsky,
being a best seller over and over like that, or Ron Paul
being a Republican citizen, committed to working for
Americans as a true Patriot would under the flag? The
Constitutional rights of Justice stand strong through
good reason. Ashcroft is truly incompetent. His
failure to grasp why a democracy would choose to treat
all people fairly, as duly protected with a system of
laws practiced to find governing with, leaves us instead
as, the ancient bushmob vision of injustice against
ourselves that he fails to confess as us innocent until
understood otherwise. The crusades were a lesson we
never want to be learning over, with Our Mr. bush Jr.
at our wills demanding a crashed course we've done and
learned from already. I think Ashcroft's personal turn
to criminality for America, has to do with sabotaging
that FBI investigation, and the fair play consequence of
us People arriving to communicate him to justice on
behalf of the Nations with questions that need immediate
answers. Sabotaging the FBI was not due from
insufficient funding, or failure to connect the dots
ever as investigators.

Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, by simply
living to not deprive those same rights from any other.
Right? Save America for your own sake Americans! The
strength is within ourselves to make this a better world
for living.

As you are,

Johnny Wizard.

---

From: TOMPAINE.com

Is It Not True?
Questions On Iraq From A GOP Congressman

Ron Paul is an M.D. and a Republican Member of Congress
from Texas

Editor's Note: Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul read the
following to the House of Representatives, September 10,
2002.

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with
Iraq. Here are some questions I would like answered by
those who are urging us to start this war:

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the
Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because
we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq
now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just
confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that
even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein
might be hiding weapons, and at the same time imply that
we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of
inspections?

4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic
Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly
verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi
cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has
been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global
terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United
States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the
19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came
from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent
Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no
confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is
no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker
Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the
administration claimed Al Qaeda were hiding out, is in
the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of Al Qaeda
leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way
to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly
sinking into total chaos, with bombings and
assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that
according to a recent U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by
all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again,
how, when, and where it chooses?"

11. Why are we taking precious military and
intelligence resources away from tracking down those who
did attack the United States -- and who may again attack
the United States -- and using them to invade countries
that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab
world's worst suspicions about the United States? And
isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has
no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the
size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally
inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to
declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should
presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress
to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are
presidents permitted to rely on the United Nations for
permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges
that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by
the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq
was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city
involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas
used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and
300,000 U.S. soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf
War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands
may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American
casualties in a war against a country that does not have
the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100
billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices
expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already
shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years
occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to
"build democracy" there?

19. Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are
given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not
true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been
ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N.
resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into
Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it
is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims,
the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United
States without specific approval from the United
Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international
community and conform to its rules only when it pleases
us, does this not serve to undermine our position,
directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to
Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout
the Middle East and support military tyrants like
Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically
elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that
revealed the United States. knowingly supplied chemical
and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq
war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged
Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by
supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it
honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran,
which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous
with an act of aggression, and has never been considered
a moral or legitimate U.S. policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support
this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take
over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and
are confident that they won't have to personally fight
this war are more anxious for this war than our
generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation
that has not initiated aggression against us, and could
not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to
wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the
sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia,
nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go
into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society
is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by
war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II, Congress
has not declared war and -- not coincidentally -- we
have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through
its intelligence services, was an active supporter and
key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal
declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Published: Sep 17 2002

-------

No Telling

Destroy bush and rumsfeld now! Look, the terrorist
network runs out of CNN and CBC, both willingly advocate
criminal intentions against our community interests, by
censorship and dissin' information. (Video Lottery
Terminals eat at our souls, and destroy our economy.
100% payouts must be demanded, anything less, is a
perpetration that does not stand up to sound fiscal
management.) The management of the networks, Walter
Issacson and Sid Beddington of CNN, Israel Cinman,
Robert Habinovitch, and David Cochten of CBC, are all our
humanity's enemy, as the true harborers of terrorist
activity, evil scum to US all. These monsters refuse to
allow reporters open public discussions on the true
current political state of OUR affairs, protecting their
false deity, the anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush Jr. from
immediate arrest or execution, for perpetrating 9/11,
now getting away with open deceit as unchallenged with
OUR facts, perverting America's democracy into in junta
dictatorship. CBC and CNN play our nations as unworthy
of deliberation, while censoring OUR ELECTED officials.
Like the recent Florida election. Or those in the
American government, responsible for managing to barely
protect Social Security, that bush has now illegally had
removed from their jurisdiction, while silently telling
all Americans, he'll manage to rob from us in secret
without telling anyone. Arron Brown, like Larry King,
feels the Social Security of our soldiers is unimportant
as newsworthy, nor their lives as worth protecting. Or
how about when bush stole 50 billion tax dollars from
American families, and stated, he wasn't accountable to
the people as a legitimate leader? No fukin kidding!
Unaccountable to no one evil nazi murderer bush thinks
America will not stand up for ourselves without godless
national news coverage, nor will American men be brave
enough to stand strong to protect their own bereaving
families. Again, the bushmob not only threatened
directly the Taliban with war in July 2001, for not
siding for Enron's interests, but was also caught with
the 9/11 war strategy fully developed two days prior to
the event in question. Why would Laden, or the Taliban
give bush a justification to follow through on his evil
nazi threat? How could the irrational, illogical,
lawless criminal dumfuk bush, have attacked the students
of Afghanistan, then let tommy franks run death squads
to murder defenseless children, without 9/11 I ask you?
Gee, the Taliban sided for the better pipe line contract
for the interest of their nation, and turned down bribes
to sell out their brethren, therefor, the bushmob as
Enron can steal and murder anyone they want to because,
Americans refuse to uphold their own Constitution, of
which, true American Patriot Soldiers it was rumored at
one time, used to actually give pledge to with their
lives if necessary in protection, while crying through a
salute to the flag, that bush and ashcroft now spit on
deliberately, challenging US to come down there
ourselves personally, because Americans, are so
unbelievably cowardly! Again, the pension money stolen
from American families through Enron is sitting in the
Cayman Islands, and the biggest crook of them all is
Thomas White, bush's Secretary of the Army. (Thomas, as
Secretary, does the financial paper work for the US Army,
in case you didn't know.)

As for evil dumfuk rumsfeld's statement to justify our
unjustified incriminations, "The absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.", no it's not, nor is it
impossible that every real man alive will destroy
rumsfeld ourselves, before he continues to murder us all
irrationally for possiblilities we could maybe might do.
Mr. rumsfeld tells us he would without reason to claim
so, steal and murder from ourselves as established
innocent, of which he himself, would even contend as the
criminal! To have rotten rumsfeld tell us he has a
belief in our names to persecute innocent people,
because he can't substantiate any evidence factually,
gives himself no honest justification to hold such a
position against our better interests. So goes to show,
rumsfeld, the nazi, is a war criminal! Then, of course, there
was the statements rotten rumsfeld made, that enrages
every loyal member of the NRA when communicated clearly,
where rotten rumsfeld stated, that of the Taliban
prisoners held illegally at Guantanamo Bay, that even if
they were honestly tried, and found innocent in an
American court of Law as judged by our peers publicly,
rumsfeld would still fight our humanity as a terrorist,
and refuse their release as farmers with beards, or
protectors of our communities. Or like ashcroft said
about terrorists not deserving the same Constitutional
Justice protections as everyone else, like facing their
accusation in a public court of law to defend themselves
against alegations made in our names. What is it then
nazi bassturds, is ashcroft saying people in other
nations should be terrorized, or is he saying american
criminals are getting away unaprehended?

Destroy rumsfeld now American Patriots!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38441-2002sep4?language=printer

To persecute our humanity for no other reason, but for
rumsfeld's paranoia with what is possible, or fear of
reprisals for 9/11 by real American Patriot Soldiers,
would mark himself openly as a terrorist to everyone,
threatening US all with murder for crimes he says he has
no evidence to back up as alleged. Mr. rumsfeld, like
ashcroft and bush, is a traitor to the Constitution of
America, and every living soul in this Universe! While
WE know, he didn't go to the NMCC on 9/11, where he
knew, and was reminded, he was supposed to be. While WE
know, there was no public evidence linking Laden or
the Taliban secretly either according to the British
Parliment, at the time he ordered the blanket killing of
Afghans, (who as a Nation, like "Omar the Just" were in
support of following the criminal leads to arrest the
true evil doers, (true American Justice!)), as the
reason offered to stop all investigations by hiding most
of all the evidence that would jeopardize his, and
bush's security as demons of pure nazi filth, traitors
to US all as the living to be humans. Like the eight
black boxes, cockpit recordings, testimony from the ATC,
FAA, NORAD, the Air Force, Building Seven, the FBI
(Rowley and General Ahmad) and the CIA (Insider trading
on the airline companies testified to not be connected
to Laden). Or like flight manifests, with the alleged
high-jackers who boarded without tickets, using stolen
names of people either still alive, or mostly from Saudi
Arabia. Gee, why would, would be terrorists steal
passports they didn't need, of American trained Saudi
national pilots, if they didn't want to be discovered as
American trained Saudi national pilots? Why plan to
high-jack planes from faraway Boston? Why did the
Ladens fly out of America at bush's request right after
9/11 from Boston too? Hmmmm. How is it possible for a
terrorist to board a commercial plane without purchasing
a ticket? AND, how would the two fbi officers (James
Woods), and three cia officers responsible for 9/11
investigations, be able to conclude the false names
of the suspects, if they weren't on the manifest?
Destroy bush now and be loved by all as God!

Yours truly,

Johnny Wizard

globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI205C.html

-----

All Wrapped Up

CBC as managed has deliberately with intent, worked to
misinform and propagandize our community on what is as,
documented provable fact, regarding Mr. bush's
complicity to the murder of US as the innocent in New
York City. CBC has refused to live up to our
responsibility to protect our democracy, and in silence,
has pirated our names to murder those understood to be
innocent of the accused offence. CBC has refused to
allow ourselves as the public to understand, Mr. bush
forbade the FBI from pursuing bin Laden investigations,
just prior to 9/11 with secret Presidential directive
W199I (199I WF213589), which had John O'Neil, the
anti-terrorism head for the FBI publicly protest by
resigning over. This W199I directive was put into place
after the administration had been warned by the BND, and
several other legitimate intelligence agencies, of an
impending terrorist plot involving the high-jacking of
American airplanes to be used as weapons and flown into
land marks. In addition to these unreported top
priority political issues that stand to be true as
documented factually, the bush administration had also
secretly put together a sinister war strategy, that was
revealed to ourselves as the public, by Canada's own Jim
Miklaszewski at MSNBC, to have existed without any doubt
as Presidential Directive documents, two days prior to
9/11 at the WhiteHouse. A planned strategy to invade
specifically Afghanistan, by blaming bin Laden for a
crime, but providing no evidence to back up the
allegations. That's right. The super evil criminal
bush dictatorship had a plan in place to not follow the
actual evidence to arrest the true culprits for a crime
that hadn't even yet taken place, but that they were
prepared for to close investigations on, as an
opportunity to invade specifically Afghanistan, propping
up the Northern Alliance who still practice the
barbarity of sharia law, with the bush bonuses of
selling heroin to our world, and most importantly,
building a liquefied natural gas pipe line for bush and
his Enron friends, to rob even more further from us all.
Legitimate FBI officers unrepresented by Mueller claim
General Amad was the principle terrorist funder of
Muhammad Atta, responsible for a wire transfer of
$100,000, who, incidentally was in unusual meetings, the
General was, with the bush administration a week prior
to 9/11, who also not only participated in meetings with
several top officials in the Senate Intelligence
Committee, but also, was reported to participate in
building the war strategy of invading Afghanistan, as
the reported desperate excuse offered for the General
being there just prior to 9/11, and also, was personally
responsible for negotiating the non-surrender of bin
Laden, of which the ISI claimed, the General advised the
Taliban not to do so because, no evidence would be
offered, nor public trial for an offence bin claimed he
played no part of.

We are all in agreement, in truth we rise, evil is just
the deceived disguised. Boo!

The case is wrapped up, and bush and rumsfeld need to be
immediately arrested for 9/11, for murdering countless
thousands for stolen gain, at the losses to our
humanity, that show through every putrid utterance of
scum bucket bush, as contempt for our living as humanity
through Law. Where a person accused of a criminal
offence without


Jason Walker - 10/3/2002

Regarding, "Bush's ambassador to Iraq, April
Glasspie, gave a green light to invade Kuwait"

I wasn't aware of this history. How does this tie in with the motivation to "defend" Kuwait? Where can I find out more??

-J


Robert Harbison - 10/2/2002

Um. This is a HISTORY newsletter and website. I think maybe you need to go to the Rush Limbaugh Ditto-head newsletter. The 8 years of Clinton were some of the best years in AMerica's History, Unemployment was done, wages were up, the economy was sparkling, Clinton backed peace in areas that had never known it. And for all those dittoheads that said Clinton "fumbled the ball" I say the ball was intercepted by Republicans more interested in a president's personal life and bank account, than in the well-being of the country.


Johnny Wizard - 9/30/2002



All at Once

Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, by simply
living to not deprive those same rights from any other.

So, Mr. bush Jr. tells you, we're either with us, or
with the terrorists. Hmmm. As a member of the general
public, bush, as himself, has no more rights to speak
openly as the person I am, and therefor, I will except
his proposal on equal grounds to communicate freely.
So, I'm either with yourself as a would be, could be
anyone is, or your factually documented as an
unbelievably super evil, anti-American mass murdering
fascist dictator, war criminal terrorist recruiter, as
the, golly gee, actual, must be for real, warmongering
anti-Christ from this Book by John then eh?... No?
You, what do you figure Mr. bush Jr.? Can you hear
humanity calling you out to publicly explain your vast
stupidity? Politics has it as our mutual understanding,
loyalty to life through law as living is civilization.
Law, as is the only true measurement of freedom for
ourselves to know so. Are you alone on this too? Ha,
er... um, anyway..

Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, simply by
living to not deprive those same rights from others. So
we form Governments, and have loyal police officers to
practice our will as ruled out to the best of our
ability.

We need a new national news format to make for this
information age approaching, that sets a high priority
on ourselves as concerned about where we are going. The
Constitution is not just a jumble of tossed blurbs,
telling of a day when people didn't care for living as
America in spirit also, the Constitutional rights of
Justice stand strong through good reason, and are easily
defended up at the national news desk, we're sure to say
eventually, if we only had the show for something.
While we wait, corporate america prepares to never have
Chomsky aired, or legitimate critics as the voices for
freedom by representation, to gain ourselves progress as
we would normally on Watt's happinin for real man. You
know, the awesome power of communication, and Chomsky,
being a best seller over and over like that, or Ron Paul
being a Republican citizen, committed to working for
Americans as a true Patriot would under the flag? The
Constitutional rights of Justice stand strong through
good reason. Ashcroft is truly incompetent. His
failure to grasp why a democracy would choose to treat
all people fairly, as duly protected with a system of
laws practiced to find governing with, leaves us instead
as, the ancient bushmob vision of injustice against
ourselves that he fails to confess as us innocent until
understood otherwise. The crusades were a lesson we
never want to be learning over, with Our Mr. bush Jr.
at our wills demanding a crashed course we've done and
learned from already. I think Ashcroft's personal turn
to criminality for America, has to do with sabotaging
that FBI investigation, and the fair play consequence of
us People arriving to communicate him to justice on
behalf of the Nations with questions that need immediate
answers. Sabotaging the FBI was not due from
insufficient funding, or failure to connect the dots
ever as investigators.

Nobody would want our lives or freedom stolen, by simply
living to not deprive those same rights from any other.
Right? Save America for your own sake Americans! The
strength is within ourselves to make this a better world
for living.

As you are,

Johnny Wizard.

---

From: TOMPAINE.com

Is It Not True?
Questions On Iraq From A GOP Congressman

Ron Paul is an M.D. and a Republican Member of Congress from Texas

Editor's Note: Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul read the following to the House
of Representatives, September 10, 2002.


Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. Here are some
questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war:

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the
height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know
it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with inspections
we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and at the same time
imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of
inspections?

4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency was able
to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi
cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop
a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the
United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers
came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he
recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a
Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed Al
Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of Al Qaeda leaders who escaped
appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called
allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos,
with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that
according to a recent U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive
and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses?"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from
tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may again
attack the United States -- and using them to invade countries that have not
attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst
suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force,
and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then
proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is
exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the
Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion?
Are presidents permitted to rely on the United Nations for permission to go
to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of
Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive
evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city
involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely
controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 U.S. soldiers
have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and
that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war
against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United
States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war
against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an
already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of
Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are given as reason to
initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have
been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. resolution of 1990 as the
reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack
assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were
set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the
United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its
rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position,
directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable
when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military
tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected
president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the United
States. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during
the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi
gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and
encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for
his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of
aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate U.S. policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not
the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they
won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than
our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated
aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any
reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the
time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries
should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely
disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II, Congress has not declared war and
-- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence
services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution
to the floor of Congress?

Published: Sep 17 2002

---

No Telling

Destroy bush and rumsfeld now! Look, the terrorist
network runs out of CNN and CBC, both willingly advocate
criminal intentions against our community interests, by
censorship and dissin' information. (Video Lottery
Terminals eat at our souls, and destroy our economy.
100% payouts must be demanded, anything less, is a
perpetration that does not stand up to sound fiscal
management.) The management of the networks, Walter
Issacson and Sid Beddington of CNN, Israel Cinman,
Robert Habinovitch, and David Cochten of CBC, are all our
humanity's enemy, as the true harborers of terrorist
activity, evil scum to US all. These monsters refuse to
allow reporters open public discussions on the true
current political state of OUR affairs, protecting their
false deity, the anti-Christ, Our Mr. bush Jr. from
immediate arrest or execution, for perpetrating 9/11,
now getting away with open deceit as unchallenged with
OUR facts, perverting America's democracy into in junta
dictatorship. CBC and CNN play our nations as unworthy
of deliberation, while censoring OUR ELECTED officials.
Like the recent Florida election. Or those in the
American government, responsible for managing to barely
protect Social Security, that bush has now illegally had
removed from their jurisdiction, while silently telling
all Americans, he'll manage to rob from us in secret
without telling anyone. Arron Brown, like Larry King,
feels the Social Security of our soldiers is unimportant
as newsworthy, nor their lives as worth protecting. Or
how about when bush stole 50 billion tax dollars from
American families, and stated, he wasn't accountable to
the people as a legitimate leader? No fukin kidding!
Unaccountable to no one evil nazi murderer bush thinks
America will not stand up for ourselves without godless
national news coverage, nor will American men be brave
enough to stand strong to protect their own bereaving
families. Again, the bushmob not only threatened
directly the Taliban with war in July 2001, for not
siding for Enron's interests, but was also caught with
the 9/11 war strategy fully developed two days prior to
the event in question. Why would Laden, or the Taliban
give bush a justification to follow through on his evil
nazi threat? How could the irrational, illogical,
lawless criminal dumfuk bush, have attacked the students
of Afghanistan, then let tommy franks run death squads
to murder defenseless children, without 9/11 I ask you?
Gee, the Taliban sided for the better pipe line contract
for the interest of their nation, and turned down bribes
to sell out their brethren, therefor, the bushmob as
Enron can steal and murder anyone they want to because,
Americans refuse to uphold their own Constitution, of
which, true American Patriot Soldiers it was rumored at
one time, used to actually give pledge to with their
lives if necessary in protection, while crying through a
salute to the flag, that bush and ashcroft now spit on
deliberately, challenging US to come down there
ourselves personally, because Americans, are so
unbelievably cowardly! Again, the pension money stolen
from American families through Enron is sitting in the
Cayman Islands, and the biggest crook of them all is
Thomas White, bush's Secretary of the Army. (Thomas, as
Secretary, does the financial paper work for the US Army,
in case you didn't know.)

As for evil dumfuk rumsfeld's statement to justify our
unjustified incriminations, "The absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.", no it's not, nor is it
impossible that every real man alive will destroy
rumsfeld ourselves, before he continues to murder us all
irrationally for possiblilities we could maybe might do.
Mr. rumsfeld tells us he would without reason to claim
so, steal and murder from ourselves as established
innocent, of which he himself, would even contend as the
criminal! To have rotten rumsfeld tell us he has a
belief in our names to persecute innocent people,
because he can't substantiate any evidence factually,
gives himself no honest justification to hold such a
position against our better interests. So goes to show,
rumsfeld, the nazi, is a war criminal! Then, of course, there
was the statements rotten rumsfeld made, that enrages
every loyal member of the NRA when communicated clearly,
where rotten rumsfeld stated, that of the Taliban
prisoners held illegally at Guantanamo Bay, that even if
they were honestly tried, and found innocent in an
American court of Law as judged by our peers publicly,
rumsfeld would still fight our humanity as a terrorist,
and refuse their release as farmers with beards, or
protectors of our communities. Or like ashcroft said
about terrorists not deserving the same Constitutional
Justice protections as everyone else, like facing their
accusation in a public court of law to defend themselves
against alegations made in our names. What is it then
nazi bastards, is ashcroft saying people in other
nations should be terrorized, or is he saying american
criminals are getting away unaprehended?

Destroy rumsfeld now American Patriots!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38441-2002sep4?language=printer

To persecute our humanity for no other reason, but for
rumsfeld's paranoia with what is possible, or fear of
reprisals for 9/11 by real American Patriot Soldiers,
would mark himself openly as a terrorist to everyone,
threatening US all with murder for crimes he says he has
no evidence to back up as alleged. Mr. rumsfeld, like
ashcroft and bush, is a traitor to the Constitution of
America, and every living soul in this Universe! While
WE know, he didn't go to the NMCC on 9/11, where he
knew, and was reminded, he was supposed to be. While WE
know, there was no public evidence linking Laden or
the Taliban secretly either according to the British
Parliment, at the time he ordered the blanket killing of
Afghans, (who as a Nation, like "Omar the Just" were in
support of following the criminal leads to arrest the
true evil doers, (true American Justice!)), as the
reason offered to stop all investigations by hiding most
of all the evidence that would jeopardize his, and
bush's security as demons of pure nazi filth, traitors
to US all as the living to be humans. Like the eight
black boxes, cockpit recordings, testimony from the ATC,
FAA, NORAD, the Air Force, Building Seven, the FBI
(Rowley and General Ahmad) and the CIA (Insider trading
on the airline companies testified to not be connected
to Laden). Or like flight manifests, with the alleged
high-jackers who boarded without tickets, using stolen
names of people either still alive, or mostly from Saudi
Arabia. Gee, why would, would be terrorists steal
passports they didn't need, of American trained Saudi
national pilots, if they didn't want to be discovered as
American trained Saudi national pilots? Why plan to
high-jack planes from faraway Boston? Why did the
Ladens fly out of America at bush's request right after
9/11 from Boston too? Hmmmm. How is it possible for a
terrorist to board a commercial plane without purchasing
a ticket? AND, how would the two fbi officers (James
Woods), and three cia officers responsible for 9/11
investigations, be able to conclude the false names
of the suspects, if they weren't on the manifest?
Destroy bush now and be loved by all as God!

Yours truly,

Johnny Wizard

globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI205C.html

-----

My Divine Right

Destroy bush and rumsfeld now American Patriot soldiers,
fire fighters, and NRA members. We all notice CNN and
CBC management refuse to allow open discussions on the
documented facts outlining the cop killers, bush and
rumsfeld treasonous behavior against the great American
people, deliberately forestalling their criminal arrests
for the mass murders of US as innocent in America. (Or
even the recent broken elections in Florida.) Again, I
repeat, I've spoken to corporate cult Americans, Leon
Harris, Bill Hemmer, Daryn Kagan, Sid Beddington, and
Walter Issacson, just to name a few at CNN. All
forementioned cowards, who would watch Americans be
robbed and murdered, and do nothing to protect
ourselves, are personally aware the bushmob was warned
of the terrorist plot specifically, the fact that Laden
investigations were blocked by the WhiteHouse, while the
bushmob in Enron interests, developed a war plan with
General Ahmad to invade Afghanistan, for an oil pipe line
on a premise of blaming Laden for whatever without
evidence as US innocent, a documented truth that existed
also just prior to 9/11, a strategy confessed to fully
implemented, demanding the bushmob not follow the
criminal leads, that point to themselves as traitors.
Like the bad bush act on 9/11. (emperors-clothes.com) No
arguments are given against what I have spoken on, nor
am I even being adressed by our corporate standards as
inter-nationally responsible. Why? Largely, because, we
are adressing what is as documented to be true,
irrespective of ourselves as opinion, Justice infinite
as indivisable, like the stars in the sky, while the
corporate news machine is refusing to be our own as
legit. Mr. bush, the anti-Christ, and rumsfeld did
9/11 to kill ourselves to steal Constitutional American
values, with their silence only further implicating
themselves to the doubters. Neat eh? (I'm also playing
the Creator, who just wants to be at peace with
ourselves as equals.) As for Iraq, it was the American
administration that removed the inspectors from doing
their, going very successful job, not Saddam, while the
corporate media continues to allow cheney, the evil nazi
fascist bastard, to keep intentionally lying to American
soldiers regarding the facts, like US Air Force
Response, so the bush regime can throw away their lives
as worthless, without meaning. (Agreed, on general
terms, American soldiers are deeply ignorant and
cowardly as cheney continually attests, but they are
still preparing for death, and I understand many can
read human, and haven't been hiding in a undisclosed
location without a television, or newspaper these last
few months.) The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs, found corporate America sold Iraq
anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and
botulism, right up until March 1992, on hopes
apparently, to risk further American soldier
causalities, who were at that present time engaged in
battle with poisoning themselves mostly. 250,000 troops
are planned to criminally invade YOUR humanity, against
now near SIXTY countries, representing around
2,083,093,468 people and counting, (that also includes
freedom fighters, bikers, the Mob, and Jack), US,
clearly aware of bush and tommy franks nazi plans, like
in Afghanistan. To kill indiscriminately, while running
death squads murdering innocent families, including your
children. As for Saddam gassing the two guerilla groups
called Kurds, who were fighting to murder in a war on
behalf of Iran in 1988, labeled by American murdering
nazi savage bush, Saddam's "own people", here is what
the most definitive document on the issue states. It's
a 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the
invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C.
Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R.
Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the
U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

...

Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East

Excerpt, Chapter 5

U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we
find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas
was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims
produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds
-- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover
any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests
solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into
Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.

We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the
Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the
sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at
least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24
hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will
be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of
Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a
bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that
died before adjournment).

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was
influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in
another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at
Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many
deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated
in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack,
even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used
chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the
Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

From another American government report:

"Blood agents [i.e., cyanogen chloride] were allegedly
responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in
the war--the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the
Iraqis have no history of using these two agents--and
the Iranians do--we conclude that the Iranians
perpetrated this attack."

...

The New York Times reported on corporate America's war
project SHAD, where during the Vietnam war, 4000 U.S.
sailors were gassed deliberately by Republicans with
gruesome biological toxins, including sarin.

As for proving that something is not secretly hidden by
a nation as millions.. practically impossible! You
can't ever conclusively prove that something isn't
secretly hidden from perception by variables
admittingly, unknowable. (For whom would be there to
secretly watch the watchers?) When, and under what
madness of bush tyranny as enslavement of our human
species, would anyone be able to try standing up in Iraq
or elsewheres and state, there is no Anthrax anywhere
hidden secretly to kill bush, the false deity super evil
anti-Christ with? Never I declare as the Son of Man,
will evil bush escape the wrath of our fury as this
Universe is, however, it is the supporters of bush's
irrationality with our poltical will unchallenged by
corporate standards, as these nazi monster, lawless
American cop killers wish to use to terrorize 60 nations
of almost 2 billion innocents without any evidence with.
With an intent to use a paultry 250,000 criminal nazi
soldiers mindlessly stupid on drugs probably, while
corporate America won't give anyone two minutes
nationally to speak on the clear strong factual evidence
implicating bush and rumsfeld for murdering over 3,000
AMERICAN flag wavers in Yew York City? Destroy American
traitor bush now!!! The sanctions against the poorest
of poor in Iraq are also irrational. The Republicans
state the innocent people of Iraq must be denied food
and medicine to starve and die because, they are
practically politically powerless to change their state
to be attacked as the unrepresented, while stating
Saddam, if he could, wouldn't help them survive as a
nation as the Republican justification to terrorize
millions, while cheney skirts U.N. sanctions to sell
Saddam whatever supplies privately in secret? So the
suffering of Iraqis, is rightly attributed on American
terrorist activity by all Iraqis, as the direct cause,
working directly against the Republicans publicly stated
purpose to commit such criminal intent. Example: If a
well spoken father who may not like the policies of
Saddam should go to the hospital with his child, he is
told the bush clan wish his family death and suffering
by American will for being born to our world in Iraq as
human. The oil for food program however, is
intelligently based, but it's purpose is defeated with
the Republican atrocities to blindly murder US with.
The demands for the betterment of the Iraq people
through national oil sales, would make sense, if they
weren't directly suffering under assault by the same
terrorist network cancer cell that denies themselves
inalienable rights to life as our own. Like
pathetically weak as unrepresented American cowardly
soldiers, who were provided no evidence to back up the
evil bushmob's criminal allegations, then went murdering
tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan on
the brink of starvation, instead of killing the
documented child killer, heroin pusher, tommy franks, or
bush and rumsfeld for 9/11 in America. Just on bush's
behavior on the day in question, being left unreported
by CNN dictates, should say much to everyone.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers
told reporters at the National Press Club about Iraq's
enormous unknown stockpiles of !secret! corporate
american warfare weapons, "It does not take a lot of
space for some of this work to go on. It can be done in
a very, very small location," he said. "The fact that
you can put it on wheels makes it a lot easier to hide
from people who might be looking for it. So, yes we
have evidence." Evidence of what? Nations with trucks
should be nuked? Richard Myers is a nazi warmongering
irrational fukhead, who wishes the murder of countless
thousands, if not millions in AMERICA, who should be
fired today. You see the nazi bastard, you fire him, do
you hear me People? AMERICA? Johnny...? Mr. Myers, your
fired!

----

While we now learn from public disclosures on Connie
Chung, apparently, George Tenant, had only 3 CIA officers
investigating Laden just prior to 9/11. While I
remember last year it was alledged on PBS, the CIA had
taxed the American public nearly 10 billion on those
investigations regarding Laden over the previous year,
but, hmmm, bush forbade police agencies, the pursuit of
such investigations with his secret W199i directive.
Guardian Wednesday 7, 2001 - "FBI claims bin Laden
inquiry was frustrated"

George Tenant must be questioned on these matters, and
his relationship to General Ahmad, then arrested
regarding his inaction on the insider stock traders for
9/11. If neither happen in a timely fashion, he too,
will be destroyed by US American Patriots for treason.

----
Excerpt From:

NY Newsday
U.S. Hypocritical on Human-Rights Abuses
by Marie Cocco

...
America's new business partner, Uzbekistan's president
is brutal, and very bad.

The State Department human rights report says the former
Soviet republic now "is an authoritarian state with
limited civil rights ... Both police and the
National Security Services routinely tortured, beat and
otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions ...
Police also used suffocation, electric shock, rape
and other sexual abuse. Neither the severity nor
frequency of torture appeared to have decreased during
the year."

What increased was American aid. It tripled to $160
million, the payoff for allowing U.S. military staging
areas for the war in neighboring Afghanistan. President
Islam Karimov was welcomed to the White House. In July,
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill traveled to Tashkent and
praised Karimov's "efficient leadership."

Bush has singled out one despot for removal.

He says he has many reasons for invading Iraq. Without
a look at some secret new evidence the administration
may or may not have about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, it
is not possible to find truth. That is how the White
House wants it.

-------
From a smart thinking, great commenting archive
sifting site somewhere titled,

Print Think

...
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
By Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and
his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime
change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global
Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W
Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The
document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the
neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.

(snip)

The PNAC report also:

(snip)

- hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of
mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which
the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack
-- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ...
combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and
perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that
can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool'

-----------

Now, as for the corporate world telling US, we believe
Laden is guity without evidence: A reasonable person
doesn't have the justification to believe the
unsubstantiated verdict. This is why the fascists at
CNN propagandized, TERRORIZED, the American public by
falsely alledging that Laden threatened to nuke America,
or that he stated to murder any or all Americans like a
bush would. Laden, like Saddam, or Arafat never was
actually quoted to be that ignorantly stupid as a leader
trying to communicate to the People, but for by CNN, and the
sharon types regarding "Palestinians", as a lie to
themselves to excuse their responsibility to ourselves
as the humans. But EVEN IF TRUE, wouldn't make Laden
responsible for every wrong doings the bushmob was
actually responsible for, like robbing all Americans of
their livelyhoods, unreported by CNN of course, to leave
ourselves to fall victim by the bush regime as shysters
pirating America, by shredding the Holy Constitution.
However, Laden has skated near with the label "Jew", to
be of the criminal, intolerant, offensive, fascist,
bigoted jewish Israeli government, that imprisons or
murders real Jews for being JUST that. Rabbi Hillel
would be jailed by sharon in the israel of today. Wise
Muhammad teachings cover this dumb Jew Christian thing
well, as us all suffering by the illiterate evil
dumbfuks who ignore ourselves, to steal our established
values, while CNN, like Art Bell, forbids debate on
their irrational falsehoods, refusing to protect the
FBI, or the American flag through practicing censorship,
while advocating murder, as Art Bell, the traitor, does
almost daily, while hanging up every human caller.
Next, CNN will be blaming ALL the poor and starving in
the third world, for secret Pentagon frauds through
the removal of the False Claims Act. As, the American nation
contributes the least to the world in aid, in relation
to the GNP. (The give and take.) 5 billion a month to
not feed, but murder innocent people in Afghanistan?
Destroy bush now, and be loved by all as God.

Hey, great! You've actually read this far. Say,
listen... Google, for one reason or another censors my,
and who knows who elses, posts for fear from the
bushmob. The bushmob through Google 'Groups' has no
problem with posts encouraging war crimes by bigots, but
my rational posts regarding the nature of Justice, they
have determined for US, is inappropriate, while bush
prepares to criminally war our world to actually do so
as an unelected mass murdering nazi savage. So I ask
you to have faith in living, and give us your thoughts
on this for yourself. When it's reposted, it makes it
far more difficult to disect from public viewing, and
gives the likely good people at Google, a viable excuse
to not continuing to do so against our better interests.
To comment this post with whatever position you may have
regarding these important subjects, doesn't mean you
agree that we are God, or I'm simply Johnny Wizard, but
for open free communications regarding the true
political state of ourselves worth being heard from.
Murdering innocent people for evil bush and rumsfeld to
steal from ourselves, is a sacrifice in cowadice, I for
one, refuse to stand for as the living. How about you?
Public rebutals regarding my supreme stupidity are found
in alt.sercurity.terrorism.

Thanks friend,

Johnny Wizard


copvcia.com
whatreallyhappened.com
tenc.net
globalresearch.ca

-----------

All Wrapped Up

CBC as managed has deliberately with intent, worked to
misinform and propagandize our community on what is as,
documented provable fact, regarding Mr. bush's
complicity to the murder of US as the innocent in New
York City. CBC has refused to live up to our
responsibility to protect our democracy, and in silence,
has pirated our names to murder those understood to be
innocent of the accused offence. CBC has refused to
allow ourselves as the public to understand, Mr. bush
forbade the FBI from pursuing bin Laden investigations,
just prior to 9/11 with secret Presidential directive
W199I (199I WF213589), which had John O'Neil, the
anti-terrorism head for the FBI publicly protest by
resigning over. This W199I directive was put into place
after the administration had been warned by the BND, and
several other legitimate intelligence agencies, of an
impending terrorist plot involving the high-jacking of
American airplanes to be used as weapons and flown into
land marks. In addition to these unreported top
priority political issues that stand to be true as
documented factually, the bush administration had also
secretly put together a sinister war strategy, that was
revealed to ourselves as the public, by Canada's own Jim
Miklaszewski at MSNBC, to have existed without any doubt
as Presidential Directive documents, two days prior to
9/11 at the WhiteHouse. A planned strategy to invade
specifically Afghanistan, by blaming bin Laden for a
crime, but providing no evidence to back up the
allegations. That's right. The super evil criminal
bush dictatorship had a plan in place to not follow the
actual evidence to arrest the true culprits for a crime
that hadn't even yet taken place, but that they were
prepared for to close investigations on, as an
opportunity to invade specifically Afghanistan, propping
up the Northern Alliance who still practice the
barbarity of sharia law, with the bush bonuses of
selling heroin to our world, and most importantly,
building a liquefied natural gas pipe line for bush and
his Enron friends, to rob even more further from us all.
Legitimate FBI officers unrepresented by Mueller claim
General Amad was the principle terrorist funder of
Muhammad Atta, responsible for a wire transfer of
$100,000, who, incidentally was in unusual meetings, the
General was, with the bush administration a week prior
to 9/11, who also not only participated in meetings with
several top officials in the Senate Intelligence
Committee, but also, was reported to participate in
building the war strategy of invading Afghanistan, as
the reported desperate excuse offered for the General
being there just prior to 9/11, and also, was personally
responsible for negotiating the non-surrender of bin
Laden, of which the ISI claimed, the General advised the
Taliban not to do so because, no evidence would be
offered, nor public trial for an offence bin claimed he
played no part of.

We are all in agreement, in truth we rise, evil is just
the deceived disguised. Boo!

The case is wrapped up, and bush and rumsfeld need to be
immediately arrested for 9/11, for murdering countless
thousands for stolen gain, at the losses to our
humanity, that show through every putrid utterance of
scum bucket bush, as contempt for our living as humanity
through Law. Where a person accused of a criminal
offence without any evidence is clearly innocent. For
why I ask you reader, would any unjustified leader of US
people blame someone for a crime who wasn't linked to
the offense, while working to close investigations, and
not follow through with the ample clues to capture the
true evil doers? Just how cowardly stupid can soldier
families be taken without conviction as themselves worth
fighting for?

Justice for all, and glory be to godly.

Johnny Wizard

whatreallyhappened.com
globalresearch.ca

-----------

Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum

RITTER PUTS HOLES IN CHENEY'S ALUMINUM TUBES STORY

Posted By: Rosalinda
Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2002, 11:50 a.m.

[source: CNN, Sept. 9]

RITTER PUTS HOLES IN CHENEY'S `ALUMINUM TUBES' STORY AND
OTHER LEAKY EXCUSES. In an interview iwth CNN today, former UN
Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter ridiculed the latest concoctions
of the Mega crowd to justify an attack on Iraq. Excerpts follow:

PAULA ZAHN (CNN): I want to have, hear your reaction to the
whole range of Bush Administration officials yesterday who said
.. that Saddam Hussein has been trying to obtain materials to
build nuclear weapons, particularly trying to buy thousands of
aluminum pipes that could be used in the manufacture of a
centrifuge and ultimately used to manufacture weapons.
What do you make of that?

RITTER: What an absurd statement. Thousands of aluminum
pipes, and we're going to go to war over thousands of aluminum
pipes? Even the IISS report that you cite says that if Iraq was
to have trying to do uranium enrichment, it would take them many
years before they could do it. This is patently ridiculous. These
are aluminum pipes coming in for civilian use. They are not being
transferred to a covert nuclear processing plant or any covert
nuclear activity whatsoever.

But the best way to figure this out is to send the weapons
inspectors in. If they, if the United States has this evidence
that Iraq has these pipes, why not, heck, give me the data. I'll
come to Iraq, hunt it down and we'll bring it to a close. That
would save us going to war, killing thousands of people and
destroying our reputation in the international community.
We cannot go to war because Vice President Cheney's worried
about some aluminum pipes. This is ridiculous....

ZAHN: Let's talk more about what some say is the only
independent voice in this whole argument, and that is the
International Institute for Strategic Studies.... In this report,
it suggests ... that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months
if it had foreign help.

Let me read to you what the conclusion was, that, "War
sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded but not
eliminated Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and
long range missile capabilities, nor removed Baghdad's enduring
interest in developing these capabilities."

RITTER: Paula, what do we have here? Rhetoric? Where's the
facts? "Enduring interest" in weapons capability? What does that
mean? What evidence do they cite for this "enduring interest"?
You know, ballistic missiles. They say he has 12. What, did they
grow? Where are they? They didn't have 12 when I was a weapons
inspector.

Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? They talk about bulk
agent in terms of Iraq's biological weapons program. What bulk
agent? Where did they make it? A bulk agent has a three-year
lifetime in terms of storage in ideal conditions. The last time
Iraq was known to have produced bulk agent was in 1990. That
stuff, even if they held onto it, is no longer viable. So to have
bulk agent today, Iraq would have had to reconstitute a
manufacturing base in biological weapons. Where is it?

This report is absurd. It has zero factual basis. It's all
rhetoric. It's all speculative and, frankly speaking, it's
meaningless without, you know, with the sad exception that hawks
in the Bush administration are going to point to this as
justification for war....

ZAHN: What makes you think that if UN weapons inspectors
went in now, after not being on the ground for four years, it
would be any different than the last time around, when Richard
Butler, who was the chief UN weapon inspector, said the Iraqis
often moved stuff when they knew you guys were going to be on the
ground?

RITTER: I had been there since 1991 working under Ralph
Ekeus, when the vast majority of the actual disarmament took
place. By the time Richard Butler came, we had already destroyed
Iraq's weapons programs. We were hunting down for, you know,
missing items, you know, a piece of metal here, some documents
there.

And, yes, Iraq could have moved them, but this does not
constitute a weapons program. It's illegal, and this is what
inspectors need to do, come back here, finish the job so that
Iraq can get on with rebuilding its economy, etc. But, you know,
Richard Butler knows for darned sure that the Iraqis were not
moving weapons from his weapons inspectors.

The weapons inspectors were trying to get into some of the
most sensitive facilities in Iraq that dealt with presidential
security. I was the guy leading these inspections and Richard
knows that he allowed the United States to use my inspections to
spy on Iraq, which is why they don't trust the inspection
process.

So let's not bring up Richard Butler. Frankly speaking, he
has no credibility on this issue.

ZAHN: I still don't understand why you think the inspections
will be any different this time around. The administration seems
convinced that if Iraq had nothing to hide, they wouldn't have
broken all these UN regulations and they would have allowed
inspectors in over the last four years.

RITTER: Come on, Paula, let's be fair. The administration
knows that the Central Intelligence Agency used the weapons
inspection program as a Trojan horse to insert intelligence
collection capabilities to go after Saddam Hussein....

You know, I know that inspections did work. We achieved a 90
to 95 percent level of verified, absolutely certain
accountability for Iraq's weapons program, including all the
factories and associated production equipment. This is why I'm
just amazed when I hear reports coming from the IISS that Iraq
suddenly has the capability. Where did it come from? Did they
suddenly grow factories? ...

... Let's get the inspectors back in, let's get them to
find out what the ultimate disposition of these weapons programs
are and if Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction program, thank
goodness, we just diffused a war. And I think that's a good thing
worth trying to do.

---------

From the well recomended document:


US Intelligence and the Terrorists: Pre-9-11


... June 6, 2001. German intelligence warned CIA.

(A) The German intelligence agency, the BND, warned both
the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were
``planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as
weapons to attack important symbols of American and
Israeli culture.'' This intelligence reportedly came
from Echelon, a high-tech electronic surveillance system
used by the intelligence agencies of several nations to
glean through electronic communications for certain
keywords. It was first reported by the German daily
newspaper, Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung on September
13. Its sources were reportedly from the BND itself.
(Gembeimdienste 6-6-2001; Stafford 9-13-2001; Ruppert
11-2-2001; Ruppert 11-27-2001; Ruppert 4-22-2002; Martin
1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002; Thomas 5-21-2002)

According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002) of Global -
Intel, the original source of information actually came
from Israeli Mossad agents operating in the U.S. who
had infiltrated al Qaeda. According to his account the
Mossad also informed British and Russian intelligence
about the attacks, who then in turn notified the CIA.
Thomas's sources are allegedly informants within the
Mossad itself.

As of April 22, 2002, no challenges to this information
has been reported. ...

------
Also, it has also been alledged that the German
embassador Ischinger, On Monday 6, August, 2001, had met
bush personally, and during that meeting, the Bundesamt
fur Verfassungsschutz [German domestic secret service]
and BND [Bundesnachreichtendienst, German foreign secret
service] finding was once again reiterated in person.

---------

! ! ! ! N E W S F L A S H ! ! ! !

September 12, 2002 NewsNight with Arron Brown

Scott Ritter - "The job is to disarm Iraq, not to
penetrate Iraq to take advantage of the unique access
enjoyed by the inspectors to go after Saddam. The
United States took advantage of the information we
collected, and also used the weapon inspections as a
Trojan horse, inserting a signals intelligence operation
which was used to collect information about the security
of Saddam in a manner that was totally inappropriate,
and had nothing to do with disarming."

Richard Butler - "I was in meetings with United States
officials. This isn't some great Revelation. Where I
rejected what they proposed, on this ground, That my
mandate was to seek to disarm Iraq. And were our
program, to be used for other purposes, to seek to
change the government in Iraq, or national purposes, the
interests of the United States, then THAT WOULD HAVE
VESICATED, SHREDDED, WHAT WE WERE ABOUT."

Scott Ritter - "On seven separate occasions from
November 1997 to August 1998, with inspection proposals
signed by Richard Butler, authorized to proceed in Iraq,
the United States intervened to manipulate these
inspections, stop them all together, to alter their
timing, Richard Butler succeeded to this"

Mr. Butler, did not refute, with his repeated
opportunity, Ritter's documented as fact, with the paper
work to prove it, allegations of american corruption
succeeding, in fact, repeatedly, Butler refused to
answer the direct question, on weather, he, Mr. Butler,
abdicated his responsibility to our world community, and
sided instead to bow as a fascist coward to CRIMINAL
american sabotage regarding the U.N. resolution
inspection's process.

Gee, no wonder Saddam has concerns for his people...

A worthwhile note also, is during CNN new briefs on
Saddam's recent comments, never once was it said, that
Saddam alleges to our world, bush murdered New Yorkers
for financial gain, as he did factually claim, and I do
too, as the evidence is unmistakable. Mr. bush, the
super evil anti-Christ, and too, Mr. rumsfeld, the
sadistic nazi dumbfuk, must be immediately arrested, or
executed by Patriot American Believers, so we may begin
to get this PUBLIC court case regarding the facts on the
mass murder of AMERICANS under way. I wanna lead the
prosecutor's team!!! (I am now officially excepting
book offers.)

----------

Johnny Wizard Here To Tell It Like We Is

So, the bush regime knows that Saddam has no nukes, but
as any person could, maybe at sometime in the future
would target general populations, of which Saddam has
stated to be rationally stupid, immoral and evil. A
tactic that bush, as america, says without pause to
reflect, would do so in our stolen names is plausible
with him in power as a degenerate. The bush regime also
thinks Saddam does indeed have biological weapons, and
has so for decades but never used them, as the only
affordable balance to the militarization of the region.
Namely, to counter the Israeli government's corrupt
political position of American funded bigotry and
lawless behavior, on claims God gave them a right as
criminals apparently, to deprive Christians a right to
live justly, to own property, or use public roads even,
and that most of Iraq should too, be stolen by force
like hitler did, as hitler did measure also, all Jews,
by the same level of intolerance, ignorance and
barbarity sharon does of US as Palestinians, you know,
Catholics, Muslims, Jews and Atheists, absent love for
ourselves as understanding, godly, and principally
innocent until proven otherwise. Mr. sharon is not
Jewish, nor is anyone else allowed to practice as such
in the Likud party. But anyway, Saddam is no Saint,
however, no evidence exists that Saddam has ever used
bio warfare weapons on his own people, while Our Mr.
bush Jr., is documented factually, as a murdering demon
of evilness clearly paraded before ourselves by
corporate command, as a supposed representation of OUR
civilization's true will. As Our Mr. bush Jr. works
diligently to destroy our lives through fraudulent
means, counting on US not trying to save Ourselves by
following the truth to set US free. A Republican who
without laughing, demanded law enforcement agencies not
follow the ample criminal evidence to arrest the true
perpetrators of 9/11, but instead, urged the closing of
investigations, while top secretly, implicated bin Laden
without evidence he couldn't divulge, of which the
British government ended up doing so for the love of our
selves, comprising of only, general maybe if's, of which
only could, can, and does, jeopardize bush, cheney and
rumsfeld by taking such a secret, now public position
against our interests to kill us as the innocent with.
Which is truly why bush rumsfeld and cheney are
warmongering as despicable savages. 5 billion dollars
in humanitarian aid is being blocked by the bush regime
to enter Iraq, like food and medicine. The bush regime
demands children be starved and not receive treatments
for ailments, such as aspirin for headaches, or as
cancer from the devastation the families of Iraq are
still suffering through, since the last time a bush's
american criminal military force dumped tons of
radioactive waste in the region, while murdering
indiscriminately ourselves as anyone, because
principally, toxic American soldiers, like the American
people, hold the title of the highest illiteracy levels
of the developing world, which brings them as
consequence, the worst health care providers to
themselves as discounted, corporately mandated as
unworthy to understand their own behaviors, so they can
be even further rooked as shysters. Over two million
people have died directly because of American aggression
against the practically defenseless in Iraq, who the
bush regime even claims, have little of no power to
change the political landscape, based in loose tribal
ethics as protections, that has been as such, for
approximately 4000 years. And as American traitor war
criminal rumsfeld proclaimed, since american aggression
has continued against Iraq over the last twelve years,
so too, has their economy been devastated, and as
consequence, the attraction to keep the more literate as
wealth driven from remaining, has waned. But what can
bush offer Iraq, indeed to our world my friends? Just
murder US people for stolen cash profit, is clearly his
only motivation, as a tyrant dictator far worse than
Saddam has ever been. Mr. bush indicates he knows
nothing of economics, or the important function of law
to protect our societies, so what if he should kill
Saddam, and maybe a million Iraqi people, then what? He
hasn't thought that far, and clearly, due to his
evilness we witness daily, couldn't care less. CNN and
other corporate professionals refuse to tell the blood
sucking, carcinogenic, corporate American real fast news
blips, of causes they as a nation in total celebrated
televised ignorance, have committed against the Iraqi
struggling to survive People, and indeed around our
world likewise. As was the bush regime's unreported
support of the overthrow of democratically elected
Chavez in Venezuela, who incidentally, as one of the
very few, holds a perfect human rights record, unlike
America, who is the only nation, the World Court has
convicted by factual documented evidence, to be a
terrorist state. There is no record of Saddam murdering
millions of Iraqis, while targeting innocent children,
but there is to the illegitimate bush family, and nazi
soldier tommy franks intentions, the most despicable
savage to ever don an American uniform, who would now
have us all believe, such a evil strategy of criminal
wrong doing, is the only option, to better the lives of
those who barely survive from American oppression in
Iraq as it is. What form of governance would bush be
suggesting? Would it be like bush squandering almost 7
trillion dollars in bad business decisions for our
futures as he has set forth for America already? Or
maybe something like the new criminal heroin pushers in
Afghanistan as foreigners? Costing the American nation,
who holds the title of highest rates of human
depravation in the industialized world, and highest
percentage of imprisoned per populace in all recorded
history, 5 billion dollars every month to prop up sales
in narcotics, and terrorist handbooks. Where political
opponents who criticize the Karazi regime are murdered,
for factually claiming the political aims of Karazi are
not representing US people as the children? Or as evil
bush, who would boldly lie to the face of God, that
there were no girl schools in Afghanistan under the
Taliban, while secretly thanking sadistic scum bag
American traitor, mass murdering savage, wimp ass drug
dealing coward tommy franks, for specifically targeting
those very schools, women reporters, Mosques, red cross
units, literate tribal leaders, men with beards, and
children, while labelling all of Our humanity who would
fight against injustice his enemy? Or that bush would
dare still attempt to get away undamaged by the real men
of this world, to spout his venom hatred for humanity to
what must be drugged out to be so cowardly American
soldiers, by lying to US as the demon of pure evilness
we all witnessed, that heroin cultivation wasn't
factually outlawed by the Taliban officially following
Allah, leaving no position as God's will to back track
politically on later? American military analysts,
including the CIA and former secretary of Defense,
William Cohen, claim Iraq is no threat to it's
neighbors, as so too, does no nation in the region
support bush's warmongering. In Congressional hearings
last week, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter
courageously stated what many Americans believe, but
rarely if never mentioned by corporate news standards as
the will of the people, "A handful of ideologues have
hijacked the national security policy of the United
States for their own ambitions." Ritter insisted Iraq
was no threat to the U.S. or the Mideast, and later
offered that cheney be forced by Americans on mass, to
offer evidence to his bogus, make believe accusations,
that he wishes to use to actually murder thousands, if
not millions of US REAL PEOPLE. Our axis of evil, bush
rumsfeld and cheney, do not want renewed inspections of
Iraq, they only want war to murder ourselves, and to
create instability in our world through fear to prevent
their rightful capture for 9/11, while we all are
expected to sit back as corporate standard fascist
cowards, to pretend bush was actually elected as
President in America, because actual poll counts were
forbidden to be publicized, therefor, he may have won
our approval to use nukes against anyone for whatever.
With CNN, the Commie Nazi Network, telling us we as the
civilized are also convicted to poll, that evidence is
no longer a requirement to convince US who is criminally
insane, in this nightmare of criminal bush family
evilness, hell bent on destroying your world, and
everything WE, as The People, have struggled so hard to
protect. It would seem any world threat of terrorism,
would be surely from a nation like bush's America. A
cowardly nation that demands we as humanity, be deprived
the guiding principles of Justice like they in weakness
had abdicated as no longer their own as unfairly
represented, leaving as slaves the bush regime to rob us
all of our Freedoms, as a rule of Law instills such as
in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights,
and the American Constitution. All now trashed by
Ashcroft, as clear criminal intent to obstruct Justice
as the American dream for everyone.

E-mail this to somebody for Christ states,

yours truly,

Johnny Wizard

-----

From below:

"Mr. bush you nazi vermin, you attack my America, you
attack US all. American soldiers will not sit back as
cowards entirely, and watch you sacrifice our lives as
worthless without meaning."

----
I think I love you too much

Wow, your amazing! So, what your saying is bush the
nazi tyrant, the unelected mass murdering fascist
dictator, has no interest following the ample criminal
leads, because they lead to him, rumsfeld, and cheney
likely too, right? And, when that evil monster told us
instead he would rely on secret evidence, but couldn't
tell us why, as too the FBI or CIA, it turned out to be
nothing but another wicked evil deception against the
great American people, Tony Blair, bin Laden, and law
enforcement officers everywhere, to even further give
him cause to close investigations into 9/11 as Reuters
told us, and rob directly from American soldier
families, their lives, pensions, life savings, and blind
faith, in bush, the false diety, super evil anti-Christ.

Johnny Wizard is my Hero.

-------

Weak Pathetic Coward Nazi Bastards

American soldiers are weak pathetic coward nazi
bastards. The recorded evidence stands before all of
our humanity, while CNN silently pleads ignorance on
what is clearly established as documented fact,
regarding Mr. bush and rumsfelds' complicity to
murdering thousands of American citizens, stealing from
all Americans the principles of which the American flag
once represented, now unprotected by corporate dictates.
Encouraging American soldiers to further sacrifice their
dying rights, to murder potentially hundreds of
th


Leslye J Allen - 9/30/2002

Personally I would hope that historians do both 1 and 2 that you mentioned. Individuals always have the right to address issues of importance individually and collectively. There have been more than a few times when I have acted alone; and I've written and/or called my representatives enough to be on a first name basis with them. I had contacted my representatives regarding the issue of congressional deliberations about Iraq long before there was any historians petition.

Most historians hope to be able to share their knowledge and individual interpretations of history with students and reading audiences. We hope that those who read and listen to us will walk away with a better understanding of some event or circumstance that they otherwise might not have known anything about. How or whether any of us are remembered will largely depend on how hard we work, luck, and a good publisher (smile).
I can live with that.

Leslye J. Allen


Andy Sulz - 9/26/2002

Don't be so ignorant, Bush is cleaning up about 8 years of mess created by Bill Clinton. If Clinton didn't look the other way and instead of DEALING with the problems at hand, we wouldn't be having this discussion. No matter what he does, there will always be people opposed to his ideas. Just ask Al Gore; back in the George H.W. Bush years, Gore ripped Bush for pulling pulling out of Iraq too soon...now the same Al Gore is ripping G.W. Bush for going in to Iraq. Its time for the liberals to stop the finger pointing and being abunch of candy-asses and finally do what is right.


philippe jacqueroux - 9/25/2002

You have choosen the worst président from centuries...


Howard N Meyer - 9/24/2002

Catch up with Gore !
International Law omitted by historians
was thrice (or more) mentioned in
Gore talk at Commonwelath Club
was HISTORIC
(And I did not vote for him)


Michael Wala - 9/24/2002

I applaud this action taken by my American colleagues!
What President Bush proposes will have far-reaching consequences because it will be a very serious challenge to the concept of international relations based on international laws -- such as the UN Charter -- that the United States in the past have helped to shape and to enforce and that served as an important safeguard for all, even the weakest members of the international community, against military unilateral action by stronger nations.


Mike Palmer - 9/24/2002

Very good parallel!

In fact, I think that professional historians should draft a new petition for Congress calling for the return of the western third of the United States to Mexico; you know, the part gained as a result of Polk's "meritless" aggression. I'm sure that, too, will quickly gather 1300 signatures.

Then we can have another petition to return the middle third of the country that Jefferson "bought," without the consent of the people there and in violation of the Federal Constitution.

And then we could have a third petition to give back the eastern third of the country to either the British or the Native Americans. The eastern third is the part, of course, gained by war and, as well all know, wars never solve anything.


Illoyna Sotack Homeyard - 9/23/2002

Tis war and the momemtum it has is with this president and resembles the mid-19th Century "Polk's War" (Mexxican war.) It too was without merit, without substantial support in Congress or with the public, and was for reasons that were in the sitting Presidents mind -- fame and land. When he had no support he created it by ordering troops into a 'no ride (fly) zone. THis should be called Bush's War!


Yann Voldoire - 9/23/2002

Thank you for this great initiative. It's wonderful to see this kind of action. I hope you will be heard by the congress.


Mike Palmer - 9/23/2002

"The constitution clearly states that Congress must declare war before military action against a country is carried out."

Say what?

First, the Constitution does not say any such thing. Congress has the power to declare war; the executive has the power to raise and maintain armies, and fleets.

Second, read The Federalist #25. Hamilton is here arguing against the idea that we should have to wait to prepare for an attack. He also notes that declaring warhad "of late fallen into disuse."

"If, to obviate this consequence, it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the RAISING of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen, that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defense, before it was actually invaded. As the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse, the presence of an enemy within our territories must be waited for, as the legal warrant to the government to begin its levies of men for the protection of the State. We must receive the blow, before we could even prepare to return it. All that kind of policy by which nations anticipate distant danger, and meet the gathering storm, must be abstained from, as contrary to the genuine maxims of a free government. We must expose our property and liberty to the mercy of foreign invaders, and invite them by our weakness to seize the naked and defenseless prey, because we are afraid that rulers, created by our choice, dependent on our will, might endanger that liberty, by an abuse of the means necessary to its preservation."

Does this mean that under the Constitution the Executive could wage war without a Congressional declaration? Well, the answer is simple enough. Ask Native Americans. Ask the French (the 1798-1800 Quasi-War). Ask the Barbary states of Tripoli and Algiers.

The Supreme Court answered that question two centuries ago and the answer is that the Executive can.


Mike Palmer - 9/23/2002

Let's see if I have this right.

1) Germans who do support Bush's plans must be mostly uneducated.

2) Since war "isn't an argument at all and anywhere," then it follows that the United States should have ignored the European conflict of 1939-1945, right? War wasn't an "argument" against Fascism and the evils of Hitler and his regime. I see now: it was merely Franklin D. Roosevelt's ruse to keep the focus of Americans off the failure of his economic recovery program.

Let's be frank here. There are some damned good arguments to be made against "going to Baghdad," and some of the people posting on this forum are making them. But far too much that I've seen is pure rhetorical tripe.


Kenneth B. Colebank, Historian - 9/23/2002


Where is Judge Bork? We need him to speak up for the original intent of the Founders.


John Crain - 9/22/2002

Our appointed president stated this past week that conquest has not been a part of the American historical experience. I am confused. Or is he?


Georg Koch - 9/21/2002

Thank you very much from Switzerland!


Elaine Ackerman - 9/21/2002

I disapprove of this war because we have no reason to force our opinions on other countries.
I also believe this is not in any way terrorist related.
I believe it's about oil rights.
I believe if we were going to war at least the neighboring countries of Iraq should support our actions.
I believe Bush should let the weapons inspectors in to do their job and until then we should try to avoid this war, especially since the inspectors appear to have Iraqi approval.


Scott How/United States - 9/21/2002

Considering that German "intellectuals" supported the Nazis, I don't have much faith in intellectuals,German or otherwise.


Brian Heath Ph.D; Psychology - 9/21/2002

The President has sworn to abide by the Constitution, specifically, Article 1, Section 8.This President has taken unilateralism to a new level, Congress must assert and take back its Constitutional role.


John Horst - 9/20/2002

Actually, the Continental Congress had term limits, the idea was lost later on. What is lost today is the idea that serving your country in politics is supposed to be public service, not a way to hold an weild almost unteathered power, or gain a fortune. By they way, I saw that idiot Scott Ritter on the news today, wearing some ridiculous beret. Is he trying to win a Saddam look alike contest?


John HOrst - 9/20/2002

As far as I can see, the only thing small and lacking is your brain and argument. I did serve my country, in the urban war, fighting crime. ONce again, I maintain that since you liberals don't have an argument, you have to resort to catchy phrases spun by that micro brain Jesse Ventura, to obscure the real issues. It is ludicrous to suggest that only those people directly in harms way, the active duty military, should have a say in whether or not we use force to stop an enemy. You can use Jingo and chicken hawk to your heart's content, it only supports my supposition that you are a fool. Additionally, simply being a veteran does not qualify one as a military expert. I do not think that you are a coward, however. Anyone willing to put on the uniform of this country is a hero in my estimation, regardless of how deluded and misguided you might be.


Jim Nash - 9/20/2002

I did serve my country, did you? As Sen Chuck Hagel (R) said about the Chicken-hawk Richard Pearl: "I guess I'll see him in the first wave in Iraq."

Your comment is a perfect example of jingoism: extreme nationalism, beligerant foreign policy, chauvinistic patriotism, ad hominum attacks and questioning my masculinity.

All signs of a man with a small...

Sorry, I guess its catching.


Jim Nash - 9/20/2002

You are wrong on both counts Mr. Horst.

Mr. Ritter was saying back then that we needed to keep going with the inspections because even though 90-95% of the WMD had been found and destroyed, there were still some left, and without a final report on weapons, the sanctions would not be lifted. Listen to him and others, like GOP Congress man Ron Paul of Texas.

As for term limits and "career" politicians: the original Constitutional Convention took up term limits and rejected them as restrictions on the right to vote for whom one wishes. They were rejected by our founding fathers so our current "strict constructionists" of the right are hypocrites for pushing them.


Patrizia Jochheim - Prevoo - 9/20/2002

The most educated people in Germany are hoping the USAmericans will do protest against attac plans from Bush.
Germans allways remembering what war could be. War isn`t a argument at all and anywhere. Kanzler Schröder is talking right. We have to take another diplomatic chance or possibilities. Please help to chance the minds in USA.

Patrizia Cologne/Germany


Michael Putman - 9/19/2002

In 1940 I was supposed to hate Hitler, Germany and Japan. In 1950 I was supposed to hate Stalin and Mao Zedung. In 1960 I was suppposed to hate Castro and Cuba. In 1970 I was suppposed to hate Ho Chi Minh and North Vietnam. In 1980 it was the Ayatollah and Iran, followed by Qadaffi of Libya. In 1990 we still liked Saddam but were rehashing Castro and Qadaffi. Saddam quickly overwhelmed them. Now I'm supposed to hate Osama as well as Saddam. All these guys were somehow unbelieveably big threats to the security and existence of the U.S. Maybe Stalin was, but if so, he was the only true threat. Am I missing something? Whatever, I'm getting tired.


Chris Hale - 9/19/2002

We need the UN to keep up the pressure too - or the war mongers will win.


Stuart Weiss - 9/19/2002

President Bush should read "The War on What?" by Nicholas Lemann,in the New Yorker, September 16,2002, but especially the counsel of the "realists," beginning p. 40, mid-page. If you liked G. Kennan and Hans Morgenthau, you will like Lemann, too.


Barbara L. Joslin - 9/19/2002

Support the consttution and refuse the president his request for authorization to declare war.

The president, congress and all American citizens depend upon the constitution for justice. Defend it, observe it and stand by it.

Reserve the traditional constitutional responsibility to declare war to the congress of the United States.


John Gorentz - 9/19/2002

"Personally, I would prefer to have future generations read that historians of this era not only taught and wrote about the past but helped to shape the future."

Question: Do you think this is best done (1) collectively, by signing petitions in which you're identifying yourself as part of a profession, or (2) by each historian who has something to contribute presenting relevant information and making his/her own arguments?

Which of these do you think will keep people from viewing historians as just another political activist group that therefore should not be subsidized with public funds?


Katrina Petri - 9/19/2002

We in Germany want to thank you and support this petition!
We need your intellectual capacity and resistance!


Rebecca Love - 9/19/2002

Hi Dad,
I saw your comment, and submitted my own. Hopefully there is hope :).
Rebecca


Rebecca Love - 9/19/2002

Hi Dad,
I saw your comment, and submitted my own. Hopefully there is hope :).
Rebecca


Rebecca Love - 9/19/2002

Hi Mark,

I saw your comments and agreed with them and saw your concern that a non-historian can sign. Here is a link with a petition which you may support. Keep up the good work with keeping American's informed. http://www.thePetitionSite.com/takeaction/573041428

Sincerely,
Rebecca Love


Rebecca Love - 9/19/2002

It is wonderful to see that there are people in this country who believe there is a division of power between the branches of government. I for one agree with this petition, the President has no right to declare war without a declaration from Congress, however our Congress is displaying with it's lack of debate and stance, that it is just a puppet of the White House. I applaud the American Citizen's whom are encouraging further debate and the ultimate goal, to reinstate the Constitution and the Division of Power to the forefront of American Policy. Thank you. For those of you whom are not historians, and do not have access to this petition, here is a one with similar concerns for you to sign....http://www.thePetitionSite.com/takeaction/573041428.


John HOrst - 9/18/2002

No, I am not, nor have I ever been in the military. Please see my comment above. Are you or have you ever been a police officer, a firefighter, an EMT? If not, does that mean you cannot make statements against crime, fire, and medical emergencies? I have done my service, but that is immaterial. Please stick to the argument at hand.


John Horst - 9/18/2002

As I am a little old to be of much use, I will have to rely on the public service I rendered in my younger days as testimony to my allegiance and willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice to this great land. I want to know how you liberals come off with this argument that one must be able to actively participate in an action they deem fit and proper. Does that mean that I cannot claim that I am all for the capture and conviction of criminals if I am not willing and able to become a police officer? Give me a break and come up with some real arguments. You bore me.


javier elizondo - 9/18/2002

I would like to sign for vote needs more discussion about war against Iraq, consequences could be very bad for innocent people


alicia villela - 9/18/2002

I wish to sign for a vote needs to be taken on war with Iraq,please include my signature.
I am a pacifist


Kary Love - 9/18/2002

As a country lawyer I am very frustrated at the supine nature of the legal profession and Congress. I applaud your Petition--irrespective of one's view of the morality of the proposed war with Iraq--clearly the Constitution is not being followed. If the US does not follow its own supreme law in undertaking the most destructive national acts--war--what legitimacy, what difference can we claim exists between our enemies and ourselves? Thank you for your strong statement supporting the separation of powers and the Constitution which protects us all from tyranny.


Michelle - 9/18/2002

Ah, well your ducking of a direct question pretty well answers the question - you're NOT enlisted then, right?


Michelle - 9/18/2002

So I suppose you've already signed up to fight, right Mr. Horst?


Dan Carmack - 9/18/2002

If David Horowitz actually believes that requiring a War Declaration on making war with Iraq would actually prevent the war, then that is all the more reason why the Constitution should be followed! If 67 Senators and the two-thirds majority can actually be achieved in the house, then no matter what me, you or Mr Horowitz thinks of the rationale for war, we would be at war, and as citizens all of us would be compelled to support it. However if that number of representatives and senators do not vote for war, then the consensus is not there, and more justification is needed to take us to war.


David T. Beito - 9/18/2002

I guess I don't understand your apparent distinction between Kosovo and Iraq. If anything, Clinton was on weaker ground in justifying his messy attempt in Kosovo to divert us from Monica. He also, of course, did not bother to ask for a declaration. Interestingly, the main folks who complained were on the right, not the left.

Clinton's stated justification for the war in Kosovo was remarkably similar (and even more hollow) than that put forward by Dubya for the current crusade in Iraq (e.g. Milosovic is Hitler reborn, he threatens the stability of the region, we can establish a democratic government, the ethnic minorities are being mistreated, etc.). The main difference, of course, is Dubya's claims that Saddam is in league of Bin Laden and his emphasis on weapons of massive destruction.

The unintended consequences of the Kosovo War provide an excellent case study of the perils of international social engineering and should provide a lesson in the current crisis. Right under the noses of NATO, the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo has been essentially completed, the thuggish KLA and assorted Albanian fundamentalists and former Maoists are now freer than ever terrorize, enjoy the fruits of corruption, and make trouble for neighbors such as Macedonia. Clinton's comparisons to Hitler have been proven laughable as the media driven claims of 100,000 mass murders have fallen off the radar screen. Milosovic is a bad guy but he is a positive saint compared to Saddam and certainly a better lawyer.

What would should the U.S. *do* about Saddam? It should wish his opponents well and serve as an shining example of liberty and democracy, a policy which served us well in the ninteenth century. The current social engineering approach has neither worked at home or abroad...though I must admit social engineering has a far better chance if limited to a laboratory of 250 million people.


Robert J. Amoruso, P.E. - 9/18/2002

It would be helpful to include or have links to that/those portion(s) of the Constitution discussing the war powers of the Congress. Thank you.


John Horst - 9/18/2002

You jump to the conclusion that it is both a war, and unjustified. First, make certain you are talking about the right war. We are at war with terrorists now. Is that unjustified? (If you think so, why not visit ground zero, or perhaps you are one of those who thinks that was all our fault.) We are not yet at war with Iraq, so I will assume that you are not talking about that. Rhetoric is an excellent way of getting things accomplished. As far as tough talk, I know it sounds repugnant to one raised on political correctness and, as in your case the almost complete success of our modern culture to emasculate its men, but remember, threats work, especially with a bully. So far, that is what I have seen regarding the US strategy with Iraq. Maybe you could clarify before writing jingoism one more time?


john HOrst - 9/18/2002

Scott Ritter, the poster child for the liberal movement. Back when he was screaming that the Clinton administration wasn't doing enough regarding Iraq, you all ignored him. Now you hang on his every word. Hypocricy, hypocricy, hypocricy.
Talk about "origiinal intent", the original intent was to damn sure not create career politicians. Now that is all we have.


John Horst - 9/18/2002

It is certain you won't be at the recruiter's office. You can sit comfortably too, resting upon the laurals of those who have fought and died so that you may sit back and use cleaver words like jingoistic. Once again, the spineless come out in droves to capitalize on this very sad and dangerous time. When in the history of modern society have we fought such a war? When have we had to deal with our own citizens going off to learn how to murder and undermine our people and government? You liberals can't see past your own agendas, and that is more disturbing and dangerous than the potential for some scum bag to lose his civil rights while we try to keep him from carrying out a suicide attack. If only Al Gore were in office now...


Mark R. Colden - 9/18/2002

I am a journalist not an historian, but I take pride in the fact that I am an ardent student of the Constitution and American History. Sadly, during my adult years, I have watched, what I believe to be the greatest political document ever penned by the hand of man circumvented and now trashed. In my humble opinion the flurry of legislation passed by Congress in the wake of Sept. 11 is on the whole unconstitutional. I am in perfect agreement with the historians that petitioned Congress to either declare war or not. The president does not have that authority. I learned--when they taught civics in the public schools--that the president proposes, but Congress disposes. I am only sorry that I could not add my name to the historian's petition.


Pearson Cotton - 9/18/2002

VJ, Your thoughts are well taken. I teach U.S. History to 11th graders in Ga. Today we went through the events leading up the necessity to develop a Constitution. Of course the textbook highlights Shay's Rebellion, that one of many small farmers, ex-continental soldier, broke and having his farm forclosed on by the creditors who held the reins of banks and government bonds. Unfortunately, when we research the background of the 55 men convening in Philadelphia in May of 1787, we see a startling profile of the wealthy, creditors, slave owners, bankers, manufacturers, and most of all lawyers. Over half were practing lawyers. Of course, they were well versed in British Admiralty Law. As these "rich, white men with property" conspired to form this more perfect union, there only interest was in ensuring that their kind would control the political, economic, and social power in the country. As Hamilton expressed in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere,"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born, the other the masses of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God: and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are the turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first slass a distinct permanent share in the government...Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be suppose steadily to persue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can we check the imprudence of democracy..."
From: Howard Zinn, People's History of the U.S.
We have never lived in a democracy. It was the most scorned and villified word at the Constitutional Convention. These "priviledged" men did a spendid job of preserving their powere throughan intricate system of checks and balances, divisions of power, and representative republicanism. In order to check the power of these saber-rattlers in the White House is to start educating the masses in identifying the real enemy of the people of the United States...the RWMWP...Remember they exclude from their little summer sojourne in Philly in 1787 blacks, Native Americans (eventhough they had a delegation from the remnance of the Iroquois Nation upstairs at Convention Hall assisting them in adopting the Iroquois's form of government), and women. So more than 50% of the population of the US in 1787 a voice in forming this country. What do we expect.
Sorry I was a little windy. We just have to really bear down and call it like it is. Only our knowledge to share with others will we develop a resistance movement that really knows whats at stake.
Hey, I'm just a revolutionary retread from the 60s black student movement. I've waiting for the revolution for over 30 years. Let's get it on!
Pearson


Jim Nash - 9/18/2002

Aren't you being authoritarian by claiming historians cannot hold and express an opinion without endangering their status in their profession? This is not about peer pressure or weakness, but about where our constitionally limited executive branch is going.

Do you support arresting and holding citizens without charges, legal representation or outside contact? Do you agree with Bush that if the military calls an American citizen an "enemy combatant" than the judicial branch has no authority? If so, you are describing a military dictatorship. Now there's a new America.

Just imagine for a moment that all the Florida votes had been counted, and President Al Gore said all the above. Would you be quite so gung-ho for that government power? I don't think so.

Peace


Jim Nash - 9/18/2002

It must be truly an honor to called "a buch of leftists..." by the illustrious Mr. Horowitz.

David, my name is Jim Nash. I would be honored if you would insult me directly.

I am against this war. I believe in economic redistribution, just as you do, but I want the regular folks to have a fair share not just the ones who can afford big bucks lobbyists (and their bought writers).

Nobody but the reactionary right gives you any credibility. While that may pay well, in the long run you will end up on the ash-heap of history.

Peace


Jim Nash - 9/18/2002

Let me just make sure, you are or were in the military, right?

If you're still young enough you can show some spine. I hear recruitment hasn't skyrocketed since W started the war pitch.

Maybe you're better off at home calling everyone else cowards.

If you are in the service, my prayers are with you.


Jim Nash - 9/18/2002

Opposing an unjustified war is not cowardace, that is meerely part of the jingoistic rhetoric that must be employed to justify such a war. It is often more dangerous to oppose a war in a country whose leadership (and their often violent following) beat the drums of war, and more cowardly to go along. HISTORY is full of examples.

The elites will NOT always protect their own: The Kennedeys are a prime example. But it always the chicken hawks that are more than willing to let other peoples' blood flow: Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, almost any Talking head on FOX NEWS...And they never hesitate to attack the morals and patriotism of any who would disagree.

The rhetoric of the Bush administration and it followers to war is the dictionary definition of jingoism, and a government who uses jingoism to accomplish its goals will lead to disaster


David T. Beito - 9/18/2002

I completely agree. One only wishes that some of the same enthusiasm for this view had been expressed when Clinton launched his undeclared and futile war in Kosovo.


Jim Nash - 9/18/2002

This is a resolution well worth the support of any patriotic American, of whatever political stripe. It is a strong statement of the need to continue following the "original intent" of our framers, that has too often been abused to justify plain wrongs.

OUr historians should also look at the dangerous powers now given our military, too arrest and confine citizens withour charges, attorneys or outside contact. They should also see Scott Ritter's address to the Iraqi Parliament (as re-read by Mr. Ritter), broadcast on C-Span on 9/16/02. This is another true patriot who has put his money and life on the line to bring truth to America, Iraq and the world.

Men and women of good will can stop war. But the truth really is that evil will flourish when good men do nothing.

Peace


John Horst - 9/18/2002

Don't worry, as soon as they figure which way the political wind is blowing, they will stand up and do their duty if it will mean the assurance of a continuation of their fat, bloated, sucking from the public trough, careers.


Thomas Gunn - 9/17/2002

Donald,

Looking for anyone in particular?

The key combination "ctrl 'f'" will bring up the search box, type the name you are looking for and it will magically appear highlighted if it is contained within the page.



thomas


John Horst - 9/17/2002

That's what Hitler was banking on. I still maintain that you need a spine.


john Horst - 9/17/2002

Wars are always fought by the common man. The elite, whether they be conservative or liberal, will always protect their own. That does not excuse the academic elitists from cowardice, hypocricy or forcing an agenda that is out of step with reality.


James W. Hulse - 9/17/2002

There is no question under the constitution that the President must consult and on the Congress can declare war. It is high time that the Congress do its duty to the Constitution.

Jim Hulse
Professor of History emeritus - University of Nevada. Reno


DONALD J. SLAZINSKI - 9/17/2002

9/17/02

I am very pleased to see the Historians expressing their opinion about the impending possibility of War in Iraq.
But, I would like to see the names of the individuals on this list published in alphabetical order.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Slazinski


G. Vernon Leopold - 9/17/2002

Surely, there are many people besides the signatory historians and academicians who share the feelings of the authors and signers of this petition.

Why don't you let the multitude who hold to these well-expresse views join in signing this or a similarly worded petition and thus add their numbers to its support ??


Claude A. Bohn - 9/17/2002

While I overwhelming agree, that Congress, and NOT the president has the constitutional power to declare war; and I wholeheartedly support the signers of this petition in their efforts to see to it that this is done; I CANNOT, however, lend my support to this petition, due to the following statement contained therein:
"We ask our senators and representatives to do this because Congress has not asserted its authority to declare war for over half a century, leaving the president solely in control of war powers to the detriment of our democracy and in clear violation of the Constitution."
Our Constitution established a republic, NOT a democracy!
How can a group of such learned men and women be expected to be taken seriously, about wanting the United States Congress to faithfully carry out the duties imposed on them by the Constitution, and, then, disregard that constitution themselves, by referring to our nation as a democracy, when that Constitution itself establishes a reublic?
IF we are ever to have a government that abides by the Constitution, we will need a citizenry that knows what the Constitution says and means, and, that DEMANDS, rather than petitions, that those elected to serve in the government follow its dictates.




Neil S. Lewis - 9/17/2002

Professional historians, more than others, have a duty and responsibility to not only study and teach history but also to use its lessons for present and future needs. Although the imperial presidencies of the second half of the 20th century have routinely ignored the U.S. Constitution on the issue of who has the right to commence war, that does not abrogate the constitution, which should be accorded the respect it deserves.


Janusz Duzinkiewicz - 9/17/2002

Just as the US Constitution should be respected, all UN resolutions should be followed, including those that apply to the US and its allies.


peter begley - 9/17/2002

When are we going to start calling a spade a spade or should I say war on terriorism a war for oil profits. The oil companies are running this country thanks to Chenny-Bush white house.
America needs a wake up call to take it's haead out of the sand.


Chris Robling - 9/17/2002

perhaps the signers of the petition have had a decisive influence over the course of global events. if calling for debate in august led to bush's september 12 u.n. text, then so much the better, and congratulations.

as a mere citizen, a lover of history, its study and its literature, i have a slightly different view than the petition's predicate.

i do not think a reasonable reading of the last 50 years yields the conclusion that because of congress' failure to perform constitutional duties, the president alone controls u.s. war powers.

in fact, i think the post-war period shows a pattern of growing sophistication in the relations between the two branches over the issue of the commitment of u.s. troops overseas.(influenced along the way, i think to no small degree, by historians such as merlo pussey.)

this sophistication has been shown in a variety of public laws, appropriations decisons, resolutions, consultations and public debates. while i agree that no 'declaration of war' has been adopted in the period, i disagree that the sort of consultation in which president clinton engaged regarding haiti or the passage of public law 102-1 during president bush (41)'s admionistration regarding iraq represents events that are "detrimental" to our form of democracy. in fact i think quite the opposite is the case. even though i agreed rarely with president clinton, i think he wisely consulted both congress and public opinion regarding u.s. troops in hostilities overseas and acted within the limits of what the public and congress would support. president bush (41), for his account, persisted with the u.s. senate, even to the point of engineering votes at the united nations (UNSCRs 676, etc.) as a prelude to senate deliberation. such was the significance these two chief executives gave to the spirit of congressional involvement.

that the petition widely overstates the legal conclusion that some of these events, or specific unnamed events, or the 50 year course of events are a "clear violation of the Constitution" is of course shown by the absence of supreme court agreement on the point.

but the petition text is probbaly most troubling in its final paragraph.

the first two sentences show a disappointing lack of understanding for three vital principles of international politics. here are the sentences:

"We believe it is particularly urgent that Congress reasert its authority at this time since an attack on Iraq, if made, would be an American initiative. Since there was no discussion of Iraq during the 2000 presidential campaign, the election of George Bush cannot be claimed as a mandate for an attack."

these sentences ignore the extensive legal history regarding iraq, the united states and the united nations prior to the 2000 election, u.s. policy since august 1990 and a bedrock of public international law.

both governor bush and vice president gore were fairly clear in their campaigns that the u.s. had vital interests in the region, that saddam hussein was essentially a genocidal terrorist cloaked in the garb of state sovereignty, that iraq had fallen off the wagon if international respectability by ceasing its compliance with the UNSCRs menationed above, and that it bore very close watching and preparation for possible action.

coming from the clinton administration (even if he appeared in much of the campaign to ignore that history) vice president gore could hardly have taken a different position. (interesting paper topic: humphrey on viet nam in 68 compared to gore on iraq in 2000.)

i think too little attention has been paid to the vehemence with which president clinton and his administration denounced iraq's actions and called for preparation for possible conflict. specifically with respect to vice president gore's campaign, it should bve remembered that the u.s. department of state revised and expanded its circular denouncing iraq in march 2000, the peak of the presidential primary season. (that report, eerily, was originally published in 1999 on september 13.)

president clinton's policy late in his administration was firmly based on the UNSCRs and pl 102-1, those legal acts have continued to ground our involvement there (no-fly zones, etc.), regardless of iraq's compliance level, and they -- by their respective texts, along with the u.n. charter -- grant the u.s. and any other member state full legal authority to act on behalf of the u.n. to fulfill the mandates of the resolutions. that's why the "American initiative" language is so imprecise, conclusory and quite possibly susceptible to an interpretation of political posturing.

but regardless of what had been said or enacted about iraq by the united states prior to the writing of the petition, the u.s. would retain the right, as an independent state, to act decisively in self-defense, and, as a part of that right, to carry out acts of anticipatory self-defencse in certain cases.

either candidate, governor bush or vice preseident gore, would have assumed responsibility for such decisions on taking office and everyone who voted in november 2000 fully understood that and internalized that into their selection of one over the other.

the two branches are majestic constucts of human design, emanating from our experiment in democracy. both represent the nation. one has the power to act quickly, the other may give voice to an all-embracing debate. to the extent that your petition calls on all 542 individuals involved to do their utmost in their respective functions, i wholeheartedly support it, as a citizen.

but next time, i think it can be written better.




Lola Vestal - 9/17/2002

A plea to all concerned. I hope you are all paying attention to Scott Ritter, our present day messiah of truth, a most helpful voice to sort out the true motivation behind all the war manipulation by the administration. Also an article in Harper's October issue, "Dick Cheney's Song of America." It offers a strong clue as to why the Administration will proceed with THE PLAN, unless the growing outcry continues to expand.
Our small community has a group of dedicated protesters that seems to be growing. My feelings of despair from the idea of more indiscriminate killing is diminishing because of dedicated folks like yourselves.


Chad Nelson - 9/17/2002

To this date, no concrete evidence has been presented that proves any direct link between the Iraqi government and the largely Saudi Arabian terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attacks.


Chad Nelson - 9/17/2002

That was supposed to say "un-informed".

Perhaps a Freudian slip on my part? I spent my time enlisted in the service of my country (4 year hitch, with honorable discharge).


Chad Nelson - 9/17/2002

Name calling, the eternal refuge of the uniformed, the ignorant, the sheep.

It takes a lot more courage to stand against the tide and not give in to knee-jerk, simplistic solutions, than give in to unthinking, martial impulses.


Jonathan Werve - 9/17/2002

It's truely amazing that after a post disecting propaganda techniques, a reply to that post would use them so openly, and apparently without intended irony. Let's see here...

Name calling:
"academics in the history department (among others) are socialist"

Sweeping generalization:
"and thus despise the basic values that have made America great"

Anecdotal evidence:
"In fact, in my freshman year of college, a history professor proudly boasted that almost all of the historians teaching in major universities in America are not liberal, but "socialist, if not communist.""

Arguementless Dismissal:
So, please save us from your rationalizing Mr. Arteaga. Save us from your convenient use of American ideals of democratic values and public debate -- and from your invocation of Constitutional principles.

Oh, and for good measure, one more sweeping generalization:
"I do not know if you truly believe in the basic goodness of America, but I am confident that the historians who sign this silly petition do not."

The bottom line is, the isn't a good way to argue against the need for debate - which if conducted by citing evidence or ideas would become (the horror!) a discussion of the merits of the invasion and occupation of an Arab nation, which is what the pro-invasion folks like this poster and Horowitz are trying to avoid.

Jonathan Werve
Washington, DC


Chad Nelson - 9/17/2002

Your rhetoric about ivory towers is pointed in the wrong direction. The men that are pounding the drum beat for war are the very elitists that sat through the 60s and 70s (Cheney, as one example, said he was too busy with other things to go to Vietnam). There is no reason to believe that their own children/grandchildren will be any different or have any reason to refuse the deferrments their privileged class awards them. On either side of the aisle (democrat or republican).


John A. Betterly - 9/17/2002

My desire for Congress to retain all powers of making war is not based on Constitutional precedent. The Constitutional Convention was one of questionable legality. Some articles I applaud; others, such as the acceptance of slavery, I find odious.
I support Congressional authority because it increases the need to investigate, to examine, and to deliberate upon and debate the various complex forces and pressures and motives which can often be those serving personal, rather than national interests.


Wayne Poulin - 9/17/2002

It takes courage to stand up for the principles that are the core of our great nation and especially so now, during a time when any form of perceived dissent is skewed by the the myopic power brokers and their minions of sheep like followers as a form of traitorous muntiny. Thank you all for your courage and forthright patriotism in presenting this petition to the Congress. The framers of our constitution may have been white male slave owers but thet saw beyond themselves and held a clear vision of the political realties of mankind. They understood that it is the very nature of man to hold a leader (dictator) above all other forms of government, much as a child holds a parent above itself and looks to that parent for all it's formative and guiding principles no matter how inhumane and perverse those guidelines may become. Human history bears this out time and time again. Again I, as a patriot, I thank all of you courageous and patriotic historians.


C. Clay-Williams - 9/17/2002

I am so joyful and proud of all historians who have come together to correct this matter.

I often wonder why the intelligent souls in our country and universities allow things to go so far before we act. But, what is important, is that we do act.

I have faith in our universities and our country and pray that we do the right thing.
Thank You,
C. Clay-Williams


Azel Hill Beckner - 9/17/2002

The cconstitution clearly states that Congress must declare war before military action against a country is carried out.


Azel Hill Beckner - 9/17/2002

The cconstitution clearly states that Congress must declare war before military action against a country is carried out.


David T. Beito - 9/17/2002

RFK might have had balls but I don't think you or I would like the results. He was the same guy, after all, who supported a preemptive strike on Cuba, though his brother restrained him, and until the time of his brother's assasination pressed all sorts of crazy cloak-and-dagger plans to overthrow Castro and presumbably promote beard hair loss.

It is true that RFK eventually turned against the war of his hated adversary, LBJ, but this stand can hardly erase the rest of his record.

Unfortunately, Dubya is very much in the Republican/Democrat JFK, RFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Nixon world social-engineering tradition. There are better foreign policy models of restraint in American history to follow including John Quincy Adams and Grover Cleveland.


Karen Eisenhauer - 9/17/2002

I agree wholeheartedly. Hoever, since we can't have RFK - we must find someone with the balls (or the huevos - in the case of women) to reject the easy way out and speak the truth. The Bush policies are insanity -- insanity that, if successful, will one day be viewed as treasonous. Is there a democrat out there with the intestinal fortitude of RFK? If so we must find him or her.


Leon W. Fainstadt - 9/17/2002

Robert F. Kennedy. I worked with his Presidential Campaign.
I listened to his words and learned that human beings are
responsible for themselves and others.
In the 2000 election America sat silent as the Supreme Court
selected a President. An illigitimate government is in place
in a country I dearly love. I never thought I would see Nixon
in Washington again but we now have a DUMB NIXON in the guise
of W.Bush.

Bush,Karl Rove, Andrew Card, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, White,
and a host of others must be stopped by the Congress of this
nation or beware of the unintended consequences of a devastating
reaction by countries in the Middle East outward.

Armageddon may just be what this born again Christian wants.
Vote him out and kick out those who dine , like vultures, on
the heart and soul of America.

Bobby Kennedy would have chased Bush out of the White House
all by himself.


Karen Eisenhauer - 9/17/2002

Thank God that someone has finally pointed out the obvious, that the Bush administration has no RIGHT to take this country to war without Congress' consent. I only pray that Congress will listen.
Meanwhile, as several other commenters have pointed out, we the citizen historians, both amateur and professional must get involved.

I propose a nationwide protest on November 11, 2002. What better day than the anniversary of the Versailles Treaty to remind Americans that it is possible to create more suffering by "winning" a war, than by not going to war at all.
Like a war with Iraq, World War I was started by leaders who were just waiting for an excuse -- any excuse -- to go to war. They used Archduke Ferdinand -- Bush is using 9-11. Like World War I, the winning parties affected "regime change" in numberous countries (Germany, Austria-Hungary & the Ottoman Empire to name a few). Each of these countries became flashpoints for the beginning of World War II. These "regime changes" led to the growth of extremists who were far worse, far crazier than those we defeated. Let's face it Kaiser Wilhem can't hold a candle to Adolph Hitler on the evil scale.
World War I was supposed to end all war -- instead it did just the opposite, it created a second war within a generation. According to the most recent Newsweek poll, most Americans agree that the proposed war with Iraq -- billed as a step to end terrorism and avoid the use of weapons of mass destruction will do just the opposite - increasing terrorism aganst the U.S. and causing Saddam to use the weapons of mass distruction that he already has. Why in God's name would we take this step?


VJ - 9/17/2002

Folks, The way I read my Constitution, Congress has plenty of powers regarding the conduct of wars, not just whether, if and when one is to be waged. This has been true in all our wars, and to suggest otherwise is folly. Mr. Bush's Chief of Staff, Andy Card recently commented that we are all arguing about war with Iraq NOW, due to the fact that the administration 'did not want to launch a new product in August'. So make no mistake about it, the very timing of this 'intervention', for what ever reason is highly suspect and very political. The key Presidential advisor, Karl Rove, has been suggesting such a political strategy for almost a year now. The smoke had hardly cleared from ground zero when he was cynically suggesting that a good way to gain some advantage in the upcoming mid-term elections was for the Republicans to have the country concentrate on nothing but the 'war on terror'. To date there has been NO credible evidence presented to show a.) that there was any connection between the 9-11 terrorists and Iraq and b.) that there is any increased threat from Iraq with regard to their WMD (Nuclear-Chem-Biol) that has not existed for many years. So why a 'preemptive' war now? Does this not look like a massively cynical ploy on the part of this administration to get the headlines off of the dubious progress with the 'first' war on terror, and other problems plaguing the economy, in short the infamous October surprise that some right wing commentators cheer for?

Does there exist any space in public life for a citizenry to be able to question the judgments of their leaders? Even in a democracy? Horowitz and other reformed trots. tell us no. Our exalted leader has made his decision, and godlike he strode forth and pronounced 'Yer either fer us or again' us'. We should all slaute and render unto him our first born males for his use on the battlefields of glory. When did we lose our precious Constitution? Dare we ask of our leaders a rationale for the blood and treasure that will be expended? Polls are fleeting and open to wide interpretation. Most Americans rightly pale when they are made cognizant of the sacrifices that may be involved here. Sure we CAN do it, we may even do it 'cheaply', but that still would'nt make it right. It's certainly not right to do it without much of a plan for the aftermath beyond some conjecture about stirring up the 'entire mid-east'. We fought far more dangerous enemies than Saddam and Osmma. Why do we need to crown a king to fight this one?


John Horst - 9/17/2002

The hideous unfolding has certainly begun. It began on September 11, 2001. Why don't you cowards stop whining. You will be safe, hiding in your ivory towers while real men do your fighting for you.


john Horst - 9/17/2002

Show a little backbone, you whimps.


Matthew Moriarty - 9/17/2002

I join those who believe the issue is peace and not war. The President has no vision of peace and is apparently incapable of articulating one that does not encompass his notion of brutish empire and Pax Americana. This war is grounded in ambition and cynicism, built on lies , artifice and illogic. It is from the start hateful and without moral, legal and strategic justification. It is unnecessary pure folly, completely ruinous to our national interest. It is an act of lunacy, by lunatics, who prey on the pervasive cowardice of inept leaders and more cowardly populations. The President and similarly deluded have suppressed debate and intimidated opponents to this war with Iraq. The petition at least insist on debate and makes some feeble attempt to assert the primacy of the constitution on the face of a civilizational crisis. The effort to petition is insufficent and does not properly focus on the insanity and danger of this war. And it is probably too late. It is almost certain, the dogs of war have been loosed already and the inevitable, hideous unfolding has begun!


Jean Gerard - 9/16/2002

The next question is "Will war be allowed to defeat history?" No matter who "declares" it, until war itself is outlawed and other means are adopted to replace it, the proponents of war will always be able to twist history and fact to make any given war seem "just." If we allow one more war -- or two at the most, there may be no such thing as universities, professors, students, or history to teach.


Gary F. Moraco - 9/16/2002

Why is there only a handful of citizens trying to stop what history will see as another big blunder for the U.S.A.Did all the teachers make history class that boring or was it that the children did not see how to make money in history class or did they just remember it for the test?Keep blaming liberals and watch your liberties go down the crapper.


Lynn Augstein - 9/15/2002

Thank you for your petition to Congress on behalf of the citizens who are deeply concerned about another undeclared war on Iraq. Good luck in presenting this to Congress.


Bill Leckie - 9/14/2002

I apologize to David for not replying earlier: No, I am not unfair. The tone of much "conservative" rhetoric on this issue has been strident, on this thread in particular and elsewhere, establishment voices such as those whom he mentions notwithstanding.

On Clinton: I am not a "progressive" but certainly no soi disant "conservative," either. And, in general, I was no fan of Bill Clinton's. However, one thing lacking in the current plans for regime cleansing in Iraq--as far as we know what they are-- is a clear commitment to what will be required if the administration's atention span fails and we leave chaos in our wake. I do not have high hopes for what will eventuate in Afghanistan.

"Conservative" opposition to "nation-building" in the Balkans has certainly not been coherent, but note that at least there was and still is NATO support for the endeavor.

Iraq raises serious questions that make it a bit different from the Balkans, despite a recent flutter of comparisons between that country and ex-Yugoslavia. Perhaps the most important is that the former state, like Iraq constructed of disparate parts out of a collapsed imperium after World War One, was not surrounded by state interests with strong reasons not to see it fragment into its old Ottoman provinces, as Iraq would. Do the Turks want an independent Kurdistan? Who would be happy to see the Iranians penetrate Basra?

Secondly, unlike the Balkans, there is the issue of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and its affects on the stability of those regimes like the Egytpian and Saudi, which have left civil society to the madrassas and Islamic benevolent organizations. We should also look to consequences in an increasingly unstable Central Asia beyond Afghanistan--the old Soviet Republics, Pakistan, Usbekistan in particular. The Russians are already copying us re: Georgia. If The Shrub wants a scare, try a Pakistan controlled by Islamists with nukes, and the Hindu-fascist BJP in India just itching to use what it has.

Then to the moral questions: Yes, Hussein is awful. But let me throw out a hypo: What do we do with him? Let's assume the rosiest of neo-con scenarios and Baghdad falls easily and we have him. The Bush administration, among its clumsier moves, has undercut an international court--we're too good for it? Do we then aver that Saddam should be tried by it?

Now, I have no idea what is going to happen. I am not even certain that military action is as inevitable as others seem to think. But the devil is in the details and in assessing the motives of our policymakers. I have read one conservative--Larry Kudlow--hope for an October surprise to help Wall Street. One conservative commentar--Charlie Reese of The Orlando Sentinel--if I recall attributed George One's war on his thyroid condition and viewed it as a prop to his re-election prospects. While I certainly do not discount the ideological fire burning in the bellies of many on the Right, I do not have much faith in the underlying motives of those making policy decisions.

Clintonian nation-building by collective action? Progressives are not inconsistent to support that, in Kosovo, Haiti, or elsewhere; they ought to have raised hell when we did nothing, shamefully, in Rwanda, and many did. But Iraq is simply not comparable, although in the past week or two I have been hearing the comparisons to Yugoslavia, flawed as they are, coming from the right.


Alec Lloyd - 9/13/2002

The reason many view this as a purely political stunt is that Congress has already authorized action. It did so in 1990 and that resolution is still operative, else our forces would not be enforcing no-fly zones to this day. Iraq has repeatedly violated the cease-fire agreement which SUSPENDED (but did not end) hostilities, thus from a legal standpoint, no additional authorization is needed. Just as no vote would be required to defend South Korea, a mandate has already been given and has never since been rescinded.

Furthermore, SJR 23 provides additional authorization. How many more votes do you people need?


Alec Lloyd - 9/12/2002

Perhaps the 1,000 historians could put together a second petition to encourage the Senate to vote some time before the fall election.

Sen. Tom Daschle seems to regard this issue as one which lacks any urgency. Perhaps you should be persuading him…

Of course, if anyone who posted would bother to read SJR 23, this whole issue would never have come up. Oh wait, I forgot. Resolutions 1,000 historians don’t like don’t count.

You may disregard the previous remarks and continue to debase and politicize the academy.


Dr. John L. Godwin - 9/11/2002

I wholeheartedly endorse the historians' petition in support of common sense, civic morality, and the preservation of constitutional government in the U.S.A. You would think it would be the "conservatives" who would trumpet the cause of strict constitutionalism, but again we see the real emptiness of conservative rhetoric in our time. Weapons of mass destruction? Try looking at our own arsenal, which by any stretch is the most formidable that the world has ever seen. Human rights absuses? Try looking at the behavior of U.S. corporations in various countries around the world where corporate profits are at stake. Not to mention our own record of abuses at home. Do America's friends and allies deserve to hear the voice of reason in foreign affairs from the world's most powerful nation? Yes! And do the world's poorest and least advantaged nations deserve respect and leadership from the U.S.? I believe they do.
Too obvious now- they will never receive this as long as the current administration continues on its current misguided path.
John L. Godwin
Editor & Publisher
The People's Civic Record


Leslye J. Allen - 9/11/2002

Thank you Dr. Beito for your comments and some much needed clarification on U. S. involvement in Iraq. It should be clear to everyone, in or out of the history profession, that the issue of whether or not we go to war is neither a "Left" or "Right" issue. I would like to humbly submit my observations over what appears to be a growing debate over whether or not historians should collectively implore our representatives to soundly and thoroughly debate potential U. S. military intervention in Iraq, particularly as it relates to the U. S. Constitution. For the record, one of the first duties of an American citizen is to uphold the principles of our constitution. The last time I checked, American-born historians were citizens.

As a graduate student of history, I have always held to the principle that the purpose of all historical inquiry is to unravel the questions of our past in our effort to understand and possibly improve our present condition. I have lived with the idea that the residual results of some past event that has served me well in the present, may have affected others negatively; for this reason, historical debate is always relevant. Anyone can successfully argue that completely unbiased history has yet to be written; this is not a professional flaw, but rather a human one. Few people can write or teach effectively without some focus or motive, which makes the need for historical debate as well as debate over war and our constitution all the more necessary and honorable. I can think of no professionals better equipped for such deliberation than historians.

Most Americans, pro- or anti-war, know that Saddam Hussein is not a poster child for moral leadership. Yet, we can ill-afford to place our constitution through a paper shredder in an effort to oust Hussein from power. We have yet to have any serious national debate on how best to contain Iraq's excesses, and far fewer dialogues on the potential problem of violating the constitution in order to do so. Historians are well-equipped at explaining past events that were fueled by real or imagined dangers. And we know that hindsight is often the only "mental" 20/20 vision we ever experience. Historians then have a professional, if not an ethical and moral, obligation to bring their expertise to bear on any issue that has the "potential" of becoming, or being viewed at a later date, as a national catastrophe.

The historians of the future will help future inhabitants of America and this planet understand what may or may not happen in the future months and years ahead. Personally, I would prefer to have future generations read that historians of this era not only taught and wrote about the past but helped to shape the future.

Sincerely,
Leslye Joy Allen


Mike Palmer - 9/10/2002

I have no desire to get into the question of the motivations, or lack there of, of the drafters of the petition.

I do agree that, given the import of the issue, Congress should most certainly have hearings, a debate, and vote to support, or not support, a war.

I do not agree (and hence will not sign the petition) with the call for a formal declaration of war. This republic's first two wars fought under the Constitution--the Quasi-War with France and the Tripolitan War--were undeclared. I think that some of the discussion I've read on this forum that seems to suggest that waging war without a declaration is a post-1945 phenomenon is wide distorted. Innumerable constitutional precedents (including Supreme Court decisions) exist that allow the executive and Congress to wage war without the necessity of a declaration. The other reason I oppose a formal declaration of war is simple: our problem is not with the Iraqi people, but with Saddam Hussein and his "regime." In my view, when we declare war against a country, we state our determination to wage war against the people of that country. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq and hence have no reason to declare war on them.

Full Congressional debate? Yes. Declaration of war? No.


David T. Beito - 9/9/2002

Bill:

I have signed the petition though I suppose some would classify me as "on the right."

Having said this, your comments are extremely unfair. People "on the right" were virtually the only opponents of Bill Clinton's crusades in Kosovo and Haiti. Where were the "progressives" during those misguided interventions?

Moreover, such luminaries on the right as Ron Paul, Dick Armey, Brent Scrowcroft, Robert Novak, etc. have opposed the recent Iraq war which, in reality, is merely a continuation and expansion of Bill Clinton's futile eight year bombing campaign.

Sincerely,

David T. Beito
Associate Professor
Department of History
University of Alabama


David D. Buck - 9/9/2002

Please add my name to the over 1000 signatures to the petition to Congress that calls for a Congressional declaration of war before we go to war. Thank you,
David D. Buck
Professor Emeritus
Department of History
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee


Linda Civitello - 9/9/2002

We need a Supreme Court case like "Schechter," where the Court declared that Congress cannot give its Constitutionally-mandated legislative power to the executive branch. Neither should it be allowed to give away its Constitutionally-mandated power to declare war.


Bob Zecker - 9/7/2002

Re: Mr. Gorentz and Horowitz's comments:

Let me see if I get THIS right? Mr. Horowitz and others believe the U.S. must engage in a second genocide in Iraq (what other word in the English language quite so precisely captures the spirit of 1.5 million civilian casualties, as occurred in 1990-91 and its aftermath.)This genocide is to be conducted, presumably, all in the name of defending "freedom" and "U.S. values" (surely not oil corporation profits or an unelected president's poll numbers.) However, when a group of U.S. citizens such as myself and the petition organizers decide to exercise some of those same "freedoms," constitutional rights such as "the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances," it's a shame on an entire profession or illegitimate/treasonous meddling?

Or "authoritarian"???????????? Gosh, I would've thought one unelected Bushite sitting by his lonesome thinking of inflicting untold casualties on civilian populations, without so much as asking for a "Mother, may I?" from the coequal branch of government would more nearly approximate the Webster's definition of authoritarian. Like-minded individuals trying to sway their (presumably) elected officials doesn't strike most native speakers of English as "authoritarian."

When a group of private citizens urges Congress to exercise its mandated responsibilities as set forth in the Constitution, that's called freedom, gentlemen. I could see how that would make some Heritage Foundation types uncomfortable. But let's try to eschew "moral equivalency" and fuzzy thinking in terms of standards, as the far right so often urges.

And you betcha, I'm hoping Congress sees fit to vote "no" on beginning World War III.

As A.J. Muste might have put it, "Who has the spiritual (weapons of mass destruction)?"

Bob Zecker
Dept. of History
Saint Francis Xavier University




Arnold Offner - 9/7/2002

Why do people like David Horowitz and John Gorentz find it necessary to attack the people who write a petition rather than focus on what the petition says. Is it because they have nothing substantive to say, and choose instead to engage in ad hominenn attacks?

The war-making power is vester in Congress, quite clearly,and while presidents from Truman to Johnson have ignored this (Truman at least had limited UN authority in 1950, but then way overreached, while Johnson had nothing but the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which he used to deceive the American people)now is the time to put an end to this presidential usurpation of power.
Really, conservative strict constructionists out to practice what they preach.


Arnold Offner - 9/7/2002

Please add my name to the signers of the petition!


Dennis Lythgoe - 9/6/2002

I would like to enthusiastically add my name to the list of those American historians who request Congress weigh in on the decision to approach war with Iraq.


Anthony Baltakis - 9/5/2002

Please add my name if it is possible to the petition. I am at Louisiana State University at Euince.


Catherine Stodolsky - 9/1/2002

Please put my name on the above list. I teach at the University of Munich in GErmany


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 8/30/2002

Almost any effort to carry on reasonable and informed discussion about Iraq (and just about anything else) brings out the usual snideness and sometimes downright madness from folks on the Right. Horowitz is over the top--but then, so were the camp-followers of nasty, authoritarian regimes in the past; let'em into power, the US Right, and what else could we expect? Unfortunately, reasonable progressives and conservatives--because of the nature of their values--have not responded as aggressively as we ought, and we have neither organized nor financed the kinds of responses we ought to. The shrillness of Right-wing postings, and the mediocrity and single-mindedness of an unelected administration, suggest to me that these folks are extremely vulnerable, personally, intellectually, and politically. Some fundamental issues are at stake--why let snide nutcases and third-rate B-School types build a New Postmodern Totalitarianism? Horowitz's language--and the odd postings of his fellow reactionaries--suggest, in fact, a profound lack of confidence, and the verbal bullying betrays a genuine cowardice to engage in reasonable exchange. Call their bluff!


Alec Lloyd - 8/29/2002

A noble profession has lowered itself to being just one more special interest group. Historians are now up there with pipe fitter and trial lawyers as just one more lobby trying to dictate policy.

Who are historians to claim such sweeping authority over public policy? Does a dissertation on medieval France make you into a noted Constitutional scholar? Not necessarily.

Unlike pipe fitters, of course, historians provide little practical value. One does not need to read Gibbon to appreciate the value of a working flush toilet.

Indeed, even a pipe fitter could know that Congress has ALREADY authorized the use of force against Iraq. To wit, SJR 23, passed on Sept. 14, 2001 [in part]:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Thus, historians once again are shown to be nakedly political, undeserving of any special respect. Perhaps they should form a political action committee.


Lisa South - 8/28/2002

I'm a little late getting into this discussion, but I couldn't help but make a couple of comments.

I see quite a few people here forgetting to use reason and facts in their arguments. Hmmmm... how many of you are historians? I teach my history students to back up all their opinions in their papers with facts; don't all of you? Therefore, shouldn't we do the same? As human beings, most of us can get emotionally involved in issues, but if we want to win anyone over with our arguments, we must do so with reason and facts. Otherwise, someone will always come along and find the inaccuracies.

A note about historians: not all historians are socialists. In fact, I'm not sure that I know a historian who has claimed to be a socialist. Of course, I probably know less than a hundred professional historians personally. And what is wrong with a person standing up for what he or she believes in, regardless of his or her profession? Perhaps making mention of the profession of history is supposed to remind people of the expertise these people have, especially political and economic historians.

Someone made mention that all Republicans would vote for war and all Democrats would vote against it (was that Mr. Scott?). I suppose you're speaking of Congress. But considering the history of Congress, surely you've noticed that all issues are not perfectly split along party lines, and some politicians have been known to change parties because of issues. Of course, if you're referring to the voting public, then you know that the American people are not so loyal to their parties as to vote against their own consciences. I certainly don't vote against my conscience, no matter what my party states.

A war with Iraq would affect my family personally. My husband is in the military. I'm from a very patriotic family, with most of the male members in my extended family having served in the military in one branch or another. I had an uncle who fought in the Pacific theater in WWII, and a brother who fought in Vietnam. My husband was in Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. I'm proud of their service to our country. Yet, I'm not excited about a possible war with Iraq.

When is the U.S. going to stop trying to build nations? Haven't we had some bad experiences trying to do that in the past? How long do you think the American people will support a war without any allies? How do you think our economy will be affected in the long run? Have we considered all of the "what if's"?

Just some things to think about....

Thanks for your time.


Joyce Appleby - 8/25/2002

I agree that conservatives should support this petition, and they have. I promise John Moser that, regardless of who was in the White House, I would be circulating this petition if it looked as though we were going to war on the say-so of the president alone.


Gary Reichard - 8/23/2002

I note that my institutional affiliation is not included with my name on the petition to Congress; rather, I am identified as "Historian." If possible, I would prefer that my affiliation be listed with my name: California State University, Long Beach. Thanks.


Michael P. Rollins - 8/22/2002

So many historians so few Constitutional scholars. Signing a petition asking Congress to vote on military action against IRAQ. I guess it would seem like a noble gesture-only if a majority of Americans were ignorant of the fact only Congress can declare war and the War Powers Act gives the president limited power to act and holds the president accountable to Congress. I bet that a majority of the students of the professors on this petition are ignorant of these facts. I think I shall keep with the spirit of these brave souls and circulate petitions with noble intentions like the following: A petition that rain be wet, a petition that every four years we hold presidential elections, and finally that each state be allotted two senators. Yes I ask my fellow citizens and other masters of the obvious to join me in asking Congress to take these bold steps needed to improve our republic. What's that you say, we already.....-- my bad! Nevermind.


Donna L. Boutelle - 8/22/2002

sdfghjkl;'


Leo P. Ribuffo - 8/22/2002

I'm delighted that a conservative is for debate and maybe even restraint on presidential war making power. I think you are wrong, however, that no such petition would exist if Gore were leading the charge--though the list of singers would be shorter. I signed but found the statement quite bland--signable by Herbert Hoover, Robert Taft, and even Charles Lindbergh. I confess to being an unreconstructed McGovernite and an admirer of SOME of the noninterventionists of the '30s (including Taft, Norman Thomas, and, until Pearl Harbor, young JFK and Gerald Ford) who live in bipartisan legend as obtuse "isolationists." So I wish the petition had said that the US should not overthrow governments, even governments run by very bad guys (as Saddam was while a US ally), in the abstract hope of spreading democracy.


John Moser - 8/21/2002

As a person more or less of the Right, I find the conservative attacks on this petition mystifying. If Bill Clinton were still president, is there any doubt that Republicans would be demanding a full congressional debate on the issue of war and peace? Was it not the GOP that was fighting to keep the power to declare war and make treaties from passing away from Congress and toward the White House? What would great conservatives like Robert A. Taft be saying right now?

Are the motives of the petition's sponsors in question? Absolutely. Liberal academics dutifully lined up behind FDR's interventionist foreign policy in 1940-1941, and were Al Gore in the White House now, and Republicans in the majority in both houses of Congress, I am confident that they would never have issued the petition. However, this in no way undermines the force of the argument. The Constitution must be defended; Republicans who shrink from that task now have no right to complain when liberals strike at it from another direction.


Gary Frazier - 8/20/2002

I see that David is off his meds again.


John Gorentz - 8/20/2002

I'll be sure to read what Posner said.

Individual historians who have something to say SHOULD speak out and give a historical perspective to what's going on with this war on Iraq. Put out their data and arguments, inform the public, etc. Bush's tactics certainly need it.

But this business of signing petitions and making like a gang of authoritarians (using a fairly literal sense of the term) is a discredit to the profession and undermines the legitimate criticism of Bush that needs to be made. Do these people not understand how politicization of their profession undermines the basis for public support of it?

I'm saddened to see listed here the names of a few people whose work I value and respect. I'm not going to say their signing onto this petition completely discredits their work. Maybe some of them just succumbed to peer pressure in a moment of weakness. But it is going to put a bit of cloud over any attempts at historical objectivity they may claim to make.

I'm also happy to see that some otherwise good names that were on the infamous Clinton impeachment petition are not on this one. I hope they stay off. Maybe historians won't be so badly discredited, after all.


Robert Whealey - 8/16/2002

Good petition. I hope you sign my name.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/16/2002

As I told Mr. Heuisler, I can't speak to the historians' motivation for not seeking a petition for the earlier conflicts you mention (indeed, I can't say that they didn't circulate any, either). But I refer you to Professor Spencer's blog elsewhere on this web site -- his reservations about waging this war may coincide with theirs and may serve to answer your question.

Again, I can respect your, Mr. Heuisler's, and Mr. Scott's insistence on knowing the motivations behind the petition before you take it seriously, but I disagree. If you wish not to take it seriously, that's fine. It still doesn't detract from its valid intentions.

I see your argument about the President being commander-in-chief and you are correct in pointing out that he remains so even in times of peace. Throughout our history, presidents have taken action (including the use of military force) to protect our interests around the globe withour first seeking congressional approval. But in each example you cite the President sought congressional approval before proceeding further.

Let's look at Afghanistan. The President sought and received congressional approval to wage war because the forces that ordered the attacks on 9/11 were harbored there and the government in power refused our demand to turn them over to our custody.

In the case of Iraq, however, there is no clear link between those forces -- specifically Al Qaeda -- and the Iraqi government. There are allegations certainly, but I refer you to my reply to Mr. Scott. The evidence supporting that link is in dispute. Note also the quotes from a National Review article which argue against waging war on Iraq.

The petition seeking Congress to assume its constitutional responsibilities with regard to a declaration of war is proper in my judgment for the following reasons: 1) we're not certain that Hussein is involved in the actions of 9/11 because of the questions surrounding the validity of the allegations that he is, 2) the administration is seeking what (at the moment) is an unprovoked war, 3) we must consider and evaluate the repercussions such a war will have in the region and in the world in general, 4) and we must beware initiating such an action without the support of the international community (whether we agree with them or not, we will still have to interact with them politically, and economically).

Keep in mind, Mr. Kamin, there are voices from the right who are urging the administration to hold off on this. Dick Armey has warned against an unprovoked attack against Iraq. Brent Scowcroft and Jack Kemp have urged restraint, and it is reported that on the Imus program recently, General Schwarzkopf spoke against it.

Their concerns certainly aren't motivated by a need to discredit this administration, rather, their motivation stems from the same concerns that (I feel) prompted this petition.



Ben Alpers - 8/16/2002

Mr. Heuisler, don't try arguing the history of this with me. I work on it. First of all, the Nazi-Soviet Pact caused a huge crisis of faith on the part of the American left. The Popular Front collapsed. The Communist Party (CP), which had grown enormously since 1935, saw dramatic declines in its membership. For many, many on the left, the Pact ended their sympathies for the Soviet Union, at least temporarily.

But even those who stuck with the CP line didn't support Hitler. The official position of the CP was that the war in Europe was a bourgeois, imperialist war and that the U.S. should stay neutral. This was pushed as the best -- indeed the only -- way to battle fascism. This was neither an argument to support Hitler, nor was it couched in pro-Hitler terms. It was an outrageous, illogical argument, designed principally to support the Soviet Union's land grabs in Poland and Finland (and incidentally in the winter of 1939-40, it was the Finnish war that most aroused American interventionists). But it was not an argument in favor of Hitler. (Incidentally, orthodox Trotkyists took a similarly wrongheaded line on the war in 1939).

I think we need to distinguish between those who supported Hitler and those who were wrongheadedly noninterventionist. E.g. Lindbergh had actual Nazi sympathies; most other folks in America First did not. Failing to make this distinction is just to engage in Brownbaiting.

If we are going to accuse all of those who objected to America's entering WWII between 9/1/39 and 12/7/41as being pro-Hitler, you're indicting many, many more on the right than on the left.


Bill Heuisler - 8/16/2002

Mr Alpers, Your "but HITLER?!?" is a charming bit of fluff. Perhaps your ideology has stifled your scholarship. Allow me to remind you: During the Spanish Civil War the U.S. Left was rabidly anti German, but on August 23, 1939 all that changed with the non-aggression pact signed by Ribbentrop in Moscow. Almost immediately the American Left was silent about their new friends in Berlin, and remained so until June 22, 1941. Making this bizarre book with Hitler evidently slipped your mind. This inconvenient, but telling farce - and the convenient memory lapse - simply makes Mr Horowitz's point. Shape-shifting on the Left is so routine the smaller treacheries are simply forgotten.
Bill Heuisler


Marc D. Kamin - 8/16/2002

The real issue is: Is it a good idea or a bad idea to have a Congressional debate, and formal vote, about war with Iraq? The answer is of course it is a good idea. Perhaps the only persons afraid to debate are those who aren't confident in their arguments.

Some, like me, have questioned (in the literal sense) the motivation of the petition, but I readily admit that this is a separate issue. Even if the professors were Al Gore's advisors, and developed this petition to force Bush into defending his apparent position on Iraq, the idea of a debate isn't therefore a bad one.

The final issue regards whether, without Congressional authorization, the president is empowered to use the military against Iraq. Again, to be clear, this is separate from whether a debate/vote would be a bad thing. The Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief. There is no qualification to that empowerment. It is not linked to the power of Congress to declare war. That is, it doesn't say "When the Congress declares war, the president assumes the control of the military and becomes commander-in-chief.” If the Founding Fathers wanted to make the president's control of the military dependent upon Congressional recognition of war or its acquiescence to it, they probably would have designed the document to reflect that. But they didn’t. But they didn't. That is how the Constitution is written. But how are we to understand it? Surely the Founders wouldn't have wanted the president to use the military any way he wanted. They probably expected that, most times, the president would exercise his military authority after Congress declares war. But, by writing the Constitution as they did, they made it possible for the president to use the military without Congressional mandate. This is probably because they realized that there could be national emergency to which the president would need to act quickly, before Congress could convene. Regardless of one's interpretive orientation toward the Constitution, commander-in-chief means head of the military, its leader, its top person. But, of course, we then must ask what does THAT mean? It means he controls it. He controls it because he has ultimate rank. Again, the Constitution doesn't state that the president's rank becomes effective only if Congress approves it. Today we think "How could the Founders be so dumb as to leave open the possibility that a president could use the military arbitrarily?" But, of course, unlike today, the Founders possessed common sense, and hoped that posterity would. They wouldn't think that we would elect anyone with a predisposition toward despotism, or that the military would follow the commands of a despot. So, as it is written, the president is commander-in-chief, ultimate leader of the military, and there is no qualification to that, or linkage to the Congressional power to declare war. Such doesn't mean that the Congressional power is therefore empty, because, again, the Founders assumed that executives wouldn't engage in an actual war without consulting Congress. But the fact that this was their assumption doesn't change the way the document is written. James Madison himself, during the 1832 nullification crisis, warned contemporaries not to wonder what the Founders intended when writing the Constitution, but to be guided by what is actually says, and to interpret it as seen fit. While there are many opportunities for interpretation, you can't interpret-away the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief, that this means he controls the military, and that he doesn't have that rank only after Congress approves his military plans.








So, according to Mr. Alpers understanding of the Constitution, the president's ability to command the military is contingent on a Congressional declaration of war. That is, "only Congress can declare war" really means "the president can't command the military, and is therefore not commander-in-chief, until Congress declares war." However, the Constitution itself doesn't state this. It doesn't suggest that the Congressional power to declare war really means that the president can't use the military until war is declared. The fact is that the Constitution states that the president is commander-in-chief. If that title is understood to mean the ultimate leader of the military, then its therefore obvious that, as the leader, he can order it to go anyplace at anytime. The fact that Congress has or hasn't declared war doesn't negate or enhance the president's power or authority to give whatever order he as commander-in-chief wishes to give. If the Founders wanted the president's military authority to be active only after Congress declares war, then they would have designed the document in that way. Again, it is probably true that the Founders expected that a president would request a declaration of war before actually engaging in one - fine. But, the way the document is written, he doesn't need to have Congressional authorization to move one division from New York to California, from California to Vietnam, or to tell that division to fire at will. The Constitution simply says the president is commander-in-chief, and as such, the president is empowered to do all those things, regardless of what the Constitution says. As the Constitution has been written, the Congressional power to declare war can be made irrelevant by the president's unqualified authority as commander-in-chief, just as it has been many times, such as in Korea, Vietnam, and in Iraq. This isn't true because I love it that way, or because I love strict constructionism, or because I like cats, it's true because this is the way the Constitution is written.


Marc D. Kamin - 8/16/2002

The real issue is: Is it a good idea or a bad idea to have a Congressional debate, and formal vote, about war with Iraq? The answer is of course it is a good idea. Perhaps the only persons afraid to debate are those who aren't confident in their arguments.

Some, like me, have questioned (in the literal sense) the motivation of the petition, but I readily admit that this is a separate issue. Even if the professors were Al Gore's advisors, and developed this petition to force Bush into defending his apparent position on Iraq, the idea of a debate isn't therefore a bad one.

The final issue regards whether, without Congressional authorization, the president is empowered to use the military against Iraq. Again, to be clear, this is separate from whether a debate/vote would be a bad thing. The Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief. There is no qualification to that empowerment. It is not linked to the power of Congress to declare war. That is, it doesn't say "When the Congress declares war, the president assumes the control of the military and becomes commander-in-chief.” If the Founding Fathers wanted to make the president's control of the military dependent upon Congressional recognition of war or its acquiescence to it, they probably would have designed the document to reflect that. But they didn’t. But they didn't. That is how the Constitution is written. But how are we to understand it? Surely the Founders wouldn't have wanted the president to use the military any way he wanted. They probably expected that, most times, the president would exercise his military authority after Congress declares war. But, by writing the Constitution as they did, they made it possible for the president to use the military without Congressional mandate. This is probably because they realized that there could be national emergency to which the president would need to act quickly, before Congress could convene. Regardless of one's interpretive orientation toward the Constitution, commander-in-chief means head of the military, its leader, its top person. But, of course, we then must ask what does THAT mean? It means he controls it. He controls it because he has ultimate rank. Again, the Constitution doesn't state that the president's rank becomes effective only if Congress approves it. Today we think "How could the Founders be so dumb as to leave open the possibility that a president could use the military arbitrarily?" But, of course, unlike today, the Founders possessed common sense, and hoped that posterity would. They wouldn't think that we would elect anyone with a predisposition toward despotism, or that the military would follow the commands of a despot. So, as it is written, the president is commander-in-chief, ultimate leader of the military, and there is no qualification to that, or linkage to the Congressional power to declare war. Such doesn't mean that the Congressional power is therefore empty, because, again, the Founders assumed that executives wouldn't engage in an actual war without consulting Congress. But the fact that this was their assumption doesn't change the way the document is written. James Madison himself, during the 1832 nullification crisis, warned contemporaries not to wonder what the Founders intended when writing the Constitution, but to be guided by what is actually says, and to interpret it as seen fit. While there are many opportunities for interpretation, you can't interpret-away the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief, that this means he controls the military, and that he doesn't have that rank only after Congress approves his military plans.


Ben Alpers - 8/16/2002

Not much makes sense in Mr. Heuisler's last rant, so I'll just point out things that strike me as particularly bizarre.

1) "anti-war = pacifism"...well Merriam-Webster's dictionary (that noted Leftist screed) defines pacifism as "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes." Not A dispute. But disputeS in general. I am not a pacifist, yet I believe we should not go to war against Iraq. You may think I'm an idiot for opposing this war. However, if you think that makes me a pacifist, you have no idea what pacifism is.

2) After Pearl Harbor, many conservatives argued that America should go after "Japan First," and effectively stay out of the European war until the USSR agreed to go to war against Japan. More recently, a number of neo-cons (here and in Great Britain) have argued that the Western alliance with the USSR made World War II an immoral war. Besides, Heuisler's quibbles about Pearl Harbor paper over the better known legacy of noninterventionism between September 1939 and December 1941, when it was clear to any thinking person that Hitler was a far, far greater threat to world peace and freedom than Saddam Hussein is today.

3) We WERE attacked on 9/11, and I would dearly love the Bush administration to concentrate on catching Bin Laden and the other perpetrators of that atrocity rather than desperately hoping that it will turn out that Saddam was responsible. Saddam is an evil man and a brutal tyrant. However, the best available evidence suggests he had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. It's easy to see a number of allies of ours who were much more connected to the attack: Saudi Arabia (which furnished most of the folks responsible) and Pakistan (which provided critical logistical and diplomatic support for the Taliban regime that in turn housed Bin Laden).

4) As for Suddam's weapons programs...clearly Saddam is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction; just as clearly we do not want him to get them (tho' I don't think anyone outside of Iraq has as much knowledge of the specifics as Heuisler seems to claim). But is war the best way to deal with this problem? The case has to be made, and at least as far as I can tell, most supporters of war are more interested in shouting about the problem, and launching ad hominem attacks at their opponents, than they are in making a reasoned case for war.

5) As for the left making "bizarre book" with tyrants...certainly we have often expressed sympathy for folks who deserved none. But I also think we have owned up to these mistakes. I think most of the American left today is profoundly and vocally anti-Stalinist. Some of the most impressive figures on the American left in the '30s and '40s were already. But HITLER?!? When did the left cozy up to him? Check your history...to the extent anyone had anything good to say about Hitler (and in this country, unlike in much of Europe, there weren't a lot of folks who did), those people were on the right. In fact, the American right has an unpleasant rogues gallery of its own to own up to: Franco, Battista, Pinochet, Samoza, Duvalier, Salazar, Mussolini, Suharto....I could go on. Two, however, I want to close with: Saddam Hussein, who we gave plenty of aid and comfort to during the Iran-Iraq War and to whom Bush's ambassador to Iraq, April Glasspie, gave a green light to invade Kuwait; and the Mujahadeen, who were the predecessors of the Taliban and who trained Ossama bin Laden. At least we on the left have the honest to admit our mistakes.


Marc D. Kamin - 8/16/2002

Just to clarify one issue, for what it's worth: In my original message I said: "...if they [the professors] did not advocate a Congressional debate/vote on a declaration of war when we attacked forces during the Persian Gulf Conflict, or the Bosnian Conflict, or in Kosovo, or in Afghanistan, then one may wonder why, in this instance, they believe a war declaration is necessary."

I chose my words carefully precisely to acknowledge that the professors obviously don't believe that the Congressional authorization given for past actions will suffice regarding Iraq. Their petition explicity advocates a debate about a declartion of war, not mere authorization. If the professors were simply asking for the same kind of Congressional approval that is typically requested and granted for major military action, then the petition itself wouldn't be unusual. What makes it newsworthy is that it's asking for an actual declaration of war, and not simple authorization. My original rumination, then, is not addressed simply by pointing out that Congress authorized action in those other cases: I'm wondering why the professors, or anyone, thinks that action against Iraq requires a declaration of war, while the other actions didn't apparently merit it. I acknowledge, again, that whatever the answer is doesn't address whether such a debate/vote is healthy, because it surely is. But, I maintain that understanding motivations behind suggestions can sometimes be helpful when deciding how seriously to consider proposals.


Bill Heuisler - 8/15/2002

Mr. Alpers indulges in revisionist history to bolster a flawed argument. He is fully aware that all isolationist opposition to WWII ceased after Pearl Harbor. Conservatives have always resisted aggression, but we were not attacked by Haitians, Bosnians or Somalis. Clever word-play will not obscure the fact that we WERE attacked on 9/11 and are daily threatened with collectively noxious horrors such as Botulin, Anthrax, Smallpox and the Ebola Virus. Sadam is manufacturing all these weapons at his Taji and Tahhaddy plants in violation of our decade-old cease-fire agreement. Why? Rodent control? What possible purpose other than mass murder? The petitioners have claimed their petition is Anti-War. Pacifist/Anti-War tactics in the face of madness is suicidal. But we should all remember The Twentieth Century Legacy of the Left: Make bizarre book with tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, Ho Chi Minh and Arafat when deemed politically convenient. My point again - and Mr. Horowitz's - Anti-War posturing (and this petition) is a base tactic used selectively by the Left for political sabotage.
Bill Heuisler


Ben Alpers - 8/15/2002

Just want to add that, while I am not a pacifist, there is a great tradition of pacifism in this country (and for that matter around world). Pacifists can be found in plenty of countries that are not democracies (Ghandi in colonial India; Tolstoy in Imperial Russia). The heart of American pacifism is probably the traditional peace churches, among them the Quakers, who played a key role in the establishment of this country (hard to get more American than Quakers). But American pacifists have also included plenty of secular leftists...and conservatives (if you don't believe me, check out http://www.anti-war.com).

Bill Heuisler implication that there is something ridiculous or un-American about pacifism is entirely unfair.

As I've already said, there's nothing in this petition that is exclusively pacifist. However, I imagine pacifists could easily sign it. And, though you may disagree with them, there's nothing wrong with that.


Ben Alpers - 8/15/2002

As conservatives ought to know, opposition to a particular military action does not constitute pacifism. After all, many conservatives objected to U.S. participation in military action in Haiti, Somalia, and, yes, the European theater in World War II.

If the petitioners were making pacifist claims (i.e. claims that all war is wrong), then their purported support for U.S. action is Somalia, Bosnia, etc. (and no one has offered any proof one way or another about their views on these earlier events) would be relevant. However, I see no evidence of pacifism in the petitioners objections to the potential war with Iraq.

Surely we can make foreign policy choices other than "always intervene militarily" or "never intervene militarily."


Bill Heuisler - 8/15/2002

Mr. Alpers,
Most objectors to the petition share scorn for pretense rather than love for Torquemada or Tail-Gunner Joe. This conservative cares very little about the plaintive squirms of the Left as long as the little wigglers are defined properly. The First Amendment shield allows righteousness, idiocy and corruption to mingle in the garden of protected speech, but sanctimonious calls for "reasoned debate" should be properly identified as the duplicitous delaying ploy they really are. This petition is an admitted Anti-War tactic. Anti-War sentiments can be effective if consistant, but where were these professors during Bosnia-Kosovo-Haiti-Somalia? Could they possibly be dissembling here?
Setting partisan insincerity aside, what really bothers some of us Right Wing Troglodytes is the whole idea of pacifism after a murderous attack. To paraphrase Orwell, since pacifists are free to practise their privilege only in Democracies, their greatest practical effect is to weaken their host Democracy and, perhaps, eventually destroy their safe harbor. Pacifists in a country under attack can be said to participate in a fatal Darwinian determinism. We annoyed trogs do not wish to share their folly.
Best wishes, Bill Heuisler


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/15/2002

Mr. Scott, your point is a fair one -- scathing criticism of a petition being circulated is not the same as attempting to suppress it. I stand rebuked.

As to your point that, "Congress does not need to debate that issue, they only need to see the evidence and then keep their mouths shut so as to protect our sources of information," I have to disagree. As I pointed out in my reply to Mr. Heuisler, it is unclear that the alleged link between Al Qaeda and Iraq has been established. Here is an excerpt from a Washington Times report of a while back:

"The CIA and other intelligence agencies, which before September 11 conducted almost no surveillance of Iraqi intelligence agents, are not backing Prague's claims, which were first disclosed to the State Department in October.

The differences on the meeting have triggered a dispute within the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment over Iraqi government involvement in terrorism and support for al Qaeda."

Here is another excerpt from this week's Newsweek:

"The sole evidence for the alleged meeting (between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi official) is the uncorroborated claim of a Czech informant... But the FBI can't find any evidence -- such as airlines or passenger records -- that Atta was in Prague that day."

None of this is to say that the allegation isn't true, but rather it is a matter for debate. If we are to accept a person's allegation without seeking any corroboration before acting, then we are really in trouble. In this case, we have sought it and have been unable to find it -- hardly making it an open-and-shut case.

Now our officials can still make a judgment call to accept it as true and continue to proceed accordingly. That still doesn't mean that Congress shouldn't review it.

There are two other arguments here (put forth by Mr. Oppitz) which say that the Constitution already gives the President the authority to go ahead with this war. As he puts it: "The President has ample power to take action to protect American interests in international affairs. Should the President determine that American interests require further action against Saddam and his regime, the laws of the United Stated grant him power to act. Indeed, a state of war already exists; the Allies maintain a substantial force in being around Saddam and they enforce a no-fly zone. This state of war has been in being since 1991 when a line was drawn in the sand."

These also are subject to debate. If it is as cut-and-dried as taking action to protect American interests in international affairs, then there would be no need for a constitutional provision that it be Congress who declares war. As to a state of war being already in existence, I refer you to an article in the National Review that disputes that interpretation.

You have expressed a concern to act before we suffer another terrorist tragedy. I can certainly sympathize with your apprehension. But there is another way to look at this: if the President already has the power to initiate the war without the consent of Congress, and, further, if the evidence is so clear-cut that Congress need only see it to agree, then why shouldn't your scorn be directed at the administration's delay in protecting us, instead of at a petition urging a debate on the matter?

From a recent column by Robert Novak there is this: "The steadfast Republican voices of Jack Kemp and Brent Scowcroft urge restraint. So do members of Congress from both parties, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey last Thursday warning against an unprovoked attack on Iraq." Now it is unlikely that Dick Armey is a close friend of either of the historians here. But he does share their concern about waging this proposed war.

I have emphasized in other comments here that the war is being questioned by liberals and conservatives alike. Why, then, do you wish to restrict your scorn to the historians who propose this petition? You should welcome the debate to be certain that we take the appropriate action. That's why I do.








Earl Scott - 8/15/2002

I think that Mr. Arteaga misunderstands. I have not read anywhere in this ongoing debate that the petitioners should not be allowed to create and disseminate the petition. Any thinking person recognizes their right to do so. However, just because they have a right to petition they are not automatically protected from being derided for doing so. In my experience, all too often criticism of speech is cast as an attempt to suppress speech. That is patently false and represents true intellectual dishonesty. If these two individuals choose to expose themselves to what they surely must have understood would be a scathing response to this petition, then they should be prepared to deal with our ridicule.

In fact, the responses I have read are reasoned, well thought out arguments that the President has the right under the Constitution and has been previously authorized by Congress to engage the military to address any country that was involved in 9/11. Congress does not need to debate that issue, they only need to see the evidence and then keep their mouths shut so as to protect our sources of information. Frankly, I don't believe they are up to the task and would love to see the lie detector tests concerning the previous releases of information. But that is another topic.


Ben Alpers - 8/15/2002

A few thoughts...

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly reserves to Congress the right to declare war. This is not the "spirit" of the Constitution, this is it's letter. Of course, as a matter of practice, this has been honored in the breach since the end of World War II. But it seems odd that the fans of original intent are suddenly invoking a "living document" reading of the Constitution to defend the president's right to make war on his own.

It's completely unclear to me why the conservatives in this discussion think that the anti-war motives of the petitioners in any way discredit their petition. The framers of the Constitution well understood that people act in interested ways. Indeed, part of the genius of the document is that it assumes that people will not act disinterestedly (hence all the checks and balances). Not surprisingly, pretty much everyone who has ever made a constitutional claim in this country has done so from self-interested motives, from the NAACP's support for desegregation cases, to "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade fame, to the religious schools that supported the Cleveland voucher program. In short, political motives alone simply cannot discredit a constitutional argument.

A (potentially) more serious argument put forward by Horowitz and his minions is the notion that historians (which is to say "leftist" historians) usually deride the Constitution. If this were true, there'd be a problem here. An athiest cannot easily invoke the Bible. However, it really isn't true. Speaking as an historian, and (by Horowitz's measure at least) a "leftist," I can honestly say that I know of no American historians who do not take the Constitution tremendously seriously. I think most of us think the document is flawed, but we all accept it as the supreme law of the land, and treat it seriously as such. What is the evidence that's been presented to back up the claim that we don't think this way? One commentator quoting a single professor claiming that most historians are socialists. Well let me let the conservatives in this conversation in on a couple little secrets: 1) most historians are almost certainly not socialists (though you'd need to have a lot more than a single professor's say-so to prove this one way or the other); 2) many -- and probably most -- American socialists (and there have been many throughout our history), have recognized the authority of the Constitution and have sought political change through constitional means. Indeed, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance was a socialist (so much for the McCarthyite accusation that socialism is un-American). In short, there has been no evidence whatsoever put forth that historians in general, or leftist historians in particular, or most importantly Profs. Appleby and DuBois are generally hostile to the Constitution or do not recognize its authority. This is a red herring.

So what this debate really comes down to as far as I can see is that the right so wants to anathemize any argument against war in Iraq that they think the mere calling for debate worthy of denunciation as un-American. As someone once said about a comment by President Reagan, I am appalled, but not surprised.


Ben Alpers - 8/15/2002

A few thoughts...

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly reserves to Congress the right to declare war. This is not the "spirit" of the Constitution, this is it's letter. Of course, as a matter of practice, this has been honored in the breach since the end of World War II. But it seems odd that the fans of original intent are suddenly invoking a "living document" reading of the Constitution to defend the president's right to make war on his own.

It's completely unclear to me why the conservatives in this discussion think that the anti-war motives of the petitioners in any way discredit their petition. The framers of the Constitution well understood that people act in interested ways. Indeed, part of the genius of the document is that it assumes that people will not act disinterestedly (hence all the checks and balances). Not surprisingly, pretty much everyone who has ever made a constitutional claim in this country has done so from self-interested motives, from the NAACP's support for desegregation cases, to "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade fame, to the religious schools that supported the Cleveland voucher program. In short, political motives alone simply cannot discredit a constitutional argument.

A (potentially) more serious argument put forward by Horowitz and his minions is the notion that historians (which is to say "leftist" historians) usually deride the Constitution. If this were true, there'd be a problem here. An athiest cannot easily invoke the Bible. However, it really isn't true. Speaking as an historian, and (by Horowitz's measure at least) a "leftist," I can honestly say that I know of no American historians who do not take the Constitution tremendously seriously. I think most of us think the document is flawed, but we all accept it as the supreme law of the land, and treat it seriously as such. What is the evidence that's been presented to back up the claim that we don't think this way? One commentator quoting a single professor claiming that most historians are socialists. Well let me let the conservatives in this conversation in on a couple little secrets: 1) most historians are almost certainly not socialists (though you'd need to have a lot more than a single professor's say-so to prove this one way or the other); 2) many -- and probably most -- American socialists (and there have been many throughout our history), have recognized the authority of the Constitution and have sought political change through constitional means. Indeed, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance was a socialist (so much for the McCarthyite accusation that socialism is un-American). In short, there has been no evidence whatsoever put forth that historians in general, or leftist historians in particular, or most importantly Profs. Appleby and DuBois are generally hostile to the Constitution or do not recognize its authority. This is a red herring.

So what this debate really comes down to as far as I can see is that the right so wants to anathemize any argument against war in Iraq that they think the mere calling for debate worthy of denunciation as un-American. As someone once said about a comment by President Reagan, I am appalled, but not surprised.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/14/2002

Mr. Cavaliere, why would pointing out propaganda techniques used in arguing a point be illogical? If one uses them, a logical thinker, a person who reasons, would immediately cast doubt on the validity of the argument. And he should. Do you mean to tell me you approve of their use?

As to omnipotence -- you can't really be serious, can you? It doesn't take an omnipotent being to recognize propaganda tactics. It simply takes a knowledge of what they are. This isn't rocket science. There are courses on this. Their intent is to help one to reason. It's incredible to think that you might not be aware of them.

To take an argument such as Mr. Horowitz's seriously one must be pre-disposed to agree with him. Since he is a conservative, it would follow that those who write in support of him adhere to the same philosophy (one of them does, for sure -- he and I have debated on other topics).

Why must they be pre-disposed to agree with him? Because, one who reasons and understands how propaganda is disseminated, will recognize that Mr. Horowitz's comments here lack substantiation and that he uses propaganda techniques to support his argument. If they are not conservative, then why do they defend his use of them, and why do they fail to question the lack of substance in claiming this petition "discredits" historians?

It makes no difference to me that they are conservatives, either. Some of my best friends are conservatives (that has a familiar ring, doesn't it?). Again, you miss the point. It is their approbation of Horowitz's argument with which I disagree.

You remember my use of the term "Hitleresque" in an example I gave of how easy it is to engage in such tactics. Did you forget that fact, or are you just trying to play verbal tricks?

It is ironic that you would ask anyone to open their mind. In your latest reply, you say: 1) logic dictates that you ignore propaganda and unsubstantiated allegations, 2) only omnipotent beings can recognize them, and 3) these historians only defend the Constitution when it suits their needs. That is hardly an example of sound reasoning. By the way, with regard to your last point-- logically speaking, those who don't wish Congress to have a say in this issue defend the Constitution only when it suits their needs, too. But to recognize that, Mr. Cavaliere, you would need an open mind.



Philip Cavaliere - 8/14/2002

Reading your defense of the Constitution, shows that you actually agree with Mr. Horowitz’s position and the “loyalty to the strictures of dead white male slaveholders” It is unfortunate that his full email was not printed since you will see that he was not talking about people such as you but was chastising those who only support the Constitution when it suits their needs. Perhaps this will quell your concerns.

From Horowitz Front Page: On receipt of an email from History News Network about this petition, I fired off the following response:
What a great idea. Some genius -- actually two geniuses -- have come up with a new way to discredit historians and their profession. A bunch of leftists who on other days of the week regard the Constitution as a reactionary obstacle to their redistributionist agendas and who even admit that their real purpose with this petition on Iraq is to stop the war (not preserve the letter), have decided to launch yet another foray into the public square under the transparently false banner of loyalty to the strictures of dead white male slaveholders (did I get that right?).
Professors Appleby and DuBois should read carefully Richard Posner's wicked deconstruction of previous professorial petitions protesting the "unconstitutional" impeachment of Clinton and the "unconstitutional" Florida decision organized by Princeton radical Sean Wilentz, before going any further with their project. (Posner's critique can be found in his latest book Public Intellectuals. (End of Email).

And of course Americans remember the history professors attitute toward Congress when in their rational discourse on ideas accused Congress of being craven.

Since you are a student “of what logical thought processes are.” And you say “I rely on pointing out reasons why a petition of this sort is good for the nation.” I found it illogical that you saw fit, however, to venture into side issues such as the following, which don’t seem to fit into your strict logical approach to debate. It makes one wonder if you are engaging in propaganda. In your primer on propaganda, you say:

It's also important to look at his methods of argument because they are classic Horowitz. He begins with the propaganda technique of name-calling, (remember your use of the the term Hitlerites), using the trendy conservative epithet (at least the right considers it such): "a bunch of leftists". From there he goes to another favorite propaganda ploy: sweeping generalities, "A bunch of leftists who on other days of the week regard the Constitution as a reactionary obstacle to their redistributionist agendas..." He continues with, "...have decided to launch yet another foray into the public square under the transparently false banner of loyalty to the strictures of dead white male slaveholders (did I get that right?)"

Of course if we accept that the following comments come from an omnipotent being, then of course we can accept your statements on their face. But what use do they have in your argument that you only want a debate on a war with Irag, since you don’t know the political leaning of those who post on this site. And what differences does it make. After all we are all Americans discussing the need for a Proclamation of war by Congress and are merely exercising our rights of free speech.

“It's interesting that some conservatives see nothing wrong with their manner of argument here. Why do they not wish to seek the truth? Why are they willing to accept allegations without asking for proof?”

Conservatives often claim to be the thinkers and accuse liberals of being emotional. Judging by some of these entries here, it appears to be the other way around.

PS: You might want to open your mind and read and digest some of the other posts.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/14/2002

Welcome back, Mr. Heuisler, you were missed. And you're up to your old tricks again, I see.

Why is motive required to take the petition seriously? Because you feel they are insincere in their fealty to the Constitution? So what? The petition is their right to undertake. If you don't want to take this action seriously, go ahead. It doesn't make it any less proper.

How does this petition protect Hussein? I refer you to a quote from a National Review writer (provided in another of my replies to all these objections), who argues Hussein is not a threat and that war should not be initiated. You can disagree with him and with those who feel the same way, but the points he raises contradict your assertion. It is a matter for debate.

Everyone knows Hussein is evil. That is not disputed here. The issue is whether waging war is the proper course to deal with him. As you are well aware, there are voices from the left and the right who don't think it is.

Your assertion that the link between Hussein and the terrorists has already been established is not necessarily true. There are disputes within the CIA and the FBI as to whether the meeting ever took place. There is an interesting report in this week's Newsweek discussing this very issue.

As to Haiti and Bosnia -- if no petitions were circulated then, that is for these historians to answer. I can tell you this -- there was no shortage of opposition from conservatives everywhere. Perhaps they didn't circulate petitions, but they certainly voiced their rigorous disapproval in every media venue available.

And, why shouldn't they? It is their right to do so. Just as it is the right of these historians to make their concerns public in the manner they have chosen. You may wish you could deny them that right, but you shouldn't try to. The Constitution says they can.

And your ad hominems continue don't they?

It is amazing that the conservatives here oppose so vigorously the First Amendment right to circulate a petition. It is also amazing that they wish to do away with the role the Constitution has placed on Congress to declare war.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/14/2002

It would appear that Mr. Cavalier has a clouded understanding of what logical thought processes are. Mr. Horowitz began the argument with the allegation that the petition "discredits" the history profession. The natural question is "how would it"?

Neither he nor any of you will answer. Why not?

Mr. Horowitz further alleges that he knows the motives behind the historians putting this petition into circulation. The natural question is, "how does he know them"?

These are basic fundamentals: someone alleges something, someone else asks for proof. If all of us were to accept on faith whatever is put out there as fact, then we would remain enveloped in the mists of uncertainty because anything untruthful would be revealed and then what?

Now Mr. Cavalier would have me provide facts to counter something yet to be established. That is putting the cart before the horse! If you, or Mr. Horowitz, can provide some semblance of facts supporting the allegation that this petition discredits historians, then I will be happy to counter with facts which will dispute yours. But since facts have yet to be furnished by any of you, I rely on pointing out reasons why a petition of this sort is good for the nation.

It's interesting that some conservatives see nothing wrong with their manner of argument here. Why do they not wish to seek the truth? Why are they willing to accept allegations without asking for proof?

Conservatives often claim to be the thinkers and accuse liberals of being emotional. Judging by some of these entries here, it appears to be the other way around.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/14/2002

Mr. Oppitz, your argument that the President already has the power to wage this proposed war is one interpretation. But if it's so cut-and-dried, why has the administration continued to seek a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein? And didn't Vice President Cheney say that Congress should take part in this decision?

Even if you are correct, the petitioners are simply trying to involve Congress in the decision to make this war? And that is their constitutional role. Would you deny it its role on an issue of such importance?

The idea that a petition to get Congress to act would ultimately lead to foreign policy by poll is incorrect. Petitions are one of many means we use to communicate with our representatives. Daily they receive phone calls, personal visits (especially from lobbyists), letters, and, yes, petitions urging them to initiate legislation or to vote "yes" or "no" on a bill. If you say this initiative will lead to conducting foreign affairs by polls, someone else could say we already have domestic and foreign policy being conducted by lobbyists. The point is, our republic is based on sounding out issues by constituents and government officials alike. Would you rather we have government by decree?

Your concern for the need to act quickly is understandable, given the threats we face. But the administration itself is delaying its decision to act. And many aren't certain the threat from Hussein is genuine, or that we should go to war. Here is an excerpt from the conservative National Review arguing this viewpoint: "Lots of arguments have been offered on behalf of striking Baghdad that are not reasons at all. For instance, that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalized his own people.

Certainly true. But the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people. Indeed, Washington ally Turkey's treatment of its Kurds is scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurdish policies.

Moreover, the U.S. warmly supports the royal kleptocracy next door in Saudi Arabia, fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam's government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq.

Also cited is Baghdad's conquest of Kuwait a dozen years ago. It is a bit late to drag that out as a justification for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. He is far weaker today and has remained firmly contained."

You may disagree with that assessment but since this is but one example of many such arguments -- which come from both the left and right -- who disagree with you, it is a matter for debate. Who is correct here? Wouldn't a debate help us answer that question?


Bill Heuisler - 8/14/2002

The pedantic Mr. Arteaga may wish otherwise, but motive - or intellect - must be considered if the war-petition is to be taken seriously. Protecting a man who gasses his people and murders his sons should be unthinkable. Intellect is a given for most historians...isn't it? So where are we? Comprehension?
The Taji plant 6 miles west of Bagdad manufactures weapon-grade Anthrax spores and Botulinum toxin. The Tahhaddy plant north of Bagdad produces weaponized Ebola virus. Saddam needs these products to feed his people and forge a better Iraq? Perhaps we should ask the Kurds or the Iranians. Saddam's agenda is self-evident. Congress already voted terror-link war authorization. Connection to the U.S. comes from the Czech President and foriegn Minister who relate a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi diplomat five months before 9/11. Why the fine-point hesitation? Where were the petitions during Haiti and Bosnia? Citing polls is deliberately specious and everyone knows Congress would vote overwhelmingly for a war if asked again. Mr Horowitz wonders if these historians are vastly, earnestly naive or if they could possibly value Bush-bashing more than human life.
Bill Heuisler



Philip Cavalier - 8/14/2002

Horowitz opinion: What a great idea. Some genius -- actually two geniuses -- have come up with a new way to discredit the historians and their profession. A bunch of leftists who on other days of the week regard the Constitution as a reactionary obstacle to their redistributionist agendas and who even admit that their real agenda with this petition on Iraq is to stop the war (not to preserve the document), have decided to launch yet another foray into the public square under the
transparently false banner of loyalty to the strictures of dead white male
slaveholders (did I get that right?).

Rogelio F. Arteaga facts: The manner in which Mr. Horowitz argues here is by the use of propaganda techniques.

In my reply to Horowitz, I said, "Why would he think such a thing? Because, he says, '...their real agenda with this petition on Iraq is to stop the war (not to preserve the document).' " I also said, "So is this any reason to want this petition stifled? Isn't that what debates are for-- to determine whether or not war is the proper course to take?"

Who is discrediting whom? Here we have a petition urging a public debate on an issue of monumental importance to the nation -- as prescribed in the constitution -- and Mr. Horowitz considers it a discredit to historians? Why would he think such a thing? Because, he says, "...their real agenda with this petition on Iraq is to stop the war (not to preserve the document)." So is this any reason to want this petition stifled?

Isn't that what debates are for-- to determine whether or not war is the proper course to take? Just because HE disagrees with that objective, is that any reason to malign the effort? Must we conclude from this, that Mr. Horowitz wants to stifle any arguments except those coming from the administration, or those who support it (ah, political correctness!).

Let's look at his argument from another angle. Since he appears to want to stifle this debate, should we conclude that he is advocating that Congress should ignore its constitutional responsibilities? If so, doesn't this imply that he concerns himself with the constitution only when it serves his purpose, and that he prefers to ignore it when it doesn't?

If I were to use his manner of disputation I could say that he is arguing against this initiative because he doesn't want anything to interfere with this administration's Hitleresque consolidation of all federal power into the executive branch (using the pretense of protecting us from terrorists). I could also allege that his disregard for the Constitution stems from his and his supporters' belief that it is an instrument to be manipulated as they please, so they may advance their redistributionist agenda of converting our republic into a plutocracy.

The Persian Gulf conflict, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were authorized by Congress without a formal declaration of war. With Iraq, however, there is no clear congressional authorization. This is why the administration has struggled mightily to establish some link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, because then it would fall under the authorization passed last fall. This may also be one reason why American support for it is somewhat fragile at the moment (note Thomas Spencer's blog elsewhere on this site).

As I said in my first reply -- what you do is easy. You say whatever you please, without feeling the need to substantiate any of it. And you expect us to accept it because... well, because you said it!

Spare me your propaganda techniques, Mr. Arteaga. If you're going to argue points, then do so using facts and reason. That's not asking too much of you, is it?


Cherles Oppitz - 8/14/2002

The President has ample power to take action to protect American interests in international affairs. Should the President determine that American interests require further action against Saddam and his regime, the laws of the United Stated grant him power to act. Indeed, a state of war already exists; the Allies maintain a substantial force in being around Saddam and they enforce a no-fly zone. This state of war has been in being since 1991 when a line was drawn in the sand. However, Saddam has successfully shrugged off the armistice conditions, which required UN inspections for weapons, owing chiefly to the ineptitude and weakness of Clinton. Should Presidential rhetoric and action fail to convince the American public of the need and justification for futher action, then Congress can cut off funds, and the people can opt to not reelect Bush. The notion of a petition to get Congress to act would ultimately lead to foreign policy by poll. The problem is not whether America will act to destroy Saddam, but whether America will act fast enough. If America is to be viewed as a credible force in the world, America must be seen to resolve the situations that threaten her with alacrity and assurance. To let Saddam continue in power is a clear sign of weakness. His defiance is seen as success for all who wish to undermine peace and stability in the world. Yes, one thug running a thugocracy can battle America and, by hook or by crook, win! American policy with regard to Saddam is clear: he must go. If we had only been able to muster that same degree of clarity in 1939 perhaps the last world war could have been averted and the Holocaust prevented. Alas, we failed to understand then that if you give a thug some of what he wants, then he will take all of what he wants. Giving a thug his way is the pathway to certain destruction. That was euphamistically called appeasement; it did not work.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/14/2002

I would prefer a debate, but I would be happy if Congress took a vote. And if the vote favored war, so be it. At least Congress would have done its duty as specified under the Constitution.

I still don't feel the historians' motivations are relevant. But reasonable minds can see things from different perspectives, so I can understand and respect why you feel as you do.


Earl Scott - 8/14/2002

Mr. Arteaga:

I think your point is well made regarding the potential value of the debate in Congress. However, I also believe that the true motivation of the petitioner is relevant as they have wrapped themselves in the "flag of the constitution" (pardon the pun). It is relevant to understand whether they, for ideological reasons, on this issue choose to become strict constitutionalists and on another issue view the constitution as a living document.

Let us be practical regarding a debate in Congress. Those on the Republican side of the isle will stand up and make impassioned pleas and arguments regarding the validity of military action and those on the Democratic side will make equally impassioned pleas and arguments to the contrary. Fully 2/3rds of the American people support the President on this issue and while a debate in Congress may provide our elected representatives with a wonderful opportunity for camera time, I am convinced that in the end the American people will understand the need for a regime change in Iraq before Mr. Hussein can unleash weapons of mass destruction. So, debate away Congress and then pray to God (and I'll be praying alongside them) that Iraqi operatives do not explode a dirty bomb in Manhatten so that history will record their statements and political opponents will have more than sufficient ammunition to send them packing from Washington, DC. In my view, forget the debate. Let them vote! Put their money where their mouths are. I suspect that if we dispensed with a debate and just let them vote that many more Democrats will ultimately decide to vote for military action than the petitioners might think.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/14/2002

In my reply to Horowitz, I said, "Why would he think such a thing? Because, he says, '...their real agenda with this petition on Iraq is to stop the war (not to preserve the document).' " I also said, "So is this any reason to want this petition stifled? Isn't that what debates are for-- to determine whether or not war is the proper course to take?"

This is the crux of the matter. The historians' motives aren't relevant here. If the substance of the petition is accepted by Congress, then the public debate can only help us as a nation to either get behind the initiative or disapprove it. As you say, "Surely nothing deliterious can result from a Congressional debate/vote about military action in Iraq."

The Persian Gulf conflict, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were authorized by Congress without a formal declaration of war. With Iraq, however, there is no clear congressional authorization. This is why the administration has struggled mightily to establish some link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, because then it would fall under the authorization passed last fall. This may also be one reason why American support for it is somewhat fragile at the moment (note Thomas Spencer's blog elsewhere on this site).

I personally feel the motivation behind this petition is to "persuade the Congress to engage themselves in the decision about Iraq." But even if it isn't, it will still be a good thing if it should result in Congress doing that very thing.





Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/14/2002

Did you read what I wrote, Mr. Spina? I didn't attack the MOTIVES of Mr. Horowitz, I attacked the SUBSTANCE of his criticisms and the MANNER in which he expressed them. He claims that these professors have discredited their profession. How? By asking Congress to perform its constitutional duties? I'll ask you the same thing I asked him -- how does a public debate harm the nation?

The manner in which Mr. Horowitz argues here is by the use of propaganda techniques. One of those I pointed out is his allegation that these professors "regard the Constitution as a reactionary obstacle to their redistributionist agendas..." In my discussion on how these techniques can be used I said, "you throw out allegations (without regard to their veracity), and you use whatever convenient particle of evidence readily at hand as proof (usually it is anecdotal evidence)." And what do you do? You do that very thing in your reply to me: "It is no secret to those of us who have attended college that academics in the history department (among others) are socialist and thus despise the basic values that have made America great. In fact, in my freshman year of college, a history professor proudly boasted that almost all of the historians teaching in major universities in America are not liberal, but 'socialist, if not communist.' "

So you throw out this allegation that, "It is no secret to those of us... that academics in the history department (among others) are socialist." And you offer as proof the anecdotal evidence that your history prof said so!

As I said in my first reply -- what you and Horowitz do is easy. You say whatever you please, without feeling the need to substantiate any of it. And you expect us to accept it because... well, because you said it!

Spare me your propaganda techniques, Mr. Spina. If you're going to argue points, then do so using facts and reason. That's not asking too much of you, is it?



Marc D. Kamin - 8/14/2002

I think that the target of Mr. Horowitz's criticism was not the suggestion that Congress debate/vote about military action in Iraq, but what he believes may be the motivation of the suggestion. Mr. Horowitz perhaps suspects that the professors' purpose is not really to protect the integrity of the Constitution, but to imply that, if Congress doesn't debate and approve military action, then President Bush is acting arbitrarily, or with reckless disregard for the Constitution. That is, this petition may really be an attempt to portray the president as acting, at best, without clear Constitutional authority, and at worst, unlawfully. It is true that political opponents sometimes couple partisan attacks with legitimate criticism. Surely nothing deliterious can result from a Congressional debate/vote about military action in Iraq. Yet, even if Congress doesn't vote to support the President, the Constitution provides that the president is commander-in-chief. As such, the president possesses the authority to direct the military. Of course, if the president starts or participates in a de facto war without a Congressional declaration of war, the spirit of the Consitution is probably violated. The Founding Fathers likely did not envision the executive using the military as an instrument of war without a Congressional declaration. However, again, as the commander-in-chief, the president is empowered to control the military. The Constitution does not state that the president "becomes" commander-in-chief after Congress declares war, and is only then its leader. If the true intention of the advocates of this petition is to persuade the Congress to engage themselves in the decision about Iraq, then they deserve no criticism. Yet, if they did not advocate a Congressional debate/vote on a declaration of war when we attacked forces during the Persian Gulf Conflict, or the Bosnian Conflict, or in Kosovo, or in Afghanistan, then one may wonder why, in this instance, they believe a war declaration is necessary. Simply, if part of their reason for the petition is to portray President Bush negatively, because the professors are politically opposed to him, then their own belief about the value of their ostensible cause is questionable.


John Spina - 8/14/2002

Mr. Arteaga may attack the motives of Mr. Horowitz but he cannot attack the substance of the criticisms put forth by Horowitz. It is no secret to those of us who have attended college that academics in the history department (among others) are socialist and thus despise the basic values that have made America great. In fact, in my freshman year of college, a history professor proudly boasted that almost all of the historians teaching in major universities in America are not liberal, but "socialist, if not communist."

So, please save us from your rationalizing Mr. Arteaga. Save us from your convenient use of American ideals of democratic values and public debate -- and from your invocation of Constitutional principles. I do not know if you truly believe in the basic goodness of America, but I am confident that the historians who sign this silly petition do not.


Rogelio F. Arteaga - 8/13/2002

Who is discrediting whom? Here we have a petition urging a public debate on an issue of monumental importance to the nation -- as prescribed in the constitution -- and Mr. Horowitz considers it a discredit to historians? Why would he think such a thing? Because, he says, "...their real agenda with this petition on Iraq is to stop the war (not to preserve the document)." So is this any reason to want this petition stifled? Isn't that what debates are for-- to determine whether or not war is the proper course to take? Just because HE disagrees with that objective, is that any reason to malign the effort? Must we conclude from this, that Mr. Horowitz wants to stifle any arguments except those coming from the administration, or those who support it (ah, political correctness!).

Let's look at his argument from another angle. Since he appears to want to stifle this debate, should we conclude that he is advocating that Congress should ignore its constitutional responsibilities? If so, doesn't this imply that he concerns himself with the constitution only when it serves his purpose, and that he prefers to ignore it when it doesn't?

It's also important to look at his methods of argument because they are classic Horowitz. He begins with the propaganda technique of name-calling, using the trendy conservative epithet (at least the right considers it such): "a bunch of leftists". From there he goes to another favorite propaganda ploy: sweeping generalities, "A bunch of leftists who on other days of the week regard the Constitution as a reactionary obstacle to their redistributionist agendas..." He continues with, "...have decided to launch yet another foray into the public square under the transparently false banner of loyalty to the strictures of dead white male slaveholders (did I get that right?)"

Think about those generalities. How does Mr. Horowitz know these professors regard the Constitution "a reactionary obstacle to their redistributionist agendas"? How does he know their "banner" is "transparently false"? Is it possible he considers them such simply because he disagrees with their point of view?

If I were to use his manner of disputation I could say that he is arguing against this initiative because he doesn't want anything to interfere with this administration's Hitleresque consolidation of all federal power into the executive branch (using the pretense of protecting us from terrorists). I could also allege that his disregard for the Constitution stems from his and his supporters' belief that it is an instrument to be manipulated as they please, so they may advance their redistributionist agenda of converting our republic into a plutocracy.

See how easy it is? Propaganda is popular because of its laxity. Facts aren't truly relevant, so you don't have to go looking for them. You call someone a name, you throw out allegations (without regard to their veracity), and you use whatever convenient particle of evidence readily at hand as proof (usually it is anecdotal evidence). If it is discredited by an opposing argument which can't be countered, you merely treat it with derision (as in, "How can you possibly say such a thing? You're disgusting!").

Mr. Horowitz would have done better to argue why this petition should be considered harmful to the nation. In explaining it to us, he would have made his arguments far more effective by avoiding the use of any propaganda devices. Since he did neither, Mr. Horowitz's arguments here have brought far more discredit to himself than the petition he opposes has to the historians who circulate it.


David Horowitz - 8/13/2002

What a great idea. Some genius -- actually two geniuses -- have come up with a
new way to discredit the historians and their profession. A bunch of leftists
who on other days of the week regard the Constitution as a reactionary obstacle
to their redistributionist agendas and who even admit that their real agenda
with this petition on Iraq is to stop the war (not to preserve the document),
have decided to launch yet another foray into the public square under the
transparently false banner of loyalty to the strictures of dead white male
slaveholders (did I get that right?). Professors Appleby and DuBois should read
carefully Richard Posner's wicked deconstruction of the previous professorial
petitions organized by Sean Wilentz before going any further with their project.

Subscribe to our mailing list