The Massachusetts-based Physicians for Human Rights reached that conclusion after two-day clinical evaluations of 11 former detainees, who had been held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan.

The detainees were never charged with crimes.

"We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering," said Dr. Allen Keller, a medical evaluator for the study.

In a 121-page report, the doctors' group said that it uncovered medical evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses.

The report is prefaced by retired U.S. Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led the Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2003.

"There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

Over the years, reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib and allegations of torture at Guantanamo prompted the Bush administration to deny that the U.S. military tortures detainees.

Since only 11 detainees were examined "the findings of this assessment cannot be generalized to the treatment of all detainees in U.S. custody," the report says.

However, the incidents documented are consistent with findings of other investigations into government treatment, "making it reasonable to conclude that these detainees were not the only ones abused, but are representative of a much larger number of detainees subjected to torture and ill treatment while in U.S. custody."

Four of the men evaluated were arrested in or taken to Afghanistan between late 2001 and early 2003 and later were sent to Guantanamo Bay, where they were held for an average of three years before being released without charge, the report says. The other seven were detained in Iraq in 2003 and released within a year, the report says.

All the subjects told examiners that they were subjected to multiple forms of torture or ill treatment that "often occurred in combination over a long period of time," the report says.

While the report presents synopses of the detainees' backgrounds based on interviews with them, the authors did not have access to the detainees' medical histories. Therefore, there's no way to know whether any of the inmates may have had medical or mental problems before being detained.

Among the ex-detainees was an Iraqi in his mid-40s, identified only as Laith, whom U.S. soldiers took into custody in October 2003 and who was released from Abu Ghraib in June 2004. According to the report, Laith was subjected to sleep deprivation, electric shocks and threats of sexual abuse to himself and his family.

"They took off even my underwear. They asked me to do some movements that make me look in a very bad way so they can take photographs. ... They were trying to make me look like an animal," Laith told examiners, according to the report.

According to the report, Laith said the most "painful" experiences involved threats to his family: "And they asked me, 'Have you ever heard voices of women in this prison?' I answered, 'Yes.' They were saying, 'Then you will hear your mothers and sisters when we are raping them.' "

The examiners concluded in the report that "Laith appears to have suffered severe and lasting physical and psychological injuries as a result of his arrest and incarceration at Abu Ghraib prison."

Another detainee, Youssef, was detained by U.S. soldiers nearly seven years ago when he tried to enter Afghanistan from neighboring Pakistan without a passport, the report says. He initially was held in an Afghan prison, where he describes "being stripped naked, being intimidated by dogs, being hooded and being thrown against the wall on repeated occasions," the report says.

A few months later, he was taken to the Guantanamo Bay facility, where he was subjected to interrogators who would enter his cell and force him to lie on the floor with his hands tied behind his back to his feet, the report says.

Youssef said the interrogators wanted him to confess of involvement with the Taliban, the report says.

Based on its investigation, the report calls on the U.S. government to issue a formal apology to detainees subject to torture and ill treatment by the military since fall 2001 in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

The rights group also demands that the Bush administration:

• "Repudiate all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment";

• Establish an independent commission to investigate and report publicly the circumstances of detention and interrogation at U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay;

• Hold individuals involved in torturing detainees accountable through criminal and civil processes; and

• Monitor thoroughly the conditions at U.S.-run prisons all over the world.

Bush Mob is Like West Wing "Sopranos"

You are inclined to say that Scott McClellan is like the first one out of The Bada Bing Club, scurrying into the light and looking for redemption, except that it has become clear by now that even the hoods from "The Sopranos" would be out of their weight class with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

The shame of McClellan and this new book of his isn't that it took him this long to develop a conscience or actual convictions about what he says he saw and heard in Bush's White House, especially in the runup to the war in Iraq.

The shame of this particular White House, the rock from under which McClellan reappears, is that no one is surprised for one minute about the story he tells, no one is shocked, no one is outraged. No matter how fast the book is selling.

One of the ironies of the hysterical reaction, mostly from the media, is that even a watered-down version of the truth about Bush and his lieutenants could sell this big.

For now the real outrage on McClellan comes from inside the White House, not outside. What McClellan does here is make work for them on their way out the door, because for the first time they will be forced to Swift Boat one of their own.

To save what is left of his sniveling reputation, Rove - noted analyst for Fox News - will have to take down one of his own. They all will, now that somebody from their own club is calling them out as criminals for the way they got us into this war.

You can call McClellan any kind of bum and weasel, a mouse who grew up to be a rat. Nobody will stop you. But when you look at the shameful cost of the war in Iraq, the cost of it in all ways, starting with the dead and the wounded, you tell me whether the real bum here is the one writing the book or the ones he is writing about?

"I would not personally participate in a process in which we are misleading the American people," former White House counselor Dan Bartlett said on the "Today" show yesterday morning, during McClellan's appearance there.

To the end Bartlett defends an administration as weak and lousy as we have ever had, Nixon's without the indictments, at least so far. But then Bartlett comes out of a culture where little Scooter Libby, given a get-out-of-jail card by the President, is treated like some kind of an American hero.

It is different with McClellan. They will get him good.

You were unpatriotic if you tried to go against them in the months before the war. You are some kind of traitor if you cross them on it now the way McClellan does.

McClellan, who helped sell this war the way ad companies used to sell cigarettes and now feels real bad about that, knew something long before he wrote a book: You can only sell war the way these people did if you have a willing and eager buyer.

The buyers in this case were the media. Some of them bought the White House's huckstering on Iraq because they would have bought anything. Some were afraid to speak out against the huckstering because they didn't want to look soft on terrorism in a post-Sept. 11 America. All fell over themselves getting on board.

The hyenas Bush still has in the media will make this all about disloyalty. They won't just try to shoot the messenger - McClellan - they will try to shoot him out of a cannon. They will make him the issue. And when they are through with him, he won't just be a disgruntled former employee, he will be some kind of threat to national security and if you believe him, the terrorists win.

"He can't back up his story!" they are already yelling about McClellan.

Maybe he can't back up all of it. But look where the loudest yelling about Scott McClellan, author, comes from, the authors of a war that Frank Rich described in his own best-selling book as "The Greatest Story Ever Sold."

McClellan is no hero here, or even close. If he believed all these things when he stepped down as Bush's press secretary, nobody was stopping him from saying something as soon as he was out on Pennsylvania Ave. He said nothing at the time. No money there.

So he is late in the church service finding religion, late having the stomach to tell the truth about the people that he worked with, looks as if he is only doing it to sell a book.

But take a look at the ones coming after him hardest for the story he is selling this time around. It is those for whom he sold the war, and the ones who helped him do it.

The war lovers will declare war on McClellan now. At least this time somebody actually attacked them.

We wish to say to Mr. McClellan -

"What you have done, or more importantly, WHAT YOU DID NOT DO BY CALLING OUT THE UNTRUTHS AS YOU SAID THEM, has led directly to the deaths of thousands of American men and women as well as to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis civilians.

Whatever your beliefs are about 'Karma' - we'd hate to be in your shoes."

If you have the stomach to read about yet another "fine American civil servant just doing his duty" and then finally telling "the truth" - click below for the story of Mr. McClellan's book:

McClellan Whacks Bush, White House

Not that we're fans of GW or his cohorts but we're just curious, Scott - as an admitted liar, what makes you think we should believe you now?

SPECIAL COMMENT
Keith Olbermann - 'Countdown'

President Bush has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration and public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and John McCain lurk.

Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States." This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came during a May 13 interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo.

The question was phrased as follows: "If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"

The president replied: "Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."

Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?" They are those in -- or formerly in -- your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.

Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? "This ideological struggle," Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.

It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else's, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like "Patriot Act" is a brand name or "Protect America" is a brand name.

But wait, there's more: You also said "Iraq is the place where al-Qaida and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated." They made no "stand" in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!

As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of "they'll greet us as liberators." And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infra-structure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroy, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir.

Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!

***

It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him.

"Do you feel," asked an ordinary American, "that you were misled on Iraq?"

"I feel like -- I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction," the president said. "You know, 'mislead' is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional -- I don't think so, I think there was a -- not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."

Flawed.

You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons.

You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, fast.

You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how "intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment."

You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished anybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad.

And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus, all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country's policy in lieu of, say, common sense.

The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco.

You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as claim was built from "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

***

Of course if there is one overriding theme to this president's administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.

"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"

"No, no," replied the President. "I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction ..."

People? What people? The insane informant "Curveball?" The Iraqi snake-oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi? The American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney?

"I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

"And of course, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."

Mr. Bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nation's throat. When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply resubmitted it, with phrases amounting to "See, I done proved it," virtually written in the margins in crayon.

You defied patriotic Americans to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes," only with the stakes -- as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it -- being a "mushroom cloud over an American city."

And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that for members of Congress "the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes" -- while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy -- 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect -- dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, "I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction."

***

Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solar plexus, his last reopening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgment but his very suitably to remain in office.

"Mr. President," he was asked, "you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

"Yes," began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans on our history. "It really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died, to see the Commander in Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq? Do you think these families, Mr. Bush, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf? Do you think, sir, they care about you?

You, Mr. Bush, let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf? Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war.

Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't even give up talking about Iraq a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world?

Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency? In your own words "solidarity as best as I can" is to stop a game? That is the "best" you can do?

Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf! Golf. Not "Gulf" -- golf.

And still it gets worse. Because it proves that the president's unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick with a ball, was not even his own damned idea.

"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?"

"I remember when [diplomat Sergio Vieira] de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf, I think I was in central Texas, and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it any more to do."

Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't even think of it yourself? The great Bushian sacrifice -- an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, 4,000 of their brothers and sisters lose their lives -- and you lose golf, and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?

If it's even true.

Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time -- coincidence, no doubt -- the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U.N. and interrupted your round of golf was on Aug. 19, 2003.

Yet CBS News has records of you playing golf as late as Oct. 13 of that year, nearly two months later.

Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you 6 1/2 years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain, succeeds you.

The war in Iraq, your war, Mr. Bush, is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next Jan. 20 will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:

When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at ...

When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation ...

When somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abdicating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead.

This advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up!

Experiencing child molestation in Catholicism is a rite of passage as opposed to the non Catholic view of it as a criminal perversion. See Below:

“Hi, I just want you to know you’re right in your series: All Catholic Priests Pedophiles; All Catholic Boys Molested.

We offer our little boys up for molestion,” one alleged Catholic father who communicated with us his story in relation to our on-going series: All Catholic Priests Pedophiles; All Catholic Boys Molested.

“But there some things you should know. Molestation in Catholicism is a Rite of Passage,” he alleged. “The boys who are successfully molested receive the true instructions of our Ascetic Theology. While the boys who can’t endure are left behind.

“The Pope’s visit to the United States to denounce our molestation is a gesture that symbolizes we have met the level of perversion neccessary to satisfy Papacy and the Vatican.

“Only the weaker children will tell. and, the greatest thing is satisfying the great thirst of our God and the Vatican. All good and healthy Catholic boys have been christened by their priests. “

Pedomongers & Warophiles

President Bush met with Pope Benedict today in Washington.

The meeting, because of the rarity of which the Pope travels to the United States and because of the large number of his followers here, is said to have historic value.

Let’s see if we can define this moment in time correctly: the world’s greatest war monger & and the world’s greatest pedophile met in Washington, today. Their goal: to share their vision of the world with each other.

Outside of CNN’s blurb, I didn’t hear much about the details of their meeting; and, I didn’t want to.

There was some concern one of them expressed about the saftey of Christians in Iraq.

After learning of the historic meeting and seek to help properly define it, I wasn’t sure who, between the two of them, is the more influential: the war monger or the pedophile.

For, history will certainly need new words to describe this event.

If Pope Benedict is the more influential of the two, the meeting should be dubbed The Great Day of The Pedimonger. Using the same principle of word division and re-assembly, if Bush’s presense is more important, the meeting should be dubbed: The Great Day of the Warphile.

In either case, the little boys in the weaker countries of the world have reason to tremble: George W. Bush Jr and Pope Benedict met behind closed doors today.

FLASHBACK: ALL CATHOLIC PRIEST PEDOPHILES; ALL CATHOLIC BOYS MOELSTED -

“Child molestation in the Catholic Church is a Rites of Passage” - Harlem Dyse

Make a splash in this summer's sizzling swimwear

The holiday is booked. You've changed your money to the local currency and the passport is at the ready. Now all that's left is to trackdown the perfect beachwear.

This summer, swimwear is striking. All bold prints, strong colours and statement pieces. This summer's star buy is the one piece, which has been given an edge with plunging necklines and cutaway detailing. The perfect way to instant poolside chic.

Bandeau bikinis also made waves in a riot of colour. Rich, exotic colours and prints were homage to this seasons love affair with all things tribal. Beachwear has a definite bohemian twist (as seen at Etro's Spring/Summer show), with layering and accessorising being key. To nail the bohemian look layer vest tops and jewellery over bikini's, throw on some gladiator sandals and add a chic tribal print scarf.

 If you haven't got a designer budget, fear not! The high street has done some great directional pieces for this season. Here's a pick of the best bikinis, one pieces and beach cover ups.

Turn up the heat in this sizzling red bikini (£24 from Miss Selfridge). Not only is it bang on trend sporting romantic ruffles but it also works wonders on boyish frames. The perfect figure fixer! And after all that sunbathing throw on this cute dress (£28 from TopShop) and turquoise necklace (£12 ASOS.com) and you can head straight to the bar! Cocktails all round!

This bikini (£14 from Debenhams) encapsulates this summers bohemian feel. Throw on some beads and a hippy scarf (£20 New Look) And if you're feeling daring, pull on these knee high gladiator sandals (£25 from TopShop) for some serious style credentials.

Go for grown-up hippy chic in this 70s-esque bikini (£24 Accessorize), embellished kaftan (£30 Accessorize) and Indian-inspired earrings (£6 ASOS.com).  

Be bold in this bohemian print bikini (£26 Accessorize), add statement jewellery such as this peacock feather necklace (£15 TopShop) and ring (£8 ASOS.com) and release your inner flower child.

Go for all out glamour in this cutaway swimsuit (£30 Miss Selfridge) and sumptuous accessories. (scarf £10 New Look, Bracelet £12 and earrings £6, both ASOS.com) Jackie O would be impressed! Now where did i anchor my yacht?

More High Street Holiday Hits

 COVER-UPS

1.2.    3.

 Not only do these beach cover-ups capture the essence of this seasons laidback bohemian cool but they also take you from beach to bar (saving you room in your case for potential holiday buys!)

1.  Turquoise print dress, £25 Accessorize. This dress would look great with long gold beads and metallic sandals.

2. Flower print folk dress, £30 Accessorize. Not only a hit for the beach this dress would look amazing with stacks of wooden bracelets and heels. This cover-up is so versatile it could be worn for both sightseeing and sipping cocktails at the beach bar.  

3. This kaftan is great! It captures the laidback cool of this season's beach wear whilst still being ultra feminine. Add a flower hairclip for a romantic edge. (Kaftan, £35 Accessorize)

BEACH BAGS

1.2. 3.

Wear your style on your sleeve (or arm!) with these gorgeous hippy-inspired beach bags.

1. This bohemia print bag is bang on trend and perfect if you don't want to go head-to-toe hippy. It would brighten up a classic bright swimsuit or bikini. (Bag, £35 Accessorize)

2. Turquoise and pink beach bag £10 from Accessorize.

3. Beautiful and ethical, what's not to love? Grab this fairtrade bird print beach bag from Accessorize for only £12.

SANDALS

1.  2.

You can't go wrong with a pair of sandals on holiday, they're classic, stylish and comfortable enough for pounding the streets whilst sightseeing.

1. Tan gladiator sandals £18 TopShop

2. Embellished sandals £35 TopShop

ACCESSORIES

1. 2. 3.

4.  5. 

Accessories are the easiest route to channelling a trend, updating a holiday outfit or lifting a plain bikini. So hit the high street now for these little gems!

1. Layer this bird charm necklace over a strand of long beads for instant hippy chic.  Team with a plain loose cut kaftan and surfer girl hair for beach cool. (Necklace £8 ASOS.Com)

2. "Rock" this season's bohemian look in this edgy feather hairband.  (£6 Accessorize)  

3. Flower hair clips, £5 (for two) Accessorize.

4. Peacock feather hair clip, £8 Accessorize.  

 5.  Scarf £10, TopShop.

Gemma Douthwaite

 With thanks to PRShots.com, Elle, Vogue and Marie Claire

COMING SOON: Autumn/Winter trend focus, How to...update your wardrobe for autumn, Festival special, Bag and shoe report (autumn/winter).

Following below are my own personal efforts to try to get the MSM in the US to cover what occurred to prize-winning Palestinian journalist, Mohammed Omer at the hands of the Shin Bet when returning home from a multi-capital tour of Europe where he received the prestigious Martha Gellhorn prize and addressed the parliaments of Great Britain, Sweden and Greece.

I am writing this out of sheer frustration, because after working at this since this happened to Mohammed, the MSM here finally covered it in a very POORLY written article which shows the clear bias and lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the Associated Press.

Eight days ago, Wednesday July 2, I began pestering the AP to cover what had occurred to prize-winning Palestinian journalist, Mohammed Omer at the hands of the Shin Bet at the Allenby crossing. This was four days after I had contacted Rory Suchet by phone at the international desk of CNN Los Angeles. At the time I first contacted Rory on Saturday June 28, there was not that much information concerning this horrendous story. He asked me for Mohammed's phone number which I gave him after he said that it sounded AWFUL what had occurred. So by Wednesday, when I contacted Barbara Whitaker by phone at the Associated Press in New York (and CNN was still not covering it), there was much more information to give, links to statements, articles, and phone numbers of who to call to verify this incident.

On July 2, last Wednesday, when I reached Barbara Whitaker by phone, I gave her a synopsis of this event. Then she stated, "I don't know if we have received this story before and taken a pass on it".

She asked me to forward her everything I had, so I did. I also forwarded this information to Rory at CNN and to Amrita at the Real News (who also have not covered this story yet) who I also spoke to on the phone.

Yesterday the Israeli Government Press Office released a statement denying any abuse of Mohmmed Omer. The first place this press release appeared in English was HERE, a blog belonging to the Jewish Federation of Des Moines, Iowa. More than twenty four hours after this press release was supposedly released, it still does not appear on their English website. Since I cannot read Hebrew, I have no idea if it is on the Hebrew website for the Israeli GPO. But doesn't it seem odd that this "press release" is not on their English website? They responded to another reporter covering this story that yes, it is their press release. Why is it, that while it is the English press who in the GPO's own words has regretably given credence to Mohammed's allegations and reported them, why have English readers not been given the respect of even posting their press release in English on their website? Also, why is it that they refer to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria"? There's a simple answer to that one: "Judea and Samaria" is the term used by the right wing zionists because they see these lands as part of Eretz Israel, Arab occupied land rather than the obvious, Israeli occupied lands which supposedly are to belong to the Palestinians as their own state in a two state solution.

Today, the Associated Press published their article which first showed up on their own site, then Fox, many others following, and just a little while ago MSNBC. It is written by Karin Laub who did interview Mohammed.

Karin Laub wrote, "Palestinians have long complained about rough treatment at Allenby. However, Omer's allegation of being forced to strip naked appeared unusual."

UNUSUAL? Strip searches at Israeli checkpoints and Ben Gurion are COMMON. Read what occurred to Jaleh Tahiri, an American senior citizen (not Arab or Jewish) and watch a 10 minute video on this COMMON occurance HERE. (five women brave enough to bare themselves again by revealing what happened to them while undergoing this humiliating experience-listen hard to what occurred to Hedy Epstein and the other women)

What really concerns me about this article, is that NO WHERE were people written about as being interviewed who could corroberate the fact of Mohammed's condition after crossing Allenby except for a statement from a Dr. Husseini who claims there were no signs of physical trauma. Where are her interviews of the Dutch who were accompanying Mohammed to Allenby, who waited the 4 1/2 hours while this was occurring to him and who then picked him up from the hospital in Jericho to take him to the Eretz crossing, home to Gaza? I told Barbara Whitaker these people were essential witnesses and needed to be interviewed, to get that info from the gentleman at the Hague. Where are her interviews of the doctors in Gaza who could give her his physical condition after going through this, when he had to spend almost a week in the hospital and be fed by iv, who could state clearly why he was in the hospital for this long?

Read the rest

We have been waiting exactly two weeks to the day for the Associated Press to write a report on the inhuman treatment that Mohammed Omer suffered at the hands (and feet) of Israel’s security officers when he crossed into Israel on his way home to Gaza. 

They just issued a report on the situation…. not the situation regarding Mohammed Omer, but rather on the Israeli government’s report denying the situation ever happened.  

At least now we know where AP stands…. on very shaky ground, to say the least. When the truth does come out, and it will…. AP and the likes of them will have allot of ’splaining to do Lucy’.

◄ Read the rest of this entry ►

One wonders also how Ted Haggard's financial supporters feel who were encouraged to give generously, so he and his wife could study for two years in Phoenix (even when he had loads of money and had no need of financial support, even if he was a worthy cause which he is absoutely not)?  Ted Haggard is evidently not a man of his word, as well as being exceptionally greedy, dishonest and perrverse, as he is not stuck to this brief commitment. (See 'Ted Haggard and more church abuse article' here for more details)

Haggard Ends New Life ‘Restoration’ Process

Ted Haggard, who stepped down in November 2006 amid a sex and drug scandal requested an end to the oversight of council members appointed to help spiritually restore him.

The council appointed to administer fallen pastor Ted Haggard’s process of “spiritual restoration” has agreed to his request to end their oversight reports the Rocky Mountain News.

Despite this, members of the New Life Church team contest that “the process of restoring Ted Haggard is incomplete and [New Life] maintains its original stance that he should not return to vocational ministry.”

Haggard, who was fired in November 2006 as pastor of the church he founded amidst a sex and drug scandal, will reportedly maintain what New Life described as an “accountability relationship” with Phoenix First Assembly of God pastor Tommy Barnett.

According to the Rocky Mountain News,  Barnett pastors the church Haggard now attends and was a member of the council helping to restore him.  

Fox News  reports that Haggard’s “spiritual restoration” process was expected to last at least another four years. 

In reading NewsWithViews today I came across an article that was rather stunning in its conclusions. A lot of it I agree with, but some of it leaves me flat or full of disagreement. The parts I'm in agreement with I'll put down first, then get to the disagreement part last and explain WHY I disagree with it...

1. Harassment: Buying out, discrediting, harassing by any and all means, using the IRS, using negative, disparaging and secret info on them, snooping in their lives and projects. These are only a few of the methods used.

2. Population Control: Invented food shortages, water contamination, lack of space, depletion of "green” are maneuvers to slice off 2/3rd of the world’s six-billion citizens, and save themselves, while allowing death and other horrors to befall the other 4-billion.

3. Contamination: Any form of poisoning will kill a sizeable population, and this can be targeted. The elite can contaminate our water supplies and food resources (genetically modified food may be exemplary), and despoil our land (soil impregnated with bacteria, oil and other toxic spills).

Think tomatoes, spinach, etc.

4. Detainment Camps: Holding areas, termination, enslavement, emphasis on police state and martial law inciting fear and distrust in the population.

5. Moral Corruption: Destruction of home-taught values such as anti-Americanism, anti-patriotism, and anti-traditionalism.

One has only to look at those in Congress, our religious leaders, etc. to see this is true.

6. Diversity: “Political correctness”, forcing us to show tolerance, understanding and acceptance for values we do not believe in. Censorship and hate crimes are also a means for forcing undesirable changes down our throats.

7. Racial Dissension: “Divide and conquer.” This is a method they use to create conflict among races and nationalities.

You have only to look at the illegal immigration issue to see this one is true. While those on the side of law and order are called racists because we want the laws of the land enforced, those on the other side believe we hate them as a race, which is insane!

8. and 9. I currently disagree with so will bring them up later.

10. Remiss Authority Figures: The Elite encourage children to resist authority, on one hand, while wanting them to mindlessly obey, on the other.

This is so very true here. Since laws on child abuse have changed, the ability of parents to discipline their children properly has been taken away in the unbalanced *fear* of the child being abused. Is it any wonder then that parents are afraid of their children when with one phone call a parent can be accused of child abuse and their lives torn apart???

11. Failing Educational System: Education is the key approach for altering children’s beliefs.

I was listening to Lou Dobbs the other night and he stated that the young people of today feel that the World Courts should take precedence over the United States Laws and courts. I was totally shocked by this knowing it means our children are being programmed to the new world order already. How anyone can even think that any other law from anywhere else can supersede American Laws is beyond me!

12. I have issues with this one also and so will bring it up later...

13. Drugs/Alcohol:Breeding a society of chemically abused and dependent individuals is one way to get people to accept matters contrary to their morals, and to rely on the government to help them get through it.

Considering the commercials today for depression, sinus problems, male erectile dysfunction, etc., I can only agree with this one! Also, there is so much disinformation about things already on the market such as cigarettes and smoking. I am truly dumbfounded by how reactionary people are to propaganda instead of finding out the facts for themselves. Once the facts are known, once a person realizes how they are being manipulated, they can fight back, but until then, there is no perspective... Oh yes, and lets not forget how maligned natural herbs are nowadays.

14. I have issues with this one also...

15. Chaos: A maneuver to keep us bewildered. Conflicting issues via the Hegelian Dialectics keep the masses on edge, doubting, and confused, as well as sidetracked from the real issues they want to forward.

Think about the current candidates for president here. Makes sense doesn't it?

16. Cover-ups: What the Illuminati don’t want us to know, they cover up by disposing of the people, making them “disappear,” or placing vital documents under “classified,” or through throwing out red herrings at us. Whistleblowers are often destroyed career-wise, or personally mocked, or injured, and even murdered. Underground and black ops are keys to cover-ups. Propagation of conspiracies is a game for them and a way for them to conflict the masses. Intentional leaks are one of their prescribed methods for conditioning us to their intent and for confusing us.

This I couldn't agree with more. I've watched this one happen personally.

17. Environment: Using global warming as a “unifying issue,” deceiving people into believing that the issue is real, when in reality hundreds of scientists who are not given print can testify against it. Thus the environment is used as a weapon to employ the Elitist’s objectives and to create a common mantra—a religion of its own. Added to this are sustainable development and eminent domain (taking commoners’ lands for their own purposes), and controlled weather (HAARP--High frequency Active Auroral Research Program and other weather weapons), among other processes.

And you thought all these weather *disasters* were natural? You thought the sudden droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes were natural? That all these 500 year cycles were natural??? Did I mention I had some beach-front property here in Arizona for sale?

18. Destroying the Workforce: Damaging treaties (GATT, NAFTA, etc.) created the massive loss of jobs in our country via outsourcing and the erosion of our industries. America has been minimized as a strong nation and castrated as a super power.

This truly needs no comment from me, but as I've watched this happen, as I've watched big corporations become power brokers and demanding the rights of individuals in this country, as I've watched those in Congress worship those with money and power, I want to puke knowing the degradation of our Country is the cost of greed and avarice from our elected officials.

19. Crimes: A society frightened of being murdered, raped, beaten, held hostage, hijacked, or kidnapped, or victims of vehicular deaths, road rage, and "suicided,” among other abominable offenses, is a society wailing for security, in spite of lost rights. This, then, is just one more method of cuckolding us into ceding our rights to Big Brother. The ICC (International Criminal Court) was created to imprison people of different cultures, including Americans. The protection of hard core, guilty criminals is also symptomatic of a failing country.

Think bush here. No charges have been brought to bear on this despot tyrant with delusions of grandeur, not for torture, not for lying to us after 9-11, not for giving our country away, not for all the usurpation of power, nor the abuses of our Constitutional rights. Think of airport screenings of our citizens while leaving our ports and borders wide open. Just what kind of sense does that make??? Who is the criminal here?

20. Terrorism: The Powers keep us in a state of trepidation over terrorism—real or contrived—and cause us to cede our freedoms for protection. 2001's 9/11 caused a major breakdown of the U.S. Constitution, the infringement of rights and policies through Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, biochips, and soon-to-come Martial Law; hence, the concentration camps for those who balk against the Police State or promote dissension.

This has got to be one of my favorite subjects! The word is so broad and encompassing as to make you look for a boogyman around every corner while never actually seeing one, but s/he could be there... They hype you up on fear but give it no direction. Just making you fearful all the time.

21. Slavery and Prostitution: Many people, especially younger ones, are rounded up in clandestine ways and are forced into slavery or prostitution. They may be stolen during the night, taken coming and going from school, or whisked off in parking lots. They are often earmarked by the Powers who want young maidens or lads to "entertain” visiting dignitaries or foreign VIPs who abuse the kids and sell them to slave masters, pimps, and other black market factions.

Since there is no cumulative data on missing persons in this country I can neither agree nor disagree with this statement. I have to express my reservations although I do believe that things like this DO happen. On how large a scale? Then again, it could simply be just the criminal element...

22. Genocide: A method for wiping out an entire society for depopulation purposes, for government gain, for eliminating enemies, for creating a super race by purging traits deemed negative.

Consider the violence in Darfur, the Congo, and elsewhere. It isn't hard to find places on this earth where today genocide is being practiced. Think HIV/AIDS which was knowingly created by giving tainted blood to hemophiliacs by the very companies that were producing the blood supplies. Companies like Bayer, you know, the one you can trust??? Ya, right!

23. Decision Makers: The Illuminati’s power shores them up to decide who the next president or prime minister will be, who will receive grants and government funding, and anything else that affect us on a personal and national level.

This is something I've been saying for a while now. Been trying to tell you guys through this blog about Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Is there anyone listening? Programming of the masses, drinking the Kool-Aid, we are destroyed...

24. Diseases: The introduction of HIV, the rise of once eliminated childhood diseases, biochem warfare, and the growing number of unknown bacterial and viral diseases are representative of their manipulations. They can put substances into drinking water; they’ve introduced cell phones knowing the dangers of cancer; and they’ve used microwaves and other technologies against us, as well as various forms of experimentation.

Think also of Gulf War Syndrome, Agent Orange victims who continue to suffer, and anything else that comes to mind... The truth is out there, but you won't like it. Especially not when you realize it is coming from those you are supposed to have faith and trust in...

25. Computerization/Technology: Consider nanochips (teeny tiny robots can be placed in humans to control them), robotic reproduction (the ability of robots and computers to reproduce), and GTWA (Global Technology World Alliance which is a secret society developing and working with advanced technology to achieve control and denomination of international supremacy and economics. Bluetooth, Wii and other high-tech tools, along with laser and advanced weaponry (stun guns, particle beams) are also tools for fully establishing the NWO. The Elite have secret labs and black ops; yet, they won’t support scientists and researchers who create inventions or medications for the good of mankind.

There are tons of articles on the net concerning this technology. I've only included four links to this section where I could have added tons more. Knowing your enemy gives you the power to deal with them.

26. UFOs: They can be used to instill paralyzing dread in us if they tell us that an invasion is real.

27. Economy: In order for the Elite to completely take over the world, they have to capture the economic sector to create a one-world economy, as seen in the collapse of the American dollar, along with merging the U.S., Canada and America into one of the ten regions.

Think SPP, think Amero, just think...

28. I have issues with this one so will bring it up in a bit...

29. UN: Most damaging for American citizens is the UN which strives to undermine our country, reduce our spending power, eliminate our freedoms, lower us to third world status, make us pay for other countries’ problems, and rape of us of everything that once made us powerful. Doing this allows the NWO to weaken the most prevailing muscle in the world so that we have no strength to fight any of their programs.

I couldn't agree with this one more! And worst of all is the complicity of our supposed leadership, Congress and the Presidential Administration. They betray us at every turn.

30. Confiscation of Rights: The NWO Elitists can’t fully stage their takeover until our country is disarmed, as an armed citizenry can fight back. The day they take our guns is the total end of our sovereignty and our country.

Think about David Olofson and other cases such as his. Think about Compean and Ramos and the despicable way they have all been treated by those supposed to uphold and serve the public interest. Think about the courts that allowed this to happen and haven't yet done anything to rectify matters...

31. Secret societies: They will never admit that these societies exist and that they are the muscle behind the authority. Symbolism is one facet of them, and they use newspapers, radio airwaves, and TV to subliminally pass messages to one another.

When I found this link, it was startling, to say the least. Enjoy... Secret Societies

32. Mind Control: The government and their counterparts are most adept in brainwashing techniques using a litany of resources, such as drugs (MKUltra, LSD), projects (Project Monarch, Phoenix), propaganda (constant bombardment of untruths and omissions by the media), cults/programming (groups giving up their individuality and blindly following some unstable leader).

To get the unedited version you really will need to go to the original article. I don't like the religious spin these authors take and so edit out a lot of that. But, I've also put in all the links the author didn't bother to...

33. Media Mergers: The Illuminati own all the major media in print, television, radio, music, and theater. They create conglomerates and monopolies. Doing this gives them control over everything we watch, read, and listen to.

Now see, I would never make a statement like this without providing proof, which the author doesn't do. My opinion is that this could either be true or false, I have no clue and there is no proof. I know that the media is owned by about 5 different corporations which has done much to give us the unreliable, sound-byte only garbage they call news today. Watch any cable news station and you will see that each says basically the same thing and has almost exactly the same news bytes for stories...

34. Corrupt Government: CIA drugs and arm smuggling, bought politicians, undercover dealings, disinformation, lies and distortions, blackmail, constant deceptions are all part of their bid for a one world government. Disinformation is a major means of confusing us, which they do through false media reports, chain letters, the articles they place on the internet, and the rumors they start.

Considering the past 7.5 years of corruption, lies, delusions of grandeur, etc., I'd say this was at least mostly true. I can't say for all of it, we definitely know they have used torture and other means as well.

35. Lack of Missile Defense: An unarmed America is akin to a fire in a theater with no exits. While other countries are building their arsenals, we’re minimizing ours. Disarmament and the decline of our militia, and thus our ability to defend ourselves, certainly mean defeat even before a conflict breaks out.

Considering the rest of the arsenal, perhaps missiles aren't so necessary?

36. Decline of Military: Our military lacks the self-confidence, the manpower, the equipment and the technology needed to fight opposing forces, and is compromised in morality and morale through unnecessary wars that are not intended to be won.

Of more concern to me are those "military corporations" such as Blackwater and others.

37. Passing of EOs: EOs (Executive Orders), PDs (Presidential Directives), and PDDs (Presidential Decision Directives) have become so amorphous and customary that no one cares when a new one is enacted. For example, a single EO could dissolve the entire United States.

That last statement is bloody well scary to me. Now there is my fear factor, that I'll wake up some day and this won't be America the beautiful any more...

38. Infiltration: They use subtlety to invade churches, schools, corporations, small businesses, organizations, and everything else, and implant their ideology and philosophy of a one-world government through well honed issues, such as global warming. They have their “people” (often members of their secret societies) placed throughout these entities who make decisions beneficial to the Elitists.

I would have used the word "indoctrination" here, but I didn't write the article so we use the authors terms and headings. But I have no reason to find fault with the theory.

39. Regional Government: One of the most effective means for the Powers to gain control and implement their global rule is through regional government where they give mandates to mayors and municipal managers via documents on how matters must be handled. Law enforcement, attorneys and judges are part of the scenario.

Considering those cities going against United States laws and providing sanctuary for those of alien status who are inside this country illegally. I'm not talking about LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, but those of illegal status and the cities protecting them as well as churches, corporations, etc.

40. Created or Contrived Crises: Whether actual or devised, crises “seem real” to us. False or deliberate crises work to scare us and allow the Illuminists to achieve their goals, such as re-designing New Orleans to their desire, or going to Iraq for oil and the take-over of their banks for the Federal Reserve. Examples include global warming, the energy crisis, floods, hurricanes (they can control the weather), and any other disaster they desire.

Just look around you and you will see the signs. Now that you have been duly clued in you have to decide what you will think and do about it. Whether you believe it or not though, that is up to you entirely...

OK, now for the ones I have serious issues with...

8. Removal of God: The Elite work hard to prohibit us from making any reference to God or Christ and the sacredness of Christianity in public but yet they promote pagan holidays, Wicca, black magic and practice Satanism. A society lacking in God and spirituality—especially one supposedly built on Christianity—is a doomed civilization, and one that easily cedes to others. Apostasy in our churches, especially Catholicism, is a sign of the destruction foisted on us. Their goal is to reach back to the Ancient Mysteries, and to learn what they believe are advanced technologies from ancient aliens and gods

Considering that Christianity is only 2,000 years old and the other religions of the world are MUCH older still, I take great offense at this one. How many millions of people have died over the "One God" issue? The Christian church, through the use of one of the bloodiest books alive today, caused the deaths, (almost genocide), of millions of women. And there is reason to believe that Christ wasn't ever even a real person, but a construct of many men and religious faiths. See here:

Then I take issue with the premise that an all loving God should be feared. That he would give us free will EXCEPT... AND, that in his infinite power he created a flawed human being in order to fight a non-flawed being he also created that now threatens him, (the devil, Lucifer, Satan, etc...). Seems ludicrous to me. I have faith, but my faith in things is built on a solid foundation without listening to these morons who "preach" and claim they know what's best for all concerned. OK, end of this rant...

And are you saying that the Jews don't have a right to their beliefs? Umm, I think they would have a problem with you too. Just because you believe in Christ doesn't mean everyone else has to. That is part of freedom, part of beliefs, part of worship. It is the internal place inside each of us that we must listen to, not some outside source.

9. Ecumenism is another parameter for a one-world religion. Believing that Christ is not the savior, or that other people or so called "prophets” are the saviors makes Christianity invalid. Some believe New Ageism will be the one-world religion, while others think global warming with become the hymn. An aspect of their plan is their contrived apocalypse based on the books of Revelation and Daniel.

Well, if people are not prophits, then what of David? What of Peter? And why would God speak then and not now? Why would God not want his children to continue to hear "his" word? You can't have it both ways. Either God is still here, still speaking, still very much alive and well, or God is dead and died with the prophets of old... Would GOD be stagnant? Wouldn't God keep up with both the times and the language? I'm sure God never expected the world to stand still.

12. Sexual Perversion is used to advance Elitists’ goals and degrade our morals, getting us to accept and even adopt anything they put on us, and often using such activity to blackmail us.

This one always gets to me. Who put someone in charge of sexuality and who decides what is moral and what isn't? Because I have to tell you, my sexuality and sexual preferences are MINE! And I will be damned if some other human being is going to tell me what is moral and what isn't so long as I do nothing to harm another. Gods but Christians can be such prudes when they go off in this area! And to blame such a broad category as this just makes me want to pull my hair out! Mind your own damn business!

14. Gambling: Promoting illegal activities through pretenses of “enjoyment” and promises of making big money is yet another scheme by the Elitist to keep us dependent on money and materialism for our happiness, and to be dependent on outside forces for our happenings and success.

Maybe I am confused here, but how does gambling promote illegal activities? Gambling is not illegal everywhere. Doing illegal activities is not restricted to gambling. One has only to look at the White House or Congress to see that gambling has less to do with illegal activities than illegal activities has to do with gambling... I think the only problem here comes in if you cannot afford the money you gamble with or on???

28. Feminism and Working Mothers: From the moment the Powers decided to use left-wing feminism as a way to cause resentment between men and women and their children, is the moment when the institution of marriage faltered. Two incomes gave Mom and Dad the false sense that they had money, and thus materialism also seeped into our lives at the same time. The role of males has been re-defined and belittled.

Considering that most of the ancient societies were known to have been Matriarchal instead of Patriarchal, this I find offensive. I am neither subservient nor submissive and don't believe that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant. Whatever man's role is today, believe me when I tell you it hasn't changed all that much.

And most women have to work, this isn't a choice in today's society. You are dreaming here if you think a one income household is doing just peachy, or very lucky to be having such a job! Unfortunately for the rest of us, that isn't the case. This economy sucks!

My dad raised me to shoot a gun, rifle, .357 magnum and a .32 hand gun. He was a good man but had very bad health and died very young. I think this author was far to easy in her use of name-calling. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have to make it look bad.

Nor do I agree with marriage anymore. Consider everything, I believe term contracts are more the way to go. Get the lawyers out of things. Decide while you still love eachother what to do with the kids, not when you hate eachother. Make the contracts 5 years at a time, renewable by both parties or the contract is null and void. Get the blood-suckers out of the dissolution of the marriage and you both might stay friends. People change. Feelings change, needs change. We are neither static nor are we happy when forced to stay in one place. And I love dual custody rights.

Anyway, I found the article interesting if a little off in places. Not sure who will read this, but I do hope you enjoy it and find your own thoughts and feelings reflected somewhere in here.

40 years Later, Veterans of the USS Liberty Refuse to Give Up the Ship

Insider Tells the Truth About the Cover-up of the Attack on the USS Liberty

A US Air Force Intelligence Officer Speaks with American Free Press About the USS Liberty

A First Hand Account to the Israeli Murder of 34 American Servicemen on the USS Liberty

American Treachery in the Attack on the USS Liberty Much Deeper Than Previously Thought

The USS Liberty Case: The Israel Who Attacked Us Then is Destroying Us Now

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON. THE COVER-UP CONTINUES ON THE USS LIBERTY

ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SECONDS FROM NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST

The Cover-Up Begins

POST-ATTACK RESCUE JUNE 9, 1967

OPEN LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS BY THE SURVIVORS OF THE USS LIBERTY

Post-Attack on the USS Liberty–Israel’s Blood Bath

TREASON ON THE HIGH SEAS”

USS Liberty Survivor Phil Tourney’s Speech at the ‘No More Wars for Israel’ conference in Southern California

My Weekend with the Survivors of the USS Liberty–Pt 1

[See also: "John McCain: Enemy of Liberty" by DetainThis.]

Until now, we've resisted the temptation to post on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, which accuses the Bush White House of launching a propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq.

Why? It's not news. At least not to some of us who've covered the story from the start.

(Click here, here and here to get just a taste of what we mean).

Second, we find it a wee bit preposterous -- and we are being diplomatic here -- that a man who slavishly - no, robotically! -- defended President Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere is trying to "set the record straight" (and sell a few books) five years and more after the invasion, with U.S. troops still bravely fighting and dying to stabilize that country.

But the responses to McClellan from the Bush administration and media bigwigs, history-bending as they are, compel us to jump in. As we like to say around here, it's truth to power time, not just for the politicians but also for some folks in our own business.

Bush loyalists have responded in three ways:

1)  Scott, how could you?  This conveniently ignores the issue of what Bush did or didn't know and do about intelligence on Iraq, converting the story line into that of wounded leader and treasonous former aide. (That canard was the sole focus of a CBS news radio report Wednesday night).

2) Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Okay. When do Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, et al *not* say that?  Dog bites man.

3) It was an intelligence failure. The CIA gave us bad dope on WMD and, well, they're the experts. More on this in a second.

The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war.

Here's ABC News' Charles Gibson: "I think the questions were asked. It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions.” And “I’m not sure we would have asked anything differently."

Really?

Or this from NBC's Brian Williams: “Sadly, we saw fellow Americans — in some cases floating past facedown (after Katrina). We knew what had just happened. We weren’t allowed that kind of proximity with the weapons inspectors [in Iraq]. I was in Kuwait for the buildup to the war, and, yes, we heard from the Pentagon, on my cell phone, the minute they heard us report something that they didn’t like. The tone of that time was quite extraordinary.” And this: "“It’s tough to go back, to put ourselves in the mind-set. It was post-9/11 America."

So the Pentagon tells the media what kind of reporting is in- and out-of-bounds?

Hogwash. Hogwash! HOGWASH.

We confess that here at McClatchy, which purchased Knight Ridder two years ago, we do have a dog in this fight. Our team - Joe Galloway, Clark Hoyt, Jon Landay, Renee Schoof, Warren Strobel, John Walcott, Tish Wells and many others - was, with a few exceptions, the only major news media organization that before the war consistently and aggressively challenged the White House's case for war, and its lack of planning for post-war Iraq.

Here are Bill Moyers and Michael Massing on the media's pre-war performance.

Enough self-aggrandizing trumpet-blowing. OK, Scott, What Happened?

Here's what happened, based entirely on our own reporting and publicly available documents:

* The Bush administration was gunning for Iraq within days of the 9/11 attacks, dispatching a former CIA director, on a flight authorized by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to find evidence for a bizarre theory that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. (Note: See also Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on this point).

* Bush decided by February 2002, at the latest, that he was going to remove Saddam by hook or by crook. (Yes, we reported that at the time).

* White House officials, led by Dick Cheney, began making the case for war in August 2002, in speeches and reports that  not only were wrong, but also went well beyond what the available intelligence said at that time, and contained outright fantasies and falsehoods. Indeed, some of that material was never vetted with the intelligence agencies before it was peddled to the public.Dissenters, or even those who voiced worry about where the policy was going, were ignored, excluded or punished. (Note: See Gen. Eric Shinseki,  Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson and all of the State Department 's Arab specialists and much of its intelligence bureau).

*

* The Bush administration didn't even want to produce the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that's justly received so much criticism since.  The White House thought it was unneeded. It  actually was demanded by Congress and slapped together in a matter of weeks before the congressional votes to authorize war on Iraq.

* The October 2002 NIE was flawed, no doubt. But it contained dissents questioning the extent of Saddam's WMD programs, dissents that were buried in the report. Doubts and dissents were then stripped from the publicly released, unclassified version of the NIE.

* The core of the administration's case for war was not just that Saddam was developing WMDs, but also that, unchecked, he might give them to terrorists to attack the United States. Remember smoking guns and mushroom clouds? Inconveniently, the CIA had determined just the opposite: Saddam would attack the United States only if he concluded a U.S. attack on him was unavoidable. He'd give WMD to Islamist terrorists only "as a last chance to exact revenge."

* The Bush administration relied heavily on an Iraqi exile, Ahmed Chalabi, who had been found to be untrustworthy by the State Department and the CIA. Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress were given millions, and produced "defectors" whose tales of WMD sites and terrorist training were false, fanciful and bogus. But the information was fed directly to senior officials and included in official White House documents.

* The same INC-supplied "intelligence" used in the White House propaganda effort (you got that bit right, Scott) also was fed to dozens of U.S. and foreign news organizations.

* It all culminated in a speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 making the case against Saddam. Virtually every major allegation Powell made turned out later to be wrong. It would have been even worse had not Powell and his team thrown out even more shaky "intelligence" that Cheney's office repeatedly tried to stuff into the speech.

* The Bush administration tried to link Saddam to al Qaida and, by implication, to the 9/11 attacks. Officials repeatedly pushed the CIA for information on such links, and a separate intel shopwas set up under Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith to find "proof" of such ties. Neither the CIA nor anyone else ever found anything resembling an operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaida.

* An exhaustive review of Saddam Hussein's regime's own documents, released in March 2008, found no operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaida.

* The Bush administration failed to plan for the rebuilding of postwar Iraq, as we were perhaps the first to report. The White House ignored stacks of intelligence reports, some now available in partially unclassified form, warning before the war about the possibilities for insurgency, ethnic warfare, social chaos and the like.

We could go on, but the rest, as they say, is history.

That's what happened.

-- Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay

"Nukes & Spooks" is written by McClatchy correspondents Jonathan S. Landay (national security and intelligence), Warren P. Strobel (foreign affairs and the State Department), and Nancy Youssef (Pentagon).

For those of you having problems reading this text, please place your cursor over the text and hold down the control key on your keyboard, (CTRL), and with the wheel of your mouse, roll the wheel towards yourself. This will increase the text size.

News is dying down on the tanker issue. I'm getting a little concerned here. We really haven't heard any thing at all in a while now. The Air Force General Accounting Office seems to be taking its time in figuring all this out, at least Senator Patty Murray hasn't stopped asking questions. The problem is, the answers are well... stupid.

At a hearing last month Senator Murray asked the Pentagon controller a few pointed questions. How hard could it be to give a straight answer? Apparently, for the Air Force and the Pentagon, too hard. Makes you wonder how the Top Dogs got their Brass...

From the HeraldNet we have this story:

Why, Washington's senior senator asked the Pentagon's comptroller at a hearing last month, did the Air Force apparently not consider the difference in additional construction costs at air bases for Airbus' larger and heavier tanker? The Airbus A330, the airframe chosen by the Air Force over Boeing's KC-767, would require an additional $2 billion to upgrade hangars, runways, ramps and other infrastructure, Murray pointed out.

Answer? Defense Department Comptroller Tina W. Jones said she wasn't part of the decision-making process and couldn't comment. Really, that was her answer. The Pentagon's top bean-counter wasn't in on the decision regarding one of the department's largest contracts ever. Nice oversight.

"These are the people who are responsible for devising the Department of Defense's budget and yet the Air Force never consulted them on all the costs associated with awarding this contract to Airbus. That's like handing your teenager a credit card to go on a car shopping spree, no questions asked. No family runs like that, no business runs like that, and as taxpayers we certainly shouldn't allow the military to run like that."

I definitely agree with her. It's about time that the military in general, the Air Force in particular, started being accountable for the money they spend that We the People fund. They just keep taking and it is painfully obvious that they do NOT make good decisions, forget to add in minor details like oh, 2 billion dollars in upgrades for runways and things, while adjusting this and that to suit their desires for a certain outcome. Come on guys, call us born, but it wasn't yesterday...

I'm all for getting our military what they need, so long as this isn't a good ole boys club where you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours gets the contracts. I'm sick of deals with companies like Halliburton and KBR who screw the military as well as the taxpayer but make huge profits, not to mention the criminal acts committed within the companies workforce. Fire the bastards. Ever heard of Accountability? Add it to your dictionary...

In a Senate floor speech Wednesday, Murray asked why the Air Force chose Airbus even though its plane scored lower in the category of "survivability" -- the aircraft's ability to identify and avoid threats and protect the crew in an attack. Previously, she has pointed out that the Airbus fleet would cost $25 billion to $40 billion more in fuel than a KC-767 fleet over its lifetime, and that the A330 would cost approximately 22 percent more to maintain.

The GAO's report on the tanker contract process is due next month. Answers to these questions, as well as whether the Air Force was consistent in requesting and assessing data from each bidder, need to be in it.

With what I'm seeing and hearing lately, I'm not going to hold my breath that there will be any real teeth in this report. Seems to me that there are so many questions that short of looking like a give-away, this has to be covered up. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they have to say about everything.

Nor does the question asking stop there. In a letter to the Joint Chiefs Senator Murray, Senator Robers, Senator Brownback and Senator Cantwell site the superior capabilities of Boeing's 767 and want to know why the Air Force chose the plane that was at the top of the survivability list.

(Washington D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) wrote to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to express their concern that the recent KC-X contract was not awarded to the refueling tanker that is "safest, most survivable, and most effective for the American war fighter."

In February, the Air Force chose the European-based company Airbus's A330 over the Boeing KC-767.The decision was made despite the Boeing KC-767 significantly outperforming the Airbus tanker in the area of survivability – the measure of the aircraft's ability to keep its crew safe.

"Tankers face threats from shoulder-fired missiles, gunfire, and many other dangers, and these dangers are not going away" the Senators wrote in their letter. "Why then would we not buy the tanker most capable of operating in these hostile environments while keeping U.S. tanker crews and U.S. pilots who depend on them as safe as possible?"

In the letter, the Senators pose a series of questions to the Joint Chiefs on whether they were consulted on the priority of survivability in the tanker decision, their assessments of the survivability of the proposed tankers, and the risks and impacts the choice to procure a less survivable tanker would have on their services.

The text of the Senator's letter is below:

May 6, 2008

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman
General James E. Cartwright, Vice Chairman
General George W. Casey, Jr., Army Chief of Staff
Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations
General T. Michael Moseley, Air Force Chief of Staff
General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-9999

Gentlemen:

We write to express our deep concern that the recent KC-X contract was not awarded to the refueling tanker that is safest, most survivable, and most effective for the American war fighter. The KC-X tanker will have to serve as a refueling lifeline for all branches of our military in hostile regions around the world. Tankers face threats from shoulder-fired missiles, gunfire, and many other dangers, and these dangers are not going away. Why then would we not buy the tanker most capable of operating in these hostile environments while keeping U.S. tanker crews and U.S. pilots who depend on them as safe as possible? We raise this issue to you as the Joint Chiefs of Staff because the KC-X is intended to be the key refueling platform that all services will rely upon for decades to come.

The KC-767 was rated as having five times the combat strength of the Airbus A330. It offers superior countermeasures to defeat shoulder-fired missiles, robust cockpit armor protection, safety features for fuel tanks, and a high-performance radar warning receiver system to detect surface to air missiles. The KC-767 is also smaller and more agile than the KC-X. These advantages translate into greater protection for tanker crews as well as aircraft that rely on tankers to stay in the fight.

Survivability should have been a top priority in awarding a contract to replace the KC-135, which provides only limited defensive capabilities. Instead, the contract was awarded by downplaying the greater capabilities of the KC-767 and discounting the KC-30’s weaknesses. We believe that you would agree, particularly in a time of war, that nothing should be of higher concern than our servicemembers’ safety.

Were all the services consulted about the priority of tanker survivability? What assessments have you made regarding the survivability of the proposed tanker platforms and resulting impacts on each of your services? Are each of you willing to accept the risks that come with not choosing the most survivable refueling platform for the entire U.S. military?

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator

Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

Sam Brownback
United States Senator

Pat Roberts
United States Senator