Okay, first some news links

Senator Bob Graham claims Unnamed Government Supported 9/11 Attacks * I think it's Pakistan. Will we ever know? No during this administration's tenure.

US Congress goes on a Field Trip. Guess Who Pays?

The Ole Bush Credibility Gap Strikes Back

It's Bill Gates Vs. The Penguin in a Texas Death Match

Life Got ya Down because your IQ is that of a Cheese Sandwich? Fear not, help is on the way. May be just the ticket to cure this country's apathetic stupor


Border Inspectors Look for Radiactive Materials, this is a search for material entering the country, not our *cough "Depleted Uranium Penetrators" cough* that we so Love to Export

Jordan Disses Blair, No Flyovers in Your Bloodlust for war*

* As you readers know, the situation in the Middle East is very fluid. Will this stand? I do not know.

Turkey Votes Down US Troop Deployment Today. I think they're going to hold out for the 30 Billion, and most likely get it. Another Vote Next Week

US Calls on Saddam to Cede Power to Head off War. Saddam Replies, "How Many Times do I Have to Tell The Great Satan? Is He Slow?

Aussie Sailors Going to Gulf Refuse Anthrax Vaccinations. Not really noteworthy except You Have to Wonder Why.

Spain: Mass demonstrations against government’s right-wing policies and warmongering. Ya know, those Conquistadors Run Hot and Cold

Diplomat John Brady Kiesling Resigns from US Foreign Service and emerges as a True American Hero! Ya know things are rough when a Diplomat with a cushy job throws in the towel. He spills it all in his letter of resignation

Blair in New Bid to Discredit Opposition to Iraq War. A must read. Blair Compares the Current Protestors to Neville Chamberlain. So, I guess Iraq is as much a Threat to the UK as Nazi Germany. Who Knew?

Okay, this is from a UK tabloid, I'll search other sources. Headline: BLIX IN SHOWDOWN WITH BLAIR Blix called Iraq's move to destroy it's new al-Samoud 2 missiles as SIGNIFICANT, whilst Blair is claimed to have said, "This is not a time for games." Bush should be very happy that Tony's playing his part so well*

* Read the article. If it's accurate, it shows just how much arrogance there is in the US and UK governments.

Russia reiterates war opposition By now, I'd have thought that we would have either bought the Russians off, or guaranteed them some prime Iraqi oil deals. Tha's how it was looking earlier this week

Iraqi defector's testimony confuses case against Iraq Here's a rather milquetoast attempt at doing Journalism. My piece on Kamel Hussien is a much better job. Yes, I am humble--Dammit.

Here's the WARshington Post's attempt at journalism regarding the same story. Pathetic

Here's the US response to Iraq's desroying the illegal missiles reported above. Hans Blix is gonna have a field day when he reports a "fluid situation" to the security council, and Bushy and Blair are going to have to buy everyone else off in order to have their war

When a government lies to its people Well, it's got PNAC and implies Imperialism but misses on Israel, and is not as good as Dennis Hans article with a very similar name*

* I'll be posting Mr. Hans article as soon as I get permission.

Homeland Protection: Bomb Vest and Briefcase Bomb Training Device's No, it's the Israeli Homeland. Take a look and see if you can determine the agenda. It's clearly propaganda. Suicide bombs vs. the IDF? I think I know who loses that battle

Pentagon lists 24 crimes eligible for tribunals Gee. I wonder if wanton environmental contamination via the use of DU Penetrators is on the list. Looks like more fearmongering to me

US Should Change its Foreign Policies to Win Back World’s Trust I think we can all agree that this is a nice notion. However, I don't it happening for at least a decade, maybe a lot longer if we keep installing belligerent PNAC puppets in the White House

Atrocities that the Northern Alliance unleashed Yes, that Northern Alliance. You won't see this in the US media, a must read

Hezbollah aid case brings life sentence Hmm, even the Judge said he didn't like handing out sentences like this. In this political climate, it must be assumed you are guilty--Now prove you're Innocent. Ashcroft's a wacko. He'd have us all serving life sentences if there were enough prisons to hold us

Find Yourself applying, "Neo" to lots of things these days? You are not alone. A handy primer to all those pesky, "Neos"


FBI using plane to watch IU area The Heartland(Das Vaderland?) under aerial surveillance. Makes you feel warm, doesn't it..ahhh

A Nice Summation of the Holes in Powell's UN case, courtesy of Hans Blix

FBI Warns of Attacks Set Off by Iraq War IRAQIs, you will be targeted, as will others, "sympathy" strikers. What this thing needs is a bunch of civil disobedience. Take a couple days off from your jobs when the bombs start to fall. I can't live repressed. NFW!!!

Powell says U.S. is giving U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq more time You Must Read This. No Wonder Powell's getting all gray and shit. Just like the Shrub.

Bush: U.S. will enforce resolution on Iraq And After we've bombed the fuck out of your country, we're gonna grab us some crude before we go. Bush has no real interest in a democracy in Iraq. That's nonsense. A military base or three sure, but no democracy

Iraq arms forces with chemicals, U.S. says Hey, now this is the special 2 for 1 special. It incites fear amongst the troops, and makes people at home hate the Iraqi's even more!! I think it's foolhardy move, but then this the War Administration. Chemical weapons? You've got info. Give info. to Blix to Verify. I know that dog won't hunt. Sad.

Some Sound so-called "Journalist" bashing over at Counterpunch. If you haven't bookmarked this site, do it. Now

Damned Turks!! Now their marching on Parliament What is a warmonger to do?

Antiwar activists plan nonviolent blockades Cops(who I like) likely won't get word until an event is actually happening. Isn't the Internet beautiful? Civil disobediance, baby!!

King George Redux! Clear and concise. The Madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue All good stuff, now read Heh

Concerned about FEMA? You should be. Now, I'm an atheist. I do not deny the existence of god(s), but there is no reasonable way for me to believe in any such being(s). The reason I add that is because the link takes you to a site that is apparently Baptist approved, whereas I am not. :)

The Wealth Transfer Machine, or how the toil of many ends up in the hands of the few. Very good read

Helpless Britons appeal to France for "regime change" This is funny in a deeply disturbing way. The movement is being spearheaded by the "Free United Kingdom Movement" or FUKM, for short. Can you believe that? Might as well be Fuck 'em. Have a read.

It's the Internet Infidels Fun with READY campaign!! Be nice, I'm a member there. Godlessness can be downright hilarious

Israel's Grand Design: Leaders Crave Area from Egypt to Iraq Now I'm not going to side with Israel in any matter except for their own protection, so see if you, my astute readers can pick out the errors of fact using the lens of hindsight

US Policy shift. Where is Dubya's Moral Clarity..I can barely type that I laugh so hard. Okay, now Saddam must both disarm and go into exile. WTF? The boys at PNAC will have it their way. If Saddam complies, they will have other eggs in their war basket to use. Iraq's fucked.

The World Net Daily issues new terror alert: Report: Islamists planning
'large attack' Well, Given their history, AND the fact that they hve Jerry Falwell, and Michael Weiner er, Savage on their home page, as well as featuring that ever insightful Bill O'Reilly I can think of no real way to take them seriously. It's a discredited rag of the highest order. Read the article, there will be a test :)

Alex Jones Interviews Greg Palast. Hey, it's not Palast's fault. It's a so-so read. Try it.* I promise to have other Palast interviews posted soon. I know several interviews he's given as of late.

Waco Fires Still Burn-- Well, it's ben ten years and two days since Waco. I know hearings were held, and "Frontline" exposed a lot of wrongdoing by the ATF, FBI and the Justice Dept.(although it appears someone at the FBI duped Janet reno with a story about children being badly mis-treated. This later was found to be fraudulent)Read on, the story still boils

The Why of Homeschool-- Well, this is an issue that's bound to raise some hackles. Me, I'm glad that I went to a public school. While my parents are cool, I had surpassed their ability to teach me in an intellectual way by around age 10-11. I was reading at the Collegiate sophomore level by then. I have two issues with homeschooling. One is the lack of oversight, the other is religious indoctrination. My parents let me decide as to whether or not to follow religion. I found reason a much more full way to describe the world, and at university got a BSEE, and an MSEE. I understand that not all schools are as good as the one I was fortunate to go to, but with encouragement all schoolchildren can be successful.

The Best news of the day: Court Lets Stand the Ban on 'God' in Pledge-- Well, Michael Newdow was of course correct, as was the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It's pretty clear in the letters of Jefferson and Adams. as well as in Article 1(the first amendment) that states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Pretty simple.

Okay, now for some short, and some not so short articles

U.S. for Abu Mazin as Palestinian leader

By Anwar Iqbal

From the International Desk

Published 2/28/2003 9:27 PM


WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said Friday that senior Palestinian official Mahmud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazin, would be acceptable to the United States as a replacement for Yasser Arafat.

In his policy statement on Iraq Wednesday, President Bush had hinted that Washington would like to see a new leader head the Palestinian Authority.

Arafat is the current chairman but Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wants him replaced by a more moderate Arab leader.

Also Friday, after meeting with Arafat in his Ramallah headquarters special U.N. envoy to the Middle East Terji Road-Larsen announced the a special Palestine Liberation Organization council would meet next week to nominate a Palestinian Authority prime minister.

"I met with President Arafat on behalf of Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, and discussed with him (Arafat) several issues of a common concern, especially the nomination of the Palestinian prime minister," Road-Larsen said.

During their meeting, he said, Arafat assured him the PLO's Palestinian Central Council would convene next week to discuss the question of appointing a new prime minister, as Arafat had suggested two weeks ago. If the PCC approved the establishment of a prime ministerial post, the Palestinian Legislative Council would meet the week after, Road-Larsen said. However, no mention has been made of what duties that post would entail.

In Washington, Armitage did not say whether the Israelis would also accept Abu Mazin, but he was a key figure in the Oslo negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians that led to the peace agreement. The Israelis regard him as a moderate member of the Palestinian leadership.

He remains secretary of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive council and one of Arafat's close aides, but he is no longer active, having distanced himself from the Palestinian leader in July last year when it became obvious that Arafat was no longer acceptable to Israel and the United States.

Talking to a select group of journalists invited to interview him at the State Department, Armitage said one of the reasons the United States wanted Arafat gone is that, "Sharon and Arafat won't talk to each other."

When a reporter suggested removing both Arafat and Sharon, Armitage said Israel has "a way of dealing with corruption and bad governance while these things are missing from the Palestinian Authority."

He said the United States would want to see a leader who would be able to "speak authoritatively for the Palestinian people. A good prime minister, he said, "would be a great help to the Palestinian people and also allow them to talk to Israel."

On Iraq, Armitage said that if a change there brings about a Shiite government, the United States would have no objection.

"If the majority of the people of Iraq elect a Shia as a leader than so be it." said Armitage, adding: "If you have a representative government, then all the people of Iraq will decide who they want to rule ... no matter their ethnic or religious identity."

He said, "The Shia population is a prominent population of Iraq, which has been very badly treated by Saddam Hussein."

Armitage said the United States was not afraid of the possibility of a Shiite-run Iraqi making an alliance with Iran, which is so far the only Shiite majority country in the world.

Asked if the United States was worried about such a possibility, he said: "No we are not. I don't think you can make those fine adjustments. If you are going to have a representative government, that's what it means."

Shias are the largest religious group in Iraq but the Iraqi dictator belongs to the Sunni sect of Muslims. In the 1980s, he had a long and bloody war with Shiite Iran, resulting in the death of more than a million people.

Armitage, however, said that the United States was committed to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and would not support a separate state for Iraq's ethnic Kurd minority.

Link to article

This is bullshit. The way to get Israel moving is to cut off aid. They'd be in talks with anyone that'd listen. Here again we see the insidious interplay between the US, Irag and Israel. I would have made Israel come to the table long ago. Bush said in his weeny speech of the week that disarming Iraq would make the Palestinian-Israeli issue easier to manage. He's smoking something. The US CANNOT maintain a military presence in the Middle-East and expect things to be all warm and cuddly amongst centuries old rivals. That's just stupid. Sharon is likely to be tried for war crimes once he is out of office, unless the US pays off the Court at the Hague. Which seems likely. Euther that, or the Israelis tell the court to screw. They are so out of compliance with UN security council resolutions--most of which the US used its veto power AGAINST that there is little need for Ariel Sharon to worry. WTF is Richard "PNAC Super Hawk" Armitage doing the diplomatic dance for? Are we mad? This neocon nutball wants to rule the world. Don't believe me? See: Project for a New American Century(PNAC) and see what kind of ideologue he is. Read everything there. Study it. It's too important not to.

***

The Downward Spiral

In late January, the Senate confirmed John Snow as our new U.S. Treasury Secretary, the 73rd in the government agency’s two-hundred plus year history. Snow, like Paul O’Neill and Robert Rubin before him, promised to follow a strong dollar policy and take steps to help spur on a U.S. economic recovery and long-term growth.

Well, I know you’ve just started your new job, Mr. Snow, but I’ve got some sobering news for you. You and your pals can keep talking about this alleged "strong dollar policy" until you’re blue in the face, but it’s not going to make a lick of difference if you don’t start managing our currency more responsibly. The dollar is not just in decline; it’s a mess. If something isn’t done soon, I believe the dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency and medium of exchange, something that would lead to a huge decline in the standard of living for U.S. citizens like nothing we’ve seen in nearly a century.

"Oh, Jim," the disbelievers crow. "You’re just being extreme. That would never happen. After all, the dollar has reigned supreme for several decades"

True, but it seems to me that people forget that that supremacy isn’t a gimme. A sound currency, after all, reflects solid economic fundamentals: little to no debt, a trade surplus, a stable balance of payments—the difference between a nation's receipts of foreign currency and its expenditures of foreign currency—and growing international reserves.

That’s not exactly the picture you get when you look at the U.S. balance sheet. Our national debt to foreigners is now around $6.4 trillion, with interest payments alone last year totaling $333 billion. We’re importing far more goods than we are exporting. International reserves remain around $60 billion, but we’re attracting far less direct foreign investment every year. Our current account deficit runs at roughly $500 billion a year, or five percent of our gross domestic product. Think of it this way: It costs us about $1.3 billion a day in the foreign markets just to keep the dollar afloat. We’re like the untrustworthy brother-in-law who keeps borrowing money, promising to pay it back, but can never seem to get out of debt. Eventually, people cut that guy off.

As a result, the U.S. dollar continues to fall against its foreign counterparts, down 18 percent against the euro in 2002 and 10 percent against the yen. That’s not the worst it has been in history, but it’s certainly a substantial slide. With a war, a slow economic recovery and future threats of terrorism looming on the horizon , there’s little reason to believe things are going to improve.

What’s worse, little is being done by Washington’s economic gurus to pull us out of our economic quagmire. Faithful readers know I believe Alan Greenspan is the grand maestro of this economic debacle. Our esteemed Federal Reserve chairman is the first to “buy any assets” or lower interest rates to pump money into the economy and give investors the illusion that things aren’t as bad as they really are. Sometimes I wonder if our central bank is just going to print money until we run out of trees. People say that inflation is a dead issue, but you wouldn’t guess that shopping where most of us buy things.

History teaches us that such imprudent fiscal behavior has always led to economic disaster. During the early 1920s, rampant inflation destroyed the value of German currency. German workers had to be paid twice a day just to survive; it took a wheelbarrel full of bills just to buy a loaf of bread. In England during the 1970s the government continued to boost its money supply, injecting its economy with liquidity, until debt levels spun out of control. Suddenly, no other countries would buy their sovereign bonds. Finally, the International Monetary Fund had to step in and bail the Brits out. Quite a shift for a country that only 50 years earlier was one of the richest nations in the world. Want a more current example? Just look south, to Argentina, where its currency recently lost so much value that the government prohibited its citizens from making withdrawals at the bank.

So why doesn’t our government do something about our flagging currency? At least over the short-term, the declining value of the dollar does have its perks. A declining dollar is certainly good for domestic manufacturers who must compete with foreign companies. As the dollar drops, their manufacturing costs decline and it's much easier for these companies to compete. The global economy is already sluggish, and the falling dollar makes U.S. exporters far more competitive. Again, it’s the illusion that things are better when they really are not.

Remember also: Our manufacturers may be better off, but foreigners then suffer so the world as a whole shows no improvement. That is why similar practices in the 1930s were known as “beggar thy neighbor”.

While this helps U.S. manufacturers, it’s not necessarily good news for consumers. The cost of imports, like foreign cars and foreign liquor, will rise. Since foreign goods become more expensive, U.S. companies may respond by raising their prices, even slightly, because they can. In the end, the dollar loses value, but we’re still paying the same real amount for many goods.

The bigger problem for the American economy is that foreign investors and foreign governments may soon lose their appetite for the declining U.S. dollar. Interest rates, which are now absurdly low, will need to rise to give foreign investors an incentive to invest and hold on to our currency. If not, these foreign governments and investors may look for somewhere else to hold their money. Historically, when investors recognize that a currency is being debased or devalued, they tend to look for sanctuary in currencies that remain stable at the insistence of the population. For years, the Swiss franc was synonymous with monetary stability.

While currencies like the Swiss franc or the Japanese yen or the Danish krone—all of which I own—are in better shape that the U.S. dollar, I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in them either. All of these countries’ governments have adopted the U.S.’s dangerous habit of manipulating their own currencies to compete in the world market. It’s a double-bind of sorts: Singapore’s government wants to keep its currency strong and sound, but if every other country’s currency is declining against the Singapore dollar, their exports become prohibitively expensive and it becomes impossible for them to compete. They are forced to play the monetary monopoly, shuffling the money supply, adjusting interest rates, just to make their products competitive.

And what about the Euro? It’s certainly stronger than the U.S. dollar, which is down 18 percent against the euro for 2002. I believe the success or failure of the Euro is one of the most important questions of the twenty-first century, one with profound implications on the global economy. The world needs the Euro, because it needs an alternative to the dollar. There really are only two currencies with enough liquidity to be the world’s currency—the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen. (The Swiss may have a sound currency, but there just aren’t enough francs out there.) The European Union has everything going for it—an enormous population base, a balance of trade surplus. Most of its nations are creditors, not debtors. If the Euro succeeds, people may actually stop using the dollar as a medium of exchange and as a reserve currency.

That said, I believe that the Euro is a flawed currency. Many of the European Union’s 12 member nations just don’t run a tight ship. Germany, which became the poster boy of fiscal responsibility in the mid-twentieth century, has again started running up huge debts. (Have they forgotten about the wheelbarrels?) The Portuguese are running an enormous deficit. What’s going to happen when these countries can’t balance their books? Is Brussels going to send tanks into Lisbon? I doubt it. It may take years, even decades to root out all the problems in the EU’s inherently flawed system. Remember: Hundreds of billions of dollars (yes, dollars, for the moment) have been invested in this new currency. Banking systems have changed. Accounting systems have changed. Even parking meters have changed. If it fails or even struggles, there may be huge economic losses.

How long does the dollar have? A year? A decade? I’m not so sure. As long as there’s no other currency stepping up to the plate and EU continues to struggle with the euro, the U.S. government will likely be able to continue to jigger the books, essentially floating our enormous tab on the backs of the rest of the world.

But remember: Whenever there has been an economic crisis like this, a new player has always emerged on the economic landscape. A century ago, few people would have believed that the dollar was going to emerge out of the 19th century as the dominant world currency. There’s always a phoenix that rises from the ashes. Who will it be for the 21st century? My guess is the Chinese yuan may eventually have its day in sun. The nation has a recipe for a sound currency—a huge population, an enormous balance of payments surplus, and a sizeable GDP to match. China is now the world’s largest importer and the world’s second largest creditor (Japan is first). For the moment, its currency is not convertible, which must change now that it has been admitted to the World Trade Organization. There are still a lot of cultural barriers to get over—rampant xenophobia and fear of capitalist interests—but nothing assuages fears like steady flows of money into your coffers.

Gresham’s law says that bad money tends to drive out good money. Well, whether we like it or not, whether we want to believe it or not, the U.S. dollar has become bad money. Despite proclamations from Washington about a strong dollar policy, I see no reason to believe that the dollar won’t continue to decline, that we won’t continue to borrow like beggars and put Band-Aids on gaping wounds in our monetary policy. That is, until the day when our creditors say enough is enough. And that day may not be far off.

Link, courtesy of Jim Rogers

The last paragraph pretty much spells it out. But there other issues to consider. Our vaunted military cannot function without a huge stream of money being poured directly into the war machine. Once we have become bankrupt and have had to sell our state of the art weapons to countries that can afford them, then what? None of this has to happen of course. But with Bush's buy now, tax never policy, it is only a matter of time when one, some or all of these distasteful scenarios plays out. The Bush econimc plan is of course, a sham of a sham. Don't buy into it, you'll get nothing out of it.

***

Airport security system raises eyebrows

Saturday, March1, 2003, 7:46 AM

Washington-AP -- Civil liberties watchdogs see plenty wrong with a new system to check the background information of commercial air passengers.

They fear it will lead to innocent people being branded security risks.

A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union says it will create a "permanent blacklisted underclass" of Americans who won't be able to travel freely.

The Transportation Department has awarded Lockheed-Martin a nearly 13 (m) million dollar, five-year contract to develop the system. Congress ordered it.

It will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists.

Each passenger's risk potential will be rated according to a three-color system: green, yellow or red. When travelers check in, their names will be punched into the system and their boarding passes encrypted with the ranking.

Link to micro article



As of posting time, this is not a done deal. Call your Senators, Congress persons and let them know that this cannot stand. An email to all of the major carriers will certainly be an effective tool if enough people heed the call to action. Remember, this is an industry that is hemorrhaging cash rapidly. They need customers now. Here's a link to all the major carriers, just click on the airline you want to voice your concerns to, and find their "Contact Us" link.

***

I received this in an email, oddly there was no title, and no author referenced. I would contact the author, but I know not who it is. If you do, just contact me at the email link, and I'll ask permission to post it, and if I don't receive permission to, I'll link to it, if it's on the web. Googling came up blank.

I need a name. Okay, ready.

The Pipes of the Trickle-Down Theory are Clogged

Till the advent of fiat money, the finances of man have always followed a certain historical sequence. The people produce the wealth. And the king receives his share, which his barons collect for him for a fee. Then the king and entourage spend, and the gold and silver find their way back to the citizens for goods and services rendered. Occasionally the king might decide to buy foreign goods, or lose his wealth through defeat in war. Then the gold and silver will begin circulating in the next country.

The more industrious and prosperous the citizens were, the more gold and silver were amassed, the greater the common wealth of country and king became. The king would not have much wealth if his subjects were not prosperous. Industrious citizens create wealth, not the king. King and government are only necessary evils needed for defense and administration.

Throughout history there has always existed a certain, proportionate, relationship between the wealth of the citizens and the wealth of the king. The healthiest relationship was, and still is, when the scales are tipped well in favor of the citizens.

Contrary to general belief, under normal circumstances and in a healthy environment, the king’s share hardly ever amounted to more than a minor percentage of the common wealth. The need for coining in itself already, combined with what we know about the volumes of gold and silver coinage estimated to have been circulating between the citizens, should be suficient proof thereof. A wise king understood that his own wealth depended on the prosperity of his subjects.

Whenever the king over-taxed his citizens, wasted too much on arms, luxury and extravaganzas, the gold flow from the citizens toward the king became lopsided. Then the wealth of the people decreased and the productivity of the country declined. And when at times the shift in wealth became unbearable, the citizens either revolted and ousted the king or the country went under.

The might of empires and civilizations, mirrored by its gold and silver in circulation, has always depended on the productive capacity of its citizens and available resources. Human prosperity thrives on grass roots, same as happens in nature. And it thrives best when free growing, broad based, and from the ground up, meaning from the ordinary people up. That is what capitalism should be and was all about in former times. The West flourished on natural capitalism till the advent of fiat money. All of Nature thrives on capitalistic principles. Its multitudes live and prosper in free competition. And when man strayed from Nature’ rules he had to pay dearly.

Natural Capitalism works when there is minimal government interference and free competition, when everybody has a chance, when the laws are impartially applied, when there is a level playing field and the markets are free, when money flows freely, possesses intrinsic value and is not somebody else his debt, and when there is a free and open flow of information. None of these requisites for a natural capitalism has survived. Natural Capitalism is dead, stone dead.

Grass roots is not only the most important, the least understood and most maligned precondition for growth and prosperity, it is the indispensable prerequisite for it. Prosperity is "from the ground up", a one-way street and should never ever be directed or dictated from the top.

Till the middle of the seventeenth century gold and silver flowed freely among the citizens and between the citizens and the king. But when the king’s demands and his share of the common wealth became excessive, the people united and the counter force of democracy was born. The Magna Charta was signed. The Bastille was stormed. Kings were ousted or saw their power reduced by parliaments. Over time, however, these young democratic governments, instead of remaining "part of the people" changed in character. Slowly but surely they took over the role once played by the king and turned into usurping powers in their own right.

For about two hundred years the two way, self-correcting, wealth relationship between the citizens on the one hand and the king or now the young democratic governments on the other hand, maintained itself. In a democratic ambiance, adjustments took place more smoothly, thanks to the ballot box. The bulk of the gold and the silver continued circulating among the people and a smaller part between the State and the citizens.

It was the glory time of grass roots entrepreneurship. The time of the industrial revolution, great inventions, cultural creativity and new horizons. Enterprise grew, self financed, out of profits. Taxation was moderate and focused. Growth was natural and efficient. Government was humble. The economies grew unrestricted. The Banker was not needed... but... he forced his way in through the back door and within one hundred years took over the world by stealth.

The sequence from the birth, ascent, to the decay and death of civilizations is mirrored by the steady migration of the bulk of the wealth in the form of gold and silver from the citizen to the reigning power. Power flows with the money. And when we analyze the present state of Western Civilization, we have but to discern who it is, that holds the real money, the gold and the silver, and we will know who holds the reigns of power. It is no longer the elected government, but the obscure Banker.

Detailed discussions of the ascent of the Banker can be found in several of my earlier Gold-Eagle essays and in my booklet "Towards Cyber Money". This present essay will be concentrating on the broader picture of the Banker’s shrewd penetration into the social structure of the West, his veiled rise to power and the dire repercussions for society.

The first Banker was a money changer, intermediary, custodian, transfer and payment agent. Then, when the Banker saw that the Church had much idle wealth lying around, which could be made productive by loaning it out, shrewdly the Banker convinced a greedy Rome of the merits of interest compensation. And sometime during the fourteenth century the Pope annulled the ban on usury, and gave his blessing for interest compensation on loans. From there on the Banker became financier.

Once interest compensation on loans was accepted and became the norm, the Banker pursued his aims further, extracting concession after concession from the State. One of his greatest days, and the citizen’s blackest, was when he obtained the legal permission to increase his loan portfolio to a value worth many times his bank’s registered capital. Overnight the Banker’s potential working capital multiplied many times over, and in some cases even up to twelve times his capital input, depending on local legislation. It gave the Banker a multiple advantage over all other business enterprises and laid the basis for the Banker’s stellar ascent, and his subsequent grab of control of the prime of industry, commerce and business. Although still restricted to certain limits, the multiple application and usage of his basic capital implied that the Banker now possessed the legal authorization to create money out of nothing. Creating money out of nothing and lending it out against interest became the Banker’s core business. It paved the way for the Banker to go out and buy the world.

Now, there is one thing the Banker hates, and that is competition. And because of this the Banker had to wring further privileges from the government. One was the establishment of a privately controlled bank of banks, the Central or Reserve Bank and the other privilege granted, to the same Central Bank, carried the exclusive license to issue and manage the government’s paper currency. In one coup, banking had become a closed shop and the State had ceded the control over its currency to the Banker.

Nearly all Central Banks or Reserve Banks in this world are privately owned and controlled and not owned by the State, contrary to what all the governments would like their people to believe.

And private ownership implies that Central Banks will always serve the Banker’s interests first and not the country’s.

As long as the currency circulation was in the form of gold or silver, or had legally to be covered 100 percent by gold or silver, the Banker remained restricted in his lending activities to the sum of deposits his clients held at the bank, of course less a prudent safety margin in the event of unexpected withdrawals. One coin in was one coin out. There just was not any more to lend out. But all that changed with the introduction of paper currency.

In the very beginning, when the first paper currency made its appearance, one paper unit was issued for each precious metal unit held in the treasury. In other words, money in circulation was backed 100% by precious metals, but not for long. Once the State ran out of cash, the Banker had no trouble convincing the State that it was not absolutely necessary to maintain a one hundred percent precious metal backing for the nation’s currency. The public seldom bothered to exchange their paper claims for the real metal. And anyhow, nobody would find out that easily, if a little bit more paper had been issued than there was gold in the vaults. From there on the precious metal backing began its disappearance act. In 1896 the gold cover of the total sum of US dollars in circulation had already receded to under 4%. Today, all paper money is one hundred percent fiat money. There is no more backing for any paper currency. The gold reserves of the Central Banks have no relation whatsoever any more to the currency in circulation! The published gold reserves, which form part of the country’s total reserves, are only there for the purpose of covering foreign obligations or for intervention in the markets to stabilize the currency. In how far these published gold reserves still have credibility is another, delicate, matter. GATA and Reg Howe have recently discovered inconsistencies in various Central Bank and IMF statements which imply that a greater part of the published official Central Bank gold holdings might in fact be mere paper claims on gold and do not represent actual gold bullion any longer. The same applies to the IMF itself.

A Banker wants to expand and grow his business. Depending on which currency he controls, the more dollars, euros, or yen the Banker succeeds in bringing into circulation, the wider his loan territory. And the more loans he manages to place, the greater his income and the mightier his power becomes.

Regular interest income is the Banker’s bread and butter. The Banker does not really want loans to be paid back. The Banker likes his loans to "work and squeeze" ad infinitum.

The Banker’s empire is his debt empire. It is this simple fact that makes the world go round ... that is....till the music stops ... maybe sooner than later.

Debt is negative money and negative money makes negative people. Far from being benefial for society, the Banker has become a wealth sucking parasite. And contrary to public believe, to function, society does not need Bankers.

Like an evil cancer banking has spread its tentacles throughout and invaded daily life. First the State was subtly seduced and corrupted to spend more than its income. With the result that, in order to cover the ensuing budget deficits, taxes had to be increased, government bonds emitted, and ever more paper money brought into circulation, all measures which benefited the Banker. The people and business in turn, burdened by increased taxation, were forced to take up more and more loans. Free enterprise was not able any more to finance itself out of profits. To add insult to injury the Banker saw to it that, in case of any default, loans obtained preferential treatment over shares. The people, enterprise and government became bank dependent.

The socialists, being the great spenders, were groomed and supported in elections. Legislators were corrupted. Social programs like social security and medicare and expensive public projects were pushed and supported by the Banker. The arms industry was especially nursed. Wars were instigated to bleed the national treasuries. Napoleon, the Kaiser and later the Nazis and the Communists were always amply financed. Step by step the Loan Piper got everybody dancing to his tune. Slowly but surely the governments and people walked innocently, through his bank palaces, into his debt camps.

"Spend, spend, spend", the Banker will give you all the paper money for anything you wish to spend on. That is patriotic, for the economy and the welfare of the nation, not to forget the Banker.

And the Banker conjured all the paper fiat out of thin air and in exchange the Banker took the State’s, the economy’s and the people’s real assets. Never before in history has there been such a total transfer of wealth taking place in such a short time without a shot being fired.

The Nations are in debt, the people are, industry is, commerce and business is. Everybody owes. Except the Banker, he owns and controls it all and still does not have enough. And in the same way he enslaved the people at home, the Banker enslaved the rest of the world.

Once there was a quorum of central banks, the global Central Bank of Central Banks was founded, the B.I.S., the Bank for International Settlements, which, at a later stage, together with the post war IMF and the World Bank, brought all the world’s finances under one central control and one set of rules, dictated by the Banker. And woe to him who ever dared to step out of line.

Development aid out of thin air was pushed with a stroke of the credit pen. But never were the developing countries allowed or given a chance to pay the loans back. To that purpose commodity prices were manipulated and controlled, politicians bought, students were granted scholarships to study financial and economic indoctrination courses on US campuses, controlled by the Banker, and groomed to stay loyal to the Banker’s fraternities.

Step by step the Banker wedged his way in-between the State and the citizen.

Step by step the Banker undermined the morality of both State and people, pushing his sugar coated credit. Pushing social legislation, pushing hundreds of different credit cards, even for children!

Stealth and anonymity are the Banker’s cloak. And he saw to it that anonymity of share companies, share holdings and voting became legalized. That dividends were taxed only once, at the source only. And that his trusts and foundations, through which he controls his empire, stayed exempt from taxation. It enabled him to build an invisible chain of interlocking anonymous companies into a mighty spiderweb of holdings, far from the public eye, where not even the hierarchy of CEOs know the connections and relationships, and the Banker alone has the sole control from one central point.

Whereas anonymity and tax exemptions served the Banker’s quest to build an empire, they proved fatal for the world economies and finance. They led to the transfer and dislocation of wealth from the broad spectrum of the population to a pyramiding concentration of capital at the top. They replaced good old fashioned people’s capitalism with megalomania and whimsical financial despotism.

Take-overs and mergers became easy to construe and to finance with all the money and credit created out of nothing and through the simple exchange of shares. The Banker’s out of thin air credits and money would finance anything, any size, as long as there was profit for him to extract. Totally uneconomic behemoth conglomerates were glued together, only to be sucked dry later. Established economic rules were overturned and the "new economy" heralded!

And the Banker was always careful to act within the financial laws, he himself had instigated and promoted. It is to the detriment of society, that there is little recourse left for the public in legal actions. The Banker has seen to that.

Fiat Money has broken the corrective natural cycle of wealth flowing from the citizens to the king or government and back to the people. Neither is there any real wealth flowing back to the Developing world, in exchange for their commodities. Only worthless paper is!

A huge bubble of fictitious paper wealth has been created out of thin air, obstructing the flow of real wealth back to the productive people.

Interestingly enough, neither are real assets being accumulated any more in the treasuries of the king or the governments. The Banker saw to it that every government today is a debtor, not only in the case of the developing countries. And might we ask where could real wealth then be heading? Where could all the gold leased out by the Central Banks have goneLeased out, to where, to whom? Not all of it to India or the Middle East! ? Where did the IMF gold go, not their paper SDRs and SDR Certificates, but the real gold? For instance, where did the massive 1.950 ts gold exported from the USA in the last quarter of 1999 go? Did Edmundo Safra know anything and was subsequently murdered only a few weeks later? Gold flows to where the power resides. And who is it that has the power today? Did the Banker set up the gold leasing schemes to make easy money on the gold carry trade or might his ulterior purpose be to channel all the world’s gold into his private vaults? Was the Banker not also the one who pushed the governments into privatizing State property, only to end up as the major share holder of the former, now privatized State enterprises?

And not content with having extracted the people’s long time savings in exchange for worthless paper, the Banker has made sure that even present earnings would be creamed off and that the people’s savings could only be invested in institutions controlled by him. And so the Banker planned shiny investment vehicles and services for the public, to seduce them to stock markets and casinos controlled and manipulated by him, the Banker. That, with the only purpose to fleece the sheeple. The Dow supreme at the top, followed by Nasdaq, Standard & Poor, commodity markets, funds etc.

For foreign governments the Banker saw to it that there would always be an ample supply of interest bearing treasury papers and government bonds available to invest in, so they would not ask payment back in real wealth. The Banker kept the real wealth himself.

And by pushing loans of upto 125% of underlying real estate value and calculated never to be paid back, the Banker laid claim on the people’s properties in exchange for still more of his fiat paper.

And the Banker saw to it that the government introduced new tax laws and 401K retirement plans to hoard even more sheeple into his paper money casinos. And the Banker controlled media heralded out to the whole world the marvels of Wall Street. Always positive in outlook and where necessary, pro-forma book keeping was applied or rules and statistics were changed.. And when the public ran out of earnings to invest, the Banker corrupted the politicians to invest the people’s social security and medicare money and the state pensions into his casinos.

Cleverly he uses his lackeys, his brokers, market makers, hedge funds, credit rating companies, his media empire, the bought politicians etc. Their tools are dis-information, short selling, derivatives and share-, interest-, currency- and commodity price manipulation and creative accounting.

The Dollar Banker is leading the way into the global debt enslavement. But not to worry, the Euro Banker, who was slowed down by the time consuming birth of the European Union and the late arrival of the euro, the common European currency, will catch up! The possibilities for the Banker are too tempting to be missed. With the obligatory exchange of all european national currencies for the euro, the European Union governments will soon have lost control of the now common currency. It’s exploit has now been entrusted to the Euro Banker, smiling all the way to the vault. World wide euro credit pushing will soon equal dollar credit pushing. And all the European Union governments and people will soon be swimming in the same debt morass as their trans-atlantic brethren. And what concerns the rest of the world, tomorrow they will find themselves doubly indebted between the dollar and the euro. But what might happen to the Japanese yen is still an oriental mystery.

Although physical slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century, the 20th century has taken the world back to square one, with millions of people again being subjugated. This time not physically, but by a more sinister, hideous, new kind of slavery, invisible and indirect: debt slavery induced by the Banker.

Following the history of the ascent of the Banker over the last two hundred years it becomes obvious that it were never the governments, but the invisible spider web of global fiat money and debt the Banker has spun, which is responsible for all the financial upheavals, market bubbles and crashes, depressions, defaults of many enterprises and countries, the rape of Africa, Latin America, SE Asia and Russia, and even wars.

Banking, far from having developed naturally in the wake of economic growth and necessity, has been shrewdly, methodically and with stealth been designed and advanced by the Banker lead by ulterior motives. His empire spread like an evil cancer, undermining and uprooting the established order, replacing it with the Banker’s Order. Our world would have been better off without. Banks are not needed and were never needed, as I hope to explain in one of my next essays. Even in our highly sophisticated economies of today, money needs only two functions: one, as a means of exchange, proper functioning of which modern communication and data technology easily can provide, and the other, as a store of value.

Alas, banking has become so interwoven in western economy and finance that by now it has become too much of an essential part and a necessary evil for the West’s survival. Banking has penetrated deeply into daily life. Not only would our western financial and monetary structures collapse without banks, but it would also spell the end of the whole of Western Civilization, which has been built around it.

A return to the gold standard, and the abolition of fiat money would only mean a temporary respite. They are not the solution. The Banker would still own the world and in his subtle way he would soon return in a new disguise. It is the whole system, based on interest, credit and fiat money, financial laws and control of the currency, which is rotten to the core.

I do not think parliaments or congresses do still have the will or the strength to correct the situation, they have been bought anyway. An unexpected dictatorial power might intervene and call for the nationalization of all banks or order their closure. Maybe a revolution might bring the necessary changes and redistribution of wealth. But what then? The cancer has already advanced too far for risk free and effective surgery.

In the end, events might well run their natural course of decay, break up, and finally chaos. One day history will show that the banks and entourage were only a one time manifestation, unique to Western Civilization.

Maybe history is already running its course. Wherever we look the rot has begun showing up: the SE Asia crisis, the developing countries’ debt crisis, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, the lingering default of Japan, the return of darkness in Africa, sudden rise in global unemployment and defaults, the wavering stock and credit markets, international terrorism, WTO protesters, growing discontent, corruption, moral decay, the Third World’s sprawling shanty towns, and so on.

But not only is the apple rotting on the outside. The rot has already penetrated deep into the very core of the Banker’s empire proper. There are some vague, first indications from Banker’s Land that the situation is getting out of hand, that the Merchants of Debt cannot control their own disciples any longer, and that internal strive and betrayal are undermining the very Empire of Debt. After all, it is only a paper empire with its armed forces by proxy!

The Empire of debt itself is beginning to look just as corrupted and opaque as all the governments, international organizations and people itself has infiltrated and subverted. Greed, rivalry, intrigue and arrogance among the Empire’s own rank and file is becoming more blatant and open by the day. The barons have gone unrestrained on the rampage, raiding and looting the financial markets to their own personal benefit as if there were no tomorrow. They are even at one another’s throat. Everything goes! It is unbelievable what is presently going on in Banker’s Land. Trillions are being thrown around left and right like dirt. Markets floating on thin air, totally unhinged from reality. World finance is getting out of hand and rapidly approaching crisis level, without a hope left whatsoever that a new equilibrium will be found.

This is not going to be just an isolated financial crisis. It is going to be much more than that. It is a crisis of principles versus absolute power, Banker’s Power. A deep rooted structural crisis, affecting the very foundations of inter-human relationships, which is at stake: the way we live or are being lived.

I do not think the Banker will have his ill-gotten wealth for much longer. The looming financial storm is going to sweap him overboard. Understanding the ways of Nature, wealth will return to the people one way or the other. But that might take a tedious and chaotic while. There is too much what has to be corrected and restored. The inverted wealth pyramid has to be turned back onto a solid and broad base and all wealth redistributed. Only war, revolution and chaos can do the latter. Life is not run from the top. Life is grass roots and to grass roots we will return in the end.

How all this might come to pass and of how the impact of the coming financial chaos might be softened and the change-over into a more stable era might be smoothed out, I hope to discus in one of my next essays, on a more positive note.

I think it's very good. Nice and easy to read, yet profound in areas. Somebody find me the author, please?

***

Here's a web special, no longer available on the web. I grabbed it years ago.

Subject: Israeli rabbi backs Jewish suicide attacks
Organization: Copyright 1997 by Reuters
Lines: 43
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 9:22:44 PDT

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli lawmaker demanded Tuesday a state and police investigation into an anti-Arab rabbi's religious ruling backing suicide attacks by Jews.

Meretz party legislator Ran Cohen made the request after uncovering an article -- "Sacrificing Oneself for God'' -- in the periodical of a seminary linked to an outlawed Jewish
supremacy group. "This is a Jewish Hamas supporting the methods of Hamas,'' Cohen told Reuters, referring to the militant Palestinian group that has killed scores in suicide bombings in Israel.

Rabbi Elitsur Segel of the Jewish Idea seminary in the West Bank settlement of Tapuah argued under the heading "suicide while killing the enemy'' that killing oneself during wartime was permissible "for the sake of the victory of Israel.'' Jewish militants in the West Bank, living in heavily armed compounds, believe they are in a constant state of war with neighboring Arabs. "In every war there is a need to undertake operations that certainly bring about the death of the doer,'' Segel wrote last year in the article obtained by Reuters. "A man who volunteers for such operations will be called a hero and a martyr,'' he wrote. The seminary is affiliated with the fringe Kach group, an ultranationalist movement founded by the late American-Israeli Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was assassinated by an Arab in New York in 1990.


"I asked the chief of police and the state prosecutor to open an investigation against the rabbi and the institution,'' Cohen said, adding he only recently uncovered the article. "Israeli law forbids incitement to murder, violence, massacres and slaughter,'' he said. An Israeli police spokeswoman said police were looking into Cohen's request.
Segel's article praised Baruch Goldstein, the U.S.-born Jewish settler who gunned down 29 Palestinians at a Hebron mosque in 1994, as a "martyr.'' Kach was banned after the massacre. "The article not only supports Goldstein's path but even encourages someone to strap explosives on himself,'' Cohen said.

Suicide bombers are not a recent development. This article, which does include the dates, shows that Israelis have been killing Palestinians and Palestinians have been killing Israelis for a time now. This is only an illustration of an Israeli suicide bomber, I'm certain that the IDF can now carry out airstrikes and kill Palestinians with much more efficacy. I'm not anti-Israeli. I am anti-US policy throughout the Middle-East. When it comes to Middle-Eastern policy, I give the US a D.

***

This is letter to the editor I scavenged from the print version of a local newspaper. It's a bit of a rant, but people are angry.

Weapons of mass distraction

Don't kid yourself. A war with Iraq, at this time, has very little to do with "weapons of mass destruction," much less human rights, and whole lot to do with geo-economic strategy. With a centralized location smack-dab in the middle of vital oil reserves and possession of the second-largest oil reserves estimated at more than $300 trillion, Iraq is a glint in the Western world's energy-hungry eye.


President Bush and his entourage should know that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Tell it like it really is, "W," and not how you think the fast-food, drive-through, 200-plus cable channel, gas-guzzling, "live for today" crowd that defines middle America would like to hear it. If we really gave a darn about weapons of mass destruction, then North Korea and areas of the old Soviet Union should be our focus.

This person has the first paragraph pretty much down. The second paragraph is quite a rant, but I'll give the author credit, he sticks to simple visceral themes.

***

Finally, a transcript of a dialogue between Bill Moyers(NOW) with Joseph C. Wilson, IV--read his bio. :)

MOYERS: With war in Iraq more imminent than ever, we're going to talk tonight to the last senior American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. Joseph Wilson was the Deputy Chief of Mission, the acting ambassador at the US Embassy in Iraq 12 years ago during Desert Shield, the lead-up to the first Gulf War.
He was a member of the American Foreign Service for 23 years. Our ambassador to two African countries. And served as the political advisor to the Commander in Chief of US Forces in Europe. He now heads his own international business firm and is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington. Thank you for joining us.

WILSON: Oh, it's my pleasure.

MOYERS: Here we are, what one could reading our papers, say is the eve of war. What do you think is going through Saddam Hussein's mind this weekend?

WILSON: Well, I think Saddam Hussein is probably if the Gulf War is any example, I think has probably resigned themselves at some point that the war is going to happen. There may be one or two more games that they'll try and play, give out a few more missiles, allow more U.N. inspectors, or offer to allow Peacekeepers and inspectors in.

But ultimately, I think they've probably resigned themselves to the fact that they're going to be attacked. I suspect Saddam, being the survivalist he is, hopes that he will survive to fight another day. And I think that he probably believes that if he doesn't survive he will want to go down in history as somebody who actually confronted the West.

Because you know, in the Arab world, it has been enough to confront the West. You haven't had to defeat the West. You've just had to confront the West to achieve a certain status in the Arab world.

MOYERS: But if the United States attacks, he's a dead man.

WILSON: Well, I'm not sure about that. He's been preparing his security apparatus for 30 years. He knows his country. He may well have an out.

As the senior American diplomat 12 years ago in Iraq, did you support the effort to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait by force?

WILSON: I supported the effort to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And I understood fully that in order to get him out of Kuwait you had to have the credible threat of force. And in order for that force to be credible, you had to be prepared to use it.

MOYERS: Diplomacy had failed there as because he was so intransigent.

WILSON: That's right. That's right.

MOYERS: He's still just as intransigent.

WILSON: And I fear diplomacy is going to fail again.

MOYERS: What is the trip wire in your opinion for the use of force? What is your trip wire?

WILSON: Well, I've always said it's the first time he poses an obstacle to your conducting an inspection then you go in and you use force against that particular site. But you keep the use of force focused on disarmament. Let me give you an example.

When Colin Powell was up at the United Nations, he showed a couple of pictures of the site. He said, "This is a chemical weapons site and this is the trucks going out of that site just before the inspectors arrive at the front door. The trucks are going out the back door." That becomes a legitimate target for additional action on the part of the United Nations and the US. For example, that truck convoy leaving the site, as far as I'm concerned, becomes a legitimate target as does the site itself.

MOYERS: You're not against using force. So help me understand the distinction between the quantity of force you would use and the quantity of force that George W. Bush is proposing to you.

WILSON: Well, first of all, I think there's a question of objective. I'm not against the use of force for the purposes of achieving the objective that has been agreed upon by the United Nations in the international community, disarmament. If and when it becomes necessary. I think that is legitimate. Essentially, you could a lot of that just by the air. You do…

MOYERS: Precision bombing?

WILSON: …precision bombing. They've got more surveillance planes out there now. You've got the U2s. The French or moving some Mirages on. You've got the place blanketed.

MOYERS: You are calling for coercive inspections.

WILSON: That's right. Muscular disarmament, coercive inspections, coercive containment, whatever you want to call it. I don't think containment's the right word because we're really talking about disarmament.

MOYERS: Does it seem to you that the President, George Bush, is prepared to accept a disarmed Hussein? Or does he want a dead Hussein?

WILSON: I think he wants a dead Hussein. I don't think there's any doubt about it.

MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I…

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He's coming to kill me. He doesn't care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

MOYERS: All of us change in 12 years and obviously Saddam Hussein has changed since you last saw him. But what do you know about him that would help us understand what might be going through his mind right now?

WILSON: Well, I think, first of all, it's important to understand that he's a creature of his-- of his country and of his region. His worldview is very limited. It is essentially what he sees from his palace and what his sycophants come and tell him.

So he does not have a broad vision of what's going on around him. There's, I think, a tendency to think of the world as rotating around not just Iraq but around his own palace. Secondly, he's a coldly rational political actor. But given that his worldview is limited, there is a tendency to develop a logical argument where the premise is skewed.

MOYERS: Such as?

WILSON: So he will, for example — four days after he invaded Kuwait when I saw him in August of 1990 — he said that the United States lacked the intestinal fortitude and the stamina to confront his invasion in Kuwait. And it was clear to me that he was drawing upon his interpretation of our experiences in Vietnam, Beirut and possibly Tehran. And he had drawn exactly the wrong lessons from that.

We, in fact, stayed in Vietnam far longer than we should have perhaps. We were there for 15 years. And we suffered 50,000 casualties. We did not cut and run. We did spill the blood of our soldiers for many, many years. Give you another example, the whole decision to go into Kuwait was, from his perspective, rational based upon his understanding of the region and of what the international community would do.

MOYERS: His decision to go…

WILSON: His decision to go into Kuwait. The only reason he had Ambassador Gillespie in to see him and then me in to see him four days after the invasion. Both were unprecedented meetings. He would normally meet only with senior diplomats resident in Baghdad when they were accompanying envoys from their respective capitals. So for him to have Ambassador Gillepsie and then me was really a first.

And it was clear that what he wanted to do in that is he wanted to deflect attention from what he really intended to do. And that's what he did with April Gillespie. He lied to her. He lied to President Mubarak that he was going to allow the negotiating process to go forward.

And with me, he wanted to make sure that the United States would not respond unilaterally. And so that he would get this thrown into the United Nations. And the reason he wanted it in the United Nations was because his experience was with Israeli-Palestinian issues, specifically Resolutions 242 and 338, which related to occupation of Palestinian territories. And as most people know, the Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories has not taken place even though those territories were occupied in the '60s and early '70s.

MOYERS: So what does he conclude from that?

WILSON: He concludes from that that if it goes into the United Nations system, he's got 25 or 30 years to occupy Kuwait during which time he can flag Kuwait City with Iraqis, pump all their oil, steal all their money and then submit it to a referendum which he would have stacked the odds for his victory.

MOYERS: So President Bush is not being naive to think that the UN may backfire on him. He's not being naive when he thinks that Saddam Hussein is lying to us, deceiving us, right?

WILSON: One should never believe Saddam Hussein. We certainly have enough experience with his deception and his lies not to be too trusting with him. With respect to the United Nations, it seems to me that the United Nations has far more often acted in a way that is-- that is consistent with our interests. And it has a obstacle to our interests. And it is our interests who have a broad international support for an objective.

And in order to get that broad international support, you have to frame your goals in such a way that you can get the allies as we did in the Gulf War.

MOYERS: So you're saying that it is important to enforce United Nations resolutions.

WILSON: Absolutely.

MOYERS: You think war is inevitable?

WILSON: I think war is inevitable. Essentially, the speech that the President gave at the American Enterprise Institute was so much on the overthrow of the regime and the liberation of the Iraqi people that I suspect that Saddam understands that this is not about disarmament.

MOYERS: Most Americans, including yours truly, know very little about Iraq. You've lived there. Tell me what we should know about it.

WILSON: Well, first of all, it is a wonderful country. It is the heart of Mesopotamia and everything that everybody understands about Mesopotamia…

MOYERS: The old biblical culture.

WILSON: And the breadbasket of that part of the world for many years. Two of the great rivers of history flow through it.

MOYERS: Tigris and the Euph…

WILSON: Tigris and Euphrates. It's got a population of about 25 million. Iraqis are wonderful people. They are imbued with a sense of their own history. They know who they are. They're fiercely nationalistic. They're a proud people.

They have tribal and ethnic cleavages that are difficult for outsiders to understand but which make up the fabric of politics and make it a very, very difficult place to govern as history has shown. That said they are educated. There is — was, when I was there, a vibrant commercial class, a vibrant educated class.

They grow dates. They produce oil. There was a wonderful construction industry. And, of course, we've seen from their ability to retrofit arms that they are active in the development of exotic weaponry. Which means that they've got engineering skills and science skills which have been put, unfortunately, to the wrong uses.

MOYERS: A great culture except that it's ruled by a dictator.

WILSON: As it has been for way too many years, for sure.

MOYERS: Tell me what you think we should do about Baghdad, the city, because apparently the strategy will be for — Saddam's strategy will be to defend Baghdad and make the war so bloody that he will create a worldwide reaction. And the United States is considering something called "Shock and Awe." Have you heard of that?

WILSON: I have. Yeah. And I've heard American military officials talk about how Baghdad would not be a safe place to be during the first several days of the air campaign. From what I understand about shock and awe, it will be a several day air assault in which they will drop as much ordinance in four or five days as they did during the 39-day bombing campaign of the Gulf War.

MOYERS: Missiles, bombs…

WILSON: Missiles, bombs, precision bombs. I believe the President and our military officials, when they say they will do everything to minimize casualties to the civilian population. But it was difficult to imagine dropping that much ordinance on a population of four million people without having a lot of casualties that are unanticipated. A lot of civilian casualties.

MOYERS: As I understand this concept of shock and awe, the United States would fire 100, maybe thousands of missiles the first day to shock…

WILSON: That's right.

MOYERS: …the Baghdad and the Iraqi population. And then wait to see what happens. Hoping that they might rise up against Saddam. Or the Republican Guards, his elite troops might flee in fear. Do you think that's a viable concept given what you know?

WILSON: Well, I think that from everything that I know about Iraq, Saddam will probably be surrounded by between 80 and 100,000 hardcore Republican Guard fighters who are prepared to die with him and who understand that their future is with him, live or die. And so they will probably defend him pretty close to the bitter end.

Now, defending Saddam Hussein will give them license to take on anybody who attempted to overthrow Saddam. So you might well have a bloody uprising in Baghdad in which pits essentially the Iraqi population against the Republican Guard in Saddam's palace. I think far more likely, is that most Baghdadis will just simply go into hiding and try and avoid getting hit by this American ordinance and/or getting killed by the Republican Guard.

Remember that Saddam Hussein, in his own mind, personifies Iraq. He is Iraq and Iraq is him. And so long as he's Iraq…

MOYERS: Just as Hitler with Germany. Hitler saw himself as Germany.

WILSON: And that permits him — that permits, in his own mind, to send as many Iraqis to their deaths as necessary so long as he survives.

MOYERS: Knowing this about — why do you think knowing this that the President Bush is so eager for war?

WILSON: Well, that's a — I think that's a very good question. I think that there is a sense in the administration that the time has run out for Saddam Hussein and the only way that they can achieve the disarmament objective that they want is to go in. But more importantly…

MOYERS: And you agree with that, don't you?

WILSON: Well, no, I don't think that that's the only way. That's where I disagree. I mean, I think that there are several other steps that can be taken before you have to go to total war for the purposes of achieving disarmament.

MOYERS: Coercive…

WILSON: But I think disarmament is only one of the objectives. And the President has touched repeatedly and more openly on the other objectives in recent speeches including this idea of liberating Iraq and liberating its people from a brutal dictator. And I agree that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator.

And I agree along with everybody else that the Iraqi people could — would well be far better off without Saddam Hussein. The problem really is a war which has us invading, conquering and then subsequently occupying Iraq may not achieve that liberation that we're talking about.

MOYERS: So this is not just about weapons of mass destruction.

WILSON: Oh, no, I think it's far more about re-growing the political map of the Middle East.

MOYERS: What does that mean?

WILSON: Well, that basically means trying to install regimes in the Middle East that are far more friendly to the United States — there are those in the administration that call them democracies. Somehow it's hard for me to imagine that a democratic system will emerge out of the ashes of Iraq in the near term. And when and if it does, it's hard for me to believe that it will be more pro-American and more pro-Israeli than what you've got now.

MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of those men, Richard Pearl, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. What do you think about his argument?

WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called "a clean break, a new strategy for the realm." And it makes the argument that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's been since expanded to include Iran.

MOYERS: So this was drawn up during the '90s…

WILSON: Right. During the '90s, absolutely.

MOYERS: By men outside of all this?

WILSON: Outside of all this, yeah.

MOYERS: And…

WILSON: Now, Richard Pearl's been outside of office since the Reagan years.

MOYERS: And this, you're saying that this has become a blueprint for the Bush Administration?

WILSON: Well, I think this is part of what has been the underpinning of the-- of the philosophical argument that calls for basically radically changing the political dynamics in the Middle East and…

MOYERS: To favor Israel?

WILSON: Well, to favor American national security interests and Israeli national security interests which are tied. I mean, we have…

MOYERS: How so?

WILSON: We have an important strategic responsibility to ensure the territorial integrity of Israel. It's one that we've accepted since 1948. It's one that's been increasingly close. There are those who believe that perhaps we've confused our responsibilities with the slavish adherence to the Lecoup strategy.

MOYERS: Lecoup, the party.

WILSON: It's the party in power right now. And certainly when the President or when Sharon comes — the Prime Minister comes to Washington and says that George Bush is the best friend that Israel ever had. And George Bush calls him a man of peace, calls Sharon a man of peace, there are those who wonder about the depth of our ties and the extent to which our national security responsibilities may somehow be confused with our support for the current government in Israel.

MOYERS: So help us understand why removing Saddam Hussein and expanding that movement, throughout the Middle East which would benefit Israel?

WILSON: Well, I think those are the sorts of questions that you need to ask to Richard Pearl. The argument that I would make…

MOYERS: We asked him but he didn't want to come on the show.

WILSON: Yeah. The argument that it seems to me — I've done democracy in Africa for 25 years. And I can tell you that doing democracy in the most benign environments is really tough sledding. And the place like Iraq where politics is a blood sport and where you have these clan, tribal, ethnic and confessional cleavages, coming up with a democratic system that is pluralistic, functioning and, as we like to say about democracies, is not inclined to make war on other democracies, is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

And let me just suggest a scenario. Assuming that you get the civic institutions and a thriving political culture in the first few iterations of presidential elections, you're going to have Candidate A who is likely going to be a demagogue. And Candidate B who is likely going to be a populist. That's what emerges from political discourse.

Candidate A, Candidate B, the demagogue and the populist, are going to want to win elections of the presidency. And the way to win election is enflame the passions of your population. The easy way for a demagogue or a populist in the Middle East to enflame the passion of the population is to define himself or herself by their enemies.

And the great enemy in the Middle East is Israel and its supplier, the United States. So it's hard to believe, for me, that a thriving democracy certainly in the immediate and near-term and medium-term future is going to yield a successful presidential candidate who is going to be pro-Israel or pro-America.

MOYERS: So you anticipate many unanticipated consequences to a war with Iraq?

WILSON: Not to anticipate unanticipated consequences is a dangerous thing to do. And my military planners used to always tell me, "Hope is not a plan of action." So you don't want to base things on how you hope the outcome is going to turn out.

MOYERS: Talk to me a moment about the notion of preemptive action and regime change. Preemptive action means an attack.

WILSON: That's right. That's right. We have historically reserved as part of our right of legitimate self-defense the authority to go in and take out an enemy before that enemy has an opportunity to take us out. Now what I worry about most is that we've lose focus on the war on terrorism where we've actually gone after al Qaeda and where we should continue to go after al Qaeda both in militarily as well as with our intelligence and our police assets.

We've got lost focus on that. The game has shifted to Iraq for reasons that are confused to everybody. The millions of people who are on the streets of our country and of Europe, as I said the other day, it strikes me as — it may prove that Abraham Lincoln is right. You cannot fool all the people all the time.

They have been sold. We have been sold a war on disarmament or terrorism or the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction or liberation. Any one of the four. And now with the President's speeches, you clearly have the idea that we're going to go in and take this preemptive action to overthrow a regime, occupy its country for the purposes, the explicit purposes of fostering the blossoming of democracy in a part of the world where we really have very little ground, truth or experience.

And, certainly, I hope along with everybody that the President in his assessment is correct. And that I am so wrong that I'm never invited to another foreign policy debate again.

MOYERS: You're not likely to be after this. (LAUGHTER)

WILSON: Because if I am right, this could be a real disaster. If I am wrong and the President is right, and you do have the democratic state that emerges, and you do have the power of the United States there as an arbiter, and you have a renewed commitment, as the President suggested in his speech to moving the Israeli-Palestinian process forward, then it could go well.

But I do believe — and it could be good for Israel. But I continue to believe that the path to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem far more than it goes through Baghdad.

MOYERS: To a peaceful settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis…

WILSON: Not just that. But that is the thorn that has to be pulled from the region in order for, in my judgment, the evolution of other governments in a more modern way. So long as you have the Palestinian — the Israeli-Palestinian problem there, any of these governments can use that…

MOYERS: Sure.

WILSON: …as the external enemy against which they mobilize their own populations.

MOYERS: And…

WILSON: And avoid responsibility for their own destinies.

MOYERS: Yeah. Joseph Wilson, thank you very much for this conversation.

WILSON: It's my pleasure.

Link to transcript

I'm liking NOW with Bill Moyers more and more. Another great interview. Goodnight

***