https://newsmakingnews.com

ARCHIVE 11/1/00 TO 11/5/00

PAGE CONTENTS

Click. C-4 QUANTITY MAY BE THE CLUE IN USS COLE BOMBING.

Click. BUSH BLANKED OUT FORTY YEARS OF HIS LIFE FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY, BUT COULDN'T SILENCE THE SUPER MOLES OF MAINE,  AND HE WON'T SILENCE OR CONTROL THE BLACKMAILERS SHOULD BE BECOME PRESIDENT. MEET THE DEMOCRAT'S MOLE.

Click. Notes from the waterfront.  The Stanford University Reunion of the Class of '70.

Click. COULD ISRAEL HAVE BOMBED THE USS COLE? 
by Thomas C. Mountain © 2000

Click. THE GUYS ABOVE THE CIA, WHO RUN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA THAILAND IMPORTS OF HEROIN AND MARIJUANA. 

BUSH BLANKED OUT FORTY YEARS OF HIS LIFE FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY, BUT COULDN'T SILENCE THE SUPER MOLES OF MAINE,  AND HE WON'T SILENCE OR CONTROL THE BLACKMAILERS SHOULD BE BECOME PRESIDENT.

NEWSMAKINGNEWS: If Bush doesn't answer certain questions now, the intelligence agencies of other countries will be happy to blackmail him with the answers should he become President.

INTRODUCING THE MOLE OF THE MOMENT:  Report from Washington Post 11/3/00

Tom Connolly, a Portland lawyer and Democratic activist who attended the Democratic National Convention, confirmed Friday to The Associated Press that he was the source of the report.

Connolly said someone who was in Biddeford District Court when Bush's 1976 case came up was alarmed that it had never been reported and alerted "a public figure" about the case. That person passed the word to Connolly, he said, though he would not name the public figure.

Connolly, who ran unsuccessfully for governor two years ago, said he had been talking about the case at the courthouse Thursday. He said he had confirmed Bush's arrest by obtaining a copy of the court docket – which he gave to a local television reporter.

"It's not a dirty trick to tell the truth," Connolly said, maintaining that Bush should have made the case known a long time ago.

Click. Democratic Activist at Center of Flap...
Click. 'Wiener Boy Bush is 97% filler with 2% pigs lips,' declared Connolly...

DIVING DEEPER INTO THE POLITICAL BEER KEG!
From Bushwatch.com © 2000

Bush watchers comment..."Since I live near Maine and spent a lot of time there in those days, having your license taken away for the FIRST DUI offense was highly unusual in those days. What you want to bet it was a THIRD offense...? Also $150 was a lot of money in Maine in those days, so there must be more to the story".. "They were saying on the radio tonight that some investigative reporter should look at all the applications (even driver's license forms) Bush signed and see if he ever lied to the question "have you ever been convicted of a DUI?" A Los Angeles Times Reporter is looking into this".... "Bush claimed last Fall that he could have passed a federal security clearance during the Reagan and Bush administrations, but such a clearance specifically asks you to say whether you have EVER been arrested. Was he planning to skip over this little detail when he was interviewed? Also, many insurance (perhaps being bonded as CEO of the Rangers?), and loan forms (including many mortgage applications) ask if you've EVER been arrested, either Bush lied on these, or there has been a pretty extensive cover-up of the arrest. Finally, regarding not coming forward in front of his daughters, Back when W ran for Congress his daughters wouldn't have been born yet, and you'd expect that a congressional candidate running just two years after a DUI arrest would come forward with that information."... "In 1996, my husband applied for a driver's license in California. After more than 20 years, a Maine report of a speeding ticket unpaid by my husband was sent to the California DMV. This had never come up before in his applications for driver's licenses in at least three other states. Apparently, Maine put all of its unresolved motor vehicle arrests, including everything from speeding to DUIs, online sometime around or before 1996. Given Poppy's Kennebunkport connections, did Dubyah get a "heads up" on Maine's intention to do this and is that why he changed his driver's license?"... .

ARREST CARD SHOWS MIDLAND, TEXAS ADDRESS

BUSH PENALTY SUGGESTS IT WAS NOT A FIRST OFFENCE

According to a Bush watcher, FOX NEWS said this evening that Bush's Maine driving privileges were suspended for 18 months. According to the 1997 Maine laws, "For a person having no previous OUI offenses within a 10-year period: (1) A fine of not less than $400, except that if the person failed to submit to a test, a fine of not less than $500; (2) A court-ordered suspension of a driver's license for a period of 90 days; and...." days; and...." (Today, Bush would have spent two days in jail, since his sister Dorothy, a passenger, was under 21 at the time.) It doesn't make sense that a first-time OUI gets a 90 day suspension in 1997 and a 540 day suspension in 1976, if our Bush watcher is correct, leading us to the conclusion that there were previous OUI infractions by Bush. Yet, he now says that this infraction was the only one.

1. BUSH LIED ON "MEET THE PRESS," 11/21/99

TIM RUSSERT: If someone came to you and said, "Governor, I'm sorry, I'm going to go public with some information." What do you do?

GOV. BUSH: If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now. My background has been scrutinized by all kinds of reporters. Tim, we can talk about this all morning.

2. BUSH LIED TO "DALLAS MORNING NEWS," 1998

"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He said, "After 1968? No."'" New Republic

3. BUSH LIED TO CBS, 1999.

"Bush has often acknowledged past mistakes, but CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan reports that in a 1999 interview with CBS station WBZ in Boston, he denied there was any so-called smoking gun." CBS

 


NOVEMBER SURPRISE

BUSH ADMITS TO 1976 D.U.I. ARREST

"AT AGE 30 THIS IS NO 'YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION'"--BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN

IS THIS WHY BUSH GOT A NEW TEXAS DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE BECAME TEXAS GOVERNOR?

IS THIS WHY BUSH'S DRIVER'S RECORD WAS EXPUNGED?

REPORTERS ASK, "WHAT ELSE IS THERE?

Click. VIDEOTAPE OF BUSH DRINKING, AUGUST 29, 1992.

Click. READ OUR AUGUST '99 BUSH LICENSE STORY

Click. MORE ON THE BUSH DRIVER'S LICENSE STORY

According to Fox News, Bush's driving privileges were only revoked in Maine and his Texas driver's license was neither revoked nor suspended. Why then, upon becoming Texas governor, did he get a new driver's license number and have his previous driving record expunged?

WHY BUSH IS A HYPOCRITE...

George W. Bush was arrested in 1976 in the state of Maine at the age of 30 for driving under the influence. He pled guilty to the charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driver's privilege suspended. Shocked Republicans wonder why he didn't come clean on his own, and now wonder what else he may be hiding. How in the world can he attack Gore for character flaws while not telling the truth about his own? The story was released by a Maine TV station, and Bush was powerless to spin it. What more is Bush hiding? --Politex, 7:25 CT, 11/2/00

BUSH NEEDS TO ANSWER THE AWOL CHARGES.

BUSH NEEDS TO ANSWER DRUG CHARGES.

BUSH NEEDS TO ANSWER ABORTION CHARGES.

NEWSMAKINGNEWS: If Bush doesn't answer these questions now, the intelligence agencies of other countries will be happy to blackmail him with the answers should he become President.

NOTES FROM THE WATERFRONT
The Stanford University Reunion of the Class of '70

The members of Stanford University's Class of '70 gathered for four days (Oct. 19 - 22, 2000) to observe the 30th reunion of their class. This is a ritual, conducted every five years, and attendance is excellent, the moments cherished.

Prior to the gathering, alum were treated to a "catalogue of bios/updates" and a glimpse at class statistics. Rather surprising to any Cal alum is the disclosure that 60% of Stanford's Class of '70 has registered democrat, while only 21% are registered Republicans, the balance Green/Independent/Libertarian. 

The reunion was not without its surprises. Injecting himself (and his wife) with the members of the Class of '70 panel on Friday, October 20 was Richard W. Lyman. He's the Rockefeller family member who prides himself in having served as the University's President. He chairs the Rockefeller Foundation, which after his appointment put out a press release stating: "This is the first time the Rockefeller Foundation has not had a Rockefeller on its board." My, my, in name only, but not in bloodlines, daresay! 

What was surprising about Lyman's appearance? He wasn't president of Stanford when these alum graduated! Yet he sat before the gathered fold, admirers of their Stanford president, J.E. Wallace Sterling, recounting his experience with "the class." He ran through a list of "student accomplishments" that included: 

1. Removing ROTC from campus
2.  Cutting Stanford Research Institute from any ties with Stanford University
3. Ending CIA recruiting ... 

and the list went on. 

He then stated: "If you think you are living in a country that resembles Germany before World War II, you are right. But just remember, it is nothing but a consequence of your own behavior. The natural reaction to quell demonstrations is fascism and you are responsible." The class simply listened politely. It is doubtful but that a handful voted for Nixon in 1968! 

Lyman then prided himself in running through a list of achievements, not the least of which was "truncating the faculty senate to bring them under control." 

Richard's wife, Jing was present, proud of her accomplishments in "eliminating the school's mascot" (Prince Lightfoot and the Stanford Indian). 

In the years following this move, Prince Lightfoot attended football games as an alumnus ... yet by the mid-1970s, Lyman had him removed altogether from attendance. 

Lyman continued to describe his experience at Stanford "with our class" (which graduated in June, 1970) with the following words: 

"I remember my installation, and convocation in the Fall of 1970. When I entered the amphitheater I was greeted with 'give 'em the axe, the axe, the axe, give 'em the axe ...' and I can assure you I took no solace when I was told this is a traditional song." He remained dour, and no one laughed --he was dead serious! 

All said and done, the class was polite, fully aware this man is crazed and powerful, and benefited from some of his private comments after ... such as his role in seeing people like Gene Trefethen, Bass family members, and other cronies grabbing the reins of power to aid in providing proper direction to this country in the wake of student unrest. 

It can only be assumed Lyman thrust himself before this class to be "in the face" of some outstanding democrats who have maintained their loyalties ... as a feeble attempt at intimidation. It absolutely didn't work. He was as uncomfortable and looked as annoyed and impatient as did his empress, Condoleeza Rice, in addressing alumni Saturday, Oct. 21. Condoleeza, of the political science faculty, was visibly upset by the comments made by other panelists, while evidently expecting prestige to be accorded her because she is George W. Bush's foreign policy advisor. With everything underway in the Middle East, in Indonesia, and in other parts of the world where George is having a difficult time with basic geography, her time would have been better spent counseling him on the campaign trail. 

Both Richard Lyman and Condoleeza were captured on video tape ... so that history might be the judge ... 

Suffice to say, 20% of Stanford's undergraduates in 1970 were history majors. None were fooled, and most have seen recently declassified documents ... which include revelations again that Franklin Roosevelt had very little trust in Nelson Rockefeller, who like Joseph P. Kennedy, was an avowed fascist. 

FDR was so suspicious of Rockefeller's motives that he had offices in Argentina bugged before Rockefeller's arrival. As a member of the Board of Economic Warfare and in charge of Latin America, Roosevelt was able to keep tabs on the personal gyrations and deals being swung by Rockefeller during World War II. 

Will Lyman chose to join the next reunion of the members of Stanford's Class of '70? Only time will tell ....

COULD ISRAEL HAVE BOMBED THE USS COLE? 
by Thomas C. Mountain © 2000


Did the Mossad, Israel's secret police, bomb the USS Cole? I think they should certainly be considered first amongst  all the other "usual suspects". Why do I say this? To be able to understand my reasoning requires one to step back for a minute and review the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in the context of the renewal of the Palestinian Intifada  and the public relations nightmare Israel had found itself in.

Ask yourself who benefited the most from replacing images of Palestinian children being shot dead in their parents arms with images of the coffins of dead American sailors amidst weeping family members on the front pages of papers and CNN across America and the world?

Remember now,  when the USS Cole bombing occurred Israel was facing a storm of condemnation internationally, and more importantly to their survival, rapidly eroding support amongst the American people.

Who can forget the image of that poor Palestinian boy, shot dead in his fathers arms, front and center in all the news media. For the first time in its history, Israel had begun to lose the public relations battle for the sympathy of the American people. Oh, there has been a serious shift in opinion away from unconditional support since the original outbreak of the Intifada. But the sort of soul searching, disgust and outrage at Israel that was taking place just before the bombing of the USS Cole on the part of the American people was at an all time high.   

The bombing of the USS Cole couldn¹t have come at a better time for Israel. But does this mean Israel did it?

The next question we should ask is why hasn¹t anyone claimed credit for this latest victory?  The past attacks against the US have all been claimed. Even public relations disasters in the "suicide bombings" inside Israel itself were claimed. Why not now?

If you do a  little homework  you find a number of "unclaimed bombings" in the past proved to be the work of the Israeli secret police (the Mossad) and/or the CIA.

Okay, so Israel has its committed its share of terrorist bombings, but why would Israel bomb a warship of their  Godfather, the USA? Isn't the USA the only country in the world that continues to support Israel in the face of unanimous international condemnation of the Israelis continued  massacre of the Palestinians? Israel bomb the Americans, get out of here!

Of course  this  would not be the first time Israel would have attacked a US military target. Remember the USS Liberty in 1967?

The following is an account by James M. Ennes, Jr. an officer on the USS Liberty, an intelligence trawler patrolling off the coast of Israel and Egypt during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war.

"In June 1967, jet aircraft and motor torpedo boats of Israel brutally
assaulted an American naval vessel, the U.S.S. Liberty, in international
waters off the Sinai Peninsula in the Mediterranean Sea. The attack was
preceded by more than six hours of intense low-level surveillance by Israeli
photo-reconnaissance aircraft which buzzed the intelligence ship thirteen
times, sometimes flying as low as 200 feet directly overhead. The
reconnaissance pilots were heard by intercept operators in Germany and in Lebanon reporting to their headquarters that they could see an American flag and men sunbathing on deck.

"The carefully orchestrated assault that followed was initiated by
high-performance jet aircraft, was followed up by slower and more
maneuverable jets carrying napalm, and was finally turned over to lethal
torpedo boats which fired five torpedoes. Four missed. The one torpedo that hit the ship blasted a forty-foot hole in the ship's side.

"The attack lasted more than two hours -- killing 34 Americans and
wounding 171 others -- and inflicted 821 rocket and machine-gun holes. And when the Liberty stubbornly remained afloat despite her damage, Israeli forces machine-gunned her life rafts and sent troop-carrying helicopters in to finish the job. During the attack, radio intercept operators in Lebanon heard one Israeli pilot identifying the ship as American. He was told to ignore the flag and continue his attack.

"Before the ship arrived in the area, U.S. Sixth Fleet Commander Admiral
William Martin promised to provide air support within ten minutes if an
emergency arose. Yet when the ship did come under attack, the White House blocked any air rescue for more than 90 minutes. Officers on the bridge of the aircraft carrier Saratoga heard Liberty's radio operators calling for help while bombs burst in the background, but were forbidden to help. When Navy jet aircraft were finally authorized to come to the ship's aid, the Israeli government suddenly ended the attack and withdrew. Only then did the identity of the assailants become known.

"...For 30 years Israel and its supporters have denounced survivors as
liars and anti-Semites for reporting what happened to their ship. Members of Congress are unwilling even to listen to their stories. These men seek
justice."

Okay, so Israel has attacked US warships before, what else do we have to support their being behind the USS Cole bombing?

A review of what has been going on the past several months in regards to US/Israel intelligence relations should make anyone think twice.

First,  there are the reports of the Mossad caught bugging the White house? Then there was the "defection" of a high ranking US Naval Intelligence Officer to Israel. Following this was the unprecedented removal of the top security clearance for the US Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk.

And need we be reminded of the much older case of Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli "mole" who is said to have stolen more critical US top secret intelligence than any other person in US history?

This isn't any sort of smoking gun. Who else would have done it and why didn't they claim credit for one of the more resounding victories against the US military in a long time?

The theories being floated in the media that Bin Laden was behind the attack doesn't hold much water, for why wouldn't Bin Laden¹s organization claim credit? They did before when all those innocent Africans were killed in the US Embassy bombings in East Africa. The last time the US retaliated against Bin Laden was a public relations disaster for the US, with the cruise missiles hitting innocent civilians in Afghanistan and destroying the medicine factory in Sudan.

We may never know who bombed the USS Cole. One thing is certain, the Mossad has a well documented track record of  being behind "unclaimed bombings" and Israel had the most to gain. Think about it.
 
Thomas C. Mountain has been a long time supporter of the Palestinian peoples right to self determination and an anti-racist activist. He was a member of the 1st US Peace Delegation to Libya in 1987, a member of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign and a founding member of the Hawaii Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East in 1982.