New book incriminates top officials in 9/11 atrocity

Interview contact:
John Leonard, Publisher
760 366 2937 (California)

Joshua Tree CA - June 6, 2002 /Xpress Press/ - The recent controversy over "who knew what when on September 11" coincides with the release of a detailed 400-page study, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, by a British political scientist at the Institute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD), documenting that the White House and U.S. intelligence must have known more than they admit.

This startling new book is the first comprehensive presentation of existing and original research on the 9/11 plot. The War on Freedom exposes in remarkable detail the extent to which U.S. government, military and
intelligence policy facilitated the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Normal security procedures were blocked as a consequence of the strategic and economic agendas of American decision-makers. Los Angeles
publisher John Leonard said: "The book also explores the possibility of whether or not this facilitation may have been deliberate, perhaps to justify the current trend of domestic and foreign policies being implemented by the Bush administration."

Reviewing striking anomalies in the official narrative, the book questions the claim by several top officials after 9/11 that no one had ever thought of using planes as bombs. In fact, the idea was first patented by the Pentagon itself, in a $150,000 study prepared in 1993. It surfaced in the first World Trade Center bombing trial, and was connected in court evidence to Al-Qaeda as early as 1995.

In July 2001, the city of Genoa, hosting the WTO summit with President Bush in attendance, was ringed by anti-aircraft batteries to forestall just such an attack.

A flood of specific warnings of the attacks were ignored, coming from FBI agents, electronic surveillance, foreign spy agencies, and bizarre options trading on airline and WTC-related stocks. Even celebrities like Salman Rushdie and Mayor Willie Brown were warned by security officials not to travel that day, while top Pentagon brass cancelled travel plans on September 11 over security concerns.

The author, Nafeez M. Ahmed, was born in London, England. He is Executive Director of the IPRD and author of scores of published articles on foreign policy issues. He was also recently named a Global Expert in War, Peace and International Affairs by the Chicago-based Henry Hazlitt Foundation's Freedom Network.
See also "About the Author" below. Contact information for author interviews: Tel: 011 441 273 329 530
England), e-mail: .

Ahmed's study has been lauded by experts as a landmark step towards understanding 9/11. U.S. political scientist Professor Peter Dale Scott, Co-Founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of California, Berkeley, commented that the author's research "is immensely important and useful. He looks at the right subjects and reports a number of things I had missed entirely... We need more people doing such
important research." U.S. military expert Stan Goff, (Rtd.) U.S. Army Special Forces Master Sergeant and Lecturer in Military Science and Doctrine at West Point Military Academy, where President Bush spoke over the weekend, similarly said: "This is a nicely comprehensive and well-organized report. Nafeez is to be commended on his work... People's eyes are opening to the fundamental failure of legitimacy, by its own stated standards, of this regime... I hope Nafeez and others will continue on this line of inquiry."  (See also


To help clarify the current debate, the IPRD has released Chapter 4 of the study, 'Warning Signs of 9- 11 and Intelligence Failures,' to the public, which analyzes warnings of the attack received by the U.S. intelligence community (See )

Ahmed finds that the apparent blocks on U.S. intelligence investigations issued from the strategic and economic interests of elements in the Bush administration. The bin Laden family, who reportedly continue to support Osama, was allowed to leave the U.S. without questioning in the week after the attacks, and both the CIA and FBI have repeatedly been blocked by top officials in attempts to investigate "the Saudi connection." Ahmed noted: "There are many reports that U.S. intelligence investigations of Saudi royals were blocked from above to protect U.S. oil interests there, although NSA intercepts showed they were funding Al-Qaeda. How much else was intercepted but blocked for such interests?"

The wider context of these policies is explored by the author, who notes that the bin Laden family helped President Bush get his start in business. The Bush and bin Laden families remained partners in the Carlyle group until after the attacks on September 11, 2001. The President's father, however, remains a "consultant" for Carlyle, a giant defense conglomerate that showed meteoric growth over the last decade. Carlyle is now making millions of dollars in profit from the "War on Terror" and the President's latest defense budget.

The other prize in Afghanistan was the pipeline to Central Asian oil and gas reserves in the Caspian sea, originally proposed by UNOCAL. Work on the pipeline has now started under the new Afghan government of ex-UNOCAL consultant, President Hamid Karzai. Prior to the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration had issued an ultimatum to the Taliban in July 2001: a green light for the trans- Afghan pipeline, in return for a "carpet of gold" - or face a "carpet of bombs", in the words of an administration spokesman.

The War on Freedom was recently featured on national Canadian TV in the investigative documentary series 'The Great Deception: The War on terrorism - An Alternative View?' (Vision TV, 4 February 2002). Producer Barry Zwicker, award-winning journalist on CBC-TV and CTV, commented: "Ahmed writes that bin Laden is merely a piece in a chess game. The stakes of the game are the last of the world's oil reserves... The USA helped recruit, train and equip thousands of killer mujahideen in the anti-Soviet war. Ahmed's book and other evidence shows the recruiting and training terrorists, including those in al-Qaeda, has continued for years. The
White House 'went underground' with this aid."

The book details numerous other contributory factors which made the unprecedented attacks possible:

 -  the history of international interference and intervention in Afghanistan during the Cold War;
-  U.S. support for the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden;
-  the turnaround in U.S. policy from support to hostile opposition to the Taliban;
-  U.S. and Western interests in Central Asia and the development of war plans to invade Afghanistan prior to September 11th;
-  the warning signs of the 9/11 attacks received by the U.S. intelligence community;
-  the failure of the U.S. Air Force to respond effectively to the attacks;
-  the longstanding and even ongoing web of murky financial, political and intelligence connections
between the Bush and Bin Laden families, including Osama;
-  the extent to which the Bush administration has exploited the September 11th attacks to justify an
escalating crackdown on civil liberties and unjust socio-economic reforms at home, combined with
-  the unlimited militarisation of foreign policy and projection of military power in strategic regions

 (Please see the manuscript, Table of contents, Chapter 4-6 for more details.)

Professor John McMurtry at the University of Guelph, a Fellow at the Royal Society of Canada, commends The War on Freedom: "It connects together over 10 years of relevant covert actions and decisions by top-level U.S.
security-state operations, and organises the whole into a coherent and devastating exposé of the real meaning and construction of the historic turn of 'the war against terrorism' now rewriting laws and constitutions
across borders."

More than an exposé, the book places the September 11 attacks in a broad context, from clandestine provocation of war fever as a way to seize power in ancient times, to the current bid for domination of Central Asia's energy resources and strategic location. An open-ended "War on Terror" was the perfect pretext for a new imperial era in Asia, with permanent American garrisons, flanked by the armies of India, Israel, and a tamed Russia, encircling the potential regional powers of China and the Islamic countries. This plan was outlined in Carter strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, in which he insists that control of Eurasia is  the prerequisite to domination of world resources, but to mobilize domestic  support for U.S. military action there will require "a truly massive and
 widely perceived direct external threat."

Further source material online at (doc files), or (text files) :

This press release:

Full 400 pg. manuscript in Adobe pdf format: Table of Contents of The War on Freedom index.html. HTML version of manuscript, with live links to many online references. Folder size 3.2 Mb. The book has 735 footnotes, many with URL's.
Hypertext links allow readers to access a great breadth of evidence quickly online. (To keep your place in the manuscript and avoid reloading when viewing reference links: In Internet Explorer, open a link to a new window by right clicking your mouse over the link, scroll down the pop-up menu, and choose "Open in New Window." If using Opera browser, Create a Linked Window in the Window menu for reference pages. This is currently a beta version, with not all links clickable; some may require copying and pasting into your browser address window.)
front and back covers in different sizes, jpg and pdf formats
The War on Freedom website, with samples pages and order form.
The War on Freedom, Ch. 4: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures
Full-length article by the author: "America in Terror: September 11 and
War on Islam"
Table of Contents
 I. America as Victim
 II. Gaping Holes in the  Official 9-11 Narrative
 III. The Function of Terrorism in U.S. Policy
 IV. New Threats for an Endless War
 V. The Threat of Global Islamic Terrorism
 VI. The Manufacture of Enemies
 VII. Beyond Images
Hear Meria Heller's explosive interview with the author of "The War on
Freedom" Nafeez M. Ahmed
9-11 and the Public Safety: Seeking Answers and Accountability.
Press Conference at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, Monday, June
10, 2-5 p.m., featuring investigative journalists, political figures and
representatives of families of WTC victims.-----

This email comes to you from the unanswered-content mailing list.



Friday, June 07, 2002 From © May 27, 2002

It is now being reported that, at least in 1998, al-Qaeda was fully aware of the state of negotiations between the United States and the Taliban over the Afghan pipeline. There is good reason to believe that in 2001 the Bush Administration was using threats of bombing in order to force the Taliban to agree to the terms proposed by the oil company friends of the Bush Administration. One can only surmise that if al-Qaeda was kept fully informed of the earlier negotiations, it would also be aware of the American threat in 2001. If all this is true, and it certainly sounds plausible, it clearly ties the war in Afghanistan to the oil pipeline negotiations, and puts the lie to the U. S. claim that the war on Afghanistan was a war intended to attack al-Qaeda and bin Laden, both as punishment for September 11 and to stop further terrorism. In addition, al-Qaeda knowledge of the U. S. threats against the Taliban may have actually led to the September 11 terrorism, as the first step in a war between the U. S. and al-Qaeda that was started by the United States when the negotiators made it clear that Afghanistan would be bombed if the good oily friends of the Bush Administration didn't get the highly favorable terms they were looking for. Al-Qaeda's knowledge of the American negotiating position (and even if it was just a threat, it was at the very least highly negligent for the U. S. to allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to believe that this was the American position) is a 'smoking gun' which ties the September 11 terrorism to the Bush Administration's overly friendly ties to specific U. S. oil corporate interests. In effect, the Bush Administration allowed the interests of the whole country to fall behind the interests of the companies which would benefit from the Afghan oil pipeline, and allowed individual corporate interests to use the threat of war from the United States to improve their negotiating position. There may even be a connection to Enron, and a possible argument that the intentional obfuscation by Cheney of the Enron connection to the Taliban negotiations also made it impossible for FBI or CIA counterterrorism experts to 'connect the dots'! You could of course go even further and wonder if the United States government 'let one happen' (in the words of Delmart Vreeland) to provide the excuse to attack Afghanistan, but the mere fact that al-Qaeda knew of the illegitimate U. S. negotiating position - where U. S. military might and the threat of war was used as a tool in commercial negotiations for the benefit of friends of the Bush Administration at the terrible expense of the United States as a whole - is enough to damn the Bush Administration and to make it partly responsible for September 11. One might also think that U. S. counterterrorism experts would have reacted more quickly to knowledge that an attack was coming soon if they were aware that al-Qaeda was aware of the U. S. government threat against the Taliban and Afghanistan. On the other hand, we mustn't forget that the role of al-Qaeda in 9-11 is still an open question. I personally think it unlikely that either bin Laden or al-Qaeda had much of a role in 9-11 other than as a patsy, willing to take credit for the terrorism in order to increase their own reputations. At the very least, al-Qaeda must have had a lot of help. Consider the following:

  1. Al-Qaeda couldn't have established the elaborate set of false identities used by the hijackers, combining U. S., European and Arab components (remember that Mueller himself admits that he has no idea as to who the hijackers really are). In fact, only the central intelligence agency of a major country would be capable of such work.
  2. Al-Qaeda didn't ignore all the warnings of imminent terrorist attack given to the Bush Administration, and didn't allow people on a CIA watch list to move freely around the United States and board aircraft.
  3. Al-Qaeda couldn't have stood down the U. S. air defence system.
  4. Al-Qaeda couldn't be continuing the cover-up that for some reason the Bush Administration feels is necessary (why does the victim have to cover up the truth?).

The bottom line is that while this is important information involving further nuances of the guilt of the Bush Administration for the events of September 11, we still have to read it with a critical mind. What al-Qaeda actually is, and its highly complicated relationship with the U. S. government (for example, even after September 11 the U. S. government was still supporting al-Qaeda operatives in Macedonia/Kosovo), are still completely open questions.
posted 1:45 AM


From © May 27, 2002

John O'Neill was the former FBI agent who died in one of the WTC towers. He has been depicted as a hero who died when, after he escaped from his office in one tower, he went back into the other to try to rescue people. He has also been depicted as someone who quit the FBI in frustration at not being allowed by the Bush Administration to continue his investigations of the bin Laden family. It is the ultimate irony that he became head of security for the WTC, and died in what is supposed to be an attack by bin Laden. However, when I passed my invisible conspiracy coincidence meter over O'Neill, the dial started spinning so quickly that it broke. Consider the following:

  1. When I think of FBI agents, I think of boring bureaucrats living in the suburbs, driving minivans to work. John O'Neill had his own table at Elaine's in New York City, smoked cigars with people like Robert De Niro, and lived the life of the CEO of a large company or someone high up in the entertainment business. On top of all that, he had both a family with his wife and a family with his long-term girlfriend. On top of that, he had other girlfriends, who he managed to keep unknown to his wife or his long-term girlfriend. How did he manage all this on an FBI salary? Is it possible he was doing some freelance work on the side? He reminds me of FBI Agent Kemper Boyd in James Ellroy's great novel American Tabloid (which captures the feeling of the type of things that were going on at the time of the JFK assassination better than anything else I've read), who for want of money ends up working for everybody, a situation which doesn't end well for him either.
  2. O'Neill was apparently the creator of the politically convenient but highly questionable theory that TWA 800 was brought down by the ignition of leaking fuel and not by a terrorist or U. S. Navy missile. This is the kind of theory a political operative comes up with, not a regular FBI agent.
  3. O'Neill was up for promotion, but his chances were derailed when it became known that he was responsible for a security breach. Apparently he was attending a retirement seminar in Tampa, and lost a briefcase containing documents of a security level that he shouldn't have been carrying there. The briefcase and documents were recovered (with some of his personal effects missing), but the breach of security went on his employment record and he may have felt it was used as an excuse to deny him the promotion when it was really denied because his aggressive approach to his job, particularly his investigation of the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, wasn't univerally appreciated in the Bush Administration or the FBI. Maybe I'm stretching here, but this security breach took place in the summer of 2000, at a time and a place just north of where Atta and other hijackers were taking flying lessons. With his prospects at the FBI or elsewhere in a Bush-led government limited, and his frustration at not being allowed to do his job in investigating the bin Laden family because of oil, O'Neill was all too happy to resign from the FBI and take a much higher paying job as head of security for the WTC.
  4. The infamous 'Phoenix memorandum', the one prepared by the FBI that apparently states fears that suspected al-Qaeda operatives were taking flight training in the United States to prepare for terror attacks, was sent to only two people, or perhaps to only a dozen people, one of whom was John O'Neill. He reads it, and almost immediately takes a job with Silverstein Properties as head of security for the WTC (and dies on his second day of work!). So let me get this straight: the director of counterterrorism for the FBI's New York office and the FBI's main expert on bin Laden, knowing that al-Qaeda had already tried to blow up the WTC and had operatives who had expressed a desire to complete the job (O'Neill had recently said to a friend: "They'll never stop trying to take down those two buildings"), reads a memo suggesting that al-Qaeda operatives may be taking flight training in the United States (and whatever the Bush administration may claim about its knowledge of al-Qaeda plans to use hijacked planes as missiles, you can be sure that John O'Neill was fully aware of it), and immediately quits to be head of security at the WTC! (I'm sorry, but this is where the dial on my coincidence meter just exploded.) I'd really like to know how it was arranged for him to get this job, and whether he was actually working for more than one employer at the time of his death.

I don't know what all this means, but I know it means something. For example, what if he didn't really quit the FBI (the last thing he did before heading back to the other tower was to telephone FBI headquarters), but was posted at his new job to stop what was described to him as inside security breaches at the WTC (planting of bombs, etc., or an attack like the 1993 attack using bombs in a vehicle)? Presumably he wouldn't have agreed to work at the WTC after reading the Phoenix memorandum unless he was assured that the plane missile issue was being taken care of. I am very suspicious that there is more to the story of John O'Neill than we are being told.
posted 3:42 AM


What Congress Does Not Know About Enron and 9/11
By Atty. John J. Loftus  © May 31, 2002

 A captured Al Qaida document reveals that US energy companies were secretly negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline.  The document was obtained by the FBI but was not allowed to be shared with other agencies in order to protect Enron.  Multiple sources confirm that American law enforcement agencies were deliberately kept in the dark and systematically prevented from connecting the dots before 9/11 in order to aid Enron’s secret and immoral Taliban negotiations.   

The suppressed Al Qaida document tends to support recent claims of a cover-up made by several mid-level intelligence and law enforcement figures.  Their ongoing terrorist investigations appear to have been hindered during the same sensitive time period while the Enron Corporation was still negotiating with the Taliban.  An inadvertent result of the Taliban pipeline cover-up was that the Taliban’s friends in Al Qaida were able to complete their last eight months of preparations for 9/11 while the Enron secrecy block was still in force. 

Although the latest order to block investigations allegedly resulted from Enron’s January 2002 appeal to Vice President Dick Cheney, it appears that  there were at least three previous block orders, each building upon the other, stretching back for decades and involving both Republican and Democratic administrations. 

The first block came in the 1970’s, as a result of Congressional reaction to domestic espionage against the anti-Vietnam war movement.  In a case of blatant over-reaction, the FBI placed all houses of worship and religious charities off-limits for any surveillance whatsoever unless there was independent probable cause.  This meant that all Mosques and other Muslim meeting places for terrorist groups were effectively off limits until after a crime had been committed.  The block order was not lifted until last week by Atty. General Ashcroft. 

The second block order, in force since the 1980’s, was against any investigation that would embarrass the Saudi Royal family. Originally, it was designed to conceal Saudi support for Muslim extremists fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan and Chechnya, but it went too far.  Oliver North noted in his autobiography, that every time he tried to do something about terrorism links in the Middle East, he was told to stop because it might embarrass the Saudis.  This block remains in place.   

As the combined result of these two blocks, the Saudis were able to fund Middle Eastern terrorists in complete secrecy during the 1990’s through a network of Muslim charities in Virginia, Tampa and Florida. The Saudi funding network was targeted at the destruction of the State of Israel and the obstruction of the Palestinian peace process.  

 The Saudi funding conduit has now been exposed and shut down by means of a private lawsuit, Loftus vs. Sami Al Arian, which is currently pending in Hillsborough County, Florida.  The lawsuit, filed on March 20, 2002, influenced the government into raiding the Saudi charities in Herndon, Virginia, a few hours later. 

After filing the Al-Arian lawsuit, Attorney Loftus began to receive very detailed documents and information about a third block:  a prohibition on investigations concerning the Taliban. In the early 1990’s, a consortium of American oil companies (lead by Unocal) had hired Enron to determine the profitability of building an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan so that America could have access to the Caspian Sea Basin, holding 1/8th of the worlds energy supplies. 

There is no doubt that these secret negotiations existed, and that they were known to Al Qaida.  Loftus recently received an FBI translation of a highly classified and encrypted Al Qaida document, circa 1997-1998, which was retrieved and decrypted  from a computer laptop following the Embassy bombing in Africa.  The document was written by Osama Bin Laden’s military commander, Mohammed Atef, under his nom de guerre, Abu Haf, and reveals extensive knowledge of  the supposedly secret pipeline negotiations, and their potential economic worth to the Taliban, Pakistan and the U.S.  

Former Afghanistan CIA agent Robert Baer has recently published a book charging that the cover-up of the 1990’s pipeline negotiations revealed extensive financial corruption inside the Clinton administration, and contributed to the lack of intelligence before 9/11.  The Taliban negotiations temporarily collapsed in 1999 after Clinton reversed his NSC advisor’s policy, and ordered a missile strike against terrorists in Afghanistan.   

However, in January 2001, Vice President Cheney allegedly reinstated the intelligence block and expanded it to effectively preclude any investigations whatsoever of Saudi-Taliban-Afghan oil connections.  Former FBI counter-terrorism chief John O’Neil resigned from the FBI in disgust, stating that he was ordered not to investigate Saudi-Al Qaida connections because of the Enron pipeline deal. Loftus has confirmed that it was O’Neill who originally discovered the AL Qaida pipeline memo after the Embassy bombings in Africa.   

O’Neill gave an overview of the Enron block to two French authors who will soon be publishing in the United States.  The FBI is currently investigating Loftus’ links to John O’Neill, and is also refusing FBI agent Robert Wright permission to publish his own findings about the Enron block. 

Loftus asserts that the Enron block, which remained in force from January 2002 until August when the pipeline deal collapsed, is the reason that none of FBI agent Rowley’s requests for investigations were ever approved.  As numerous British and French authors have concluded, the information provided by European intelligence sources prior to 9/11 was so extensive, that it is no longer possible for either CIA or the FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.   

It is time for Congress to face the truth:  In order to give Enron one last desperate chance to complete the Taliban pipeline and save itself from bankruptcy, senior levels of US intelligence were ordered to keep their eyes shut and their subordinates ignorant.   

The Enron cover-up confirms that 9/11 was not an intelligence failure or a law enforcement failure (at least not entirely).  Instead, it was a foreign policy failure of the highest order.  If Congress ever combines its Enron investigation with 9/11, Cheney’s whole house of cards will collapse. 

About the author: As a former federal prosecutor, John Loftus had an insider’s knowledge of high level intelligence operations, including obstruction of Congressional investigations. Loftus resigned from the Justice Department in 1981 to expose how the intelligence community had recruited Nazi war criminals and then concealed the files from Congressional subpoena. After appearing on an Emmy Award winning segment of 60 Minutes, Loftus has spent the next two decades writing histories of intelligence cover-ups, and serving as an unpaid lawyer helping other whistleblowers inside US intelligence.  For more information and documents, see his website  

3560 Coquina Key Drive SE
St. Petersburg
, FL 33705
Ph: 727-821-5227

: 727-894-1801

 For a new review of SEEDS OF FIRE, click on

 For archived interviews with Gordon Thomas, author of Seeds of Fire and Carol Adler, president of Dandelion Books and publisher of Seeds of Fire that appeared in THE SPECTRUM May 2002 magazine, call toll-free 1-877-280-2866.

 To purchase Seeds of Fire: China and the Story Behind the Attack on America, click on

For an autographed First Edition of Seeds of Fire, call toll-free 1-888-609-5006. 

Global News Net is published by Dandelion Enterprises, Inc., Tempe, Arizona… Editor-in-Chief – Carol Adler , … Contributing Writers… Mark Dankof , … …Joseph Ehrlich …John Kusumi , , … John Loftus, Esq., David McGowan  …Tariq Saeedi …Takashi “Thomas” Tanemori ,  …Steve Tvedton ,

Original Message -----
From: "Brasscheck" <  © 6/1/02
To: Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: On stinger missiles and other 'accidents'

 June 1, 2002

 On stinger missiles and other 'accidents'

 "The SA-7s have a range of more than 3 miles and can hit aircraft flying at  13,500 feet. Stinger missiles can hit aircraft flying at 10,000 feet and  5 miles away."

 And now "intelligence sources" admit they're in the US.

 Which makes sense because we made them and gave them to  the people who re-imported them:


 Q: Why was the FBI been too busy to track Al-Qaeda pre 9-11?

 A: They were too buy harassing American researchers  and eye witnesses who saw TWA 800 get shot down by  a missile.


 "Over the past several months Cmdr. Donaldson has uncovered  significant new information that clearly shows that Flight 800 was
 shot down by one or more shoulder-fired missiles, that the FBI, the  Justice Department and the Administration knew this from the
 beginning and spent the last 2 1/2 years trying to contain that fact."


 And speaking of the FBI, the Bush family, Robert Mueller,  and TWA plane crashes...

 "A group of eight or as many as fifty CIA covert operatives were on board Flight 103. Disgruntled, they were returning from a failed
 mission to attempt to rescue some American hostages in the Middle East. They blamed the failure on the treasonous acts of
 the Elder Bush as Vice President...

Only one newspaper in North America ran a series after the crash,  outlining some of the secret arrangements of the units of the American  CIA that were snuffed out by the crash...

Some were puzzled how FBI agents showed up at the Lockerbie, Scotland  crash site in some instances quicker than local authorities...

As a member of a local rescue team recalled, "We arrived within two hours  [of the crash]. We found Americans already there." As an author of a  book pointed out " odd as the fact that Lockerbie is over 350  miles from London, which is the nearest point an American FBI agent  might be...

 ...who was in charge of all this?

 ...Criminal Division, honco, Robert S. Mueller 3rd. Mueller..."

 And, Mueller, of course, in the man Bush Jr. picked to run the  FBI and who did such a great job on 9-11.


And this seemed to slip by in the confusion

Remember the "secret" evidence, 'verified' by Tony Blair,  that Bush used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan? The  'evidence' that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that 'Osama  bin Laden' was behind 9-11?

It's just been revealed that that secret 'evidence' withheld  from the public all these months is nothing other than the
terror threat briefing that Bush received on August 6th!

In other words, information that was not compelling enough  to merit Bush cutting his month-long vacation short or  getting the US air defense in gear on August 6th suddenly  became detailed enough to merit the invasion of a country  we were not even at war with.


 Phase II

"1.4 million troops from the two nations (India and Pakistan)  are poised for battle from the Tibet border to the Arabian Sea."

Do you suppose the timing and location of this current hot spot  is a coincidence? Look at the players. Look at the map.

The US military and their allies sure don't have to travel far  to get involved in the 'relief' and 'peacekeeping' missions.  It's handy that they are so near by with supply lines up  and running.

 Another handy coincidence. The US just signed a military  agreement with Sri Lanka:

 Look at the map.

 See: "9-11 and the Indian-Pakistani War" Brasscheck, May 28, 2002

How have you effectively blocked others from using your disability as a convenient excuse for rejection?

Name: Pauline Horvath © 1998
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 29 Jan 1998
Time: 23:54:18
Remote User:

Say "No" To Unreasonableness

I was a civilian personnel specialist for the Navy and use a wheelchair due to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

My refusal to allow others to use my disability as an excuse for rejection involves two avenues. I devised creative accommodations to allow me to do my job. When these failed, I used legal redress. I was the first severely disabled person hired in 1982 in personnel at the Alameda Naval Station. I was promoted through the ranks of GS-5 through GS-11.

In 1988, a supervisor took over stating "Its my office and I don't have to have a wheelchair in it" and "I'm sick and tired of this handicap crap." I was forced to leave my wheelchair Vocational Rehabilitation purchased outside my office. I attempted to pursuade my supervisor to allow me to use my chair with its carrying basket for heavy files. My supervisor refused. I requested an outbox on my desk for files. This was refused.

I was in deep emotional turmoil, as I tried to find a way to safely do my job. I enlisted the assistance of my co-workers to carry files. My co-workers were then ordered not to assist me, even if willing. My emotional state became one of rage. My supervisor was taking away my ability to do my job by not accommodating.

I filed a lawsuit. The results, after 5 years, was the largest entry of judgement for a disability discrimination case anywhere in the world. The case set a new standard in the Federal Government and parallel ADA in the private sector. I felt I must take responsibility for enforcing reasonable accommodation law that other disabled people already had fought so hard for.

Others can now use my case as a precedent in their request for reasonable accommodations. The government offered me more than their current cap, to keep silent about my case. I refused their offer. It was a mighty fine feeling. Letting others know about my case seemed the only logical method of ensuring employers do not use people's disabilities as excuses for rejection of an able person by refusing accommodations.

My story has been in about 20 papers, including the San Francisco Chronicle.

Pauline Horvath,