Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

Alberta is Leading The Way

Alberta has become recognized in recent years not only as our most prosperous province, but also as the province leading the struggle to get Ottawa out of provincial jurisdictions and return to constitutional government in Canada.
So, it's not surprising that a year ago a grassroots organization was founded in Alberta - the Alberta Residents League - with its objective "More Alberta, Less Ottawa."
The chairman of the ARL is Patrick A. Beauchamp (403) 265-3369. Following, are excerpts from one of their organizational tracts:
"The Alberta Residents League (ARL) is an advocacy group incorporated in August 2002 as a non-profit society. It has taken up the cause to pressure the Klein government to use 'The Alberta Agenda' to act now to secure the future for all Albertans. Published in 2001 as an Open Letter to Ralph Klein by six prominent Albertans (Steven Harper, Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton, Rainer Knopff, Andrew Crooks and Ken Boessenkool), this Agenda argues that Alberta should take advantage of its constitutional rights and repatriate certain powers to the provincial government.
"The ARL evolved into an advocacy group to promote the Alberta Agenda after doing face-toface marketing research across Alberta. What we found is this: The success of the Reform Party was mainly due to `hope.' Albertans believed the Reform slogan `The West Wants In,' would be accepted in Central Canada. It wasn't, and it won't be. We pinned our `hopes' on the idea Central Canada would really care about the feelings of Western Canadian alienation. Instead, we got an elected dictatorship with sometime hostile indifference to Western interests and values (e.g., Kyoto Accord).
"In the past, politically motivated Albertans have tried to make a difference through new federal and provincial political parties, without much success. The ARL is not a political party, nor do we have any political affiliation. Our bylaws mirror those of the National Citizens Coalition. We are a group of Albertans who believe it's time to `toughen the target' against an increasingly misguided and arrogant elected dictatorship in Ottawa. ...

Alberta Agenda Summarized
Create our own Alberta Pension Plan (APP), as Quebec has done.
Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax, as Quebec does.
Alberta is a major province and we should have our own provincial police force like other major provinces Ontario and Quebec.
Resume provincial responsibility for healthcare policy so we can fix healthcare ...
Use Section 88 of the Supreme Court's decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda.
Take all possible political and legal measures to reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada's tax and transfer system with most of this money going elsewhere in the country to buy votes ($9-billion last year).
Automatic use of the Section 33 Notwithstanding Power (Charter of Rights & Freedoms), coupled with a referendum to allow Albertans rather than nine unelected judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Prime Minister, to choose what Albertans really believe our moral and freedom standards of our Alberta society should be. (See ARL website for more information on The Alberta Agenda:

Utilizing Existing Powers
"Most Albertans are unaware of the fact our Alberta government has the Constitutional right to create our own Pension Plan, collect our own personal income tax, create our own provincial police force and resume our own healthcare policy without permission from Ottawa. So, why hasn't the Klein government taken advantage of Alberta's constitutional rights? Simple! We, the majority of Albertans, the silent majority of Albertans, who would agree with this move have not organized to push the issue. It's time we did. We believe if enough Albertans get behind the ARL the Klein government will do the right thing. And the Alberta Agenda is the right thing to do. For Alberta/Albertans it is simply commonsense. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta? ..."
COMMENT (By Ron Gostick): In all my 57 years of monitoring the Canadian political scene, and the rise and fall of various Western `reform' movements, this Alberta Agenda' approach strikes me as the first sound, realistic reform movement policy: starting from the grassroots and working up through provincial governments, with a limited objective within provincial reach, and utilizing those unused powers already within provincial jurisdiction.
And once a provincial government begins to fully utilize the unused jurisdictions and powers it already has, that government becomes stronger and its electorate becomes stronger in both hope and achievement. And then the province is in a position to begin pushing Ottawa back out of the areas of provincial jurisdiction Ottawa has been progressively invading these past years.
But this battle for a return to constitutional and accountable government in Canada must begin at the grassroots and work up through the provinces and their governments.
Indeed, Albertans are pointing out and leading the way.

The National Scene
Are Premiers finally awakening?
Our ten provincial Premiers and three Territorial Leaders held their annual meeting this year in Charlottetown on July 9-10-11. It may become historic as the beginning of the turning point back towards constitutional government.
Following, are a few excerpts, chronologically, from press coverage of this Premiers' conference:
o The July 9th Globe & Mail, under a front-pagewide headline, opened with this paragraph:
"Furious with Ottawa's refusal to improve its SARS relief offer, Ontario is developing plans to withdraw from key areas of federal-provincial co-operation, in part by establishing its own income-tax and immigration systems."
o The July llth National Post noted that this year the Premiers are not whining or begging, but are rather proclaiming the beginning of a new era in which they, too, intend to set the national agenda! Here are excerpts from a July llth National Post report:
"CHARLOTTETOWN - Canada's Premiers claimed to seize control of the national agenda from the federal government yesterday, agreeing to establish a Council of the Federation through which they will solve key Canadian issues and protect provincial power. ...
" 'This sends a message to Ottawa that we're asserting our constitutional authority,' said Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, signalling an apparent end to years of provincial begging at Ottawa's door."
o The July Ilth Toronto Sun, under the caption "Premiers unite against Ottawa," reported:
"CHARLOTTETOWN - The country's Premiers and Territorial leaders locked arms yesterday in a show of force against what they see as an increasingly domineering federal government.
"The 13 leaders agreed to a new 'Council of the Federation,' a group led by the Premiers that would demand Ottawa devolve more powers to the provinces, consult on federal appointments and establish new rules to prevent Ottawa from shutting the provinces out of decision making. …"

o The National Post's Don Martin, in his July llth column noted: "As many serious-minded journalists reminded me, this council represents an unprecedented show of defiance against a federal government which has become increasingly intrusive, invasive and disrespectful of constitutional jurisdictions. ...
"It was here where the 1864 conference of colonial leaders divided up government powers the Premiers are now trying to re-assert. "
COMMENT: It should be noted that the Premiers are not attempting to assert authority over or claim any right, power or jurisdiction which does not belong to them constitutionally since the enactment of the BNA Act in 1867. They are merely reclaiming authority over their own Constitutional jurisdictions, which - beginning in 1917 when Ottawa borrowed for the duration of World War I the "exclusive" right of the provinces to levy direct taxation (income tax), which right they failed to return to the provinces at the conclusion of the war - for most of the past century the Central Government has been progressively usurping.
This Service for decades has been exposing this unconstitutional usurpation by Ottawa, and sending our reports drawing attention to this outrageous injustice to the Premiers and provincial MLAs across-Canada. It's most encouraging to note that they are at last beginning to indicate a determination to begin taking some constructive action on this vital matter.
An encouraging admission by Martin
Our apparent Prime Minister-in-waiting, Paul Martin, has been busy this summer wooing Western Canadians with promises of federal goodies if they vote Liberal in the next election. And he's wise enough to know that a promise of Senate reform might help his efforts. "Martin May Give Premiers Senate Input" was the caption of a July 16th report in the National Post, with this subheading: "Suggests new Council of the Federation tackles reform." Here are excerpts:
"OTTAWA - Paul Martin says he is willing to give the provinces a role in choosing Senators if he becomes Prime Minister, and indicated the new Council of the Federation would be the ideal vehicle for reforming the upper chamber.
"Mr. Martin, previously circumspect about Senate reform, yesterday said he is open to the Premiers' proposal that Senators be chosen from lists submitted by the provinces. ...
" `It will require provincial approval if you're going to have real Senate reform,' Mr. Martin said at a charity golf game at an Ottawa-area golf club.
" `It may be one of the things that would be discussed by the new council and we'll have to see how it all develops.'
"Mr. Martin declined to expand further. He has in the past said Senate reform is not a priority.
"But Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Public Works, who is working on a Western reform package for Mr. Martin, said the Liberal leadership front-runner wants to reform the Senate into an elected institution that reflects Canada's regions.
"Mr. Goodale said Mr. Martin favours a Triple-E Senate model - effective, elected and with equal representation from each of the provinces - to check the power of the House of Commons, where heavily populated Ontario and Quebec hold sway.
"However, Mr. Goodale said Mr. Martin does not want to open up the Constitution to achieve Senate reform, fearing it would lead to the faction
alism that surrounded the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
" `In an ideal world, it is my belief that he would go for the Triple-E model of Senate reform. The dilemma here is that clearly involves revisiting the Constitution and there is a very large question about the appetite in the country, even among Westerners, for yet another round of constitutional discussion.
" `We have agreed that Triple-E is the ideal thing, but it is difficult to get there. Is there something in the meantime that we can do that would be better than the status quo, and that discussion is still underway.
" `The fact that discussion is still underway implies that the Senate must become more than a political reward.'
"Mr. Martin could become the first Prime Minister to reform the institution, which was created in 1867 to safeguard the less populous regions, but has become a patronage haven for friends of the party in power."
COMMENT (By R.G.): Encouraging, indeed. Less than five years ago, these thoughts from the Martin team, and the recent moves by our Premiers, were smeared in Central Canada as almost treason - the 'dark side' of Western politics. And now they're coming from east, centre and west, right in the mainline media and political parties!
But don't bet your dollar that Paul Martin, or any other leader for that matter, is soon going to support a Triple-E Senate for Canada - not in our time, at least, the ideal model it might be. Neither Quebec nor Ontario would be willing at this time to relinquish their present monopoly of power in our Upper House. But a 'regionally'-based elected Senate - five equally represented regions: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, Western Prairies and B.C. - might be possible within a few years, especially if the provincial governments can cooperate and get their act together. And that would be a major step in the right direction.
Now, Mr. Martin says that our new Council of the Federation of the provinces would be the ideal vehicle for reforming our Senate. Let's hold him to his word. This is a realistic challenge to our Council of the Federation to tackle and achieve an objective which is not only essential, but which is practicable and within our reach. And when our Council begins working together, and the peoples and provinces see the progress and possibilities for constructive action, then we're on the road to the rebuilding and regenerating of accountable and constitutional government in our land. Yes, it can be done. With vision, prayer and commitment we can make a constructive contribution to the future of our nation. But it must start with an idea, vision, at the grassroots, and then work up through the provinces.

Sodomite `marriage' trumps Pope!
Only three or four years ago our federal parliament confirmed the definition of "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman. That's how it's defined by all the great religions of this world - Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the major religions of the East. That's the natural order of the human species, involving the creative power to reproduce. It's the basis of "family" and is the culture of "life."
Sodomy is the very antithesis of the traditional concept of marriage. It's an unnatural disorder, devoid of procreative power, and thereby a culture of death.
Yet, our federal government now proposes to reverse itself and elevate sodomy to the status of "marriage," an obvious attempt to be all things to all people, and govern forever.
This we would expect from our PM, in whom it's been difficult to discern any morality in politics since he came on stage. But now it's becoming questionable just what Paul Martin's morality is respecting this question. The Vatican is calling on Catholic politicians to be true to their faith and reject legalization of same-sex marriage. Now, both Mr. Chretien and Mr. Martin claim to be Catholics. But Mr. Martin is now claiming he's going to support this anti-Catholic and anti-Christian Sodomite measure, justifying his action in an interview with the July 31" National Post's chief political correspondent as follows:
"Liberal leadership front-runner Paul Martin suggested yesterday his role as a legislator will take precedence over his religious beliefs when it comes to allowing same-sex couples to marry. …
" `I am a practising Catholic and I have responsibilities as a legislator and those responsibilities must take in a wider perspective,' Mr. Martin told reporters yesterday at the Rolling Stones `SARS-stock' concert in Toronto. ..."
Now, Mr. Martin is saying that duty comes before faith. That will be a rather new concept to most Christians who believe that duty derives from faith.
Be that as it may, it's obvious that Paul's politics trump the Pope.

Odds and Ends
Gun-related deaths up 70% in Toronto
An Aug. 10 editorial in the Toronto Sun notes that "gun-related deaths are up 70% over this time last year - 12 in all as of Tuesday, five of those since July 1. We've had 160 shootings already this year compared to 212 for all of 2002."
Surprise! Gun registration hasn't made Toronto a safer city.
Canadians skeptical of Iraq war
"Canadians skeptical of Iraq war, polls show," was the caption over a report in the July 19th National Post. Here are excerpts:
"More than 70 per cent of Canadians believe the U.S. military has become mired in a Vietnam-like situation in Iraq ... an Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail poll released yesterday indicates.
"And 44 per cent of Canadians believe the United States knowingly used incorrect or fabricated intelligence to make the case for going to war."


News Highlights
Background Information
Observation & Comment

Truth sometimes stranger than fiction
We recently received by e-mail the following report captioned "WMD Authority Turns Up Dead."
Exclusive to American Free Press
By Gordon Thomas
Dr. David Kelly was not employed by MI6 - or any other intelligence service. But he enjoyed unique access to all the world's top spy agencies. In Britain, France, Germany, North America, Japan and Australia: they all consulted him.
Into his office-room 2/35 -in the Ministry of Defense Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat in London, came emails and phone calls asking for his help.
Kelly knew about types and strains of micro-organisms, numbers of shells and aerial bombs filled with botulinum toxin. He knew the latest figures for the production of bio-weapons material in China, the gallons of growth material in Syria, Pakistan - and which countries had sold the material.
He kept a large amount of his secret data in his study at home. There on his desktop computer were tens of thousands of secret documents and photographs. For a man who was not a spy it was a collection of data any intelligence officer would envy.
For those who wondered about his ways, he would reassure them his bosses in the Ministry of Defense or the Foreign Office were happy with his unorthodox methods.
He liked to say that his loyalty was to what "I believe is right or wrong, true or false."
In reality he was an academic who had escaped the dull confines of academia to live in the everdangerous world of secret intelligence and the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.
Since 1995 Kelly had worked for the Mossad (Israeli secret police) - with the full blessing of MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service. Kelly had played a key part in helping the FBI try and trace the origins of the Ames-strain of anthrax - the rod-shaped, spore-forming bacterium, which turned up in letters across America mailed anonymously in the wake of 9-11, causing widespread panic.
He had orchestrated the defection of a top Russian microbiologist, Vladimir Pasechnik, working on a doomsday biological weapon - "capable of destroying a third of the planet's population."
He had been the only outsider allowed by the CIA to question a top Chinese defector, Col. Xu Junping, head of the People's Liberation Army Foreign Affairs Office, about China's bio-warfare program.
Kelly's involvement in intelligence work had placed him on the hit list of Saddam Hussein's notorious death squad and those of the Chinese Secret Intelligence Service, CSIS.
But a deliberate decision had been taken by Britain's security services - MIS and MI6, Scotland Yard's Special Branch and the Thames Valley police who had day-to-day responsibility to protect Kelly's home in Oxfordshire - not to surround Kelly with protection.
"The view was that it would have been hard to protect him without drawing attention to him," said an intelligence source in London. "And Dr. Kelly had himself refused to accept his life could be in danger."
But in the last hours of his life he did suddenly find himself hemmed in by security. Two Ministry of Defense detectives accompanied the 59-yearold scientist to the closed hearing of the Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee. It was there that Kelly was questioned whether he was the source that had provided the BBC radio defense correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, with details that led to the Blair government publishing what has become known as the "sexed up dossier" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The clash between the BBC and the Blair government was among navel-gazing titans which went to the heart of a fundamental issue: had Britain and the United States gone to war against Iraq on a false pretense?
The BBC report on its showcase radio program, Today, had ignited the fuse which had been sizzling for weeks when no weapons of mass destruction had been found. Kelly had himself expressed doubts that they would turn up in Iraq. But he had never expected those doubts to be made public.
Forty-eight hours after Kelly's death, the BBC admitted that Kelly was the source.
But was that sufficient reason for a battle-hardened scientist - who had successfully confronted Iraq's security services and had walked unharmed through the intelligence world - to have taken his life?
The questions which remain so far unresolved are:
What were the MIS officers seeking when they grilled Kelly after his second appearance before the Commons Select Committee?
Why did Kelly arrive home so upset that his wife, Janice, was visibly shocked at his manner and appearance?
Why did Kelly leave his home suddenly on the afternoon of Thursday, July 17?
Why, after his body was discovered, did MIS officers and forensic scientists from Porton Down, Britain's biochemical research establishment, search the Kelly home? They left with a number of items sealed in bags. The police would not say what the items had to do with Kelly's death.
What information did MI6 continue to allow Kelly to share with Israel? What did Mossad offer Britain in return?
What did Kelly know about Russia's experiments with smallpox at a secret research centre, known as Corpus 6? It is situated in a sprawling complex deep inside the larch and birch forests near the remote Siberian town of Koltsovo.
The smallpox virus, which was eradicated from the planet in 1979, in a weaponized form is a deadly virus. Officially, samples of the virus are held in only two high-security freezers at the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta and at Koltsovo.
Kelly, who had visited Koltsovo, had warned his intelligence contacts that it was "very possible that stocks of smallpox could be in the hands of states like North Korea and Iran or in the possession of terror groups like al Qaeda."
Such claims will ensure that Kelly's death will be increasingly linked to his secret work for spy agencies.
Kelly's involvement with Mossad came in April 1995, when he traveled with two MI6 officers from London to New York. At the city's Israeli consulate, they met two Mossad officers. Present were officers of the Canadian Secret Intelligence Services and agents from the FBI.
The purpose of the meeting was to track how 32 tons of bacterial growth medium - essential for manufacturing lethal germs - was being illegally exported to Iraq from Montreal.
Kelly - already a world-ranking expert on biological weapons had played a "crucial role" in identifying the growth medium.
While many of the details to this day remain secret, Shabtai Shavit, who had been Mossad director general at the time of the operation, would later pay tribute to Kelly's "great skills."
It also ensured that the scientist was first choice when the UN came to appoint a senior advisor to supervise the break-up of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program after the first Gulf War.
Kelly's ability to do so placed him on Saddam's hit list. But in the end Saddam turned out to be too frightened of the repercussions to have assassinated a senior UN official at the time Iraq was rebuilding itself after the 1991 war.
In between working in Iraq, Kelly was also in charge of the program to dismantle Russia's biological warfare weapons program under the trilateral agreement brokered between Russia, the United States and Britain.
In Moscow, Kelly met Russia's top microbiologist, Pasechnik. Pasechnik was then a 53-year-old chemist who was director of the Ultrapture Biopreperations Institute in St. Petersburg.
The two men had become friends to the point where Pasechnik told Kelly - according to an MIS document - that Pasechnik was "part of the Biopreparat, a large secret program, which is developing biological weapons like plague and smallpox."
Kelly knew that plague, or Yersinia pestis, had brought the Black Death that wiped out a third of the population of Europe in 1348. It was air-transmitted, propelled by pneumonia-like coughing.
Kelly reported what he had been told to Christopher Davis, then an MI6 officer who had an office in the Metropole Building near Trafalgar Square, in London. Davis was an analyst on the Defense Intelligence Staff and an acknowledged expert in chemical and biological weapons.
Now retired and living in Virginia, Davis has said his job was "to take all the bits and pieces and try to assemble them into a picture of something."
Kelly's news galvanized the normally quiet and reserved Davis. Davis informed his own MI6 controller - a man still known only as ADI-53.
Within weeks, with the help of Kelly, MI6 had mounted an operation to whisk Pasechnik from the Paris science conference he was attending.
Traveling by Eurostar train, the Russian and his MI6 minders arrived in London.
Pasechnik was taken to a safe house - probably similar to the one where Kelly was grilled by intelligence agents in the last hours of his life.
Kelly supervised the interrogation of Pasechnik. Later the Russian was given a job at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, run by the Department of Health.
In February 2000 he founded a company called Regman Biotechnologies. Its articles of association said it was a privately owned company "working to provide powerful alternatives to antibiotics."
Kelly was a frequent visitor to the company. And he often took the Russian with him to Porton Down.
To go there Pasechnik had signed the Official Secret's Act - forbidding him to talk about his work. A similar stricture governed Kelly and all the other scientists at Porton Down.
But Mossad sources have said that Pasechnik was a leading specialist in DNA sequencing - sophisticated research which is a vital element in developing biological weapons - and defenses against them.
On Nov. 2, 2001, later described by friends as being in the best of health, the 64-year-old Russian was found dead in his village home outside Salisbury. The cause of death was certified as a stroke.
Only a handful of colleagues attended his funeral. It was only a week later that news of his death surfaced when Davis confirmed the fact.
Kelly was not one of the mourners at the funeral. He disliked them - any public occasions.
His own death has ensured that he would not enjoy similar anonymity.
(End of the e-mail report)
COMMENT: Without doubt Dr. David Kelly was one of the world's top security agents, and certainly one of the key undercover agents in the security section of Britain's Defence Department. And it is alleged that he was the source of a BBC report that Prime Minister Blair had `sexed up' reports of Iraq's alleged `weapons of mass destruction' as a prime reason for making war on that Middle East country.
A public investigation is now underway, headed by Lord Hutton, a member of Britain's highest court. If this investigation gets to the bottom of this apparent 'suicide,' it might go far to confirm the widespread charges that this whole Bush /Blair-led war against Iraq was a colossal fraud from Day One.

War on terrorism updates
`Window may close rapidly' on U.S. effort to rebuild Iraq
The National Post, July 19, published a report by Mike Blanchfield under the above caption. Here are excerpts:
"WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has only a short time left to pour more people and money into its post-war reconstruction efforts in Iraq or face a slide into chaos, wams a report commissioned by the Pentagon.
" `The next three months are crucial to turning around the security situation, which is volatile in key parts of the country,' says the report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think-tank that sent a five-person team to Iraq.
"The group's analysis was quietly tabled this week amid debate over the rising death toll among U.S. troops. A soldier killed yesterday in a blast in the town of Falluja was the 148' to die in combat, pushing the number of fatalities past the 1991 Gulf War total.
"Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary and one of the war's architects, said in an interview published yesterday that the United States was unprepared for the lawlessness that emerged after Baghdad fell.
" `The so-called forces of law and order just kind of collapsed. There is not a single plan that would have dealt with that,' he told the Los Angeles Times.
"The Pentagon report warns that unless law and order, along with better economic prospects and social services, are delivered soon, Iraqis will lose hope that the United States is serious about helping them.
" `The Iraqi population has exceedingly high expectations, and the window for co-operation may close rapidly if they do not see progress,' it says. ..."

The Iraq saga grinds on
The July 25th Australian On Target newsletter carried this item:
Latest news is that US troops in Iraq are complaining that they want to go home. Despite the protestations of Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's Secretary of Defence, one military leader on the ground in Iraq is emphatic that what has now developed is classic guerilla war. Against such, American troops have no training and are in an invidious position. There is no way of telling who is friend and foe. There is no way of restricting the number of weapons in circulation. Every attack on American troops feeds the thirst for vengeance of those who suffered the bombing.
On top of this, both Americans and Iraqis are now faced with the effect of the massive use of Depleted Uranium ammunition. This devastated those affected after the first Gulf War. Hideous deformities, cancers and other diseases have struck Gulf War veterans and Iraqi civilians up to 10 years after the war. Enormous efforts have been made to stop the accumulating evidence from becoming public.
Now it transpires as much as ten times Depleted Uranium as in the First Gulf War has been used in the latest bombardment. Some say the implications are 'catastrophic.' The radiation effects are being encountered by US troops on patrol every day, from wrecked tanks and buildings that still litter the area, each oozing deadly radiation in the form of toxic dust.
(End of the Australian OT item)
The same issue of this Australian newsletter also published this report:
"The CFR's `serious' advice: For `serious' advice, you can turn to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) - the prestigious establishment foreign policy outfit-which recently cranked out a policy paper suggesting ways to reverse the current downward spiral in Iraq.
"Candidly admitting that the administration's post-war policy for Iraq has been a disappointment, former UN Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Defense and Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger, the co-chairs of CFR's Independent Task Force on post-war Iraq, recommend that President Bush give a `major address' to the nation and outline the US's long-term goals and objectives in Iraq.
"The President needs to explain to the American people `the importance of seeing the task through, as well as the costs and risks of US engagement in post-war Iraq,' they write.
" `So much of the future effectiveness of US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, will turn on whether we can help Iraqis to a better future and whether others around the world see this is happening,' Pickering and Schlesinger write in a paper called `Chair's Update,' which is an addemdum to the Task Force's:
"CFR's Independent Task Force report `Iraq: the Day After' - a chilling read: Pickering and Schlesinger synthesize and update a series of recommendations that came from a late May meeting of the Task Force. They focus on a broad range of policy areas that are being either overlooked, mishandled or insufficiently dealt with by the administration. Included in their analysis are suggestions that the US: `Develop a clearer political vision and strategy; employ a wiser approach to communicating with the Iraqi people; Promote security and the rule of law; Improve management and operations in the oil industry; Share the burden with international partners' and `Prepare for the next peace stabilization and reconstruction challenge after Iraq.'
"In light of Bush's glaring post-war policy failures, the fact that Pickering and Schlesinger suggest that the US needs to get on the right track so that it will not jeopardize or inhibit the preparation `for the next peace stabilization and reconstruction challenge,' is chilling. That these folks are still thinking about future interventions and invasions might be the most startling part of their entire report. ..." (emphasis added)

The Canadian Intelligence Service is published bimonthly by Canadian Intelligence Publications, Box 338, Flesherton, ON NOC 1E0.
Phone: (519) 924-2215 FAX: (519) 924-2379 e-mail:
Subscription rates: (Canada & USA): one year - $20. All other countries served by airmail only - $25 a year.

A Special Enterprise Report

Philosophy, Finance, Economics

For what cause did these men die then, Mr. Blair?
The London Daily Mail, June 27/2003, under the above caption, published the following article by British military historian Professor Corelli Barnett.
This week, in an extraordinary conjunction of events, we have seen Alastair Campbell before the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee trying to explain away the dubious `intelligence' dossiers by which Tony Blair inveigled Britain into joining George W. Bush's war on Iraq.
We have also seen the newest -- and for the British Army the most tragic -- consequence of that war: the double ambush of Paras and Royal Military Police near Kut-al-Amarah, with six soldiers killed and eight badly wounded.
Yet even at this time of heartfelt sympathy for the families in their bereavement, the tough question must be asked: in what cause did these soldiers die so far from home? Can we genuinely say they died in the cause of Britain's own security - the only proper purpose of the British Armed Forces?
It is noteworthy that, in his statement to the Commons about the ambushes, Mr. Blair asserted that the soldiers were helping to bring `peace' to Iraq, although this is self-evidently a task which the Anglo-American `coalition' occupation forces are so far failing to accomplish.
But he made no reference to Saddam Hussein's `weapons of mass destruction' as the main justification for our soldiers being in Iraq - even though it was these weapons that provided the guts of the two intelligence dossiers of September 2002 and February 2003 so cunningly used by No. 10 (Downing Street) to beat down opposition to war.
Well, we can all understand why Mr. Blair should now quietly bin this argument about the weapons, in favour of sanctimonious burblings about how the occupation of Iraq was promoting the security of the Middle East and the wider world.
For hasn't the validity of the two intelligence reports as a justification for war been utterly destroyed by the cool and measured testimony given to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee by both Robin Cook and Clare Short?
As Cabinet Ministers, they had received secret intelligence briefings, and their personal integrity is not in question.
No wonder that at Question Time in the Commons on Tuesday and on the BBC's Radio Four Today programme the next day, even the blandest of the bland, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, could only waffle unconvincingly that `weapons of mass destruction' would sooner or later be found.
Who would care to place a bet on this, now that extensive searches by American military teams, satellite surveillance and urgent interrogation of top Iraqi scientific and defence officials have revealed nothing, and the vaunted `mobile biological warfare laboratories' have turned out to be nothing of the kind?
Bush's spokespeople are left desperately puffing out smokescreems about how Saddam `could' have destroyed his weapons of mass destruction on the eve of war, or how they `could' have been spirited away by looters as Saddam's statues were crashing to the ground.
It is therefore virtually beyond doubt that we were conned into an unnecessary war. We now have to live with the aftermath, in which so far almost a third as many British lives have been lost as in the war itself.
The nature of this aftermath appears to have been foreseen by no one in Bush's Washington or Blair's London. Is it not incredible that the Pentagon brains which correctly predicted a short war and a swift Iraqi collapse had done no planning, made no detailed preparations, for an immediate postwar takeover of civil administration?
Why was there no fully-staffed organization ready to move into empty Iraqi ministries and police headquarters? Why was so elementary a precaution not taken of flying in enough diesel generators to power the hospitals and water-pumping stations?
Why was a superannuated American general with all the charisma of a retired truck-driver parachuted in with the job of improvising absolutely everything from scratch -- only to be replaced after a week or so by a civilian viceroy with an understandably permanent expression of worry?
Who can be surprised that the Iraqi population, promised `freedom and democracy' by Bush's Washington but, instead, delivered chaos and an imperial autocracy even more incompetent than Saddam's, should have become so quickly disenchanted?
The Americans have therefore already squandered an irrecoverable opportunity, and it will take months, perhaps years, to repair the consequences of this short-term American failure - one which, willy-nilly, is already affecting the British military and civil position in Iraq.
But today, the short-term is turning into the long term. And how long is that? Attempts to get an exit date out of President Bush and Mr. Blair have failed. As we are repeatedly told, we are going to be stuck in Iraq for `as long as it takes.'
But before Bush and Blair launched their unilateral war outside the UN, did they ever think about the problems of creating a stable and prosperous democracy in Iraq any more than they did about the immediate aftermath of conflict?
It is all too easy to go to war in pursuit of some vague but high-minded dream such as `freedom and democracy.' It is less easy to make a realistic calculation of how long it will take to realise, and how much it will cost in troops and treasure.
But both London and Washington could have learned from recent historical precedents.
For example, in Afghanistan conquered and occupied last year, the so-called `national' government installed by the Americans rules Kabul and little else.
The remainder of the country remains in the hands of warlords while the occupying forces are subject to sporadic ambushes by a revived Taliban. Indeed, earlier this month, a busload of German soldiers was slaughtered.
Meanwhile in Kosovo, conquered and occupied by Nato forces in 1999, a self-functioning multiethnic democracy is as far off as ever. And don't forget, Britain alone is still maintaining a garrison of 1,310 soldiers there.
In Bosnia, it is now seven years - yes, seven years - since Nato forces separated the warring ethnic and religious tribes of Moslems, Serbs and Croats. To keep them apart still demands a standing Nato garrison of 15,000 soldiers (including 1,420 British).
And, far from becoming a self-governing multiethnic democracy, Bosnia is now ruled by a UN viceroy, Lord (Paddy) Ashdown, with overriding autocratic powers.
So what hopes, then, for Iraq and its population of Sunni Arabs Shia Arabs, Kurds, Turcomans and Chaldeans?
What hopes are there for a country which never since its foundation embraced democracy, but instead has always been ruled by autocracies, starting with the British in 1922 with their League of Nations Mandate, and ending with Saddam Hussein, the most stable regime of the lot, with 25 years in power, and now American imperial rule?
The question now is whether, in the months (and very probably years) to come, Iraqi resentment of the American imperial regime will diminish, or whether it will ferment and coalesce into an effective resistance movement.
If that should turn out to be the case, this week's ambushes could be just the first encounters for the British Army in a new Northern Ireland in the sand - and all thanks to Tony Blair and his `passionate conviction' that he was `right' to go to war alongside Bush's America.
(End of Professor Barnett's article)

Comment in this instance is unnecessary. The British military historian has presented his views and assessment with both clarity and objectivity. And our readers will know that from the very beginning of this war on Iraq instigated by the cabal behind President Bush, our perspective carried in this Service, supports and reinforces the position of Professor Barnett.

Curtain rising in pro-war cabal manipulating President Bush
- By Ron Gostick -
Our London Daily Mail report in our preceding pages indicates that even the major press in the U.K. is now beginning to question and expose the lies and falsehoods used by George W. Bush and Tony Blair to railroad their peoples into war against Iraq: And it seems to be turning out that their frightening charges of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were little more than their own rhetorical weapons of mass deception.
But the truth is now beginning to seep out on this side of the Atlantic. For instance, the July 12th Toronto Sun carried a report captioned "CIA takes heat. " Here are excerpts:
"ENTEBBE, Uganda (AP) -- U.S. President George W. Bush blamed the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full responsibility for the miscue.
" 'I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services,' Bush told reporters in Uganda.
"Hours later, CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement saying the 16 words in Bush's State of the Union address concerning a purported uranium deal should never have been uttered by the President.
" 'This was a mistake,' Tenet said. `This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured it was removed.'...
"The deepening controversy has undermined administration efforts to quiet doubts about Bush's justification for war. The U.S. said military action was justified, in part, because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No weapons have been found..."
No WMD and U.S. Brits lose their credibility
The Toronto Sun, July 13, under the above caption, published an editorial by its editor Lorrie Goldstein, who has been a strong supporter of the Bush-initiated Iraq war from the beginning. Here are excerpts:
"No one will be happier than me if, within the next few days, weeks or months, the U.S. and Great Britain produce convincing evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"But let's face it, it looks increasingly like they won't.
"And if they don't, the moral basis for launching a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. will have been fatally undermined.
"As will the arguments made by those of us - present company included - who said that what justified a pre-emptive strike against Iraq in a post-9/11 world was the possibility that Saddam Hussein would supply WMD to terrorists.
"Ten weeks after the war's end, the debate with no WMD or convincing evidence of what happened to them having been found thus far - is now shifting to whether the George Bush and Tony Blair administrations relied on bad intelligence, goosed the intelligence they had, or lied.
"In Great Britain, a parliamentary committee has cleared Blair and a top aide of deliberately doctoring intelligence information, but was highly critical of how the information was presented to parliament and the nation. Britain is now deeply divided - once gain - over its involvement in the war.
"While there's been less pressure on Bush in the U.S. over the failure to find WMD, controversy is growing and the White House has admitted the President's State-of-the-Union claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa to build nuclear weapons, based on British intelligence, was wrong.
"More worrisome for Bush and Blair - since by the time the invasion was launched few believed Iraq had nuclear weapons - is the fact that none of the chemical or biological weapons they insisted Iraq was stockpiling have been found.
"No amount of revisionist history will change the fact Bush and Blair mainly justified a preemptive strike against Iraq on the grounds Saddam posed an imminent threat, based on his ability to supply terrorists with WMD, and that striking first was thus a form of self defence. If no WMD are found - and no convincing explanation offered as to why not - the hit to U.S.British credibility will be enormous. ..."
Well, at least some Western leaders came out of this make-war escapade with their credibility significantly enhanced. For instance, our own PM, and the leaders of France, Germany, and other European countries.

A background note on CIA problems
Since the American CIA has come under criticism for some of its country's security problems, it might be timely to republish an item recently brought to our attention, which appeared in the February 5, 1996 issue of The Spotlight magazine published in Washington, D.C. Here it is, in full:
A poisonous secret that has haunted the Washington intelligence establishment for more than 15 years - the cover-up of a top U.S. intelligence officer's murder by Israeli agents - now threatens to break up the CIS.
The body of John Paisley, a deputy director of the CIA's Office of Strategic Research, was found floating in Chesapeake Bay on November 1, 1978. The cause of death: a bullet, in the head. The official verdict: probable suicide.
But insiders of the clandestine services have never accepted that conclusion. There has been, over the years, more and more talk of a different scenario, tracing Paisley's violent end to a secret confrontation with the Mossad, Israel's secret service, over a vital issue.
A Spotlight investigation, begun several months ago, has confirmed that Paisley was killed when he discovered - and tried to block - a major Israeli penetration operation targeting the CIA's Office of National Estimates.
The Office of National Estimates represents the inner sanctum of the cloak-and-dagger world, where the command-level intelligence summaries guiding U.S. Presidential decisions are compiled.
Hawks in Jerusalem
The Israeli government, increasingly dominated by hawkish factions in the 1970s, was lobbying hard in Washington for more arms aid and cash handouts.
Its loyal supporters in Washington, such as Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D - Wash.), argued that the ministate needed more military might to protect the Middle East against "Soviet aggression" spearheaded by Arab armour and backed by Moscow's nuclear warheads.
But U.S. intelligence experts scoffed at Israel's alarmist cries. Led by senior analysts in the Office of National Estimates, they reassured the White House that, at least for the moment, the Soviets had neither the intent nor the capability to attack a major target of vital U.S. interest, such as the oil-rich Gulf nations.
The ministate's middlemen, however, knew how to manipulate the Congressional leadership. Giving in to political pressure, President Gerald Ford agreed in mid-1975 to authorize an audit of the CIA's intelligence data by a committee of "'independent" scholars and experts, code-named the "B-Team."

B-Team Born
Headed by Richard Pipes, a Harvard history professor and lifelong Zionist, the B-Team soon became an outpost of Israeli influence. Its members included Paul Wolfowitz, an arms control bureaucrat; Richard Perle, then Jackson's chief of staff; William van Cleave, a defense academic from the University of Southern California; Gen. Daniel Graham, a Pentagon-intelligence officer; and other Israeli loyalists.
Pursuant to White House orders, John Paisley, a senior national intelligence officer, was assigned to provide liaison and guidance between the CIA and the B-Team.
"It soon became clear to Paisley that these cosmopolitan intellectuals were simply trying to discredit the CIA's recommendations and replace them with the alarmist view of Soviet intentions favoured by Israeli estimators," recalled Meade Rowington, a former U.S. counterintelligence analyst.
Other knowledgeable sources interviewed by The Spotlight voiced similar views.
"Paisley saw the B-Team as a subversive, alien-oriented threat, and decided to expose it," related a former State Department desk officer who, like most other sources, asked to remain anonymous. "But he got just about no support. He underestimated the power of the Israel lobby."
Nevertheless, Paisley stubbornly carried on his fight against the B-Team operation singlehandedly, according to colleagues who knew him during the last two years of his life.
Spy talks
"John talked to Washington newsmen and to Congressional investigators," says one former friend. "He met with physicists and other scientists who knew Israel was wildly exaggerating Soviet military capabilities and war plans. But he was privately told, time and again, that nothing could be done about it.
By early 1978 the B-Team had finished its review of the CIA's procedures and programs. It issued a voluminous report harshly critical of almost every finding U.S. intelligence had made in previous years about Soviet military power and its intended uses.
But Paisley carried on his one-man drive to counter the distortions, exaggerations, and alien influences behind the B-Team's arguments.
Although the Team's final report was secret, with access reserved for a handful of government leaders, Paisley reportedly got his hands on a copy in the summer of 1978, and set to work writing a detailed critique that would "destroy this pile of disinformation."
"He was still writing hat expose, battling the B-Team, when he was shot to death and dumped in the bay," recalled a friend.
Ask Me No Questions
The CIA, by now thoroughly subservient to the Israel lobby, made no real attempt to clear up the circumstances of its career officer's death.
"The truth of what happened to John remained a shameful secret shared by intelligence insiders," says Richard Clement, who headed the Interagency Committee on Counter-terrorism during the Reagan administration.
It was only recently that Paisley's fight gained a measure of vindication, at least among fellow espionage experts. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, it is now known that the Mossad had greatly, consistently - and in all likelihood intentionally -overstated and misreported Soviet military power and strategic doctrine.
"Of course, Paisley was right," acknowledged Orlando Trommer, a retired federal security official. But he added that the recent testimony of Adm. Bob Inman, a former national intelligence director - and opponent of the B-Team - before a Presidential commission, urging the breakup of the CIA, was the only sort of recognition the murdered patriot was likely to get.
"When I heard Bobby Inman state it was time to strip intelligence collection from the CIA and task it to a new agency without any shameful secrets," related the veteran agent, "I told myself: I know what he means. This is one for you, John." '
(End of The Spotlight report)
The December 23, issue of The Spotlight publication quoted Steven Rodan, "an Israeli intelligence analyst and journalist," as stating that "in the CIA alone (Zionists) now (i.e. in 1996) head five of the seven directorates."
Under the Clinton and Bush administrations this situation was unlikely to improve, which perhaps explains the type of `advice' Mr. Bush has been getting from the pro-Zionist cabal which is pushing the United States into war in the Middle East on behalf of Israeli interests.
A child wants to know about foreign policy!
A few days ago we received from a neighbour an e-mail under the above caption. Because it seems to be closer to reality and truth than either George Bush or Tony Blair, we're reproducing it to help clear up the Western.World's foreign policy conundrum in the following pages.
Q. Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A. Because they had weapons of mass destruction
Q. But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A. That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q. And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A. Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q. But after we invaded them, we still didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A. That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q. Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A. To use them in war, silly.
Q. I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A. Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q. That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A. It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q. I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A. Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q. And what was that?
A. Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q. Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A. Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q. Kind of like what they do in China?
A. Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q. So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A. Right.
Q. Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A. For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q. Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A. I told you, China is different.
Q. What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A. Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Balath party, while China is Communist.
Q. Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A. No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q. How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A. Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q. Like in Iraq?
A. Exactly.
Q. And like in China, too?
A. I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q. How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A. Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like we are.
Q. But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A. Don't be a smart-ass.
Q. I didn't think I was being one.
A. Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q. Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A. I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q. What's a military coup?
A. That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q. Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A. You mean General Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q. Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A. I never said Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q. Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A. Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q. Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A. Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q. What did Afghanistan do to us on September llth?
A. Well, on September llth, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q. So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A. Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q. Aren't the Taliban those bad radical islamics who chopped off peoples heads and hands?
A. Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q. Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A. Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q. Was he from Afghanistan?
A. Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. but he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q. I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A. Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q. Fighting drugs?
A. Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q. How did they do such a good job?
A. Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q. So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and bands off for other reasons?
A. Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q. Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A. That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burgas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q. Don't Saudi women have to wear burgas in public, too?
A. No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q. What's the difference?
A. The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burga, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q. It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A. Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q. But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A. Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q. Who trained them?
A. A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q. Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A. There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q. So the Soviets I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A. Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q. So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A. Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q. Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A. No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q. But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A. Well, yeah. For a while.
Q. Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A. Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q. Why did that make him our friend?
A. Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q. Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A. Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q. So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A. Most of the time, yes.
Q. And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A. Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to
both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q. Why?
A. Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q. I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A. Yes.
Q. But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A. Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q. So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy.
COMMENT: Well, at least we now understand the firm and consistent basis of U.S. foreign policy under the present Washington administration! And perhaps it was because the Canadian, French, German, and other European administrations understood it too, that so many countries were reluctant to get involved in President Bush's unscriptural `blessed are the war-makers' crusade in Iraq. After all, our Bible (Matthew 5:9) reads: "Blessed are the peacemakers."

How many Iraqi civilians killed?
Christian News, published in Missouri, USA, in its July 7, 2003 issue, under the caption "War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say." republished a revealing report from the June 13th British daily, The Guardian. Here are excerpts:
"At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.
"Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.
"Its lates report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings. ...
"Lieutenant-Colonel James Casella, a US defence department spokesman, said the Pentagon had not counted civilian deaths because its efforts had been focused in defeating enemy forces rather than aiming at civilians.
"He said that under international law the US was not liable to pay compensation for `injuries or damage occurring during lawful combat operations.' ..."
The question raised here, of course, is: What constitutes 'lawful combat operations'? The unprovoked invasion of another state, for instance?
A report in the Summer/Fall issue of Global Outlook magazine, published in Ontario, reveals that the present situation in Iraq "is wildly out of control."
This report goes on to point out that there is still no potable water in Baghdad and Basra, the two largest cities, and with contaminated water and 100-degree temperatures death is taking its toll.
And the report points out that there is still no electricity in most major cities, no lights, refrigeration, fans or water pumps. The phone system has been destroyed. There is practically no fuel, public transportation is not running. There is no healthcare system and hospitals are overwhelmed with scarcity of supplies and medical staff exhausted.
Today, says this report, malnutrition is rampant, the economy practically shut down, and "the US government has totally failed to meet the most basic needs of the Iraqi people, after declaring it was in full control of the situation..."

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159