July 22, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
EuroPress Review
Eating Words.
By Denis Boyles
An account in the Observer brings the moment into focus: The Thistle
Charing Cross in the Strand, midday, May 22. Outside the Victorian
landmark is one of the busiest streets in the world and a train
station linking London with the coast. Inside, a quiet dining room,
where two men - a journalist and a scientist attached to the ministry
of defense - sit chatting over a lunch.
"The two men could not have been much more different," says the paper.
"One was Andrew Gilligan, the Today programme's defence correspondent
- garrulous and heavy set. Sitting opposite was [Dr. David] Kelly. Fit
for his age, tanned and smartly turned out, he was everything the
journalist is not: quiet, deeply serious and rather introverted." The
lunch had a purpose, of course. Gilligan was working on a story
designed to discredit Blair's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Kelly
was there to help by giving him information.
A week later, apparently based on comments Kelly made over lunch,
Gilligan broadcast his assertion that in order to gather support for
its policies, the Blair government - and specifically Alastair
Campbell, Blair's communications director - had "sexed up" (a phrase
used only by British celibates) an intelligence dossier. How? By
insisting that it must contain an apparently false warning that Saddam
Hussein could unleash chemical and biological weapons on the world in
as few as 45 minutes. If true, the story would bring disgrace on Blair
and Campbell, who is a former journalist and is therefore loathed by
the press, and on the government's policy in Iraq - and possibly even
bring down the government itself.
But less than two months later, Gilligan would be clinging desperately
to what remains of his job. And the scientist? He would be dead.
Blair's government and the BBC have been at war since long before
Gilligan's May 29 broadcast on the Today program - one of many
anti-American hotspots on the BBC's many dials. In fact, the BBC had
been in a running battle with the government well before any shots
were ever fired in Iraq. The executives running the Corporation
already had decided the war was unwise, unjustified, wrong, and they
were determined to report it that way. According to the Guardian, as
early as last March, the BBC was ordering journalists "to reflect
significant opposition in the UK (and elsewhere) to the military
conflict" in their dispatches. That had been important, because for
the BBC, no matter who won the shooting match in the deserts of Iraq,
the war itself must be seen as illegitimate, phony, bogus. Like many
other news organizations and journalists who believed the same things,
once the fighting ended, the BBC had begun their bizarre obsession
with parsing sentences and phrases, angry, mindless players in a
pointless game of gotcha. To Gilligan, the 45-minute claim, from his
single, anonymous source, was the smoking gun he needed to prove what
he and his employers thought must certainly be true: the war in Iraq
was based on lies.
Campbell immediately rejected Gilligan's claim. But it was a furious
denial, one played out in press conferences and in TV interviews (and
covered in this space a couple of weeks ago). Soon, letters and
threats were going back and forth between Downing Street and the BBC's
upper echelon, as papers such as the Telegraph cheered from the
sidelines. BBC news chief Richard Sambrook made Gilligan give him the
name of his source. Gilligan complied. Without naming Kelly, the two
men described the source to BBC director-general Greg Dyke and BBC
chairman Gavyn Davies. All of them decided to back up Gilligan, since
the alternative was to admit they were wrong. So within days, the BBC
had reached its Jayson Blair moment, the point at which obedience to
an agenda and a worldview makes it impossible to admit fault. Thanks
to Gilligan's bosses, the reputation of BBC News now rested on two
men: Andrew Gilligan and David Kelly.
The problem with the Dyke-Davies strategy: According to a report in
the Daily Telegraph, to many of his colleagues, Gilligan wasn't
exactly a model of journalistic gravitas, if you'll excuse the
oxymoron.
Not only that, but Kelly wasn't exactly the man Gilligan advertised.
Gilligan had said there were doubts in the intelligence community
about the claims in the dossier, that MI6 was worried and that his
source - described by Gilligan in his broadcast as "a British official
who was involved in the preparation of the dossier" - had inside
information about the way the document had been compiled: "It was
transformed in the week before it was published, to make it sexier.
The classic example was the statement that weapons of mass destruction
were ready for use within 45 minutes. That information was not in the
original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes,
because it wasn't reliable." If those were the words of Defense
Minister Geoff Hoon or the head of MI6, then Gilligan would have his
one-source scoop for sure.
But Kelly, in the words of Peter Prescott, the former Guardian editor,
writing against the wind but in defense of the BBC on its own website,
was no spymaster: "Dr Kelly was not, as claimed, a senior and credible
'intelligence' official. He was a boffin working for the Ministry of
Defence. He had, indeed, been involved in the drafting of the
September dossier - but only as the writer of a few paragraphs of
history."
He was also a nervous man, and, worried he would be caught, he told
his boss he had met with Gilligan. Word was passed on up to the top,
to Hoon himself. Although Kelly had had a high reputation as an expert
on biological weapons and had been involved in inspections in Iraq in
the '90s, Hoon knew he was not in a position to make the kinds of
judgments Gilligan attributed to him. In fact, the Defense Ministry
was so pleased with the weakness of Kelly as a source that a press rep
guided a caller from the Times to the man's name.
There was one other problem with using Kelly as a source for a story
so important: If he was the source Gilligan used, he had been
misquoted. According to the Guardian, Kelly told members of a
parliamentary committee investigating the charges, "From the
conversation I had with [Gilligan] I don't see how he could make the
authoritative statements he was making from the comments that I made."
He flatly denied saying that Campbell had added the 45-minute claim to
the dossier. Gilligan's reaction? Kelly's a liar, he told the press in
a written statement.
There will be no rebuttal from Kelly, of course, because by the time
Gilligan's damning remarks appeared in print, Kelly was dead. Late
last week, he walked out of his home and into the woods, took a
painkiller, slit his wrist and bled to death.
Of course, the reaction in the Euro-press to Kelly's death was
hysterical. When the story broke, Blair was instantly fingered as the
villain. All over Europe, radio, TV, and newspapers were full of hand
wringing, heartfelt, pseudo-angry comments. In Germany, the
Suddeutsche Zeitung wondered just how far Blair could go, and in
France, Liberation called Kelly a "victim of Blair's war", the symbol
of a "sickness" growing in the very heart of the British government.
In Britain itself, a piece in the Telegraph had Kelly "Torn apart by
the wolves of Westminster", while all the Independent wanted to know
was, "Who will take the blame?".
Not to speak ill of the dead (I'm no Gilligan!), but how about Kelly
taking the blame? Kelly is an appealing source for journalists like
Gilligan who simply need somebody to help fill in the blanks in the
story they've already written in their heads. There are many such
sources in London and elsewhere. They're men to whom the information
entrusted to them is hard currency, because with it they can buy
momentary importance. Or they use their information to help a
journalist spin a tale their way. Or they're men who envy what they
see as a journalist's power and are happy to get in on the action,
pleased to watch the news unfold while they stand in the wings
anxiously thrilled with the small role they played in the drama. They
never expect to get caught, that's for sure.
To Gilligan, Kelly wasn't Deep Throat. He was Loose Lips, dropping an
innuendo here, slipping a reference in there, perhaps inflating his
importance at the expense of others as he went. Kelly obviously
relished his relationships with journalists, of all people. Up until
his last moments, he was emailing reporters, his new best friends. He
left no suicide note for his wife or children, but, according to the
Telegraph, he had time just before he left the house to tell a New
York Times reporter his thoughts on the "many dark actors playing
games" who he felt were tormenting him, when, if we choose to believe
Gilligan, all he did was talk and spin a little, just like them.
Some actors. Some game. The Kelly "scandal" - if "scandal" is what it
is - is like an exploded diagram showing exactly how modern journalism
covers modern politics. Sixteen words, 45 minutes - it's all a game of
numbers and nuance and nonsense. Cynical, superficial,
inconsequential, Gilligan's story signified nothing. It was simply
another shot in the dark, hoping to bring down a prime minister who
had done the unforgivable, ignored the wishes of the media and sided
with the Americans. He used Kelly because he couldn't find any sources
anyplace else to support his tired thesis. The politicians reacted
predictably. Campbell, a master spinner, finally found a principle -
albeit one dealing with self-preservation - he wouldn't abandon. Blair
seemed shell-shocked by the news of Kelly's suicide. According to the
IHT, Blair told reporters who asked him the bloody-hands question
that, no, he wasn't going to resign, thanks.
By Sunday, as Kelly was being buried and as the BBC was explaining
that "politics in Britain has change for ever," the dust was settling
on a very familiar landscape - proving that once again, the BBC had it
wrong. By Monday afternoon, it was politics as usual. As today's
Guardian makes clear, the same old actors are playing the same old
games: "The BBC is preparing to mount a high-stakes defence of its
correspondent Andrew Gilligan against an onslaught directed by Downing
Street," the paper reports.
One way to mount a defense? Keep spinning! According to the BBC, the
investigation into Kelly's death really shouldn't be about Kelly's
death at all. After all, he's dead. It should be about - what else? -
the war in Iraq and the lack of legitimacy. "Political pressure is
mounting for the inquiry into the death of weapons expert Dr David
Kelly to look at the way the government made its case for war with
Iraq," says the ever-hopeful BBC.
The war to win the war is far from over. Rather than admit they're
wrong about Gilligan, wrong about Kelly, wrong about the 45 minutes,
and wrong about the legitimacy of a war most of them just didn't like,
an entire cohort of ridiculous Beeb ideologues apparently would prefer
see the Corporation's once-sterling reputation for fairness,
excellence, and journalistic integrity go straight to hell. But
somewhere way out yonder, where Howell Raines sits rereading Amiri
Baraka one more time to poor Gerald Boyd, someone is making a place
for Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies, Richard Sambrook - and, of course, their
man Gilligan, who will send dispatches home claiming life in hell is
just heavenly.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment072203.asp
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
Q. How many feminists/uptight leftists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. That's not Funny!!!
Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:50:26 -0600, rightwing@no-spam ranted:
>>Alastair
>>Campbell, Blair's communications director - had "sexed up" (a phrase
>>used only by British celibates) an intelligence dossier. How? By
>>insisting that it must contain an apparently false warning that Saddam
>>Hussein could unleash chemical and biological weapons on the world in
>>as few as 45 minutes
>
>Nice try
>
>But that was the predication on which it was MANDATORY to launch an attack ........an
>LIE! !
Are you trying to say that the US public decided to agree with
Bush that Iraq should be disarmed because he said that the UK thought
that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa? Aren't you ignoring the fact
that Saddam Hussein was also described as a mass murderer and possibly
acting with those who attacked America in 2001 to develop poison gas
and germ warfare to use against us?
Cheers,
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
Q. How many feminists/uptight leftists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. That's not Funny!!!
Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.
Blair used different arguments to Bush. He put much more reliance on the
WMD's than Bush. The issue of whether you supported the war is different
from whether you disagree with Blair's behaviour in using dodgy 'security'
information, throwing Kelly to the press, and then threatening the BBC for
daring to do its job.
There is little evidence that Iraq had much to do with 9/11. Plenty that
Saudi based terrorists did. There are probably more Al Qaeda links in the UK
than Iraq.
"Ken [NY)" <email@no-spam> wrote in message
news:anmrhvsg6jvanu5n3v70qq5k2vdpbbmub0@no-spam
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:50:26 -0600, rightwing@no-spam ranted:
>
> >>Alastair
> >>Campbell, Blair's communications director - had "sexed up" (a phrase
> >>used only by British celibates) an intelligence dossier. How? By
> >>insisting that it must contain an apparently false warning that Saddam
> >>Hussein could unleash chemical and biological weapons on the world in
> >>as few as 45 minutes
> >
> >Nice try
> >
> >But that was the predication on which it was MANDATORY to launch an
attack ........an
> >LIE! !
>
> Are you trying to say that the US public decided to agree with
> Bush that Iraq should be disarmed because he said that the UK thought
> that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa? Aren't you ignoring the fact
> that Saddam Hussein was also described as a mass murderer and possibly
> acting with those who attacked America in 2001 to develop poison gas
> and germ warfare to use against us?
> Cheers,
> Ken (NY)
> Chairman,
> Department Of Redundancy Department
> ____________________________________
> email:
> http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>
> Q. How many feminists/uptight leftists does it take to change a lightbulb?
> A. That's not Funny!!!
>
> Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
> A: Telling your parents you're gay.
especially on their jessica "Who Am I Today" lynch
coverage.
JHall.
Sorry Anon, but if the tape says the government "exaggerated out of all
proportion" the Iraqi threat, it is not the same as saying that they "sexed
up" the dossier. Blair and Campbell (or probably just whichever one is
pushed forward) will say this with a straight face and try to get away with
it.
"Anon" <anon@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ZDqTa.819$l76.8576209@no-spam
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1004165,00.html
>
> Oh dear, the BBC has a tape of Kelly making the accusations. How
> inconvenient. Nice of the BBC to wait until the Judge and inquiry has been
> set up. Goodbye Blair and Campbell !
>
>
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:25:39 GMT, "Anon" <anon@no-spam>
ranted:
>There is little evidence that Iraq had much to do with 9/11. Plenty that
>Saudi based terrorists did. There are probably more Al Qaeda links in the UK
>than Iraq.
So what is your solution? Attack Saudi Arabia, then invade the
UK?
Cheers,
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
Have you noticed since everyone has a camcorder
these days no one talks about seeing UFOs like
they use to?
Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.
James Hall wrote:
>
> especially on their jessica "Who Am I Today" lynch
> coverage.
While everyone is cheering the All-American White Girl
the others who were injured and captured with her remain
out of the Government-Sponsored spotlight.
The others are BLACK.
--
Saddam has hundreds of Statues of Massive Construction.
We have found them.
-G.W. Bush
(often misquoted by the liberal news)
http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
David wrote:
>
> Sorry Anon, but if the tape says the government "exaggerated out of all
> proportion" the Iraqi threat, it is not the same as saying that they "sexed
> up" the dossier. Blair and Campbell (or probably just whichever one is
> pushed forward) will say this with a straight face and try to get away with
> it.
Shexxxy, Shexxxy, Shexxxy....like a Benihana Chef.
--
Saddam has hundreds of Statues of Massive Construction.
We have found them.
-G.W. Bush
(often misquoted by the liberal news)
http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:25:39 GMT, "Anon" <anon@no-spam>
> ranted:
>
> >There is little evidence that Iraq had much to do with 9/11. Plenty that
> >Saudi based terrorists did. There are probably more Al Qaeda links in the UK
> >than Iraq.
>
> So what is your solution? Attack Saudi Arabia, then invade the
> UK?
What country attacked us?
The hijackers were SAUDI.
They were paid with SAUDI money.
Bin Laden is a SAUDI.
Bil-laden's relatives run SAUDI ARABIA.
-------------------------------------
Saudi & Iraqi oil in U.S. imperialism’s sights
nyc politics
see http://www.themilitant.com
BY JACK WILLEY
As Washington moves toward war in the Mideast, Iraq is not the only
country in its sights. Saudi Arabia, which sits on top of the largest
known oil reserves in the world, is also targeted by U.S. imperialism’s
drive to redivide the region and gain more control over its natural
resources.
Saudi Arabia, a semicolonial country of 23 million inhabitants, is at
the center of the sharpening conflicts and volatility in the region.
Dominated economically and politically by U.S. imperialism, Saudi
Arabia was used by the U.S. military as a staging ground for its
1990-91 assault on Iraq. Since then, Washington has continued to use
the country’s Prince Sultan air force base for bombing sorties over the
imperialist-imposed "no-fly" zone in southern Iraq.
The political weakness of the Saudi ruling class and the exhaustion of
its ability to use oil wealth to stave off economic crisis have bred
growing social instability. Fearing popular anger at the trampling of
Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty, the regime in Riyadh has placed some limits
on Washington’s use of military facilities on Saudi territory. The
dependency of the Saudi royal family on U.S. imperialism and the social
crisis have also led to bourgeois currents using anti-American rhetoric
to gain a broader hearing.
The Saudi rulers find themselves buffeted between the pressures of
imperialism and the growing discontent among working people, sometimes
putting them at odds with Washington.
Following a 1996 bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers at the Khobar
Towers apartment complex, Saudi authorities, who conducted the
investigation, did not accept the U.S. demand that the FBI be part of
the interrogation of witnesses. After the September 11, 2001, attacks
on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the regime balked at the demand
that the FBI have free rein to round up, interrogate, and take away any
Saudi resident it deemed a "terrorist suspect."
As Washington has pressed ahead with steps toward launching a bombing
campaign and ground invasion of Iraq, Riyadh has softened its public
stance of barring use of its soil for a U.S.-led war on Iraq.
Nonetheless, Washington has built or expanded military facilities in
Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates as possible
alternatives to its bases in Saudi Arabia. Today U.S. bases and
battleships ring the Arabian Peninsula.
In another example of the worsening relations between Washington and
Riyadh, capitalist politicians in the United States have highlighted
the report that 15 of the 19 alleged September 11 hijackers were
Saudis, arguing that the Saudi regime is not "cooperating" with
Washington and should be brought to heel.
Some in U.S. ruling circles have argued for taking a more aggressive
stance toward Saudi Arabia, including the possibility of grabbing its
oil resources.
A briefing given to a Pentagon advisory board in July, for example,
described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of Washington and proposed giving
the government of that country an ultimatum to "stop backing terrorism"
and to crack down on "fundamentalist" Muslims or face seizure of their
oilfields and financial assets invested in the United States. The
Defense Policy Board, a group of former senior officials who advise the
Pentagon on military policy, endorsed the report from the Rand
Corporation.
The report claimed that "the Saudis are active at every level of the
terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier,
from ideologist to cheerleader.... the kernel of evil, the prime mover,
the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East. It concluded that
"once a U.S. invasion has removed Hussein from power, a friendly
successor regime would become a major exporter of oil to the West. That
oil would diminish U.S. dependence on Saudi energy exports, and so, in
this view, permit the U.S. government to confront the House of Saud for
supporting terrorism," the Washington Post reported.
"The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad," a Bush
administration official told the Post. Once Washington puts in place a
government that will do its bidding in Iraq, "there are a lot of
possibilities."
Columnist William Safire wrote September 12 that rifts within the
ruling Saud family posed the question of who Washington should back in
a possible power struggle between factions headed by the de facto
monarch, Crown Prince Abdullah, and the defense minister, Prince
Sultan. Safire stated that Prince Sultan takes a stand less favorable
to the U.S. government so Abdullah should be supported. One of the
options being discussed in big-business circles is Washington fomenting
a palace coup in Saudi Arabia to usher in a more reliable pro-U.S.
government.
In October 2001 the Wall Street Journal said a Saudi regime that is
overtly hostile to Washington would "force a decision on whether to
take over the Saudi oilfields, which would put an end to OPEC."
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a pact by
11 oil-producing semicolonial countries offering a measure of
protection from imperialism by setting production quotas and prices for
the sale of oil on the world market. The imperialist powers view OPEC
as an obstacle that cuts into their profits. U.S. control over the oil
and natural gas reserves in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, with a combined
total of 36 percent of the world’s reserves, would deal a death blow to
OPEC.
Regime faces sharpening economic crisis
Saudi Arabia is being shaken by the world capitalist economic crisis,
and is more unstable and dependent than ever on Washington. This crisis
was accelerated by the monarchy’s expensively purchased victory in the
Gulf War against Iraq, in which Saudi Arabia was used as the main
staging ground for 650,000 imperialist troops. With rising unemployment
and a steep drop in per-capita income, the Saudi monarchy faces
increased internal opposition.
Like Kuwait and the other kingdoms of the Arabian Peninsula--the United
Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain--Saudi Arabia rests on a narrow
social base of a parasitic merchant, banking, and oil-rentier ruling
class. The royal family has fostered little industrial development.
Today 18 million people in Saudi Arabia are citizens and more than 5
million--some 20 percent--are foreign-born workers. Unemployment among
male nationals is estimated at 30 percent. Per-capita income for
citizens has dropped from a peak of $19,000 in 1981 to $7,300 in 1997,
measured in 1997 dollars.
The kingdom depends on imported wage workers who toil under
contract-labor conditions and who, no matter how long they have lived
and worked in the country, are denied the most basic rights of
citizenship.
Immigrants produce most of the wealth, provide the services, staff the
professions, refine and transport the oil and care for the children of
the rich and the middle class. In response to the growing economic
crisis, the government has stepped up its "Saudization" drive with the
aim of replacing 60 percent of the foreign-born workers with Saudis by
2005. But relatively few Saudis have taken these jobs with their low
pay and often brutal working conditions.
Imperialist carve-up of Mideast
Saudi Arabia was created as a by-product of the carve-up of the Ottoman
Empire, which in World War I fought on the losing side headed by German
imperialism. The former Ottoman Empire was balkanized into spheres of
British and French military occupation, at the expense of the Arab
masses, who had supported those imperialist powers in the war because
of promises by London of independence after victory. In the shakeout,
Ibn Saud, head of the House of Saud family, consolidated power over
most of the Arab peninsula by 1932, and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia was
proclaimed.
In the 1930s, the U.S. oil giants began to push aside British and
French companies, which had dominated the region. In 1936 oil was
discovered in Saudi Arabia by the U.S.-owned Arabian Standard Oil
Company. Oil was also struck by U.S. companies in the sheikdoms of
Bahrain and Qatar, both under British colonial domination. But it took
World War II, where Washington consolidated its place at the top of the
imperialist food chain, for U.S. firms to gain hegemony over Saudi oil.
A handful of imperialist monopolies--historically known as the Seven
Sisters--have long dominated world oil production and refinery.
In 1974 the government of Saudi Arabia reached a deal with Aramco, a
conglomerate of several U.S. oil giants, whereby the government took 60
percent of the company’s ownership. By the early 1980s, Riyadh gained
full ownership of its oil reserves. Formal Saudi ownership, however,
masks reality--foreign oil companies have billions of dollars in
investments and joint venture deals tying them into the largest source
of the world’s crude. ExxonMobil, for example, has more than $5 billion
invested in the country. And the imperialist oil monopolies dominate
the world oil market and prices.
In 2001 the Saudi rulers announced they would negotiate with eight
U.S., British, and French oil companies to open the country’s natural
gas reserves to foreign ownership for the first time since 1975. These
companies are ExxonMobil, Phillips, Marathon, Conoco, and Occidental,
as well as Royal Dutch/Shell, British Petroleum, and France’s
TotalFinaElf.
According to the Washington Post, the ruling family was divided over
whether the gas deals should be followed up by opening the country to
foreign exploitation of oil. The Saudi foreign minister, who allies
himself with Abdullah, rejected allowing foreign companies back into
the oil fields and take away profits from the state-run Aramco.In
September of this year, the much-touted $25 billion natural gas plan
was scuttled without warning by the Saudi government.
------------
The Saudis might FIGHT BACK againt a PussyBU$H.
--
Saddam has hundreds of Statues of Massive Construction.
We have found them.
-G.W. Bush
(often misquoted by the liberal news)
http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
