Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Smoking Is Healthier Than Fascism

Smoking Is Healthier Than Fascism
Smoking Ban Is About Government Control; Believe it or not, the state really doesn't care about your health
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison PlanetTuesday, January 30, 2007
The regulation of the personal habit of smoking, including new legislative moves in San Francisco to ban cigarettes in private homes, and its enforcement by an eager cadre of state snoops and snitches, represents nothing more than a move on behalf of big brother towards the complete subjugation and shackling of the individual. To this end, smoking is healthier than fascism.
Two new developments today have once again brought this issue into focus and the true agenda behind it needs to be exposed.
In France, a nation once noted as being rich in tobacco connoisseurs, 175,000 "cigarette police" have been given the task of randomly snooping around offices, schools, factories and any other "public spaces" in order to sniff out flouters of a new total ban on smoking.
In San Francisco California, a city ordinance described as "the most stringent tobacco regulation in America" would ban smoking everywhere, including private homes and apartments, sparing only large detached family homes - and if they squeeze this one through expect those homes to be targeted next.
This is not a debate about the dangers of passive smoking, we all know smoking is bad for us and those around us. On an individual level, freedom includes the right to do dumb things and whether others should be subject to our vices comes down to two questions, is fascism more unhealthy for a society than passive smoking and does the government really care about your health?
Dare I suggest that western governments raining down depleted uranium in all corners of the world, spraying chemtrails in our skies, playing Dr. Frankenstein with our food, drugging us into oblivion with psychotropic poison pills, shooting x-rays to expose our naked bodies, and injecting us with toxic vaccines really care about our physical well-being?
Do an elite that openly advocate culling the majority of the world's population really want to put a stop to cancer?

The answer is no, so why the transatlantic obsession to have us stub out our cigarettes?
It's all about control, it's all about letting you know who the bosses are. If the government can regulate personal habits and behavior, what's next? If the state is so concerned about our good health as they would have you believe, why not use the latest scientific advancements to remove that nasty aggressive gene that causes so much unhappiness? Well, you're causing those around you distress and harming their health so why not? Are your political opinions a mental illness? Are they harming society? Perhaps we should ban certain types of "free" speech that is offensive to others.

You see where this is all heading - how long before our wall mounted personal x-ray body scanners are accompanied by special smoke detectors that inform on you to the local Stasi if you dare to light up?
Smoking may be very unhealthy but I'd certainly rather be around a bunch of smokers than a bunch of Fascists.
If you have never smoked and couldn't give a damn if it gets banned then consider the fact that cell phones are emerging as the new kid on the bloc as far as cancer's best friend goes. British expert Professor Lawrie Challis said last week that mobile phones could turn out to be as harmful as cigarettes. How would you react if the government suddenly announced that your Blackberry was off limits because the anti-cell phone lobby got a bill through?
We live in a paranoid world overpopulated by ninnying jellyfish who dare not dip their toe in the water in case there's a law against it, it might upset someone, or it might be bad for their health.

Writer Alan Caruba adds the following, "There are few, if any, people that do not know there is an element of risk involved in the decision to smoke. There is risk involved when any American gets into his car and goes anywhere."
"Driving kills over 40,000 Americans every year. It is the price we pay for the mobility and other benefits cars and vehicles provide. There is, in fact, risk in every human activity including the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages and even the simple act of eating."
Here are some more examples of fascism being unhealthier than smoking.
- In Omaha Nebraska, city police are encouraging residents to call 911 if they see a smoker in a non-smoking area. So when your wife is being raped by an illegal immigrant or a gang banger, be assured that the cops have a good reason for their absence - Joe Bloggs just lit up a Marlboro and he's going to get Tasered.
- Bangor City Council approved a measure that criminalizes smoking in your own car with a child present.
- In Okemos Michigan, an insurance business boss ordered all his employees to take urine tests to determine if they had smoked, even in their own homes. Smokers were warned that they would be fired.
- In New York, Mayor Bloomberg's tobacco stormtroopers raided the offices of Vanity Fair no less than three times, attempting to catch noted journalist Graydon Carter smoking. All they found was an unused clean ash tray but Carter was fined and given a warning nonetheless. Numerous other instances of infamous "ash tray raids" have occurred in New York City.
- In Scotland, social services are drawing up a master list of smokers and warning residents against smoking in their own homes unless they wish to risk being cut off from government services.
Many of the people reading this will have had relatives die directly due to smoking. I am not advocating smoking, I am simply advocating the fact that I'd rather live in a society of smokers than a society of control freak fascists who slavishly seize upon any action of the individual in order to create yet another pretext for creating a Stasi system of informants, locking us all up and building the infrastructure of the prison planet.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Colloidal Silver and Animals

Silver's potential mined Entrepreneur developing more products with health benefits
By Bill Wolfe The Courier-Journal
Monday, January 29, 2007
Silver, according to recent trading figures, is worth more than $13 an ounce, or $200 a pound. But for Mickey Ballew, it's not just market value that makes silver a precious metal.
Silver, Ballew said, is a natural antibiotic with health benefits for people and their pets. His Louisville company, MLB AG Enterprises, sells a variety of products containing silver, including a wound spray, a nebulized solution for respiratory problems, bandages, socks, and other garments marketed under the company's brand name, EquiSilver.

"It is fascinating," Ballew said of the shiny metal. "It still never ceases to amaze me what it does and the different things it will do."
According to Ballew and other fans of silver, the metal has a long history as a health aid. "Before penicillin, silver was the only antibiotic in the world," he said, and was long used to sanitize drinking water.
Today, a silver solution can kill germs and promote the healing of cuts, scratches, burns and other skin wounds on pets, Ballew said, and can speed recovery from infections.
Silver-bearing blankets and leg wraps for horses reduce pain and inflammation, he contends, while clothing made with silver kills the germs that cause body odor -- an important consideration for hunters hoping to close in on their game undetected.
Not everyone is a believer. In 1996, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that over-the-counter silver products for human use were "not generally recognized as safe and effective." The next year, the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine said treatments using small particles of silver -- called colloidal silver -- had not been proved effective for any animal diseases.
But the FDA hasn't banned silver health supplements, and it has approved wound dressings for humans that use silver as an antibacterial agent. In 2003, Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Band-Aid strips, introduced a silver-based antimicrobial dressing it calls Actisorb Silver 220.
And silver has other friends in the veterinary industry.
"It's effective and it works very well," said Dr. Thomas Tobin, a Lexington veterinarian, pharmacologist and toxicologist who advised Ballew in developing some of his products. Tobin is also working on a book on the role of silver in veterinary care.
Dr. P.J. Broadfoot in Van Buren, Ark., uses Ballew's EquiSilver products. "We have used some forms of colloidal silver now for several years, and his appears to be a really good grade. We have had good success using it," she said.
The idea that silver could be helpful in medicine shouldn't surprise people, Broadfoot said. Silvadene cream, sometimes used for burns, contains silver. "There's more mainstream" use of silver "out there than we actually realize sometimes."
Ballew launched MLB AG after losing his job with a company that sold packaging materials. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, "business just really dropped a lot. I was kind of the last one in and the first one out," he said.
He went to work as an independent representative for a New York company, Select Fabricators, that makes silver products, including bandages, wraps and other dressings that incorporate silver to fight bacteria.
Ballew saw a natural market for such products in Kentucky -- but sold for horses, not people. In 2003, he began MLB AG, buying merchandise from Select Fabricators and marketing the products for use with horses under his private label, EquiSilver.
Although marketed for animals, the spray is also useful as an antibacterial product for humans, Ballew said. Among the company's customers has been the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.
The office purchased the EquiSilver spray as a disinfectant, and some of the deputies also sampled the EquiSilver socks, said Maj. Christine Hancock, who is in charge of ordering supplies.
In officers' boots, "your feet have a tendency to get dry and cracked," Hancock said. With the silver-imbued socks, the officers "really thought they noticed a difference." The department didn't order an additional supply because the officers buy their own uniforms, using an annual allowance.
It hasn't been easy promoting EquiSilver products without recognition from many in mainstream medicine, Ballew said. "It's an uphill battle I've had to fight, and the best way I've done it is by performance of the product."
In Louisville, Feeders Supply Co. carries the Pet Silver wound spray. Several products, including the spray and socks, are available at Metzger's Country Store, an animal-supply shop in Simpsonville. Most products are sold directly to horse owners or veterinarians. Ballew said he plans to begin Web sales in the near future.
None of the items are made in Louisville. The socks come from North Carolina. An Oregon health-supplement company makes the spray and a similar veterinary solution for internal use. That company, RMAC Enterprises, joined Ballew last month to create a joint venture called EquiSilver LLC.
The arrangement should help sales of EquiSilver products in two ways, Ballew said.
"They are going to do a lot of national marketing advertising, which is something I haven't really had the money to do," he said. In addition, "they're going to bring a lot of their human products over into the animal side under the EquiSilver label, which will be our flagship label."
In Simpsonville, Metzger's hopes to carry more EquiSilver products after a planned expansion, said co-owner Charlie Metzger, who began stocking the spray and solution last summer. "It is probably the best overall product that we have here in the store.
"When Mickey came to us and talked about all the things it could do, I have to admit, I was very skeptical," Metzger said. But a tryout by two employees -- and Metzger's personal use -- changed his mind. "It was doing everything that it said," he said.
EquiSilver offers a money-back guarantee, but out of more than 150 bottles sold at the store, just one has been returned, Metzger said.
"Obviously, I'm a big believer in it."

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Nuclear Plan in Chaos as Iran Leader Flounders

Nuclear Plan in Chaos as Iran Leader Flounders
Global Research, January 28, 2007
The Observer

Boasts of a nuclear programme are just propaganda, say insiders, but the PR could be enough to provoke Israel into war THE OBSERVER, January 28, 2007 Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.
Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.
Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.
The disclosures come as Iran has told the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], that it plans to install a new 'cascade' of 3,000 high-speed centrifuges at its controversial underground facility at Natanz in central Iran next month.
The centrifuges were supposed to have been installed almost a year ago and many experts are extremely doubtful that Iran has yet mastered the skills to install and run it. Instead, they argue, the 'installation' will more probably be about propaganda than reality.
The detailed descriptions of Iran's problems in enriching more than a few grams of uranium using high-speed centrifuges - 50kg is required for two nuclear devices - comes in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture being painted of Iran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which to attack Israel. Instead, say experts, the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has massively set back an Iran heavily dependent on his network.
A key case in point is that Tehran originally procured the extremely high-quality bearings required for the centrifuges' carbon-fibre 'top rotors' - spinning dishes within the machines - from foreign companies in Malaysia.
With that source closed down two years ago, Iran is making the bearings itself with only limited success. It is the repeated failure of these crucial bearings, say some sources, that has been one of the programme's biggest setbacks.
Iran is also believed to be critically short of key materials for producing a centrifuge production line to highly enrich uranium - in particular the so-called maraging steel, able to be used at high temperatures and under high stress without deforming - and specialist carbon fibre products. In this light, say some experts, its insistence that it will install 3,000 new centrifuges at the underground Natanz facility in the coming months is as much about domestic PR as reality.
The growing recognition, in expert circles at least, of how far Iran is from mastering centrifuge technology was underlined on Friday by comments by the head of the IAEA, whose inspectors have been attempting to monitor the Iranian nuclear programme.
Talking to the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Mohamed El Baradei appealed for all sides to take a 'time out' under which Iranian enrichment and UN sanctions would be suspended simultaneously, adding that the point at which Iran is able to produce a nuclear weapon is at least half a decade away. In pointed comments aimed at the US and Israel, the Nobel Peace prize winner warned that an attack on Iran would have 'catastrophic consequences'.
Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants.
The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme.
Recent months have seen leaks and background briefings reminiscent of the softening up of public opinion for the war against Iraq which have presented a series of allegations regarding Iran's meddling in Iraq and Lebanon, the 'genocidal' intentions of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and its 'connections' with North Korea's nuclear weapons programme.
It also emerged last week in the Israeli media that the country's private diplomatic efforts to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran were being co-ordinated by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad.
The escalating sense of crisis is being driven by two imminent events, the 'installation' of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and the scheduled delivery of fuel from Russia for Iran's Busheyr civil nuclear reactor, due to start up this autumn. Both are regarded as potential trigger points for an Israeli attack.
'The reality is that they have got to the stage where they can run a small experimental centrifuge cascade intermittently,' said one Western source familiar with the Iranian programme. 'They simply have not got to the stage where they can run 3,000 centrifuges There is no evidence either that they have been stockpiling low-enriched uranium which could be highly enriched quickly and which would give an idea of a malevolent intent.'
Another source with familiarity with the Iranian programme said: 'Iran has put all this money into this huge hole in the ground at Natanz; it has put a huge amount of money in these P-1 centrifuges, the model rejected by Urenco. It is like the Model T Ford compared to a Prius. That is not to say they will not master the technology eventually, but they are trying to master very challenging technology without access to everything that they require.'
Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Hegemony and Appeasement: Setting Up the Next U.S.-Israeli Target (Iran) For Another "Supreme International Crime"

Hegemony and Appeasement: Setting Up the Next U.S.-Israeli Target (Iran) For Another "Supreme International Crime"
by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
Global Research, January 27, 2007 zmag.org
Still digesting their recent and ongoing aggressions in the Middle East, the Bush and Israeli regimes now threaten to attack Iran. As these warrior states cast their long shadow across the region, they find themselves aided and abetted by the Security Council, the other major powers, parties of the opposition, and the media.
The ease with which a supposedly independent media in a supposedly democratic society like the United States can demonize enemies and convert third- and fourth-rate official targets into major threats is almost beyond belief. And the collective amnesia of the establishment media enables them to do the same thing over and over again; they never learn, and most important never have to learn, because the collective amnesia they help instill in the society protects them against correction—an unending series of victories over memory in the exercise of "reality-control" (Orwell)...

In a statement delivered to the IAEA more than three-and-one-half years ago, Iran still held out hope "that not all international organizations have yet come [to] the state of total domination."31 That hope has not been realized and the performance of the UN and UN Security Council in the Middle East crises has been shameful. To have allowed two global rogue states that have evaded or violated the NPT and committed a stream of major UN Charter and Geneva Convention violations to drag Iran before the Security Council, and to obtain Chapter VII sanctions against it, constitutes a most grave moral and political collapse of any genuine international community worthy of the name. The Iran case is a true throwback to Munich-style appeasement and poses a serious threat to world peace. This is because it bends multilateral institutions to fit the super-rogue state's will, and provides it with a semi-legal basis for attacking its next target, an amazing innovation in the annals of power and lawlessness, given its performance in brushing aside any UN constraints when attacking Iraq just four years ago...

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Radar Love: Robbing the Cradle to Pay War Profiteers

Radar Love: Robbing the Cradle to Pay War Profiteers
By Chris Floyd t r u t h o u t UK Correspondent
Saturday 27 January 2007

I. Out of Africa - Into Corporate Coffers
Another day, yet another scandal involving the saintly Tony Blair and highly connected Anglo-American arms peddlers. The British prime minister, who, like George W. Bush, has made his sleeve-worn Christianity a major component of his political persona, is knee-deep in a corruption probe once again, just weeks after peremptorily quashing an official investigation into bribes, kickbacks and influence-peddling allegations involving his government, his corporate cronies and the Saudi royals. (See "War Profits Trump the Rule of Law" Truthout.org, December 22).
The new arms scandal is possibly even more morally egregious than the Saudi deal. While the latter involved backroom baksheesh between two wealthy governments and a fat-cat corporation, the latest imbroglio literally tore desperately needed aid from the hands of some of the world's poorest children. And as with the Saudi bribefest, it was Blair's personal intervention that put the profits of an arms dealer above all other considerations.
Last week, investigators with the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) unearthed new evidence of a $12 million slush fund allegedly used to bribe officials in Tanzania into approving a $50 million purchase of a military air traffic control system from Britain's biggest arms merchant, BAE Systems, in 2002. Tanzania, which has a grand total of eight military airplanes and one of the most crushing loads of national debt in the world, had to borrow even more money to finance the sale. The money came, naturally, from another of Britain's most august and politically wired institutions, Barclays Bank. Tanzania repaid this loan with money that Blair's government had given it, ostensibly to support public education.
In other words, public money earmarked to help lift Tanzania's children out of poverty was instead laundered into the coffers of BAE and Barclays, with Tony Blair acting as bagman. Again, Blair had to override the objections of own cabinet - and protests from the World Bank, which rarely sees a sweetheart deal for Western interests it doesn't like - in order to foist an extravagant, useless white elephant on the people of Tanzania. In that nation, as the Guardian notes, "life expectancy is only 43 years, the poorest third of the population live on less than a dollar a day, and 45 percent of public spending is provided by Western donors."
"[Blair] insisted on letting this go ahead, when it stank," former cabinet minister Clare Short told the Guardian. "It was always obvious that this useless project was corrupt." Short, who resigned from the cabinet in protest after the invasion of Iraq, said that Chancellor Gordon Brown, who will almost certainly become prime minister this year, had also opposed the sale. But Blair had forced through the license for the deal, she said. When BAE calls, Tony comes running.
And BAE's voice echoes loudly across the ocean as well. As we noted here last month, BAE has become one of the top 10 US military firms as well, through its acquisitions during the ever-profitable "war on terror" - including transactions with the Carlyle Group, the former corporate perch of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush and still the current home of the family fixer, James Baker.
The new SFO evidence comes from the same Swiss banks where they were tracking down almost $2 billion in hush-hush slush funds that BAE had allegedly set aside for Saudi royals to win their continuing approval for a mammoth arms deal called, with cynical irony, "al-Yamanah" (Arabic for "the dove"). This cozy arrangement for fighter planes and other military aircraft and servicing has been going on for 18 years, and has been worth almost $80 billion for BAE so far. But first the Guardian, then SFO investigators, found evidence that BAE had used the secret stash to supply Saudi princes - every bit the equal of Bush and Blair in public piety - with luxury apartments, sumptuous holidays, designer cars (including a gold-plated Rolls-Royce, the Times reports), comely female companionship and other perks to keep them sweet on the deal. When the SFO at last gained entry to the inner sanctums of Swiss bankery, where the high and mighty (not to mention the down and dirty) have hid so many dark secrets for so many years, they also began looking into evidence that top BAE executives might have been dipping into the slush fund for various amenities as well.
Unfortunately, the probe was running parallel with high-wire negotiations for a $12 billion augmentation of al-Yamanah, with a new round of BAE-built fighter jets on the line. The Saudis, tired of the embarrassing revelations, played hardball, threatening to end all cooperation in the terror war or even cut diplomatic ties with Britain if the investigation was not quashed. Dick Cheney also weighed in, reportedly telling Tony that he needed to can all this "enforcement of the law" malarkey from the SFO and keep the Saudis happy. The dutiful PM then had his dutiful attorney general - his lifelong pal Peter Goldsmith, whom Blair had elevated to the House of Lords - make an unprecedented ruling to kill the investigation stone-dead. (Goldsmith, of course, is most famous for telling Blair that an invasion of Iraq would probably be illegal, in several different ways - then suddenly changing his mind after a "consultation" with the boys in the White House not long before the "shock and awe" began. Guess they made him an offer he couldn't refuse.)
Although the stench of the child-robbing Tanzanian deal has long lingered over a Blair government that came into office promising an "ethical foreign policy," it is only now that evidence of actual criminality is emerging. The SFO found that BAE had paid secret "commissions" of $12 million to a pair of Tanzanian middlemen who brokered the deal. The brokers received a more public $400,000 fee for the transaction, which is considered a "legitimate" rake-off in the arms-peddling world. But they deposited the $12 million in a Swiss bank account of one of BAE's many off-shore, tax-dodge front companies, Red Diamond.
One of the Tanzanian agents, Sailesh Vithlani, acknowledged the existence of the fund, but denied that he had used any of it to pay Tanzanian officials. When asked if he'd passed any of the cash to "third parties outside Tanzania" - such as, say, BAE executives or UK government officials - Vithlani chose a prudent silence. "When the UK police traveled to Tanzania É we answered all their questions," he told the Guardian. BAE's chairman at the time of the deal, Sir Dick Evans, has been questioned by the SFO in the probe, the paper added.
Down in the Tanzanian capital of Dar es Salaam, a "climate of fear" lingers over those with any knowledge of the BAE deal, the Guardian reports:
"One government contractor says: 'Our position here is too vulnerable to be seen talking.' A European from an NGO says: 'They'll throw me out if I go public.' And one knowledgeable journalist claims: 'If I put my name on the radar story, I could be killed.'"
This grubby affair - replete with kickbacks, slush funds, death threats, cronyism and the infliction of needless suffering on defenseless people - is a striking example of the genuine priorities that lay behind the noble rhetoric of the world's most advanced democracies. The care and feeding - or rather, gorging - of the Anglo-American war merchants and their ancillaries trump all other considerations: basic morality, common decency, human rights, even the long-term national security of the states whose leaders feverishly pour weapons into the most volatile regions on the planet, fomenting chaos, corruption, breakdown and the inevitable blowback.
II. A Tale of Two Leaders
Blair, of course, was unbowed by the latest wave of sleaze charges breaking upon his sainted head. (Indeed, just as the new Tanzanian evidence emerged, the house of one of Blair's top aides was raided by police looking for evidence of a Watergate-style cover-up in the ongoing "cash-for-honors" scandal: the allegation that Blair sold royal honors to wealthy Labour Party donors in exchange for campaign funds.) In fact, in one of a series of major speeches he is giving in an attempt to establish his legacy before leaving office later this year, Blair exhorted his successors to carry on his belligerent policies, particularly the use of "hard power."
Blair's speech rang with distinct echoes of the neo-con "national greatness" rhetoric that glories in constant warfare in distant lands - and has been codified as the official "national security doctrine" of the United States government by Bush. Speaking on board the naval assault ship Albion, Blair was brutally honest in his call for Britain to remain a "war-fighting" nation, unlike those other sissy countries, such as Germany and France, who "have, effectively, except in the most exceptional circumstances, retreated to peacekeeping alone."
(And Lord knows, it certainly is a tragedy to have, say, the German armed forces dedicated solely to peacekeeping, isn't it? Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Germans returned to the front lines of warfighting for Western values, as they did with such gusto in the last century? We can only hope they will be inspired by Blair's martial spirit.)
But Blair - who, like almost every acolyte of war in the Bush administration and the neo-con networks and the right-wing media, has never served in the military or spent a single moment under fire - is keen to keep throwing British troops into cauldrons around the world, even if, as he candidly admits, they have no business being there.
"Our armed forces will be deployed in the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory, in environments and in ways unfamiliar to them," Blair told his military audience. The audience responded somewhat tepidly to the waving of the bloody shirt. "They will usually fight alongside other nations, in alliance with them; notably, but probably not exclusively, with the USA," Blair said.
Ah, but why must Britain's youth be sent to kill and die in exotic, far-flung climes? Because "the frontiers of our security no longer stop at the Channel," says BAE bagman Blair. "What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan, or Indonesia, or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa, for example, in Sudan or Somalia - the new frontiers for our security are global." Of course, many people around the world - in the Middle East, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Asia and Africa - will doubtless wonder how this enlightened stance differs from the policies pursued by Blair's predecessors when they came calling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
In the above passage, Blair quotes almost verbatim from the charter document of the Bush administration: the September 2000 manifesto of the "Project for the New American Century," an empire-and-oil special-interest group whose members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Scooter Libby and Jeb Bush, among many others. In a report that called for implanting a US military presence in Iraq (regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power there or not), and which acknowledged that its "revolutionary" plans for vastly expanding the military-industrial establishment would be difficult to achieve unless the American people were "catalyzed" by a "new Pearl Harbor," PNAC asserted that America's frontiers now encompassed the entire world. Thus, American troops too would have to be sent into dozens of nations far from home, to serve as "the cavalry" on this new frontier.
A final echo of Bushist militarism came when Blair - calling for a foreign policy that "keeps our American alliance strong and is prepared to project hard as well as soft power" - finally got down to brass tacks: "The covenant between armed forces, government and people has to be renewed." This does not mean, as you might think, that the people should have a say as to when and where their children are to be sent to "the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory." No, the new covenant means "increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our armed forces." It means, in other words, bigger bucks for BAE and the many American war firms, such as Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and others, who have been hard-wired into Britain's military-industrial complex.
This is the mind-set - and the depraved morality - of the leaders of the Anglo-American democracies in the 21st century: More war, more money for war, more money for the merchants of war, no matter who must suffer for it, no matter how badly it skews and perverts national policies.
Contrast this with the words of a former leader in the Anglo-American alliance: a Republican, a general, a conservative, a man who, unlike the prissy tough guys in the White House and 10 Downing Street, had actually known the horrors of war, and the corrosive, corrupting effects of even the most justified "good war." Recall the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower as he left office in 1960 - and weep over the degeneration and brutalization that has afflicted these democracies in the ensuing decades:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Half the military establishment believes that an attack on Iran is likely

The endgame in Iraq that can't succeed: Half the military establishment believes that an attack on Iran is likely
by Adrian Hamilton
Global Research, January 27, 2007
The Independent - 2007-01-20

There was not a chink of light between the British and American positions in Iraq, said a White House spokesman on Wednesday night. No, indeed. What there is is growing darkness. The US President has announced a "new strategy" to send 20,000 more US troops to Iraq. No one knows whether the Senate will grant the money, what the extra troops are actually for and how long they'll be there, or whether the British are part of it or embarked on a withdrawal all of our own.
So confused is the discussion that there is now a whole new theory that the additional American forces are not there to bring security to Iraq at all. They're there to face off Iran for the moment when Washington, or more likely Jerusalem, decides to launch the bombers.
Iran is the spectre that haunts the Middle East at the moment. Almost every comment from Washington suggests that the White House sees it as the greatest single threat to its policy in the region, and that neither the US nor, even less, Israel will sit by and let Iran continue on its nuclear course, peaceful or otherwise. Every diplomatic and military action also suggests that the US is looking to face down the regime in Tehran by erecting a coalition of Sunni countries around and suppressing the Shia groups within Iraq which are held to be under Tehran's control.
(It may be pure and fanciful speculation, but) it has to be said that half the military and political establishment believes that an attack on Iran is likely. Even the Iranians are beginning to show signs of nerves, feeling (quite rightly) that President Ahmadinejad has overreached himself and put too many international backs up for the country's good.
So what is the truth? You won't get much of it from either the White House or Whitehall, where a sort of embarrassed evasion prevails. Part of this is because, whether it actually wants to assault Iran or not, (it does) it suits Washington to keep up the appearance that it might, the more to frighten the regime into co-operation and restraint. But part of this may be because it doesn't really have a clear plan at all.
The US administration has lost the confidence of the American public and the majority of Congress. No democratic leader can pursue a war without the support of either, let alone both. Iran, as far as Congress is concerned, would be a military escapade too far. The Iraqi venture is no different. We're in the end game, only no one is being honest about what they're up to.
Having rejected the thrust of the recommendations of the Baker study group, not least because they were centred on letting Iran into a settlement, President Bush has gone for the only alternative, which is to continue on the present course, redoubling his efforts, to try to clear the decks for eventual withdrawal. It's not a long-term solution. Few believe that 20,000 extra troops can turn around an Iraqi society fracturing into separate tribal as well as religious groups. The Americans would have to go for long-term direct rule to try to achieve that, and they have neither the troops nor the timescale for it.
What they can hope for, and are presumably seeking, is a short-term suppression of violence through pouring men into hotspot areas and bearing down on militia groups. At the same time, on the assumption that Iran and Syria are responsible for stoking up the violence, America is moving to confront Iran on all fronts. All being well (a highly optimistic assumption), the White House would hope to be in the position of announcing troop withdrawals by autumn, blaming the Iraqi government for failing to deliver its side of the bargain should violence erupt again.
The trouble with this is that it is based on a series of misapprehensions. The violence in Iraq can't all be put down to outside influence from Iran and Syria. Most of it is home grown. It isn't, as the President argued on Tuesday, all a matter of sectarian extremes. It arises from tribal loyalties and local ethnic cleansing, which cannot be dealt with simply by increasing security patrols.
Nor can Iranian influence be simply wished away. They are neighbours after all, with strong family as well as religious ties to groups within Iraq. Whatever happens, Baghdad will have to live with Iran afterwards. Trying to set up regional anti-Shia alliances will only exacerbate a sectarian divide that could, if ignited, rip apart Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf.
And where does Britain stand in all this? It clearly doesn't believe in the so-called "new US strategy". Equally obviously, it wants to get out as soon as it can. But so long as it is led by Tony Blair, you will hear not a hint of criticism of Washington or of explanation to his own public. There is no light between the US and the UK, just an empty void.

There is no such thing called Iraqi government

There is no such thing called Iraqi government
Friday, January 26th, 2007
George Galloway
Speaking to the House of Commons, Respect MP George Galloway lashed out at the U.S. and UK governments’ policies in Iraq.
Here is his speech:
When I was his warm-up act, I used to describe the right hon. member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) as the best Foreign Secretary we never had, and his speech this evening showed why. Indeed, an alternative Administration of all the talents became clear on the Labour Benches, including the right hon. Gentleman’s friends the right hon. member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), and the hon. members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
How much stronger the Labour party’s position would be in the opinion polls today if those were the men sitting around the Cabinet table, rather than the men and women who are.
What a contrast there was between those shafts of light and the myopia displayed by the Foreign Secretary. So rose-tinted were her glasses that she had even spotted the first elections in Saudi Arabia. As one who follows events in the Arab world closely, I must tell the House that I missed the first elections in Saudi Arabia, probably the un-freest, most undemocratic and most anti-democratic country on earth. So keen was the Foreign Secretary to describe the success of Anglo-American policy in the Arab world that she prayed in aid a grant to the youth parliament in Bahrain.
But those were not the most foolish of the things that the Foreign Secretary said in her long speech. She talked about supporting the Government and people of Lebanon. Well, let us split that proposition. She was not much help to the Government of Lebanon when its Prime Minister was weeping on television and begging for a ceasefire, and when the British and American Governments alone in the world were refusing, indeed blocking, any attempts to demand an immediate cessation of the Israeli bombardment. Worse, she was not much help to the Government or the people of Lebanon when British airports were being used for the trans-shipment of American weapons to Israel that were raining down death and destruction on the very people of Lebanon whom she now claims to stand beside. But, of course, that was code for saying that she does not support the 1 million demonstrators in the square in Beirut who are demanding democracy.
The Foreign Secretary describes the Government of Lebanon as a democratic Government. If the Minister will listen, I can educate him.
There is no democratic Government in Lebanon. The Minister should know that. If there were a democracy in Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah would be the President, because he would get the most votes. But of course he cannot be the President, because you have to be a Christian to be the President, and you have to be a Sunni to be the Prime Minister, and you have to be a Shia to be the Speaker. What they have in Lebanon is precisely the opposite of democracy. It is a sectarian building-block Government that they have in Lebanon, and moreover one based on a census that is more than 50 years out of date. If those 1 million demonstrators had been in Ukraine or Belarus or Georgia, they would be described as the orange revolution, or given some other epithet ”perhaps even “the cedar revolution”.
So myopic was the Foreign Secretary that she talked about the peace process in Palestine and refused to condemn the theft, as the right hon. member for Manchester, Gorton put it ”he used the words”of $900 million, stolen from the Palestinian Authority. The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), without a hint of irony, advanced the extraordinary proposition that we are fighting for democracy in Iraq, while we can steal the money of the Palestinian Administration in the occupied territories because the people voted for a Government whom Olmert, Bush and Blair did not like. So myopic was the Foreign Secretary’s view that she prayed in aid an opinion poll from Basra which told us that the people had every confidence in the police: ”we had to send the British in to blow up a police station and kill umpteen Iraqi policemen because we said that they were about to massacre the prisoners in their jails.”
The Foreign Secretary prayed in aid the Iraqi Government ”a virtual Government ”saying that, more importantly, the Iraqi Government do not consider that they have a civil war. Of course they do not, because there is no Iraqi Government. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton put it, we have installed a gang of warlords in power in Baghdad, the heads of competing militias, some of them at war with our own soldiers in the south of Iraq. It is not a Government, but Martin Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York” that we have put in charge in Baghdad. That is not my concept. That is the concept of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.
So myopic was the Foreign Secretary that she had her finger out and wagging at Iran, warning it of what it must do, or must not do in terms of nuclear weapons. She is the Foreign Secretary of a Government who are about to spend 75 billion on our own nuclear weapons, who declare themselves the best friend of Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and who say nothing about Pakistan, a military dictatorship acquiring nuclear weapons. It would make you laugh if it did not make you cry.
Most serious of all was the extent to which the Foreign Secretary sought to lull us to sleep walk into a coming conflict with Iran. Invited by one of her colleagues to describe, as the former Foreign Secretary had, an attack on Iran as inconceivable, she refused, preferring instead the formulation that no one is contemplating it. But they are contemplating it.
Israel has a war plan carefully worked out to do it. As we know from the journalism of Seymour Hersh, the greatest of all American journalists, who brought us the stories from Vietnam, American generals have to the nth degree worked out an attack upon Iran.
The Foreign Secretary says that we stand by our soldiers. We stand by them so much that we pay them so little. We had to give them a Christmas bonus to make up their wages. Their families are claiming means-tested benefits and living in houses that you would not put a dangerous dog in. We send them, ill clad, ill equipped, ill armed, without armour, on a pack of lies into war after war after war.
Let me invite the House to contemplate this and see if I am as right about this as I was about Iraq four years ago. If a finger is raised against Iran by Israel or the United States, the first people to pay the price will be the 7,000 young men and women of the British armed forces that we have stationed in the south of Iraq, where Iran, thanks to us, is now top dog. If Members want to know what that will look like, think about the film “Zulu”, but without the happy ending. That is how irresponsible our Government are. They are part of an axis that is contemplating a war against a country that we have made powerful in a place where we have our soldiers standing in a thin red line in the sand.
For the moment, the trial of Tony Blair merely takes place on Channel 4 television. The day will come, and it is coming soon, when a real trial of Tony Blair will take place in a real court.

Bush Is About to Attack Iran: Why Can't Americans See it?

Bush Is About to Attack Iran: Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, January 27, 2007
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.
Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.
There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:
"Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.... The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the US president."
The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.
Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker."
Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media.
General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.
Why cannot Americans understand?
Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.

Friday, January 26, 2007

‘There is no war on terror’

‘There is no war on terror’
Thursday, January 25th, 2007
Clare Dyer
The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a “war on terror” and calling for a “culture of legislative restraint” in passing laws to deal with terrorism.
Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a “fear-driven and inappropriate” response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law.
He acknowledged that the country faced a different and more dangerous threat than in the days of IRA terrorism and that it had “all the disturbing elements of a death cult psychology”.But he said: “It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values. I think it important to understand that this is one of its primary purposes.”
Sir Ken pointed to the rhetoric around the “war on terror” - which has been adopted by Tony Blair and ministers after being coined by George Bush - to illustrate the risks.
He said: “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ’soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a ‘war on terror’, just as there can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’.
“The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”
Sir Ken, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, told members of the Criminal Bar Association it should be an article of faith that crimes of terrorism are dealt with by criminal justice and that a “culture of legislative restraint in the area of terrorist crime is central to the existence of an efficient and human rights compatible process”.
He said: “We wouldn’t get far in promoting a civilising culture of respect for rights amongst and between citizens if we set about undermining fair trials in the simple pursuit of greater numbers of inevitably less safe convictions. On the contrary, it is obvious that the process of winning convictions ought to be in keeping with a consensual rule of law and not detached from it. Otherwise we sacrifice fundamental values critical to the maintenance of the rule of law - upon which everything else depends.”
His comments will be seen as a swipe against government legislation allowing the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial, later held incompatible with human rights by the courts, and the replacement law that permits suspects to be placed under control orders instead of being brought to trial.
Sir Ken referred to the government’s opt-out from the European convention on human rights to pass the detention law - possible under the convention only if the “life of the nation” is threatened. “Everyone here will come to their own conclusion about whether, in the striking Strasbourg phrase, the very ‘life of the nation’ is presently endangered,” he said. “And everyone here will equally understand the risk to our constitution if we decide that it is, when it is not.”
The criminal justice response to terrorism must be “proportionate and grounded in due process and the rule of law,” he said. “We must protect ourselves from these atrocious crimes without abandoning our traditions of freedom.”

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Colloidal Silver v antibiotics

The Overuse, Misuse, and Abuse of Antibiotics
By Makeisha Lee
...Were you aware that antibiotics have been known to cause heart attacks, strokes, and have put people in comas? Over 100 million doses of antibiotics are handed out each year. Even the Center For Disease Control, says that 60 percent are totally unnecessary prescriptions. Statistics show that antibiotics have killed over 900,000 people, and at least 10 million have suffered permanent physiological disorders directly attributable to taking antibiotics.
True enough, some antibiotics have saved some people over the last 30 years showing that they do have a time and a place. However it is their overuse, misuse, and abuse that has produced devastating imbalances within the body. These imbalances are created by killing off all the good bacteria along with the bad. The good bacteria are part of your body’s natural defense system and help prevent other organisms, like fungus and parasites from overpowering our bodies...

Don't panic about antibiotics and what they may have already done to you, but do take the time to consider how you can reverse the effects of past antibiotic use and make better choices in the future. How is this attainable?
You must begin by detoxifying the body that is the best place to start because when our bodies are toxic the immune system becomes the garbage collection system and is suppressed. Detoxifying eliminates Candida so that you can prepare the body for the restoration of the good bacterial flora balance.
If you have a condition that would require the use of antibiotics, it is highly advisable that you take an anti-candida product such an acidophilus. Alternative health experts implement the use of Colloidal silver as a natural form of antibiotic.
Dr. James Balch writes, “Colloidal silver can be used to fight fungal infections, to promote healing of burns, wounds, cuts, rashes, and sunburn. It has been shown to be a powerful antibiotic and anti-fungal agent; effective against more than 650 disease-causing organisms."
Remember this: science is not better than nature. Nature provides all the medicine we need!
Makeisha Lee is a health and nutrition consultant.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

International Mobilization To Stop U.S. Attack on Iran

International Mobilization To Stop U.S. Attack on Iran
by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach
Global Research, January 24, 2007
Dissident News

Anyone, including those in Iranian political circles, who cherished the illusion that the Cheney-Bush cabal was not committed to a new war in Southwest Asia, has had to abandon such dreams in the wake of George W. Bush’s Jan. 10 speech on his “new” policy for Iraq. The so-called “surge” in troop strength for Iraq which Bush announced, was recognized, correctly, by all in the region, as a commitment to open a new war front, this time against Iran or Syria. This analysis, which EIR had been circulating for weeks, including during a visit to Tehran in late November-early December, was finally embraced as the correct reading.Bush said that he would not only deploy 21,500 more troops to Iraq, but that he would pursue foreign elements working with the insurgency (read: Syria and Iran). Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad both echoed the new policy. Not only would the U.S. forces now pursue Iranian and Syrian elements inside Iraq, suspected of working with the insurgency, but they would also engage in “hot pursuit” into Iran itself. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, whether he thought the Administration did not have the authority to engage in cross-border incursions into Iran, said, “I didn’t say that.”

Thus, what is “new” in the crazy line emanating from the White House, is not the number of troops to be beefed up in Iraq. What is “new” is the propaganda line being spread to justify military action against Iran. Due to the fact that the U.S. has not succeeded in producing any smoking gun to show that Iran’s nuclear program were military, and in fact, could not do so, it is difficult for Washington to present the nuclear program as a casus belli, even despite the unfortunate UN Security Council’s December resolution, calling on Iran to suspend its enrichment activities. The new indictment against Iran is therefore that it has been feeding the anti-U.S. resistance in Iraq with men and matériel.‘Sheer Insanity’
Combined with the highly visible increase in U.S. military deployments to the Persian Gulf, the President’s announcement has led to a dramatic escalation of activity opposing military action against Iran on Capital Hill, and in other quarters. Leading Senators, including Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) have come forward to assert that the President has no authority to do something as insane as to attack Iran. Legislation on that precise point has already been introduced by a group of Republicans and Democrats in the House, and can be expected to be pursued in the Senate as well. Columnists are also warning about the potential of a provocation being carried out by the U.S. forces in the area, which could serve as a “Gulf of Tonkin” pretext for war.
Retired military figures have also upped their profile in opposing action against Iran. These include retired Generals Barry McCaffrey, Joseph Hoar, and William Odom, who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18, primarily against the Iraq “surge” policy. Most blunt was McCaffrey, who said the public threats against Iran by the Administration were “sheer insanity,” and that if the plan for military action went ahead, “this is truly the most significant blunder in strategic thinking we will have seen since World War II.”
Internationally, initiatives have been taken by French President Jacques Chirac, who is sending a special envoy to Iran, and by Russian officials, who are blowing the whistle on U.S. plans. As for the Arab states in the region, who are being wooed to support the plan, they have coolly recommended to the Administration that it carry out talks with Iran. They have been rebuffed.
Overall, a certain degree of fatalism pervades the capitals of Europe and Asia, vis-à-vis being able to stop the British-crafted, but Bush/Cheney initiated plans to hit Iran. They rightly look to the United States for the decisive action. For that to be effective, the timetable will have to be moved rapidly indeed, but the aggressive intention to prevent such a disaster is palpable on Capital Hill.
War Preparations Ongoing
Col. San Gardiner (USAF ret.), who has an excellent track record regarding military operations in the Southwest Asia theater, issued a new warning on Jan. 16, entitled “Escalation Against Iran.” After noting the fact that a second carrier strike group was leaving the U.S. on Jan. 16, Gardner listed a number of steps he expects the U.S. will take, if indeed it is on the warpath. First, he said to expect a barrage of articles in the media, planted by a National Security Council staff-led group, commissioned to produce “outrage” against Iran.
Then, he wrote, expect some European-based missile defense assets to be deployed to Israel, plus additional U.S. Air Force fighters deployed into Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan. He wrote that some of the “surge” troops sent into Iraq will be sent to the Iranian border. Then, “As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see the USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used,” Gardiner writes, “to refuel the U.S.-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll be only days away from a strike.”
Gardiner’s forecast of a massive media campaign has already been confirmed. Arabic media in the region have begun denouncing Iran’s nuclear program as being dangerous, and claiming that Hezbollah, Hamas, et al., are Iranian agents committed to destabilizing the region. British and other Western press organs have been working overtime to paint the picture of the looming Iranian threat, which, they claim, is poised to take over security, political, and oil installations in Basra, for example, as soon as British troops leave.
Gardiner is one of the most competent analysts in the field, but not the only one to blow the whistle. Former CIA and Bush Administration National Security Council senior official Flynt Leverett wrote in the Washington Note after Bush’s Jan. 10 speech, that the aircraft carrier groups deployed to the region must be there “to provide the necessary numbers and variety of tactical aircraft” for attacks against Iran, because land-based assets could not be used for political reasons. Furthermore, Leverett wrote, the only reason Bush would deploy Patriot batteries to the Persian Gulf, is to deal with Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, “the only missile threat in the region.”
A full-page article in the Jan. 13 Le Figaro made the same point, stressing that the second aircraft carrier group being sent in, the USS Stennis, “will not only be deployed to make a show of force, but will be involved in combat operations.” A most telling sign of a move toward a conflict came in a report issued by the ING bank in the Netherlands, which forecast the impact on financial flows of a military confrontation with Iran.
And from Russia, former Black Sea Fleet Commander Adm. Eduard Baltin said on Jan. 9 that the presence of so many U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf waters points to the likelihood of a U.S. attack against Iran. He emphasized that currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the area. “The presence of the submarines indicates that Washington has not abandoned plans to launch a sudden attack against Iran,” the Admiral said. He blamed the Jan. 8 collision between a U.S. submarine and a Japanese oceanliner near the Strait of Hormuz on the fact that U.S. submarines needed to operate at a relatively higher level than their usual depths, to get clearer vision enabling them to zero in on likely targets.
Baltin noted that, in previous conflicts, U.S. submarines “clean up the road” for air strikes by destroying enemy air defense installations.
Facts, Not Words
Bush’s threat to go after suspected Iranian elements inside Iran, is backed up by ongoing action. Already, at Christmastime, the U.S. forces in Iraq had seized two Iranians on charges they were planning military attacks. The move was protested by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s office which stated the two were “invited by the President to Iraq … within the framework of an agreement between Iran and Iraq to improve the security situation.” Then, on Jan. 11, U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate office in Irbil, arresting six staffers and seizing computers and documents. U.S. helicoptors had landed on the roof and soldiers had broken down the doors. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali Hosseini charged the raid was in violation of international law. Other protests came from the Iraqi government, the Kurdish regional government, and the Russian Foreign Ministry, because the persons detained were diplomats.
Furthermore, Washington-based sources have told EIR there are plans ready to launch aerial strikes against a key Iranian Revolutionary Guard site in the suburbs of Tehran, the headquarters of the al-Quds Brigade. Such an insane option is reportedly being hotly debated in Administration circles, as some relatively sane elements recognize this would trigger a regional explosion.
On the diplomatic level, Secretary of State Rice’s visit to the region only underlined the threat of military action. Rice met in Kuwait with her counterparts in the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, and Jordan (GCC+2), and attempted to mobilize them against Iran. Although she succeeded in getting the participants to sign a joint declaration accepting the U.S.’s “commitment” (through the surge policy) to “defend security of the Gulf, the territorial integrity of Iraq,” etc., the Saudis openly declared they supported only the stated “goal,” with reservations about the means. And, most significantly, the Kuwaiti Emir told Rice that if she wanted peace in the region, she should talk to the Iranians and Syrians. Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah, told Rice it was important to have a “dialogue with Syria, in particular, and with Iran in the interest of Gulf security in general.”
Iran Responds
The most recent speech by Bush has erased any remaining doubts in Iran that Washington is bent on confrontation. One of the many Iranian political figures whom EIR met in December in Tehran, summed up the mood there in an e-mail message: “Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair have practically declared war on Iran and have definitely turned up the heat against Iran to the level of a devastating military clash between the Christian West and the Muslim East. I am very disturbed by the prospect of this new development.”
On the official level, the government responded by preparing for an assault. Mohammed Saeedi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said that, though he deemed it “highly improbable” that the country’s nuclear installation would be bombed, they were being protected by special precautions. At the same time, Iran invited members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, from the Non-Aligned, G77, and Arab League, to travel to Iran to visit its nuclear sites.
On the diplomatic level, Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council and chief negotiator on the nuclear issue, travelled to Saudi Arabia for talks with the leadership there. He delivered letters from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Saudi King Abdallah, in which Iran offered collaboration to stabilize the situation in Iraq, in particular. The response, said Ahmadinejad, “generally, was positive.” Reports (later denied by the Iranians), had it that the letter suggested the Saudis try to intervene with the United States, to prevent the worst.
Chirac Steps In
Just as tensions were reaching a fever pitch, a report appeared of a bold initiative by French President Jacques Chirac, to stave off the war threat. As reported in Le Monde on Jan. 16, Chirac wanted to send his Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy to Tehran, to reestablish direct contact, a move which would contrast with the declared Bush-Cheney approach. The French Foreign Ministry confirmed Jan. 16 that a high-level emissary would be sent to discuss matters pertaining to the Middle East, Lebanon, etc. Iranian sources reached by EIR said the Chirac initiative was very important, but could give no details.
According to an account in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung Jan. 17, the secret diplomacy has been going on for some time. In July, Paris sent Jean-Claude Cousseran, former head of foreign intelligence; in September, Chirac received an envoy of Ahmadinejad; in October, diplomatic advisor Maurice Gourdault-Montagne met the Iranian advisor in Geneva. Gourdault-Montagne then met Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, in Bahrain, at a conference last month. Then the idea emerged to invite Douste-Blazy. He was to go in January, but the trip was cancelled two days before.
The line in the French press is that Chirac wants to open talks with the Iranians, to get them to rein in Hezbollah, so that Chirac’s planned donor conference (Paris III) on Jan. 25, with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, will be a success. Given the current drive for military aggression against Iran, it is far more likely that Chirac is hoping to avert a war.
Condi Rice was not pleased, to say the least. When apprised of the French move, she said she thought, “We all need to stay focussed” on Iran’s alleged violations of the Security Council. She made clear she did not accept the notion that France could violate U.S. policy on Iran: “I think that at this point in time” (referring to the Security Council resolution of December), “that this is not the time to break a longstanding American policy of not engaging with the Iranians bilaterally.”

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Astrology and the Moon's Effects

How the Moon rules your life
Sunday, January 21st, 2007
By Roger Dobson
At last, scientists claim to have found a link between our satellite and human behaviour - like how it governs the size of your dinner
For eons, folklore has blamed the Moon for everything from lunacy to bad luck. And, for the last few centuries, scientists have scoffed. Now, according to new research they’re not so sure. The Moon may not be made of cheese, but it seems to influence a lot more down on Earth than we previously thought.
According to new research, the Moon affects not only the tides of the oceans but also people, producing a range of symptoms from flare-ups of gout to bladder problems. It may even lie behind the causes of car crashes and affect people’s hormonal balances.
Having carried out new research and reviewed 50 other studies, scientists suggest that doctors and the police even need to prepare for how their work rate will increase at different points in the lunar cycle. Among the findings examined by the researchers were studies that showed GP consultations go up during a full moon, according to Leeds University. Appointments rise by 3.6 per cent, which works out at around three extra patients for each surgery. The researchers did not speculate on the nature of the moon-related problems or why they happened, but said that “it does not seem to be related to anxiety and depression”.
Gout and asthma attacks peak during new and full moons, according to work carried out at the Slovak Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine in Bratislava, where attacks over a 22-year period were monitored.
Data from 140,000 births in New York City showed small but systematic variations in births over a period of 29.53 days - the length of the lunar cycle - with peak fertility in the last quarter. “The timing of the fertility peak in the third quarter suggests that the period of decreasing illumination immediately after the full moon may precipitate ovulation.'’
A study in Florida of murders and aggravated assaults showed clusters of attacks around the full moon. A second study of three police areas found the incidence of crimes committed on full-moon days was much higher than on all other days. And a four-year study into car accidents found that the lowest number happened during the full-moon day, while the highest number was two days before the full moon. Accidents were more frequent during the waxing than the waning phase.
Another study of some 800 patients with urinary retention admitted to hospital over a period of three years found higher retention during the new moon compared with other phases of the cycle. Interestingly, patients didn’t show any other daily, monthly or seasonal rhythms in their retention problems.
Even what we eat and drink is affected by the lunar cycle, according to a study at Georgia State University. Researchers looked at lunar variations in nutrient intakes and the meal patterns of 694 adults. They concluded: “A small but significant lunar rhythm of nutrient intake was observed with an 8 per cent increase in meal size and a 26 per cent decrease in alcohol intake at the time of the full moon relative to the new moon.'’
While scientists have been trying to prove for some time that the Moon does exert an effect, what has not been established is why. Scientists have until now examined the theory that the Moon triggers changes through its gravitational pull. But the latest research points to an effect on people’s hormones. “The lunar cycle has an impact on human reproduction, in particular fertility, menstruation and birth rate. Other events associated with human behaviour, such as traffic accidents, crimes, and suicides, appeared to be influenced by the lunar cycle,'’ said Dr Michael Zimecki of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
“Although the exact mechanism of the Moon’s influence on humans and animals awaits further exploration, knowledge of this kind of biorhythm may be helpful in police surveillance and medical practice,'’ he said.
The researchers also found links between the lunar cycle and the likelihood of people being admitted to hospital with heart or bladder problems and with diarrhoea. The menstrual cycle, fertility, spontaneous abortions and thyroid disease were also affected. Just how the Moon could have an effect needs further research. Dr Zimecki suggests that it may be the effect of the Moon’s gravity on immune systems, hormones and steroids.
He said: “At this stage of investigation, the exact mechanism of the lunar effect on the immune response is hard to explain. The prime candidates to exert regulatory function on the immune response are melatonin and steroids, whose levels are affected by the Moon cycle.
“It is suggested that melatonin and endogenous steroids [which are naturally occurring in humans] may mediate the described cyclic alterations of physiological processes. Electromagnetic radiation and/or the gravitational pull of the Moon may trigger the release of hormones.'’
Whatever the root cause of the Moon’s influence over us, its hold over the imagination will endure as long as the shining sphere of rock remains in the sky.

Follow The Money To The 911 Players

Follow The Money To The 911 Players
Sunday, January 21st, 2007
Time To Acknowledge the Master Planners For Their Skill & Cleverness, However Flawed and Diabolical
Douglas Herman
You have to admire such chutzpah (Yiddish word for audacity). You have to admire, grudgingly, such cold-blooded, calculating cruelty, such amazing vision, however sadistic and criminal.
911 remains a master plan ridden with obvious flaws. The master planners stood to gain TRILLIONS in profits, (although paid in blood money), for their skillful concept carried out like the climax of a suspenseful Hollywood movie. And so five years later, that masterful crime, what I call The Greatest Unsolved Crime of The Century, remains a magician’s trick worthy of Satan himself.
Consider the targets chosen. The WTC complex was an enormous architectural white elephant filled with asbestos and with far too few tenants. But because the WTC had been built much too big and much too well, the cost of deconstruction, an estimated 15 billion, far outweighed whatever profit an owner might gain from years of ownership. But suppose a buyer stepped forward and purchased the property, with the foresight to realize the towers were targets? And suppose that buyer, possessed insider information about an attack and insured them against such a fate? And suppose that buyer collected when those white elephants crashed to the ground within months? In fact that is exactly what did happen, to the extent of 3.5 billion dollars.
Now suppose one of the collapsed structures hadn’t even been hit? Instead the nearby 47-story, WTC-7 burst into flame, a suspicious, haphazard fire that raged hours through several key floors long after the twin towers fell. Several of the floors housed Security & Exchange records pertaining to multi-billion dollar investigations. The Los Angeles Times reported on September 17, 2001 that an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 cases were destroyed. They included SEC’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divided up hot shares of initial public offerings (IPOs) during the high-tech boom.
By destroying the building, the fire and subsequent collapse destroyed the records forever and meant a huge net savings for CEOs and corporations being investigated. Add several hundred millions, perhaps billions to our crime spree so far.
Suddenly you realize why 911 occurred. For a twisted sense of globalism certainly, but for greater personal profit assuredly. The master planners, and one need look no further than the PNAC signers and whom they represented, realized that great crimes required great rewards.
Not surprisingly, many 911 skeptics focused unnecessarily on those United and American airline Put options. Yet, had they been collected, only a few millions would have been gained. Very likely, some rogue, low level co-conspirator, with pre-knowledge of the master plan, made those Put options but without top level approval. Just one of the many flaws that day.
Likewise, the heist of gold bars from vaults far below the WTC complex during the massacre occurring above may have yielded several hundred million more. No one knows. The New York city media, once again as complicit as co-conspirators, chose to ask few embarrassing questions about that crushed truck found weeks later below the WTC or who had loaded it. Once again this may have been another subsidiary operation, another unauthorized plundering by an insider group, like a lone looter who smashes a storefront window and grabs a handful of jewelry during a major earthquake.
While hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars, changed hands as nearly 3,000 unlucky Americans died at the WTC bombardment, TRILLIONS of dollars went missing over at the Pentagon. How? Easy. A simple sleight of hand, a sudden explosion and presto, 2.3 trillion of missing money was magically forgotten.
Two Trillion. Just like that.
Only a day before 911, on September 10, 2001, kindly Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, admitted, during the last peaceful day of terror-free living, that 2.3 trillion of Pentagon money was missing and unaccounted for.
What a fortunate thing to happen—a wonderful thing, this 911 attack—wonderful indeed for those who stole/ embezzled/ purloined/ pocketed those trillions. Suddenly “Arab terrorists” had provided a Godsend (Allah be praised), provided a perfect distraction, for generals and general contractors and Fortune 500 corporations and the Pentagon comptroller and the Sec-Def and everyone else it seems—everyone, that is, but the average American or the average Muslim.
Imagine if you owned a bank and an investigation determined that you and your relatives had embezzled two trillion dollars from your bank. Newspapers blared the headline: “Two Trillion Missing.” But–BUT—before the ink had dried on the tabloids, a nasty group of Islamofascists blew your bank ( or at least the records section) to smithereens. What a lucky break for you and your relatives. What an unlucky break for all those employees killed.
But wait! In the following weeks, government inspectors (without investigating further) allowed your bank, encouraged your bank, to collect MORE funds—500 billion more per year—to squander or spend however you felt.
Because that is EXACTLY what happened in the 24 hours between the time Rumsfeld admitted the money went missing from the Pentagon and the 911 “terror” attack on the five-sided fortress.
Flight 77, or the remote controlled aircraft that blew concentric holes through six walls (airplane parts indicate the latter), slammed into the newly remodeled Army financial management/audit area and the Army personnel offices, one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack. The other section being the Naval Command Center. Casualties were heavy.
“Were the auditors who could ‘follow the money,’ and the computers whose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted, asked Jim Marrs and Barbara Honegger in her Pentagon Attack Papers? “It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officer at the time, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the ‘missing’ trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraft remote control technology.”
Curiously, like many top level civilians working at the Pentagon on 911, Zakheim held duel citizenship, US and Israel.
When following the money trail, you realize the incalculable billions gained with the conquest of war-torn and impoverished Afghanistan, which depended on a manufactured attack. But rather than find and capture a CIA–created mastermind allegedly responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths, the sole purpose of the attack on Afghanistan appeared to be control of a country for the benefit of an oil pipeline. In the book, “Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth” by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique, the authors claim the U.S. tried to negotiate a trans-Afghanistan pipeline deal with the Taliban as late as August, 2001. “We’ll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs,” negotiators reportedly said. When the pipeline deal fell through, the carpet of bombs followed—beginning with the WTC.
If you follow the trillion-dollar money trail throughout 911, you easily see that those who stood to profit the most also occupied key places—-military and civilian security systems, oil and gas consortiums, intelligence agencies, US Department of Justice and the US media/ propaganda systems–to make 911 happen and, just as important, to conspire to conceal the crime. The master planners pulled off a perfect plan, despite the obvious flaws.
The blood money still flows, overflows, into their vaults and accounts. The planners remain masters of the known universe, unafraid of anyone or anything except perhaps a shadow. Because somewhere, perhaps in the depths of the Pentagon, honorable US officers, patriots like Colonel Bob Bowman, who realize EXACTLY what happened on 911, realize how the USAF was used as an unwitting accomplice on 911, simmer with shame, with resentment, with rage and frustration. One day these honorable men, together with other honorable men throughout this nation, will take legal steps to right the monstrous wrong that was done on September 11, 2001. Godspeed that day.
Former USAF non-com, Douglas Herman writes extensively on history and true crime related issues. His recent novel, The Guns of Dallas, examines the JFK assassination in a critical light.

Friday, January 19, 2007

New World Order has another public advocate on the Sidelines

Brown wants a 'new world order'
Friday, 19 January 2007
Chancellor Gordon Brown has spoken of the need for a "new world order" to deal with future security and environmental challenges.
He called for a "new diplomacy" to go alongside military power to defeat terrorism, share prosperity and "win the battle of hearts and minds".
That meant strengthening Britain's global alliances but also reforming institutions such as the EU and UN.
Mr Brown was speaking in Mumbai on the latest stage of his tour of India.
The chancellor said he had been inspired by Mahatma Gandhi as he laid a wreath at the memorial to the former leader.
Mr Brown said he was not trying to compare himself to the founder of modern India but was inspired by his strength, courage and strong will.
He also quoted Winston Churchill, in an interview with the BBC's Nick Robinson, saying "you cannot meet the challenges of the future by simply building the present in the image of the past".
He said the British people wanted a "more secure world," a safer environment and greater prosperity and "that will require new diplomacy in the next few years to build better institutions."
Mr Brown said he would not pledge to always seek UN approval before taking military action.
'Bigger role'
"Nobody's going to make that commitment," he said, adding that Britain tried to work through the UN in Iraq, where it now had a mandate.
"The American alliance we have, the European cooperation that we welcome and are going to strengthen in the years to come, and our role in the Commonwealth are the basis on which we move forward.
"But I believe that there is a collective interest that the world can be persuaded of, in the United Nations playing a bigger role in security, Nato playing a bigger role out of theatre, and also the European Union as a collective institution playing a fuller role in world politics."

The Chancellor rejected Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain's criticism that the US "neo-conservative" mission had failed.
"I don't accept that what America has tried to do has failed," he said.
Mr Brown also called for greater international co-operation and a stronger sense of national purpose in meeting the security threat.
"If we in Britain can have a stronger sense of what our national purpose is, that will enable us to face the challenges ahead.
"That would mean, in practice, we spend more time thinking about what can integrate us as a community and bring us together."

Washington "Snubbed Iran Offer"

Washington "Snubbed Iran Offer"
BBC Newsnight
Thursday 18 January 2007

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight program.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.
The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities.
In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had allowed the rebel group to base itself in Iraq, putting it under US power after the invasion.
One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.
"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.
"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."
Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now.
Since that time, Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah inflicted significant military losses on the major US ally in the region, Israel, in the 2006 conflict and is now claiming increased political power in Lebanon.
Palestinian militant group Hamas won power in parliamentary elections a year ago, opening a new chapter of conflict in Gaza and the West Bank.
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran following its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
Iran denies US accusations that its nuclear programme is designed to produce weapons.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Global warming 'just a natural cycle'

Telegraph News Global warming 'just a natural cycle'
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 10:59am GMT 18/01/2007
Global warming comes and goes in 1,500 year cycles which may have more to do with cosmic rays than fossil fuel emissions, according to a new book.
If the genuine warming now being seen is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide, it would have started earlier, according to the book by two veteran American climate sceptics, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.
Mr Avery, who was in London yesterday, said: “If this were a CO2 driven warming it should have started in 1940 and risen strongly from there. In fact warming started in 1850 and rose sharply until 1940 then decreased for 35 years.”

Mr Avery believes that only half the warming that has happened since 1940 - 0.2 degrees according to his measurements - can be ascribed to man made emissions. The rest he says is natural variability.
“If you factor in the warming from the cyclical trends, it is not very frightening,” he said.
The authors of Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years, say that history, ice core studies and stalagmites all agree on a natural cycle at roughly that interval that is superimposed on the longer, stronger ice ages and interglacial phases.
They point as evidence of this natural cycle to the “Climate Optimum” - a period of warmer and wetter weather than the present Earth’s climate, which took place 9,000 years ago to 5,000 years ago, and a cooling event 2,600 years ago.
During the Roman warming period from 200 BC to around AD 600 North Africa and the Sahara were wetter and supported crops. In more recent times they point to the Medieval warming of 900 to 1300, when Eric the Red’s descendants colonised Greenland and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1850 which saw the Norse dairy farmers on Greenland grow short from malnutrition and eventually die out.
Mr Avery, a former US agriculture official whose celebrated earlier book was Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High Yield Farming, suggests that the natural cycle of warming and cooling may come from variations in cosmic rays which have been linked to cloud formation.
This theory was validated in a recent paper in a Royal Society journal by scientists from the Danish National Space Centre who showed that sub-atomic particles - cosmic rays from exploding stars - play a major role in making clouds. During the past century cosmic rays became scarcer as vigorous activity by the sun forced them away. So there was less cloud cover to reflect away sunlight and a warmer world, according to the Danish scientists.
The book's authors say the 60 per cent reduction in fossil fuel emissions demanded from First World countries by international scientists working for the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) would deliver a “crippling blow” to the world economy that could be avoided without damaging the planet.
Dr Richard Betts of the Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change said: “The key argument among sceptics has moved away from denying that there is man-made climate change to saying that it is weaker than mainstream science has suggested.
“It is very well understood that greenhouse gases do cause radiative forcing. The work on cosmic rays is still quite speculative. The forthcoming report by IPCC next month will be the most reviewed document in the history of science. It is the IPCC process to review all the literature with an open mind. Many sceptics are involved in the process.
“It is good to have the debate. It makes sure that the rest of us are certain about what we are doing.”