the first casualty of war is truth

the elections

september 11th
early questions
crash course afghan history
what really happened
was planned 40 years ago
investigation

the patriot act
mayfield
hawash
when they came for me...

invading afghanistan
osama tapes are fake
truth coming out
god gold oil drugs
and the power to keep it

war drum spin
resistance is futile
congress bows out
don’t need un
we have a coalition
coalition by contribution
complete list of members

pretty pictures
the fcc
saddams statue falls
mission accomplished

evil found
saddam found
abu garib
us military beheads berg
pranksters show how easy it is

911 investigations
just a distraction
bush vs clinton
nothing wrong here

no end in sight
electric kerry landslide
cancel the election

two ideas to save the world
take back the media
electronic voting receipts

no copyright, just read this




i remember the day of the election i voted for nader, but turned off my tv happy when it was announced on cnn that gore won. a short time later, i got a call from a friend saying that bush won. confused, i turned the tv back on and watched the circus unfold. busy with the rest of my life and knowing i couldn’t do much, i lost track of the the news of the whole saga.

the day before september 11th, 2001 the new red line max opened up. never having flown except one short trip as a child, i visited the airport with a friend. i stared at all the big planes in awe and watched them come and go. i ran around the airport for hours and was exhausted when i got home. i went to bed early and woke up the next day to clock radio announcing that all planes in us airspace were grounded. i turned on my tv and could only watch for a few minutes before rushing off to work. a lady at the bus stop asked what was wrong, i mumbled "new york." she looked at me funny, it was clear she had no idea what happened. i didn't tell her. i didn't know what to say. this was the only day i can recall that there was no sales pressure in the boiler room i work in. it was very quiet. someone ordered pizza for everyone but few ate it. we got an email from our ceo announcing that security in our buildings would be stepped up.

within hours i became suspicious. where was norad, the government agency that tracked santa claus? In the 70s, when a flight was hijacked, with such a large military budget, why weren't any other wayward planes shot down after the first tower was hit? how did the government know so quickly who was involved, even though the perpetrators weren't on the original passenger lists?

the more i watched the mainstream news, the more i felt that my intelligence was being insulted. i was never really shocked that the government would do this, really more so that the scraps they tossed out to the media were so half baked. how likely is it, really, that two conspirators passports would be found within days and intact but the black boxes never where?

i started to wonder, who will benefit from this? who is this osama guy, anyway? i took a crash course in afghan history and gained a fuzzy understanding of what happened about the time i was born to start all this.

late in the cold war, russia invaded afghanistan. not wanting our sworn enemy to have control of all that afghani oil but not wanting the pr nightmare of a war, we equipped the afghani people to fight off their occupation. we trained osama to lead the opposition.

shrub senior and regan thought that osama was a hero supplying him with money and training him in military tactics to fight off their communist colonial rule. as far as i can tell our governments financial and tactical support of the new freedom fighters enjoyed wide public approval. #i'm still reading and trying to figure out exactly when and why the relationship between the shrubs and osama deteriorated.

with thousands of innocent people dead in such a vicious attack, i can understand the masses sudden blind faith in our leaders and willingness to forget the constitution and bill of rights . i agree with ben frainklin, those who trade liberty for security, even temporarily, deserve neither. this is not the first time in history a brutal regime took a dictatorship role in the wake of fear. see ussr, saddam hussien, stalin, and castro.

it was in that spirit that the usa patriot act was introduced. many, many web searches have only yielded that senator bob graham was the co-author, i cant find out who wrote the bulk of it. we were reassured it was just a temporary bill to fight terrorism and find anyone responsible for 911.

suddenly the government had new ways to suppress nonviolent political dissidence and investigate crimes having no ties to terrorism. eerily similar to the nazis enabling act, it eroded away the freedoms, privacy, and protection from wrongful and groundless arrest our forefathers had promised us in direct conflict with the conflict with the constitution.

not to worry, we were told. this was going to be used on terrorists, not you and i. but who was a terrorist anyway? the definition was quickly stretched to include child pornographists, drug dealers, and hackers. a lot of people didn't like them anyway, so they don't need civil rights. soon after it was applied to photographers,artists, authors and people who wear t-shirts promoting peace?

i went to a small demonstration opposing the imminent attack of afghanistan. we were jeered at by passers by who i guess assumed its not right to question our leadership in a time of war. i guess its better to wait until after people die to ask why. i brought candles and a big sign that said "one love." i felt very retro but it was the only thing i could think of that really expressed how i felt.

soon after of invading afghanistan, we started finding some pretty damning evidence against osama. having denied any involvement in 911 previously, one woulda thought he coulda found a better place to hide any incriminating evidence. the tapes were, of course, fabricated.

i guess it was about time they came up with something. conspiracy websites about 911 were breeding like rabbits and getting pretty good traffic. i guess this kind of manipulation of the public doesn’t work as well when they have a way to cheaply communicate with one another.

i read my share of the sites, and have come to believe that the planes were remote controlled into the towers that were pre loaded with powerful explosives to ensure their collapse. the families that heard the flight tapes were sworn to about what they heard. the official reason for this is that the tapes are going to be used to prosecute someone involved, but many believe it is because there is no mention of arabs on the tapes. no planes hit the pentagon , there are no pictures of it. many high ranking ceos and the like were warned not to fly or work at wtc on that fateful day. those making global decisions would logically be the most likely hated by our enemies., but they were kept alive. it doesn't make any since. most of the muslim world believes it was a conspiracy by the jews. being a jew who was never let in on this, i believe it was the us government.

unclassified documents archived at george washington university brought the ugly secrets of operation northwoods to light. the joint cheifs of staff cooked up a plot where they would stage terroist attacks on boats, planes and cities to get domestic and international support for invading cuba. sound familiar? the documents were later declared counterfeit based soley on the prominence of british terms in them, but I'm not convinced.

why would bush and kill thousands of people? its simple, really. it all has to do with god, which of course stands for g old,o, and drugs.

there was a lot of gold to be had. lockheed martin, a major bush contributor and supporter, would need to make lots of weapons to blow up.. er.. free the iraqis. the vice residents friends over at halliburton could have huge, no bid contracts supplying all the yummy mre meals for our boys.

halliburton could even help distribute the iraqi oil perhaps the government which we put in place in afghanistan might be more favorable to tearing up a whole corner of the country to make a pipeline to carry oil.

usually the cia would do the vast majority of collecting opium from afghani farmers and importing it into the us. when the taliban took rule, it forced everyone to obey islamic law, which forbid growing opium. with the taliban gone, opium production in afghanistan is on the rise,drug import business.

nothing pulls the wagons into a circle like an attack. the war gave the skull and bones brothers reasons to go after their god, and created enough fear for them to enact legislation to limit dissidence.

if i recall correctly, the president started making the case for the war with iraq during the anthrax scare.

for the next year, it was spin, spin, spin,. tons of puppet heads on the tv telling us all about how dangerous iraq was to us. i became bored with the news, only scanning headlines at news stands. i recall it like a montage.. weapons of mass destruction circled on a map, a man who cannot pronounce it declaring iraq has nuclear weapons, insinuated but never outright declared ties between the 911 attacks and saddam.

when people all over the world marched in opposition to the war. i, of course, was there with my aging "one love," sign. the resident told the ap that the most massive worldwide public protests since vietnam would have no impact on his decision to go war.

concerned about the amount of media coverage the thousands of noisy protesters were getting, bush's friends over at clear channel decided to set upsome pro war rallies. instead of a grassroots wheat pasting, it was set up simply by advertising the events on their very popular radio stations.

when it was announced on that congress had bowed out on the decision to go to war, i was disgusted. constitutionally, only congress declares war but instead it voted to give the president the authority to do this without their help. i guess this saves the political careers of republicans in congress, who were much closer to reelection than mr bush. i can't see any other reasons this would be done but to shift the blame to whoever had the longest to respin the situation before an election.

soonafter we started making our case to the un. for about two months the media focused on our attempts to get un support for attacking iraq. drumming up other nations was proving difficult, so we delayed and then withdrew our requestthat the un vote on the matter. some warmonger senators were so upset about this 70 of them voted to withdraw from the un.

bush told the cameras we didn't need un support and started telling us about his coalition of the willing. who needs to respect international treaties and law when you have the support of 48 nations? shocked that so many would fall for this, i decided to take a closer look.

the support of 26 nations, or 55% of the coalition seems purely symbolic. 15 only offered political support, whatever that is. two more are prepared to provide political support, but haven't yet. four more provided political and moral support., but two of those had obvious motives as they were each seeking our support in their war with the other. five offered a yet unclear degree of support, and of those four are currently seeking our military and financial help through nato. uzbekistan and afghanistan offered support because of "involvement with the war on terrorism." of those, one of course has a brand new us installed puppet government.

fifteen countries, or 31% of our partners allowed use of our existing bases and promised not to shoot us down out of their airspace. of those two specified that it was only for quick refueling stops. does a tiny country like georgia really want to try to kick our marines off their bases? is this really support?

nine nations, or 19% offered non combat assistance in iraq, with some of these also offering airspace or equipment. two were clear they would only help with humanitarian reconstruction after all fighting stopped.

two members offered to allow our troops to stay on their land to protect other countries iraq may attack, namely kuwait and isriel.

only 5 countries,, or 10% offered to send combat troops. the uk is sending 45.00, australia 2,000, netherlands 300, poland 200. el salvador will send an unspecified number of military officials to lead any un troops, which i guess we wont need after all.

in the rare instances that the media asked who was in the coalition, bush added that there were some countries that were in the coalition but didn't want to make that decision public. how much help will they be if they won't even admit that they support us to the world community? it seemed many of the sheeple around me thought we had a mighty multinational force marching with us.

the day the iraqi war started, i left work to attend a march. i was with the group that sat in the middle of burnside. others sat in i5 and i205. we chanted "shut down the city, shut down the war!" i knew it wouldn’t work, but needed to show my disgust anyway.

i watched some war coverage. in the beginning, they seemed to insinuate that after Baghdad was reached it would all be over. then the talking heads were talking about finding saddam, and he's just over the next hill.

it was all maps, gung ho solders, and fireworks heading towards distant targets. you couldn't really tell if it was a house or missile silo in the distance, it looked almost like the fourth of July. the embedded reporters didn’t seem to grab any footage of the actual combat or casualties like they had in vietnam. it was agreed long ago the public would be spared such disturbing images. the press would travel with military escorts, far from any carnage.

i think the fcc is really the biggest culprit in all of this. licensing fees for radio and tv stations has moved up at a rate #far exceeding# inflation. this means that the only way a radio or tv station can broadcast is by selling a lot of advertising at very high rates. this helps the large corporations to censor the media. if they didn't like what was said, they could simply pull their advertising and the station would quickly go under. the fcc website claims that the airways are available for the public good, but only # percent of available airways for tv and radio are currently being used. i can stand on my porch and scream "no blood for oil!" but if i made a simple radio station spanning 5 miles that my neighbors can listen to i'd go to federal prison. public access television is a joke, only available to those with cable and severely under funded. ALL television should be public access.

anywhoo when months of fighting yielded no saddam, he then decided that it might be best to hire some iraqis to show their appreciation. they stage d the march right in front of the hotel where most of the media was staying, and despite all those cameras there were no far off shots that made it too obvious there were very few people in the joyous parade.

the then president decided it might be best just to say the war was over. it didn't seem to work. people were still shooting at us. the friday after i went to the pprc march. very few people showed up, it seemed like no one was there, everyone seemed to be convinced that the war was over anyway, or that bush was right in the iraqis being glad we were there. i was very sad. i propped my "one love" sign up against the square right next to a collateral damage sign someone else had left.

with the media distracted with lapdog accounts of the war, now was the time to try the waters with the patriot act. the first person i recall being charged with it was mike hawash, a former intel software engineer. he was held as a material witness for weeks before he was charged with a crime by prosecutors in april 2003. he eventually was charged and plea bargained charges to his supposed involvement in a failed attempt to fight our troops in afghanistan.

brandon mayfield was arrested and released. even tho he was cleared of all charges and the fbi later apologized for his wrongful arrest, they were slow in lifting the gag order. we wouldn’t want to let the articulate lawyer tell everyone how this is unconstitutional, would we? #was his release coinciding with spanish change of power?#

i believe that saddam was found months prior, held in secrecy to justify the continued war. the changing story of him hiding in a hole and telling a soldier who had no idea that he was saddam hussein seems a little far fetched to me. if he were smart, he would say his name was mohamed and he was the janitor. didn't he know that the solder, asking his name, had no idea who he was and that the soldier would take him to people who would imprison and eventually execute him.

i was not really shocked by the abu garib prison pictures. i had figured all along that such things were happening. the red cross claims they knew about the abuse a year before it was reported, but didn't seem to do much. i guess it seems reasonable that the media would ignore their reports.. but they could have put a banner up on their website detailing their concern.

for comparitive purposes the us military quickly beheaded nick berg. i watched the video as soon as the news came out and knew it was a fake. many of the questions i raised were very articulately reiterated in websites, and a national talk radio station even raised some suspicions. I wonder about the consciences of the solders involved. literally the day after this broadcast the news focus shifted away from the situation.

shortly after the nick berg situation, the endless love and state of the union videos came out. someone wanted to show everyone how easy it is to fabricate very realistic looking videos. they did a better job than the berg decapitators.

in the light of all this, bushco really had to get something else on the headlines. at the same time, conspiracy theories were swirling around the nation by the thousand. i believe bushco agreed to and orchestrated the release to the 911 families pressure of an "independent investigation" when it was most beneficial to them to hide other wrongs.

when bush had consensual, albeit adulterous relations with monika lewinsky, he had to go UNDER OATH for HOURS while kennith star asked him questions with the whole world watching and recording. he was almost impeached for lying about his own personal life and what happened. when bush lied about prior knowledge of an attack that killed thousands, and then used the fear to start a war killing, maiming and disrupting the lives of thousands more, he violently resisted the idea of testifying without his puppet master chaney, under oath, or in front of the media. where is kennith star? how can we get him to press charges against the president?

the "investigation" drug out for months, and the final report of course vindicated the government.

when the democratic primary hit the states that have electronic votingjohn kerry started winning the primaries. during the primaries, he said he wanted to withdraw from iraq. he changed his mind.

now the news is spinning with threats of an attack during the elections. i don't understand why bush and co are so intent on setting the stage to cancel the elections when they can merely easily rig them with the same electronic voting equipment they did last time

other than writing in another candidate, it looks like there’s no end in sight. i have two ideas that i believe could really turn things around.

the first is an inexpensive piece of equipment idea i have to make it easy to skip the commercials on any program. something that doesn't require a subscription and could be produced very cheaply. if everyone picked one of these up, for say, $20, no one would watch commercials anymore. it would make the airwaves belong to the people again.

the second is an electronic voting booth that produces a receipt.

Ok, here's the deal. Its voting day. Outside, everyone proves they are eligable to vote and haven't already. Inside, its like the line at a take out restauant, you go to the next available window, or voting machine. Observers make sure only that people don't look over eachothers shoulders and that they leave immediately upon getting thier ticket printed.

You walk up to the thing and press a big red button. It spits out a confirmation code, like 564263563165465561654 . Just a long ol' string of paper the thing spits out for you.

Because you could lounge around in the line area for a long time, there's no way for anyone to find out what your confirmation code is or who voted how.

You vote and the machine prints a certificate, something hard to forge, detailing your votes and reiterating your confirmation code.

From here you have two options. On the way out of the voting place, there is a confetti shredder you can dump your papers into. Activist groups can lounge around and offer to take your vote, and make sure its on the list. You can do this if you are concerned about your privacy, don't want a paper trail, or just don't care to check up on things.

Anyone who wants to tinker with the machines has no way of knowing who is going to check thier votes and who won't.

The software creates a simple web page with the confirmation codes and how each one voted. Under president, it would say just the last name. Under each ballot measure, it would have the number then yes, the number then no, or the number then null.

Just want to make sure your vote registered correctly? No problem! Just type in your confirmation code 564263563165465561654 and hit find in frame to check it out.

Want to joyfully confirm that only 3 people in your voting district chose Bush? All you gotta do is hit edit, select all, copy, and paste it into Microsoft Word. Then go to search/replace. Replace the word Bush with idiots. A window will pop up saying "Word has made 3 replacements." You can print and manually count, or there's a few other ways, but thats the easiest I can think of. Check for your district, or any district, that its re-reported correctly on the state info, check everything!

The only way I can see that this would be hacked would be to create additional codes but it would be easy for the government to prove it hadn't done that, and therefore hard for it to hide it if it had. How come theres three times more people voting in this pricinct than last year? Can we see the list of names of people who voted here and make sure they are all alive?

Why does it give you the number twice, you ask? Otherwize, it would be easy to hack and program it to assign everyone who votes a certain way the same code and this would prevent that. If you have a dozen things to vote on with five choices each, that would mean that there are only 60 possible combinations of how one would vote. Without the number coming out twice, it would be easy to hack everyone (or large groups) of people who have the exact same choices with the same code each time creating a bogus silent code that votes how the hacker wants.

























i would be positively flattered by anyone wanting to use this document, and ask only that a link be provided back to this site, www.waroflies.tk. if you are copying and pasting, its best to view the source code and copy and paste that to keep all the internal and external links.























help with combat

united kingdom: 45,000 troops

australia : 2,000 troops and 150 special forces.

poland : 200 troops and a logistics ship.

netherlands - 300 troops to man patriot missile batteries, & help with reconstruction

el salvador - has offered political support and will send salvadoran military officials with any un troops assigned to maintain peace in iraq, due to us funding of the anti-drugs war.

sending non combat help

albania : 70 troops for non-combat roles.

south korea - 500-strong engineering battalion, help to war refugees.

spain - deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend turkey from an attack from neighboring iraq.

romania - providing basing rights, 278 experts in landmine chemical biological decontamination. opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.

bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.

czech republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.

denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and awacs crewmembers. also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.

humanitarian and reconstruction

japan and iceland

defend other countries iraq could attack

kuwait - around 300,000 u.s. and british troops are in the kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a member of the gcc.

jordan - u.s. troops are stationed in jordan near the iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case iraq fires missiles at israel.

use of bases and refueling

italy, georgia, saudi arabia, greece, bahrain, oman, qatar, united arab emirates, belgium, singapore, egypt and germany will allow use of thier bases and air space

croatia and portugal will allow refueling only.

symbolic support

palau, panama, rwanda, uganda, micronesia, mongolia, dominican republic, costa rica., slovakia, macedonia, azerbaijan and hungary will provide political support. the marshall and solomon islands added they can only provide political support because they have no army.

eritrea and ethiopia are offering political support in the hopes we will support thier wars against eachother.

nicaragua and colombia are prepared to, but are not yet, providing political support.

honduras and the philippines are providing political and moral support

estonia, latvia, lithuania,turkey, cyprus and israel are offering an unclear degree of support. all but the last are actively seeking military and financial aid from us through nato.

uzbekistan and afghanistan promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.

complete list of supporters with details

(the whole cow)

this is the only part of this webpage which i didn't make. i found this same code on over 20 different websites as i was reading up on all this.

united kingdom - attended the azores summit with the us and spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.

spain - attended the azores summit with the us and the uk and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend turkey from an attack from neighboring iraq.

australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and 150 special forces.

kuwait - around 300,000 u.s. and british troops are in the kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a member of the gcc.

poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.

albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.

romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. it has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.

czech republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.

portugal - granted u.s. permission to use lajes field air base in the azores islands, a traditional eastern atlantic refueling stop.

italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.

turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.

japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of iraq due to japan's post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.

south korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.

denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and awacs crewmembers. also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.

netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with iraq. they have given full support to the us in moving its troops through holland to the middle east and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in iraq after the war was over.

hungary - providing political support.

estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking us financial or military support through nato.

latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking us financial or military support through nato.

lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking us financial or military support through nato.

bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.

slovakia - providing political support.

macedonia - providing political support.

azerbaijan - providing political support.

afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.

georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/

philippines - political and moral support.

uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.

colombia - prepared to offer political support due to us funding of the anti-drugs war.

el salvador- has offered political support and will send salvadoran military officials with any un troops assigned to maintain peace in iraq, due to us funding of the anti-drugs war.

nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to us funding of the anti-drugs war.

dominican republic - providing political support.

costa rica - providing political support.

honduras - political and moral support.

eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking us support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour ethiopia).

ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking us support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour eritrea).

rwanda - providing political support.

uganda - providing political support.

iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.

singapore - will allow us military ships and aircraft to call at singapore and to use military bases and air space.

mongolia - providing political support.

marshall islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.

micronesia - providing political support.

solomon islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.

palau - providing political support.

panama - providing political support.

unnamed countries, which may be on the expanded list of the coalition, include (some of these i find implausable):

bahrain - has made facilities available to the us military, and is a member of the gulf cooperation council (gcc) which agreed to help provide for the defense of kuwait in the event of a new war with iraq.

oman - has made facilities available to the us military, and is a member of the gcc.

qatar - u.s. central command mobile headquarters at camp as sayliyah. al-udeid air base opened for in-flight refueling squadron, f-15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars, and is a member of the gcc.

saudi arabia - has made facilities available to the us military, and is a member of the gcc.

united arab emirates - has made facilities available to the us military, and is a member of the gcc.

jordan - u.s. troops are stationed in jordan near the iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case iraq fires missiles at israel.

belgium - allowed movement of troops and materiel from u.s. bases in germany to port of antwerp en route to the persian gulf; will allow overflights.

croatia - allowing refueling stops by u.s. transport aircraft.

egypt - keeping suez canal open to u.s. and allied warships en route to gulf.

greece - u.s. naval base in crete serves u.s. 6th fleet and supports navy and air force intelligence-gathering planes. allowing use of airspace under nato and bilateral defense agreements, but will not send troops.

germany - ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to u.s. and british bases in germany.

cyprus - degree of support unknown.

israel - the main us ally in the middle east.