Oil, Power, & Empire : Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda
BOGUS BERG UPDATE: 23 May 2004
Oil, Power, & Empire is an invitation to "take the red pill" and see the truth behind the matrix of lies which the Bush administration has been promoting. The accuracy and clarity of Larry's presentation will be a real challenge to anyone whose sense of security is based on the idea that the present administration is being honest about what drives its agenda in Iraq, and what its plans for our future here in the "homeland" are.
If you're ready for the challenge of being dis-illusioned, Larry's book is the place to start.
A working hypothesis and a resolution for the orange jumpsuit mystery
This article aims to shed light on the apparent execution by beheading of Nicholas Berg . I believe that most of the available evidence surrounding the case suggests that it was a “black operation”by US psychological warfare specialists, the purpose of which was to provide the media with a “moral relativity” argument to counter the adverse publicity over torture at Abu Ghraib prison.
Many observers have drawn attention to features of the evidence -- particularly the video of the beheading released by the supposed terrorists -- which do not add up. I find some of these features to be explainable without reference to a conspiracy by US security agencies. Most, however, are best explained by the black operations scenario. Even so, many puzzling anomalies remain.
At a certain point in any investigation, in order to make sense of disparate, contradictory facts and to filter out background noise, an investigator must adopt a working hypothesis which integrates the main clues.
My hypothesis begins by trying to explain why, throughout the execution video, Nick Berg is wearing an orange jumpsuit of the type issued at US military prisons such as Guantanamo Bay.
Most commentators have been surprised by this. Some have rationalised it as a piece of mimicry by the executioners designed to taunt the US and drive home their point that the US imprisons and humiliates Arabs and Muslims.
That might seem like the only reasonable explanation, but nagging doubts remain.
How would the terrorists have got their hands on such a jumpsuit? Is it reasonable to think that they carried one around just in case they got lucky and grabbed an American?
Alternatively, does it seem likely that, having grabbed Berg, one of them had a bright idea and sent his mum to the markets for some fabric and got her to run up an orange jumpsuit?
Under the circumstances, both explanations are highly improbable. Remember, these people are supposedly members of an Abu Massab al-Zarwawi’s terrorist cell. They’re operating underground to carry our suicide bombings and the like. In order to do that they’d themselves be dressed like ordinary Iraqis. Dressing Berg in a facsimile of the US prison uniform or even a real one for his execution seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to -- time-wasting nonsense that could unnecessarily expose them to the danger of discovery. Why would they not keep Berg in the clothes in which he was kidnapped or, if they had had to dump these, in anonymous Iraqi street wear?
(That’s another problem with the “terrorists” in the video: why are they dressed in black uniforms with ammunition tabards and keffirs? Al-Sadr’s MA militia do dress like that, but al-Zarwawi’s boys aren’t militia, they’re underground operatives).
But if it seems very far-fetched that al-Zarwawi’s group would have filmed Berg in an orange jump-suit, why in heaven’s name would the CIA psyops boys have done so? Surely in setting up a piece of fakery they would ideally have stuck to the simple and obvious and kept Berg in his own clothes?
As I said above: to make sense of disparate, contradictory facts and filter out background noise a working hypothesis which makes sense of the main clues is necessary. What follows is mine.
I have made use of “Videoman’s” excellent frame-by-frame analysis of the execution video available at the LibertyForum site.
Videoman identifies 8 separate shots (A to H) and assumes two cameras were used (I call them Camera 1 and Camera 2).
By the time the CIA psyops boys, dressed as terrorists, cut off Berg’s head he was already long dead. As noted by various qualified observers there was no spray of blood. I further doubt whether even the hardest of the CIA hard boys would come at hacking off someone’s head while they were alive.
They had no alternative but to do the deed with Berg dressed in the orange jumpsuit because, to dramatise the horror of the supposed event, they had to have footage that unequivocally showed him to be alive before his throat was cut. In the only such material available to them, Berg was dressed in the jumpsuit.
I believe that footage showing Berg in the white plastic chair, unrestrained and calmly giving his name and family details, was shot as routine investigative documentation by CIA and/or FBI interrogators while Berg was imprisoned -- either at a US run facility or perhaps by the Iraqis, depending on who’s story you believe -- after he was picked up by Iraqi police in Mosul.
The footage looks so routine because it was routine. Berg was arrested, his clothes were taken away, he was given the jumpsuit and then questioned. Quite probably he was asked a series of questions during the three “interviews” we know took place, and his responses were videotaped in much the same way as police interrogations are audio and/or videotaped in most countries.
After being interviewed three times in 13 days, Berg was then warned to leave Iraq, released, and (according to some reports) booked on a flight out of Baghdad. The CIA knew exactly where he was and what his movements would be.
It does not take a great deal of imagination to see what may have happened next. The word goes out that the President needs a high-profile terrorist atrocity to counteract the gathering media firestorm over Abu Ghraib. The psyops boys are working against a deadline. Assessing their prospects, they decide that Berg is a highly suspicious character. There’s a weird story on the files about his email account being used by Moussaoui, his parents are high-profile opponents of the war, he’s been running around Iraq unsupervised and visiting Iraqi in-laws in Mosul. Even if the man isn’t actually al-Queda, he’s an expendable idiot.
They pick up Berg as he leaves his hotel and kill him (perhaps accidentally). Then they set about constructing the beheading video. It is also possible that Berg met his death at the hands of the resistance, but that his intact body was quickly recovered by US forces.
Now, let’s go back to my basic point: To show Berg alive, the psyops team only had some routine interrogation footage to work with. There was no alternative but to use that footage so, with some ingenuity, they set about crafting a fake execution video.
The final product distributed on the internet opens with two shots each from a different angle. The video clock shows they were apparently shot about 11 hours apart, one at 1.26 pm and one at 2.18 am.
The first shot (Camera 1) lasts for only three seconds and in it, Berg is sitting in the white plastic chair and is seen from left front. All he manages to say is “My name is Nick Berg, my father’s name is Michael ….”, before the cut to the second camera, positioned directly in front of him and apparently recording 11 hours later (or, at 2.18 am some days later or, perhaps, earlier) takes over. Berg continues: “… my mother’s name is Suzanne …” Berg is not restrained and appears calm and relaxed.
Why was this rapid-fire editing required and why the apparent time-lapse? If the terrorists shot the video, why didn’t they just tell Berg to state his details again?
I would contend that this opening two-shot sequence is cut together from fragments from two videos of different interrogation sessions, conducted by the FBI and/or CIA, almost certainly from near the beginning of those videos, and probably recorded with the same camera.
Here’s how I believe it might have happened:
The interrogation team set up their camera on a tripod, with the clock accurately calibrated, and began recording at around 1.26 pm. Standing out of shot so as not to be identifiable, they introduced the video. Try to imagine the scene. Things might have developed something like this (dialogue actually heard in the video in italics):
Interrogator: Interview with a suspect handed over to us by Iraqi police on [date, time]. State your name please.
Berg: My name is Nick Berg, my father’s name is Michael …
Interrogator: Where do you come from, Mr Berg?
From this point the interrogation continued with questions in English from an unseen interrogator with an American accent. The questions and answers concerned Berg’s activities as a contractor, his Iraqi contacts, his relatives in Mosul, why he had grown an Islamist-style beard or any number of other things.
In other words, all but the first three seconds of Nick’s reply clearly and obviously depicted a routine police-type interview and were useless for the purpose of showing him alive, but apparently in the custody of terrorists.
There was a second interrogation (probably, but not necessarily, subsequent to that depicted in Shot A), this time at 2.40 am. Again, as a matter of routine, the interrogators would have introduced the video. It might have gone something like this (dialogue actually heard in the video in italics):
Interrogator: Interview with a suspect passed to us by Iraqi police on [date, time]. State your name please.
Berg: I told you that before. Why are you keeping me here. I’m a US citizen.
Interrogator: Don’t make it hard on yourself, just answer the question.
Berg remains silent for a while then simultaneouslyboth men speak …
Interrogator: Are you going to …
Berg [giving in]: “My father’s name is Michael, my mother’s name is Suzanne …” etc.
The interrogator’s voice overlapped with the first part of Berg’s reply so only the footage with the words “… my mother’s name” etc, were usable. The rest of the tape was unusable for the same reason the rest of the first tape was unusable.
I can also imagine several other reasons why the first part of Berg’s reply in this shot could not be used. One would be that somebody who was identifiable as an American accidentally walked into the shot.
So the psyops team had only these two fragments to play with. The first fragment was too short, but if it were spliced together with the second there would be 13 usable seconds.
Trouble was, they’d been shot at different times (as shown on the tape). Here the different camera angles came to their rescue. What if there were two cameras recording the scene, one with the clock carelessly set to the wrong time? Only problem was, two cameras would have to be used (or appear to be used) for the rest of the execution performance and the time difference between them maintained. Problem fixed.
All the subsequent shots were set up after Berg was dead and almost certainly in the same room where he was interrogated during his period of incarceration (Abu Ghraib?).
His body was dressed an identical jumpsuit to that shown in the interrogation recordings, and propped up in position. Shot C (From the terrorist’s speech to Berg being pushed over for the kill) was then recorded. This footage was subsequently modified frame by frame to make Berg’s body move very occasionally, as if alive (I differ from Videoman’s analysis on this point, since I don’t think Berg was alive in this shot). Using commonly available software such a modification is relatively simple and adequately convincing, if effectively disguised by the process which turns a high resolution video into a grungy low-resolution version for the internet.
Of the identified five shots that follow, four are from Camera 1 and only one 4 second shot from Camera 2. It would be a simple process to shoot the whole video with a single camera and change the clock setting for two shots (C and G) to give the appearance that the terrorists used two cameras, thereby disguising the time-difference problem the fakers had started out with.
My hypothesis has the following advantages:
1. It explains the jumpsuit.
2. It explains the time discrepancy
3. It explains why Berg is unrestrained and appears relaxed in the first two shots
4. It is not inconsistent with the known facts of Berg’s movements in Iraq.
5. It suggests some profitable lines of inquiry.
A possible objection
Why not record the pseudo-terrorist’s speech while Berg was still alive, then kill him, then record separate shots of his head being cut off?
To get the full force of the horror of an (apparently) living human being waiting, unknowingly, to having his throat cut, it was necessary to do this in a single shot, at least up to the point of the first knife cut. The alternatives were to do it while he was actually alive or to shoot it after he was dead and rely on simple image manipulation to give the appearance he was alive. For various reasons (not least of which perhaps being that the participants were understandably squeamish about cutting somebody’s throat), they decided the second was the better alternative.
An alternative (but unlikely) jumpsuit scenario
The only remotely plausible alternative scenario I can think of is that, upon release from his 13 day incarceration by US forces (or the Iraqi police, if you prefer to believe that story or to make a distinction), Berg was allowed to keep his jumpsuit as a souvenir (“Hey, you wanna keep the jumpsuit buddy? Might get you a laugh at the barbecue when you get home”). Berg had the jumpsuit on him when captured by the terrorists and putting him in it to kill him appealed to them.
This scenario not only seems far-fetched, it also leaves us to explain why the terrorists would have gone to the trouble of using two cameras and of doing complex editing to create the sequence composed of shots A and B, when they could simply asked him to say who he was again.
Suggested lines of inquiry
• What are the standard interrogation procedures used in these circumstances by the FBI and or the CIA? Do they include videotaping the interrogation. Personally I’d be astounded if they didn’t, after all, the careful reexamination of an interview for nuances of speech, body language etc, is a powerful investigative tool. In this respect, has any of the photographic and video material viewed in closed session by US lawmakers depicted an interrogation session?
• Were tapes made at the three known interviews of Nick Berg by the FBI? Who did the interviews? Where are they?
• Were the orange jumpsuits issued in Iraq? To the Iraqi police, or only at US run facilities like Abu Ghraib? (There is, now, one photo in the public domain showing an Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib in an orange jumpsuit, although it is of a different style to the suit Berg is wearing).
• If video cameras were issued to interrogators, what brand/s were issued, and are their on-screen clocks consistent with those seen in the execution video.
• Whereabouts in Iraq was Nick Berg imprisoned by US and/or Iraqi police?
US readers might profitably pursue some of these questions with their congressman or senator.
BOGUS BERG UPDATE: MAY 19 2004
Arabs aren't buying Berg Execution
It would appear that I am not the only one wearing a tin foil hat. A lot of other people are raising the same
questions I've been raising about the Nick Berg beheading. This article doesn't go as for as I did to conclude Americans did it - but they take you right up to the edge of that conclusion.
The video of execution of American hostage Nick Berg in Iraq is threatening to develop into a major scandal. During a press conference the father of the beheaded American accused Bush and Rumsfeld of killing his son. There are more and more suspicions that Nick Berg was really executed not by Arab militants, but by the US intelligence services in order to divert the attention from the scandal about the
tortures in Baghdad prison.
First there was a report that a video showing an execution of an American expert captured in Iraq was shown on a so-called 'Islamic extremist' website. It was reported that the execution was carried out by a group of guerillas tied to Al-Qaeda in order to take revenge for the tortures that the American soldiers did to Iraqi inmates.
The video shows five men, whose faces are hidden behind black masks and traditional Arab scarves. They all are standing around a tied-up man with an orange suit on, the kind of suit inmates wear. The victim says to the camera: «My name is Nick Berg, my father’s name is Michael, my mother’s name is Susan. I have a brother and a sister, David and Sarah. I live in Philadelphia.
After these words they got him down on the floor, put a big knife to his throat and cut his head off, while screaming 'Allah Akbar' ('God is Great'). The video footage was called «Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi shows killing of an American». A day before the video was shown, Mr. Berg’s parents were told that their son’s body was found near a highway in Baghdad. The scene of the execution and the comments on it were the number one news in the world’s mass media for some time.
Then the CIA experts released a statement saying that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the man in mask who beheaded the US citizen Nick Berg in front of a camera. Then Western commentators and moralists took over and launched a campaign to vindicate the Americans exposed for torturing Iraqi inmates.
Compared to the brutal murder of an American with cutting his head off, the tortures of Iraqis in prisons started looking like minor pranks of undisciplined soldiers. Another factor was that the beheaded victim was a Jew, which was picked up by the Zionists immediately to justify their actions and to show what kind of enemy they have to be dealing with.
However, so many questions arose about the videotape that all accusers of so-called 'Islamists' got quiet right away and the subject disappeared from the agenda in the world’s media.
Many questions came up, and they are all pointing out that the accusations by Mr. Berg’s father against the US authorities on killing his son have very serious grounds.
The first suspicion was caused by a video where Berg was wearing an orange American jail suit. Berg was arrested by the Americans and had time to tell his friend that he was in an American prison. Intelligence services were denying this and were saying that Berg was arrested by the Iraqi police for Israeli stamps in his passport. But later on it turned out that he was questioned by Americans, and FBI agents came to his parents’ house to find out whether he was involved in any terrorist activities.
Berg’s e-mail showed that he was held in custody by the Americans. Turned out that an American was held in an American prison and beheaded right after he was presumably released.
In this connection there is a question whether the American was released from prison at all. If he was, and if he was late for his flight because of the arrest, as his parents first claimed, then why he ended up being captured by 'terrorists' and dressed in an American jail suit? How would militants even get a suit like this in the first place, and why would they make their hostage put it on?
The experts who saw the video say that the man posing as Jordanian native Zarqawi does not speak the Jordanian dialect. Zarqawi has an artificial leg, but none of these murderers did. The man presented as Zarqawi had a yellow ring, presumably a golden one, which Muslim men are banned from wearing, especially so-called fundamentalists.
The experts mentioned that the man calls Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) 'Gracious Prophet', while it is only Allah, Whom Muslims call 'Gracious'.
More and more questions are coming up about Mr. Berg’s murder and some of them have already been presented to the country’s leadership by the American public.
But major American mass media, which support the war in Iraq, are ignoring this information.
Infowars.com published the material titled «This is a 98 % secret US operation». The chair that Nick Berg was sitting on before the execution was the same as the chairs in Abu-Ghraib prison, where tortures were being committed. These chairs were brought by the US army. It was also reported that even though Nick Berg was a civilian, for some reason his body was delivered to a US Air Force base in Dover, where the dead servicemen are brought.
Meanwhile more and more new circumstances are being revealed when the video is being studied. The doctors are saying that there is almost no blood shown during the beheading, while normally a lot of blood would have been gushing if the person were alive. No blood was seen around it or on the hands of the one who cut the head off. Then it must have been a dead person who was beheaded.
All militants filmed on the video footage are too fat for the Iraqi standards, especially for militants, and they all had white palms of their hands. When the video was studied it turned out that the scream shown in this footage was recorded earlier and it was probably a woman’s scream.
The weapons that the murderers were holding in their hands resemble AKs, but the experts claim that this is a modified AK-47, Israeli-made Halil.
All Islamic organizations, including the ones accused of terrorism, have condemned this act. Nothing has been heard about Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi for the past few months, and there has been a rumor going on that he died in a bombing.
If he did take part in beheading the American and wanted to make it known this way (even the video was called «Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi shows killing of an American»), then why did he need to put a mask on or close his face with a scarf?
But if he has nothing to do with it, and somebody decided to use his name, then it would be quite natural to expect Zarqawi to deny the allegations about his involvement in Mr. Berg’s execution. But no denials have been heard. Especially when such a denial would have been appropriate after all Islamic organizations and the Iraqis condemned this murder.
This fact means that Zarqawi may not be alive. Those who put on that show knew that Zarqawi could no longer deny whatever they accuse him of.
Will the US government be able to deny what Mr. Berg’s parents and the public are accusing it of?
Probably, the experts, who manage to find Arab passports and the Holy Koran under a tumbled-down and melted skyscraper, will make something up this time as well? If they don’t, they you should expect some new movies and new terrorist acts to be made by the joint effort of Hollywood and the CIA.
May 16, 2004
White House Authorized Torture
Why did the torture occur? Because Bush and Rumsfield ordered it - stating:
The United States recognizes that the Geneva Conventions outlawing prisoner abuse apply to the war in Iraq. But it has said al Qaeda "terrorism" suspects do not qualify as prisoners of war under the terms of the treaty.
Newsweek on Sunday disclosed a memorandum by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales written in Jan. 25, 2002, that said "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war."
"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," he said.
Does Torture Work?
We are hearing a lot of doublespeak about whether or not torture works. The media has trotted out many "experts" that claim that torture doesn't work. Millitary people who denounce the turtore as the Abu Ghraib prison keep saying - torture doesn't work.
On the other hand they are making the opposite argument that "torture is necessary" in order to get information to save lives. They still want to be able to use torture stating that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to everyone. They create classifications of people who they can torture. They also ship certian prisoners to countries who haven't signed the Geneva Convention so they can be tortured for us.
So - if torture doesn't wwork - then why does the Bush administration continue to pursue it.
It's the same sort of doublespeak about does America torture people or not. "Of course we don't torture people! We are civilised Americans - not barbarians!" But on the other hand American have black ops programs that do things we don't want to think about so that the government can pretend that they don't do the things they are really doing. And this is supposed to be a lie that we are all supposed to accept and believe.
May 13, 2004
It's the same chair !!!! OMFG !!
Here's where you really need the tin foil hat. Look at this pic that was released today of the latest prisoner
abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. Notice the white chair in the lower left corner. Now - look at the chair Nicholas Berg is sitting in!! It's the same fucking chair!!
I have some more pics but the walls are the same yellow color and the baseboard is the same color as Abu Ghraib prison. Then - as I've said before - what is Nicholas Berg doing in an orange prison jump suit? The orange jump suit is the same color as the ones used at the prison!!! Terrorists don't put the people they kidnap in orange prison jump suits!
Now - put that together with the fact that these "terrorists" are WHITE and FAT and they are wearing BULLET PROOF VESTS!! So who goes around wearing bulle proof vests all the time? People like CIA - Prison guards!
This is enough to scare the shit out of you but - Nicholas Berg was murdered by AMERICANS at Abu Ghraib prison. They staged it so as to make it look like terrorists murdered Berg.
If you have a different opinion then you tell me why they have the same plastic furniture - the same walls - the same floorboard color - and the same orange jump suit. You tell me why these terrorists are fat white guys wearing bullet proof vests. You tell me why they speak bad Arabic. You tell me why they yell like Americans when they kill Berg. I suppose the terrorist picked up those chairs at the local WalMart!
There is a dispute as to if Berg was in US custody. He was arrested by Iraqi police but they claim they turned him over to American custody. America however denies that they had him.
CNN said initially that they were sure the voice was NOT al-Zarqawi. The CIA however confirms that it is. Isn't that amazing! I listen to the voices and it doesn't sound like the voices of someone who speaks Arabic as their first language.
But you see - it's not about the voices that make you think it's not al-Zarqawi. In May 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Iraq. He had his leg amputated and had a prosthetic limb to replace it. So - for a guy with ONE LEG al-Zarqawi is VERY NIMBLE on his feet! So - make you wonder how well the CIA thought things through when they decided to play terrorist?
This is what a REAL terrorists look like. This is the picture of Daniel Pearl who was also killed by terrorists.
Notice the thin brown hands - the grabbing of the hair - and the gun to the head. The guy is mean - angry. Pearl has on ordinary clothes and his hands are chained. When you look at the picture you can feel the wildness of a true terrorist. You can tell Pearl looks like he knows he is in big trouble. The clothes on the terrorists look normal for the region - but on the photos of the Berg terrorists - they look like they are in a costume.
Now look at the Berg terrorists. These guys look like the 5 stooges! They are FAT and WHITE. Check out the guy on the right. Do I see WHITE SHOES? Wonder how he keeps them clean running around the Iraqi desert?
When he reads the statement - does he sound angry? I don't hear it. He's reading a script. As to can see on terrorists 2, 4, and 5 - the BULLET PROOF VESTS. American MPs wear them all the time. To them it's like putting on their underwear. hey wear them so that if a prisoner tries to make a knife and stab them in the heart - they are protected. I guess they never thought they would show up under the terrorist costume.
Berg has no idea what it about to happen. He looks comfortable - perhaps to comfortable. I think they probably told him that they wanted him to pretend to be a hostage in order to get out of prison. Berg knew he was back at Abu Ghraib prison and that his "captors" were Americans - and that he was playing a role. Notice the orange prison garb in the picture.
The beheading changed the mood of the nation. Several lawmakers commented that after the beheading that it reminded them what the real issues were. So the beheading had the intended effect - that is - to inflame Americans and get them to think that torture is something that can be acceptable.
What we are seeing here people scares me beyond belief. I sit here stunned. I want to call someone but don't know who to call. If this turns out to be true - the world will experience a moment of horror unlike anything the world has ever experienced - except maybe the nuking of Japan.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO: What I've posted here isn't an absolute conclusion but asks a lot of questions that need to be answered. I need you to get everyone possible to link to this web page - or - copy it and post it on other sites. I need you to call your members in the US House and Senate. I need you to call your local radio and TV stations and get them to look at this.
Even though exposing this is bad for America - what is really bad for America is if we do this and get away with it. We can not allow America to become like NAZIs. The integrity of who we are and what we believe in must be preserved. We are a people of TRUTH and the only thing that's important is to find out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE.
More strange stuff:
The link below is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) documentary called Convoy of Death documenting the slaughter of 3000 Afgan POWs in December of 2001.
Afgan POWs Killed - 55mb Quicktime Format
A Message from the Management:
If you are a loyal patriotic American who believe in American values and you find this article to be offensive then Click Here to complain about it.
I've closed the comments on this. There are already too many comments and just about everything that can be said has been said dozens of times.
Continue reading "It's the same chair !!!! OMFG !!"
May 12, 2004
Is the voice that of al-Zarqawi?
According to CNN:
"The voice on the tape could not be verified as that of al-Zarqawi. CNN staff members familiar with al-Zarqawi's voice said the voice on the tape did not sound like him."
However - many in the news media and US generals are still stating that the executioner is al-Zarqawi. It would seem that those who are perpatrating this fraud wants very much to link it to al-Zarqawi.
"U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the person shown on a video beheading an American civilian in Iraq, based on an analysis of the voice on the video, a CIA official said Thursday."
Rape and Torture is Wrong!
Letter to the Editor
The Pentagon showed lawmakers the remaining photos of prisoner abuse. These new photos are so graphic
that senators concluded that releasing the photos would put our troops in danger. They stated that even to fully describe everything would offend the sensibilities of any rational person.
Of what they could describe they stated that saw the raping of prisoners - both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Other pictures depicted "crewel and sadistic torture" and obscenities with corpses. "I don't know how the hell these people got into our army," said Colorado Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell after viewing what he called a fraction of the images. We can only imaging what they can't
I want to say for the record that rape and torture is wrong and that there is absolutely no way to justify this. We can not ignore this and try to cover it up. We need to get to the bottom of this no matter how high up the ladder this goes. This is about who we are as a country and we can not allow ourselves to be defined this way. The absolute worse thing that can happen is that we allow people to get away with this.
We need to make it absolutely clear to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Military, and the people of the world that it is never ok to do this and those who are doing this will be punished. America will be judged by our integrity and we must show the world that we are an honest people and can be trusted.
PS: OK - tin foil hats on.
I look at the beheading and I see that the terrorists are WHITE and FAT. They are wearing BULLET PROOF VESTS and the guy on the right has WHITE SHOES.
The prisoner is wearing an ORANGE JUMPSUIT that is the same color and style used in the American run prison. The Arabic is bad and CNN has determined that it is not the guy who the web site says it is.
You look at the pictures and you tell me what you see. When you play "what's wrong with this picture" - it scares the hell out of you.
May 11, 200
Freepers List Berg as Anti-war Activist
This is amazing!!! Several disturbing things. This Michael Berg is the father of guy beheaded. Nick Berg was arrested by US FORCES. Father filed suit against US for sons arreast and was anti-war.
Local news piece:
WEST CHESTER, Pa. - Nick Berg was on his way out of Iraq. He had been released from the prison where he had been held for 13 days by Iraqi police for reasons he said he did not know. He had made his way from Mosul to his Baghdad hotel. He was finished with being an independent civilian contractor and was coming home to West Chester.
That was April 9. A month later, Berg's parents, Michael and Suzanne, still haven't heard from him. They've gone from concerned to frantic.
"Our hopes are that he's still in hiding or en route and traveling in a very slow manner," Michael Berg said.
A spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who tracks the number of civilians missing in that country was unavailable for comment. But in mid-April, coalition spokesman Dan Senor said during a news briefing in Baghdad that about 40 people from 12 countries were missing and presumed hostages.
Nick Berg, 26, owns a business called Prometheus Methods Tower Service Inc. He climbs communications towers to inspect the antennas, the electrical connections and the structure. He first went to Iraq on Dec. 21.
He stayed until Feb. 1, making contact with a company that indicated there would likely be work for him later. But he returned on March 14 and there was no work, so he began traveling. He usually called home once a day and e-mailed several times; Michael Berg is his business manager, and they needed to stay in touch.
They spoke on March 24, and Nick Berg told his parents he was coming home on March 30. Then the communications stopped, and he wasn't on the plane on March 30.
When FBI agents arrived at the Berg's West Chester home on March 31, they were relieved to know their son was alive, but in jail. The agents questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about.
Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."
On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military in Iraq.
The next day, April 6, Nick Berg was released. He told his parents he had been riding in a taxi on March 24 when he was arrested by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul. He told his parents he had not been mistreated.
Nick Berg said he would come home through Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait. But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated, and Michael Berg said they have not heard from their son since.The Bergs have hounded the State Department, the FBI and the International Committee of the Red Cross, seeking information. Michael Berg said the State Department sent an official to Nick Berg's hotel, where an employee told the official they had not heard of him.
The Bergs hired a private investigator, who talked to an American hotel guest who said he remembered Nick Berg.
Sometimes, they tell themselves their son "is a resourceful fellow who can take care of himself," Michael Berg said.
"Other times we think perhaps he was dead on April 10," he said. "My worst fear is that I'll never hear anything."
An American was beheaded today in retaliation for Bush's failed policy of torturing prisoners. I call it Bush's policy because as soon as 9-11 happened Bush started talking about when torture can be used and tried to distinguish various of war so as to justify torture. Then Bush had secret prisons set up like the one in Cuba so as to keep away anyone who would supervise them. So - when torture is exposed - are we really surprised?
Getting back on subject - seeing the pictures of the video supposedly of terrorists executing an American - the terrorists seem to be taller - stockier - and fatter that most Islamist terrorists are. It looks to me like these could be Americans posing as Islamic terrorists to create an event to justify our use of torture.
Furthermore - if you look at the video you can see that Nick Berg is wearing an orange prison jump suit.
When you look at the Iraqi POW abuse pictures one of them - the one with prisoners tied and laying on the floor - shows the same type of orange prison jumpsuit. The man is executed in a concrete building with yellow walls and floresent lighting - the same yellow walls and lighting as the abuse pictures.
Am I crazy?
Or - was this man executed at Abu Ghraib prison.
Also - these guys are wearing bullet proof jackets. That's very American. And - when they yelled before they cut the head off - they sounded like Americans yelling at a football game.
According to CNN the voices don't match al-Zarqawi. From CNN:
The Web site said the killing had been carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on coalition forces in Iraq.
The voice on the tape could not be verified as that of al-Zarqawi. CNN staffers familiar with al-Zarqawi's voice said the voice on the tape did not sound like him.
Torture and execution benifit both Osama bin Laden and Bush. The greater the hate the better Bush and the terrorist do. Considering that Americans ordered the execution of survivors of an Afgan Massacure of 3000 POWs it is not outside what Bush would do to cover up this scandal. And - like I said - these terrorists look a little too big and too fat to be Islamist terrorists.
I have seen the video - I was going to post it - but I'm leaning against it. If you get a change to download it and view it - I strongly recommend that you don't. Lets just say that knowing that they guy had his head sawed off with a knike while still alive is enough information to know what happened. I'm still in shock over what I saw and I'm still in a stunned state. Seeing it doesn't add any information to what you already know.
I may post the video because it is what happened. It is the price we pay for having Bush as president. But I'm not ready to do that right now.
May 09, 2004
Bush Solution to Torture
Letter to the Editor
The Bush solution to the prisoner torture and rape scandal will probably be something like this: "To ensure that America's reputation is never again tarnished by pictures of rape and torture - cameras in prisons are hereby banned."
May 08, 2004
Bush ordered the Torture
Letter to the Editor
The torture of prisoners in Iraq is not entirely surprising. The Bush administration has been actively advocating the use of torture ever since 9-11. Many statements have been made floating the idea that torture might be used is special circumstances. Prisoners were given new classifications other that Prisoner of War in order to avoid the restrictions of international law. These prisoners were deliberately reclassified into a legally murky area where no rules exists for one and one reason only - so that they could break the rules.
The abuse of prisoners in Iraq was not the acts of a few individuals. It was in fact the real policy of the military and those soldiers were operating on orders from the top.
What the President creates lawless and encourages it and advocates breaking of the rules then it comes as no surprise when the rules are broken. Bush is responsible for the torture of prisoners in Iraq because he is the one who has made it known that the rule of international law does not apply to what America does.
I therefore call on the entire Bush administration to take responsibility and step down from power. This is the kind of thing that happens when America allows a president to take power who was never elected in the first place.
I found yet another site that has the movie of the execution of 3000 Afgan POWs. Apparently the 17 minute movie I send you a link to was edited dowm. This link has a version with more details and is 59 minutes long. It is also in Real format instead of Quicktime.
The video is a Candaian Broadcasting Corporation documentary detailing the execution of 3000 prisoners by suffocation and the survivors shot and buried in mass graves. It's far bigger that the Iraqi story.
Call your Congressman
I can see by my log files that it's not just the military who is looking at my video. I see that there are some ".gov" hosts as well that have accesses this movie. The CIA has read it and one hit from the US house of representatives.
At this point I want everyone who reads this to call the house and the senate members to let them know.
Don't just email. Make a phone call and talk to a person about it.
And - it's time to call for the entire Bush administration to step down.
15 Anomalies Surrounding Death Of Nick Berg
What Really Happened.com
1:47 PM 5/15/2004
(Warning: Parts of the following discussion contain rather sickening references.)
Arab linguists have said the man posing as the Jordanian Zaraqawi did not speak with a Jordanian dialect. Others have suggested the man reading the written statement may not have been a native speaker of Arabic.
Zaraqawi was missing one leg and had been outfitted with an artificial leg that did not fit or function properly. He was unable to walk or stand normally with his ill-fitting limb. No man in the group showed evidence of such an infirmity.
Numerous indigenous sources have said Zaraqawi was killed by a US helicopter attack months ago when he was unable to move quickly enough to escape the targeted house. While others managed to exit the house in time to survive, he died in the collapsed building.
As any surgeon will testify, the alleged beheading was a fake. A beheading would result in a tremendous amount of spurting blood. There would have been blood everywhere had an actual beheading taken place. When the executioner holds up Berg's head immediately following what is represented as an actual decapitation of a living person, there is no significant blood flow from the neck or blood splatters showing anywhere on the executioner. Furthermore, the cut was simply too neat to have been done crudely and with such amazing speed by a man wielding a knife. Anybody who has ever carved a turkey knows there is something wrong with the supposed beheading. The suspended head looks more like Berg had been neatly beheaded by a guillotine.
The orange jumpsuit was standard US military issue to men in custody. It is unlikely Berg would have continuing wearing a US custodial uniform if he had been released by the military as they claim. The fact he was still wearing the suit is both anomalous and suggestive. One is forced to speculate as to whether there was an immediate transfer of Berg from the US military to unknown persons, thusly preventing Berg from discarding his US prison garb.
Several of the men in the film were fat by Iraqi standards. If they were Feyadeen or mujahadeen, they probably have been living underground since the first days of the occupation. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been shown on news stories as they have marched and demonstrated. One would be hard pressed to point out a single fat man among these thousands.
Some men had what can only be described as pasty-white hands. Once again, one would be hard pressed to find Arab men with pasty-white hands.
The lack of spurting blood suggests Berg was already dead at the time of the alleged decapitation. It is possible Berg's dead body was displayed with his head already partially or totally severed. In any case, he almost certainly was killed before the staged beheading. If so, it suggests the captors had no stomach for an actual beheading of a living person, and they opted to fulfill their assignment quietly and with the least amount of gore.
The scream that is heard has been interpreted as a woman's scream by many viewers. Videotape cognoscenti have further said the scream was amateurishly added to the tape.
The U.S. government translation of one statement made on the film is: "Does al Qaeda need any further excuses?" This is a falsification. The actual statement urged fellow insurgents to get off their hind ends and do something. One assumes the translator being used by the US military is a native speaker of Arabic, so this cannot be explained as an innocent flub. This suggests the US government wanted to inject an alleged al- Qaeda group into the murder of Nick Berg.
Iraqis who have seen the videotape on Arabic news broadcasts are universally saying the men in the film are not Iraqis. Are they saying this partly because the speaker does not employ an Iraqi dialect? Where does their certainty come from?
Firearms experts have stated the AK-47 carried by one man was a "Gilal." This actually is an Israeli-made weapon that improves on the famous AK- 47. Feyadeen and other insurgents almost universally use AK-47s.
The man in the videotape who is purported to be Zarqawi is wearing a gold ring. This is absolutely proscribed by Islamic law.
The US military has stated that Berg was never in US custody and that he had been in custody of the Iraqi police. The Iraqi police adamantly deny he was ever in their custody. On April 1, an e-mail from Beth A. Payne, the U.S. consular officer in Iraq, was sent to the family of Nick Berg. It stated that Ms. Payne had located Nick, and he was currently in custody of the US military. We have to conclude that either the email was bogus or the US military has been lying.
The chair that Berg was seated in during the filming was a standard issue military chair of the exact same kind as seen in a color photo taken at the Abu Ghraib Prison. The chances a terrorist cell would be using this same chair are minimal at best.
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin
Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was
a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism.
Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments
to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to
Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The
truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners.
When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical
Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which
contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001).
But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before
9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers
(Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am,
and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not
a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US
Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after
the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were
standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11.
Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter
aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13
2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved
significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to...
the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East".
Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report
recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US,
"military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".
The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a
strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
"All of this makes it all the more astonishing ..that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am.
"Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?
"There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11.
"Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to
"Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11?"
GOP Senator Rips Bush on Iraq, Terrorism
By MARK PRATT, Associated Press Writer
MEDFORD, Mass. - Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar on Saturday said the United States isn't doing enough to stave off terrorism and criticized President Bush for failing to offer solid plans for Iraq future.
Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the nation must prevent terrorism from taking root around the world by "repairing and building alliances," increasing trade, supporting democracy, addressing regional conflicts and controlling weapons of mass destruction.
Unless the country commits itself to such measures, "we are likely to experience acts of catastrophic terrorism that would undermine our economy, damage our society and kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people," the Indiana senator said during an appearance at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
Lugar said military might alone isn't enough to eradicate terrorism.
"To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities," he said.
He later added, "Military action is necessary to defeat serious and immediate threats to our national security. But the war on terrorism will not be won through attrition — particularly since military action will often breed more terrorists and more resentment of the United States."
Lugar, who was awarded the Dean's Medal for distinguished service in international affairs, said it's still unclear how much control the Iraqi people will have over their nation's security when power is transferred to them June 30.
"I am very hopeful that the president and his administration will articulate precisely what is going to happen as much as they can, day by day, as opposed to a generalization," he said.
It's not the first time that Lugar has criticized Bush, a fellow Republican. In 2003, Lugar and Sen. Joseph Biden, the committee's top Democrat, warned that the Bush administration had not given enough consideration to what would happen in Iraq after the fighting ended.
Also Saturday, Lugar blamed the Bush and Clinton administrations for not adequately funding the foreign affairs budget, noting that the military's budget is more than 13 times what the nation spends for diplomacy.
BLOOD FOR OIL BUSHITLER
Mediocre times produce the very worst that the world has to offer:
Laden, Bush, Hussein, Sharon, and Blair. None but the feeble minded
inspiration from such a ghastly lineup of "leaders".
Turn Off TV and Turn On Quantum
Humanity's most valuable possessions are Clean Water, Clean air, and Trees