A-list message, [A-List] Synthetic Terror

             WASHINGTON DC/LOS ANGELES -- With the direct threat of military
             attack against Iran issued Aug. 13 by Bush, the world has entered a phase of
             new and acute danger of general war. Bush made the threat in an interview
             with Israeli television. "All options are on the table," said Bush, speaking from
             his estate in Crawford, Texas. Asked if that included the use of force, Bush
             replied: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last
             option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to
             secure our country." (Reuters, dateline Jerusalem, August 13, 2005) Bush's
             comments were ostensibly made in the context of the US campaign to shut
             down the Iranian nuclear program, but in reality came in the midst of feverish
             US-UK preparations for a new 9/11 of state-sponsored, false flag synthetic
             terrorism which is intended in the intentions of the terrorist controllers in
             London and Washington to set the stage for the attack on Iran, as well as for
             martial law austerity dictatorships throughout the English-speaking world, and
             beyond.

             A possible scenario for what is in store over the next few weeks could well
             include a nuclear detonation under US military auspices on the coast of the
             Carolinas under the cover of the anti-terrorism exercise Sudden Response 05,
             but blamed on Hezbollah or some other alleged Iranian asset, followed by US
             atomic bombing of Iranian military bases, nuclear sites, and other strategic
             targets, using nuclear devices of various yields. US confrontation with Russia,
             China, and the other powers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization would
             not be far behind. With that, the nuclear genie would be out of the bottle, and
             we would not see him confined again in our lifetimes.

             With these new threats from Bush, so reminiscent of his 2002-2003 demagogy
             in advance of the invasion of Iraq, there could be no rational doubt that the US
             regime was in headlong flight forward towards war with Iran. Bush and
             Cheney, and their masters in the US secret government, appeared determined
             to repeat, on a grand scale, the fiasco of the April 1980 Operation Eagle Claw
             the attempt to extract the US hostages from Iran which left 8 US dead among
             a field of burning aircraft at the Iranian site labeled Desert One. This time, the
             toll would be many orders of magnitude greater.

             GERMANY: "EXTREMELY DANGEROUS" "UNCONTROLLED
             ESCALATION"

             That Bush's threats were no mere throw-away lines was shown by the blunt
             response just a few hours later by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder,
             who in August 2002 had been the first NATO head of government to repudiate
             the then-imminent Iraq war. "Take the military options off the table, since
             we,ve seen that they are worthless," said Schroeder in a campaign speech in
             Hanover. He told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag: "I consider the military
             option extremely dangerousI can definitely exclude that under my leadership
             this government would be a part of it." Instead, Schroeder spoke in favor of
             "patient diplomacy," and also of German-Russian reconciliation. Schroeder
             pointed to the evident limits of the much-touted US "superpower," noting that
             "in the United States, one should realize that the US might, unilaterally, win
             wars, but cannot win peace, as we have seen in Afghanistan, and even more
             so in Iraq." (BamS, August 14, 2005) German Foreign Minister Fischer
             warned that military operations against Iran would always bring the risk of
             uncontrollable escalation. (DPA, August 13)

             In an irony of history, Schroeder's prompt stand against a wider war has
             increased the penalty for the aggression now being planned by the
             Bush-Cheney regime and its backers. If the US attacks Iran before the
             September 18 German elections, Schroeder might be swept back into office,
             given the clear inability of his feckless opposition to resist US dictation. When
             Wolfgang Schaeubele, one of Schroeder's key opponents, visited Bush, Bush
             told him that "his greatest concern is Iran." However, Bush reassured his guest
             that there would be no US attack on Iran before the German vote on
             September 18. (Frankfurter Rundschau, August 18)

             The British Foreign Office was compelled to align itself with Schroeder's
             critique. The Foreign Office spokesman stated: "Our position is clear and has
             been made very, very clear by the Foreign Secretary. We do not think there
             are any circumstances where military action would be justified against Iran. It
             does not form part of British foreign policy." (Sunday Times, August 14,
             2005) Thus, according to all present indications, the US would go into Iran
             utterly alone, without even the window dressing of a sham coalition of the
             bribed and the blackmailed.

             PUTIN: DON,T LOWER THE NUCLEAR THRESHOLD

             Russian President Vladimir Putin offered his own response to Bush from the
             deck of the Russian battle cruiser Peter the Great in the Barents Sea. Putin's
             warning addressed the Cheney-Rumsfeld reliance on low-yield nuclear
             weapons as a key component of US strategy. "I think that lowering the
             threshold for the use of nuclear arms is a dangerous trend, because somebody
             may feel tempted to use nuclear weapons," Putin told journalists. "If that
             happens, the next step can be taken -- more powerful nuclear arms can be
             used, which may lead to a nuclear conflict. This extremely dangerous trend is
             in the back of the mind of some politicians and military officials," the president
             said. (Interfax, August 17) This can be read as a nuclear counterthreat in
             response to Bush's "all options are on the table." The threatening overtone
             took on consistency over the following hours. Putin flew in a Tupolev-160
             strategic bomber with Major General Anatoly Zhikharev, deputy commander
             of the Russian strategic air force. With Putin on board, this plane was one of
             two which successfully flight-tested what Russia described as "a new,
             high-precision, long-range cruise missile." Putin had his picture taken in a flight
             helmet and, in contrast to Bush's ludicrous "Mission Accomplished" bluster,
             announced that the cruise missiles had hit their target. A new Russian RSM-54
             ICBM, called SS-N-23 Skiff by NATO, was fired from the submerged nuclear
             sub Yekaterinburg in the Barents Sea and also hit its target on the Kura testing
             range on the Kamchatka peninsula. All this was in the context of maneuvers by
             the surface warships and subs of the Russian Northern Fleet.

             Russia was also joining with China in Peace Mission 05, an unprecedented
             joint exercise in the Far East between August 18 and August 26, evidently
             directed against US-UK meddling in the region. The political basis of this
             cooperation against hegemonism had been outlined in the July 15
             Russo-Chinese joint statement on the world strategic situation. At the same
             time, intelligence agencies of Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus held a
             drill involving the prevention of terror attacks on energy assets. Between
             August 22 and August 30 the combined air defense forces of the
             Commonwealth of Independent States will drill warding off air attacks around
             Astrakhan at the northern end of the Caspian Sea. The hypothetical aggressor
             was, once again, clearly the United States. Russian military sources indicated
             that the US and NATO had so far not mounted military exercises on this scale
             in multiple regions. The message of all this is that Russia's military comeback
             has succeeded to a remarkable degree, with more to come: Putin also
             announced a 22% increase in the Russian military budget, which is still
             dwarfed overall by the US. Russia, however, has been able to maintain
             substantial superiority in a limited number of strategically decisive categories.
             As the US has grown weaker under catastrophic neocon misleadership, Putin
             has grown more assertive: On August 17, Putin met with King Abdullah of
             Jordan in Sochi and called for a fixed timetable for the gradual departure of
             foreign forces from Iraq the theme Bush sees as taboo. Putin also called for
             the convocation before the end of the year of an international conference to
             stabilize Iraq another Bush bugaboo. US intentions in the Far East had been
             made clear by attack dog Zbigniew Brzezinski in a July 29 article in the
             Moscow Nezavisimaya Gazeta, which boasted that the Russian presence in
             that region was about to collapse. During August, Pakistan was holding
             Tri-Service maneuvers along its border with Iran, thus possibly creating a
             diversion to complicate Iran's situation.

             WAR PSYCHOSIS IN WASHINGTON

             For weeks, top US officials foolishly ignoring rumblings from many quarters
             around the world -- have given free rein to their obsession with Iran. When a
             few days after the London 7/7 attacks, a bomb in Israel claimed the lives of
             two victims, Rumsfeld placed the blame on Hezbollah and Iran. On August 9,
             Rumsfeld and outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers
             complained that Iran was responsible for the availability in Iraq of new types
             of shaped charge explosive devices, which had played a key roll in the heavy
             US losses of early August. Press accounts alleged that the Iranian
             Revolutionary Guards had created a special terror unit for anti-US operations
             inside Iraq, featuring the use of sophisticated and deadly shaped charges which
             were capable of easily knocking out the US Abrams tanks. According to one
             version, the Iranian commander of this irregular warfare group is a certain Abu
             Mustafa al Sheibani, who leads a score of teams of Iraqi Shiites and Hezbollah
             fighters who are expert in using the shaped charges. The overall commander of
             the effort is identified as Brigadier General Qassim Sullaimani. (Michael Wane,
             "Inside Iran's Secret War for Iraq," Time, August 21, 2005) The propaganda
             value of such stories for whipping up an anti-Iran war psychosis is obvious.

             In an article appearing August 1, Rumsfeld went far towards declaring
             Moslems in general as inferior beings against which crusades could and should
             be waged. According to Rumsfeld, the terrorists "seek to destroy things they
             could never build in 1,000 years and kill people they could never persuade."
             (London Financial Times, August 1, 2005) These statements were
             accompanied by a campaign of warmongering hysteria in the reactionary and
             neofascist media. Arnaud de Borchgrave, the Belgian count who runs United
             Press International, wrote on August 16 that Iran is responsible for having
             made Iraq "hell for the US," and that the current Jaafari regime represents a
             step towards a "greater Iranian Shiite empire." In de Borchgrave's view, the
             "military option for air strikes is on the table." (UPI, August 16, 2005)

             THE GIRALDI SIGNAL PIECE

             The acute danger of a US nuclear sneak attack on Iran had been indicated by a
             signal piece contributed by CIA veteran Philip Giraldi to the magazine The
             American Conservative. Giraldi is the partner of retired CIA operations man
             Vince Cannistraro, and can be presumed to be drawing on high-level leaks by
             those opposed to the Bush-Cheney war scenario. Giraldi wrote:

             "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's
             office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with
             drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another
             9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale
             air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
             Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including
             numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of
             the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out
             by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the
             response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of
             terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers
             involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what
             they are doing that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack but
             no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." (The
             American Conservative, August 1, 2005; reprinted by Justin Raimondo,
             Antiwar.com, July 25, 2005)

             The notion of a massive nuclear and conventional attack on Iran which is so
             graphically evoked here should not obscure the other, more immediately
             important, element of this warning: Cheney is counting on "another 9/11-type
             terrorist attack on the United States." It is evident that such a determined
             warmonger as Cheney is hardly likely to leave the coming of that indispensable
             terrorist provocation to chance: the terror event that provides the pretext for
             war must be an integral part of the plan being pushed through the US
             bureaucracy by the secret government, their spokesmen Bush and Cheney,
             and the neocon faction in general. We are dealing in short with state sponsored
             terrorism.

             As for the military side, US nuclear sneak attack plans have been in the works
             for some years under the supervision of the utopian Secretary of Defense,
             Donald Rumsfeld. In the summer of 2004, Rumsfeld promulgated an "Interim
             Global Strike Alert Order." "Global strike" is Pentagon jargon for pre-emptive
             attack or, in plain English, a sneak attack. Under this order, the US
             STRATCOM (Strategic Command, corresponding to the Cold War Strategic
             Air Command) in Nebraska revamped its posture to be ready to deliver nuclear
             and conventional attacks on states alleged to be developing weapons of mass
             destruction (WMD). The plans to deal with an alleged threat from North
             Korea and/or Iran go under the designation CONPLAN (or contingency plan)
             8022-22. This planning was ordered by Bush in a January 2003 secret
             directive in order to provide a "full-spectrum" global strike, including notably
             "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and
             conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations)
             effects in support of theater and national objectives." A centerpiece of
             CONPLAN 8022-22 is the so-called bunker-busting nuclear projectile, a
             specially configured earth-penetrating bomb designed to destroy deeply buried
             facilities, command bunkers, and the like. The entire package was
             foreshadowed in the pre-emptive war clauses of Bush's National Security
             Strategy published in September 2002, supposedly in response to the 9/11
             events. In December 2002, the Pentagon's quadrennial Nuclear Posture
             Review ordered STRATCOM to prepare for greater flexibility in nuclear attack
             options against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and China quite an
             enemies, list.

             According to Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, his
             fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had been reorganized to be able to carry out
             such short-notice pre-emptive attacks. "We're now at the point where we are
             essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview. "We have the capacity to
             plan and execute global strikes." Carlson boasted that his headquarters was the
             U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and were ready to
             execute an attack "in half a day or less." In July 2004, Gen. Richard B. Myers,
             chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praised the progress made on
             CONPLAN 8022-22, gloating that "the president charged you to 'be ready to
             strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's
             exactly what you've done." The May 15, 2005 Washington Post article by
             William Arkin detailing CONPLAN 8022-22 was an important signal piece and
             would take an important place in a chronology of the current escalation.

             CONPLAN 8022-22 appears to ignore the messy experience of defeat in Iraq
             and rather chooses to harken back to a mythologized version of the Afghan
             campaign of 2001-2002. It calls for nuclear and conventional air strikes, with
             limited use of Special Forces teams: the result is practically no "boots on the
             ground" or "follow-on ground operations," according to published reports.
             Afghanistan was subdued in 2001-2002 by means of air power to enforce
             deals made on the ground by CIA negotiators with local warlords and
             druglords. Something similar involving bribery of Iraqi generals was tried on
             the way to the bloody morass of present-day Iraq. The CONPLAN 8022-22
             strategy is utopian enough to enrage any military traditionalist concerned about
             logistics, depth, and political factors. It is Blitzkrieg, with the utopian elements
             accentuated.

             Wayne Madsen reports information he describes as coming from the
             Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the German foreign intelligence service,
             according to which the nuclear and conventional bombing campaigns already
             detailed will be supplemented by infrastructure sabotage and other acts of
             terrorism by the People's Mujaheddin (Mujaheddin e Khalq, MEK), US
             Special Operations units, and other marauders. (Despite recent talk of a US
             "war on terror," the Pentagon is not reticent about using the MEK, who are
             still on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, as auxiliaries. In
             fact, some of the MEK personnel have been personally rehabilitated by none
             other than General Geoffrey Miller, one of the principal felons of Guantanamo
             and Abu Ghraib.) The goals of the US operations include inciting a rebellion in
             the Khuzestan province of southwestern Iran, the site of many of Iran's oil
             fields and refineries, most probably including the critical Kharg Island tanker
             terminal. The majority of this area's population are Shiite Arabs. According to
             one scenario, the US would intervene in response to an appeal from the
             phantomatic Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front, whose program would
             include secession from Iran and the declaration of an independent Arab state
             calling itself Ahwaz. This simulacrum of Ahwaz corresponds to the new state
             called simply "Arabistan" in the standard Bernard Lewis Plan for the
             Balkanization of the Middle East. (see map). Also in correspondence with the
             Bernard Lewis Plan, the CIA is agitating among Kurds and Turkmen along the
             border with Iraq and Turkey and among Baluchis along the border with
             Pakistan by promising them their own balkanized homelands. The Persians,
             according to this report, would be relegated to an oil-poor "Irani triangle" (or
             "Iranistan," in classic Bernard Lewis Plan terminology) around Teheran,
             Isfahan, and Qom. According to the BND, the US Navy is tapping Iranian
             undersea cables, while US Task Force 121 covert action teams are swarming
             over sensitive points inside Iran. The presence of US special forces teams on
             Iranian territory has been an open secret since the beginning of 2005, along
             with numerous violations of US airspace by US military aircraft. (See
             <http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/>http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/,
             August 10, 2005)

             US WAR AIMS: THE BERNARD LEWIS PLAN

             To clarify these points, a map reflecting the Bernard Lewis Plan for the
             Balkanization of the Middle East is included with this article. This map is
             based on one published in Linda de Hoyos, Derivative Assassination: Who
             Killed Indira Ghandi? (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1985), with
             some changes. Bernard Lewis served during World War II as an agent of the
             British Arab Bureau, the imperialist agency charged with keeping the Arab
             world weak so as to preserve London's domination. Bernard Lewis is
             associated with two principal ideas about the Moslem and Arab world. The
             first is that the real basis of Islam is not at all to be found in the luminous
             Baghdad Renaissance of the Caliph Haroun al Rashid around 800 AD, in its
             time the most advanced civilization in the world, but is to be sought rather in
             the benighted irrationalism of al Ghazali and his Destruction of Philosophy the
             world of dervishes, sheikhs, and necromancers. Over more than a century, the
             British have sought to control the Arab and Islamic sense of identity by
             finding, publicizing, and glorifying the most backward and self-destructive
             tendencies in one and a half millennia of Moslem history, attempting to
             accredit these as the true essence of Islam. Bernard Lewis, glorification of
             Moslem irrationalism thus prepares the way for the ideology attributed to al
             Qaeda. Lewis, second idea is that the existing Arab countries are illegitimate,
             and need to be carved up into a crazy quilt of ridiculous petty states who will
             be unable to threaten any important interest of Anglo-American imperialism. In
             a 1992 Foreign Affairs article in which he surveyed the region in the aftermath
             of the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, Lewis offered the following prophecy of
             the coming Lebanization of the entire Middle East on the lines of the
             post-1975 Lebanese civil war:

             "The eclipse of pan-Arabism has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most
             attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better,
             truer and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt
             ideologies foisted on them from outside... The more oppressive the regime, the
             greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing
             oppositionists. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real
             civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national
             identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then
             disintegrates"as happened in Lebanon"into a chaos of squabbling, feuding,
             fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."

             Of course, Bernard Lewis only repeats with his usual arid banality the
             geopolitical nostrums which his British imperialist predecessors had expressed
             with far greater panache. T.E. Lawrence ("of Arabia"), for example, who was
             a far more colorful operative than Lewis, developed similar ideas in an October
             29, 1918 meeting with Lord Cecil, Lord Curzon, Lord Balfour, General
             Smuts, and Mark Sykes of the Foreign Office, who helped draw up the map of
             the modern Middle East in the infamous Sykes-Picot deal. At that time the
             British effort was to break up and balkanize a Caliphate that actually existed,
             with its center in Constantinople. Lawrence stated:

             "If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by the common
             consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, the present
             representative of which is Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca. Hussein's activities
             seem beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the
             breakup of the Islamic bloc and the disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and
             because the states he would set up to succeed the Turks would be as harmless
             to ourselves as Turkey was. If properly handled the Arab states would remain
             in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities incapable of
             cohesion, and yet always ready to combine against an outside force."

             In other words, the eternal British mantra of divide and conquer, now
             embraced with giddy enthusiasm by fanatical parvenu neocons, greedy
             barbarian Bushmen, and cost-plus arrivistes along the Potomac.

             The Bernard Lewis Plan represents the real US-UK war aims in the Middle
             East. This map is what Appalachian poor whites, no-future rural youth, and
             black and Hispanic ghetto victims are dying for in Iraq. The hogwash spouted
             by neocons about democracy, or Bush's pledge to bring reform and
             modernization to Arab societies, are cynical subterfuges to achieve this goal. In
             the light of this analysis, the basic purpose of Bush's Iraq invasion was quite
             simply the destruction of that society, and the deliberate provoking of a
             three-way civil war. This is, after all, what we are observing empirically.
             Maybe it is now clear why, despite an alleged $20 billion in reconstruction
             funds available, there is so little electricity in Baghdad.

             THE WAR PLANS FOR IRAN

             According to one high-ranking retired US military officer, a warning has been
             issued inside the Pentagon about a large-scale terrorist attack in the US around
             the fourth anniversary of 9/11 on September 11, 2005. (EIR, August 16,
             2005) According to this source, US CENTCOM (Central Command),
             SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and STRATCOM (Strategic
             Command) were asked what their capabilities against Iran would be.
             CENTCOM reported that it was bogged down in Iraq and had nothing to
             spare. SOCOM replied that it could mount raids inside Iran, but these would
             not be sufficient to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, and might include
             losses so heavy as to be politically unacceptable. STRATCOM offered a target
             list for nuclear attack. According to this source, the reluctance of the US
             military to cross the nuclear threshold with a sneak attack was great, with key
             generals "highly resistant" to such a move. This source implied that the center
             of support for US nuclear aggression against Iran was in INSCOM, the
             Intelligence and Security Command, the home of utopian psychological
             warfare strategists and assorted Strangeloves. (EIR, August 16, 2005)
             Generally speaking, INSCOM and SOCOM, with their old boy networks and
             interfaces with CIA, DIA, NSA, etc., are the prime suspects in the terror
             provocations now looming.

             The US campaign which thus shapes up has many of the characteristics of a
             punitive expedition, The US would bomb the bases of the Iranian
             Revolutionary Guards, along with the nuclear facilities at Bushehr, Isfahan,
             and related locations. But published reports also indicate that the Pentagon
             utopians feel that they will also need to seize control of the areas where the
             laboratories, research facilities, factories, universities, and reactors are located,
             in order to ensure their complete destruction. The utter devastation of these
             areas might require as much as one month. After this, the US forces would
             leave most of Iran immediately, except perhaps for some advisers attached to
             the Ahwaz forces and other rebels. It will thus will be a campaign of pure
             vandalism and destruction, designed to push Iran back into the Stone Age. It
             will aim at the destruction of modern civilization. This will be the main thrust,
             and not any neocon slogans about democracy, modernization, women's rights
             or other Orwellian lies.

             The war party in Washington was shocked by the July 8 demand of the
             Shanghai Cooperation Organization that the US establish a firm timetable for
             vacating the Uzbek and Kyrgyz bases in central Asia which were extorted by
             Bush from Putin on September 11, 2001. On July 29, President Karimov of
             Uzbekistan had given the US an ultimatum to get out of his country within 180
             days, meaning by January 29, 2006. As Sovietologist Stephen Cohen noted on
             WTOP radio in Washington DC soon afterwards, this represented the first
             rollback of US-UK expansionism into the former Soviet sphere since the
             collapse of the USSR in 1991. On August 2, the Russian government
             newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta suggested that, once the US left, Russia would
             take over this key airbase. It was also clear that the US was shopping all over
             the region for bases from which to attack Iran and other states. In this
             connection, a Russian newspaper suggested that Azerbaijan President Ilham
             Aliyev, who shares a border with Iran, was ready to grant the US a base or
             perhaps even two. But Aliyev's top international affairs adviser denied it, and
             indicated that his country was not interested in joining US moves against Iran.
             Central Asia is beginning to resemble the Balkans of the pre-1914 or 1939-41
             phases, with the great powers jostling each other for advantage as hostilities
             loom closer.

             Despite the limited ground forces which the Pentagon utopians imagine they
             will need to vandalize Iran, the US forces in neighboring Iraq will nevertheless
             require reinforcement during the time of operations in Iran. There may be
             insurrections among the Iraqis, counterattacks across the border by the
             Iranians, and the like. The most probably means to accomplish a buildup of
             20,000 to 30,000 US troops in Iraq will be available in the time between
             October 15 and December 15. Anecdotal reports of individual servicemen
             having their leaves cancelled for this approximate time frame have been
             received. US military spokesmen have already referred to their plans for a
             "plus-up" of their numerical strength during this period, allegedly because of
             the need to protect the October 15 constitutional referendum and the
             December 15 national elections. But that will be a pretext, a deception. Indeed,
             all such US troop strength projections are based on nothing but deception, as
             in the case of Rumsfeld's July 27 visit to Iraq to promise some form of troop
             reduction during 2006. These statements are calculated to deceive US voters in
             advance of the (scheduled) November 2006 US Congressional election, but
             above all to deceive the Iranian leadership. They are also designed to fool US
             soldiers, giving them the mirage of light at the end of the tunnel in their
             personal predicament. Their truth content is equivalent to that of certain
             protestations of mutual friendship made during May and early June of 1941 by
             Hitler and Stalin. The US government and mass media are currently operating
             in a total wartime propaganda mode. At the New York Times, for example,
             the despicable tradition of Judith Miller, Iraq war stenographer for the neocon
             regime, showed itself alive and well, as Richard Bernstein attempted to write
             off the German warnings as a mere election ploy by Schroeder. "No country,
             including the United States, is making serious military threats against Iran,"
             wrote the mendacious Bernstein in the face of all reality. (NYT, August 16,
             2005)

             MEDIA BLACKOUT

             An example of the US covert buildup with active press complicity and lying
             came in the August 18 edition of The Washington Post. Here we are informed
             by staff writer Bradley Graham that 700 members of the 1st battalion, 504th
             Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division will be going to
             Iraq soon. The deployment will be "to bolster prison operations," wrote
             Graham, who also cited Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable as saying
             that "The basic fact driving this deployment is the steady rise of the prison
             population. There need to be some additional resources devoted to this."
             Elsewhere in the article we read that the troops will "not necessarily provide
             prison guards but rather engage in a number of detention-related operations,
             such as securing the area around a prison compound or transporting detainees
             from one prison to another." To see the absurdity of this cover story, we need
             only recall that paratroopers are by definition among the most highly trained
             elite shock troops, whose main purpose is to carry out offensive operations
             behind the lines of an enemy. To use them for defensive operations is a waste.
             Unless the Pentagon generals have gone mad as hatters on the tactical plane as
             well as the strategic one, they would know that the many hundreds of
             thousands of dollars it costs to train a paratrooper will be quickly lost if that
             trooper is required to act for any length of time as a prison guard, detainee
             convoy escort, or garrison soldier around a prison. Paratroopers must train as
             paratroopers or they soon cease to be paratroopers and become useless. These
             paratroopers and others being shipped to Iraq are earmarked for use in the
             upcoming attack on Iran, the only possible offensive use for such troops at the
             present time. The US press is now full of falsifications of this puerile
             character.

             Pentagon planners are aware that Iran would respond to a foreign invasion
             with an array of asymmetrical warfare techniques. But they may not realize
             how aggressive Iran might be when facing attack. The US has no monopoly on
             preventive attacks. The Taliban had few opportunities for preventive attacks.
             Saddam Hussein, possibly because of his long-standing ties to the US, never
             undertook preventive action during Operation Desert Shield in late 1990, when
             US forces in northern Saudi Arabia were very weak, and his passivity probably
             continues to disorient US planners to this very day. Iranian officials have
             proclaimed repeatedly that they are not Iraq, and will not resign themselves to
             an exclusively defensive posture if hostilities are imminent. And since the US
             has already committed multiple acts of war against Iran with teams on the
             ground and overflights, international law will be on the Iranian side.

             IRANIAN COUNTERMEASURES

             How might Iran respond to a US attack? An obvious measure would be to step
             up the flow of bombs, guns, and fighters into Iraq. But the main Iranian card is
             that country's long Persian Gulf coast. This narrow seaway is of course the oil
             aorta of the world, and Iran would have many operations to sever it. Iran is
             thought to possess an array of missiles ranging from obsolete Chinese
             Silkworms to ultra-modern Russian 3M-82 Moskit (called SS-N-Sunburn by
             NATO) and even the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts sea-skimming cruise missiles. The
             Sunburn, for example, has been designed for the express purpose of sinking
             US aircraft carriers, and could also destroy supertankers. Even artillery pieces
             and tank cannon could become interdicting factors when deployed in the rough
             territory along the northern coast of the Gulf. A few hulks scuttled in the
             Straits of Hormuz could block all traffic as totally as did the freighters sunk by
             Nasser in the Suez canal in 1956. And then there are mines. A few Iranian
             mines set adrift in the Gulf in 1987 caused the maritime insurance premiums
             for tankers to rise so sharply that the Emir of Kuwait was forced to re-flag his
             ships under US registry so as to procure US escorts and minesweepers.
             Deliveries destined mainly for Europe, Japan and China would be cut off, and
             the economies of these countries would be severely curtailed. The oil price
             would rise into the ionosphere, with the mythical Hubbert's peak nowhere in
             sight. The US would view the results with some Schadenfreude, since
             powerful economic and strategic rivals would be dealt stunning blows, even as
             a wholly artificial demand for dollars would emerge as nations scrambled to
             pay their imported oil bills. But the constriction of Gulf oil traffic would be a
             prelude to the thermodynamic collapse of the world economy.

             Finally, there is no guarantee that Iran would imitate the restraint shown by
             Saddam Hussein, who never so far as is known contemplated attacks on
             targets located on US territory.

             As for the US forces engaged in Iran, they might quickly find themselves in an
             extraordinarily critical situation, somewhat along the lines of Mogadishu in
             1993, or like the British at Saratoga. If the Iranian human wave assaults of the
             Iran-Iraq war are any indication, significant parts of the Iranian population may
             prove willing to wage a form of people's war against the invaders. At worst,
             the US forces might face a fate similar to that of the German army in Romania
             in the closing months of 1944 annihilation. Responsible US military leaders
             must act now to prevent such a needless catastrophe.

             The Pentagon has a trick of flying dying soldiers out of theatre and not
             counting them in the Iraq casualty statistics even if they expire a few moments
             after their airplane has left the ground. Some reckonings of actual US deaths as
             a result of Iraq operations range between 7,000 and 9,000, with part of the
             discrepancy due to this practice. (Brian Harring, The Harring Report,
             TBRNews.org) US deserters must be approaching 6,000, with many of them
             taking the last available chance to make a run for it when their planes land at
             Shannon Airport in Ireland for refueling. Cases of documented fragging have
             now surfaced. These factors, plus the difficulty of attracting recruits to be sent
             into the Iraqi shooting gallery, add up to the collapse of US land forces Army
             and Marines by early 2006 at the latest.

             ZARQAWI: A CLASSIC FALSE FLAG COUNTERGANG

             Inside Iraq, the US-UK coalition has been cynically employing terrorism as a
             counterinsurgency tactic. These operations have been developed in accordance
             with the British colonial doctrine of General Frank Kitson, the author of such
             classics as Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency, Peace Keeping
             and Gangs and Counter-Gangs. These speak to the heart of false flag
             operational doctrine. When Kitson found anti-British nationalism developing in
             Kenya during the time of the Mau-Mau, he deliberately created false flag units
             which, presenting themselves as Mau-Mau, committed the most unspeakable
             atrocities. The effect was to discredit the nationalists and slow down the
             country's progress towards independence. As I noted in 9/11 Synthetic
             Terrorism, the Zarqawi operation in Iraq is a US-UK asset. Zarqawi is
             manifestly a false flag countergang, tasked to carry kidnappings and grisly
             murders as necessary for the purpose of discrediting and demonizing the
             opposition to continued occupation.

             The average person around the world might well be astounded that the neocon
             administration in Washington, who never learned the lesson of Vietnam, have
             also been unable to learn the lesson of Iraq. The neocons would assert that
             they are acting on the lessons of Iraq, which for them add to the thesis that the
             US is losing in Iraq because of infiltration of weapons, supplies, and foreign
             fighters through the famously porous borders of Syria and Iran. This amounts
             to a psychotic flight forward, in which the neocons hope to escape from the
             problem of military defeat and the breakdown of the US land forces by
             courting a larger military defeat and the accelerated disintegration of US land
             forces.

             The attitude of Russia and to some extent of China towards a US invasion of
             Iran represents a giant question mark. There is every reason to think that,
             since the fall of the Shah, the USSR and then Russia have been determined to
             prevent the US occupation of Iran, especially northern Iran and the Caspian
             Sea coast, the possession of which would give London and Washington the
             opportunity to project their meddling deep into new areas of central Asia. In
             his Carter-era study entitled Hostage to Khomeini (New York: Benjamin
             Franklin House, c. 1980), Mother Jones columnist Robert Dreyfuss wrote that
             the decisive factor in blocking the US special forces action at Desert One in
             April 1980 was a massive show of force over that site by the Soviet Air Force.
             According to one version cited by Dreyfuss, it was Soviet bombs, and not an
             accidental collision, which caused the conflagration that ended that mission.
             Today there are teams of Russian technicians at Bushehr, and Russia has
             reportedly installed a mobile system of ground to air missiles to defend the
             reaction from possible US or Israeli strikes. The implementation of
             CONPLAN 8022-22 would almost certainly cause fatalities among the Russian
             personnel involved in these activities. Will Russia prove more willing to tolerate
             a US presence in Iran, or the deaths of her citizens, than the USSR had been?
             We may soon find out, and they results may be anything but edifying.

             IN SEARCH OF A PRETEXT FOR WAR

             In order to wage war, the Anglo-Americans must have a pretext that will allow
             the controlled corporate media to portray them as the aggrieved parties, the
             victims of aggression. The model is the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, or
             Hitler's Gleiwitz radio station massacre, which provided the cover story for his
             September 1, 1939 attack. After six months of sending special forces teams
             and aircraft into Iran, this is of course a hard case to argue, but the American
             people generally do not know about the illegal incursions, and no lie is too big
             for the media.

             A duo of military madmen have come forward with one approach to
             destroying Iran as a modern state. They are Lt. General Thomas McInerney,
             assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force and director for the Defense
             Performance Review, and Army Maj. General Paul Vallely, former deputy
             commanding general, Pacific. Vallely also bills himself as the senior military
             commentator of Fox News. In their book
             <http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0895260662>Endgame:
             The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror, these two develop the
             following lunatic scenario for dealing with Iran:

             "The United States must prepare to approach the UN Security Council with a
             draft resolution for a total economic embargo on Iran, the seizing of Iranian
             assets (to be held in trust for future Iranian government), and a strict naval
             quarantine in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The United Nations
             would lift the embargo only when the Iran government dismantles its nuclear
             weapons program under the supervision of international inspections. Libya
             (and before Libya, South Africa) has given Iran an example to follow on how
             to dismantle a nuclear weapons program in a way that meets international
             standards of verification. Iran would be required to surrender or destroy all
             equipment needed to produce fissionable materials (highly enriched uranium
             and plutonium), all long-range ballistic missiles, and all cruise missiles; release
             all documents related to its nuclear weapons program; and expel all foreign
             scientists, technicians, and engineers involved in nuclear weapons design,
             development, and production. Because the French or Russians are likely to
             veto " or, at least, threaten to veto " such a Security Council resolution, the
             United States should be ready to impose these conditions on Iran with a
             coalition of our own." (As excerpted in National Review.)

             The method is the same as Iraq use the UN as a fig leaf for acts of war if
             possible, otherwise repudiate any notion of international law and act
             unilaterally, using a group of petty states as a cloak. The proposed closing of
             the Straits of Hormuz would of course represent a major act of war, and
             would be seen clearly as such by Europe, Japan, and China, who depend on
             Persian Gulf oil. Clearly some other approach will be required.

             TERRORISM UNDER THE COVER OF EXERCISES AND DRILLS

             That approach is to create a pretext for war using state sponsored, false flag
             synthetic terrorism on a scale larger the previous exercise of this type on
             September 11, 2001. Giraldi states above that Cheney's planning includes
             "another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." Since the ruling
             clique manifestly wants war, they are not going to leave such an attack to
             chance; they are going to furnish themselves, with their own guaranteed
             apparatus. One variant, already the object of numerous rumors and chatter
             around Washington, is a "new 9/11" attack against several major US cities,
             including New York and Washington. A possible occasion might be the
             anniversary day of September 11, 2005. To be fully effective, the attacks
             would have to be attributable to an Iranian-backed grouping, most likely
             Hezbollah, which is considered by the US an Iranian asset. Hezbollah, a mass
             political party in Lebanon, is big enough to allow a considerable number of
             patsies and double agents to be housed or at least sheep-dipped there.

             The synthetic terror event required by the Bush-Cheney clique and its masters
             is likely to be conducted through the US military and intelligence apparatus
             under the cover of a terror drill or a war exercise. Since even those parts of the
             9/11 truth movement who have talked the most about military drills have not
             sufficiently clarified this matter, a word of explanation is required.

             If we catalogue each coup d,etat, high-level political assassination,
             destabilization, war provocation, and spectacular terrorist event on a world
             scale over the past 50 years, we will find that almost all of them have been
             conducted or conduited in whole or in part through the military/intelligence
             apparatus of the state involved. In many cases, the cover story which has
             allowed this to be done has taken the form of a military or terrorism maneuver
             or exercise which closely resembled the actual event which followed, but
             which masqueraded as a mere drill up to the very last moment. For example,
             the US Operation Mongoose, which on the surface had to do with the
             assassination of Fidel Castro, appears to have functioned as a cover story for
             operations leading to the assassination of President Kennedy. On the day after
             John Hinckley Jr.'s attempt to assassinate President Reagan, there was
             scheduled a presidential succession exercise, presumably one of the Nine Lives
             series. This is discussed in my book, George Bush: The Unauthorized
             Biography (Washington DC: EIR, 1992; reprinted Joshua Tree CA:
             Progressive Press, 2004).

             9/11 itself offers the greatest density of war drills and terror drills seen so far.
             These included Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance,
             Northern Guardian, Tripod II, and a National Reconnaissance office drill. The
             publication of William M. Arkin's Code Names (Hanover NH: Steerforth
             Press, 2005) has added Global Guardian to this list. Global Guardian is
             important since it establishes beyond doubt what I argued in 9/11 Synthetic
             Terror: namely that one of the main ingredients of the 9/11 plot was an option
             for a thermonuclear confrontation with Russia and possibly other states. A
             recent posting on cooperativeresearch.org notes that Global Guardian also had
             included some simulation of a rogue network interfering in the command and
             control of strategic assets a kind of nuclear coup:

             A 1998 Defense Department newsletter reported that for several years
             Stratcom had been incorporating a computer network attack (CNA) into
             Global Guardian. The attack involved Stratcom "red team" members and other
             organizations acting as enemy agents, and included attempts to penetrate the
             Command using the Internet and a "bad" insider who had access to a key
             command and control system. The attackers "war dialed" the phones to tie
             them up and sent faxes to numerous fax machines throughout the Command.
             They also claimed they were able to shut down Stratcom's systems.
             Reportedly, Stratcom planned to increase the level of computer network attack
             in future Global Guardian exercises.,
             [<http://www.iwar.org.uk/infocon/dtic-ia/Vol2_No1.pdf>IAnewsletter, 6/98]

             The bad" insider points towards the invisible government's 9/11 threat to
             launch the war of civilizations in the nuclear dimension should Bush refuse to
             unleash it on the conventional plane. Details about these exercises are found in
             my 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA (Joshua Tree CA: Progressive
             Press, 2005) As I try to show, some of these maneuvers involved sending US
             Air Force fighter interceptors to Alaska and Northern Canada so as to reduce
             the probability that these planes would be able to prevent the aircraft or other
             flying objects from hitting the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. These
             maneuvers also sowed confusion, with fake blips inserted on radar screens
             manned by loyal officers, and military and commercial aircraft masquerading
             as hijacked planes. This use of maneuvers on 9/11 is consistent with the
             LIHOP (Let It Happen on Purpose) or perhaps HIHOP (Helped It Happen on
             Purpose) interpretation of 9/11 which has been ably defended by Michael
             Ruppert. These maneuvers can be compared to the Fletcher Prouty character
             being sent to the South Pole just at the time of the Kennedy assassination in
             Oliver Stone's JFK.

             But, when we come to Global Guardian, Amalgam Virgo, the plane hijacking
             exercise under whose overall aegis 9/11 was manifestly prepared over a period
             of months and years, and to such specific exercises as the 9/11 National
             Reconnaissance Office (NRO) drill involving a hijacked aircraft hitting that
             agency's own headquarters, the terror drill mimics the actual attacks so closely
             that the drill must be seen as the deliberate camouflage of the attack. Modern
             military and security bureaucracies involve officers sitting in front of consoles
             in war rooms and situation rooms for hours on end. If there is to be state
             sponsored terrorism, some of the terror operations have to be prepared using
             those very consoles. Some of the officers present may support the coup,
             assassination, provocation, or terror plot. Some may be indifferent or simply
             unwitting. Some might actively oppose the plot and sabotage it if they knew
             what was coming. Outside agencies of unknown orientation may also be
             watching. Thus, a drill designed so as to be practically congruent with the
             terror attack tremendously facilitates the work of the plotters, faction. If a loyal
             officer asks the coup plotter sitting next to him what he is doing, the coup
             plotter can cite the code name of the drill, and also note that the loyal officer
             does not possess the proper security clearance needed to know any more. In
             other words, war drills and terror drills are the keys to making the terror
             attacks happen on purpose through the state apparatus of the relevant country.
             They are one key reason why any explanation of 9/11 short of invisible
             government MIHOP (i.e., that the US invisible government made 9/11 happen
             on purpose) is inadequate.

             These basic facts were illustrated once again in London on July 7, 2005.
             Scotland Yard knew in advance that these attacks were coming, as shown
             through the warnings to Netanyahu and, presumably, other visiting bigwigs.
             The long-range preparation of the London explosions was carried out under
             the aegis of a trio of exercises: Atlantic Blue for the UK, Topoff 3 for the US,
             and Triple Play for Canada. These dealt with bomb attacks on the London
             Underground system at the same time that an important international
             conference was taking place in the UK in this case, the meeting of the G-8 in
             Gleneagles, Scotland. The drill apparently included a biowar attack on the
             conference, a detail that seems to have ended up on the cutting room floor.
             The immediate cover for the London 7/7 events was by all accounts the
             simulation being conducted by Peter Power and Visor Consultants, which
             involved bombs going off at pretty much the same stations at the same times
             that the explosions actually occurred. The Visor Consultants drill may well
             have involved personnel on the ground who thought they were participating in
             a legally sanctioned simulation, but who were really performing actions which
             led to the explosions. In this way, drills can help to produce the destructive
             effects associated with the terror attack. They can also transform unwitting
             employees into patsies, some of whom can pay for their naivete with their
             lives. These may or may not be the same persons as the patsies who are
             ultimately accused of being responsible.

             CASE STUDY: SUDDEN RESPONSE 05

             With these facts in mind, let us turn to the following two items. The first is an
             article from the Winston-Salem Journal of March 18, 2005. The second is a
             press release from the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) issued June
             29, 2005. Both have to do with operation Sudden Response 05, a nuclear
             terrorism drill which began August 17, 2005.

             http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=
             WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MG
             Article&cid=1031781660453

             Winston-Salem Journal

             Friday, March 18, 2005

             N.C. sites to be part of summer terrorism drill

             THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

             SHALLOTTE - The largest terrorism drill in North Carolina history is being
             planned for August and will include a mock attack on the Sunny Point Military
             Ocean Terminal in Brunswick County.

             Officials said Wednesday the drill will stretch from Fort Bragg to Morehead
             City in the state's central coast area to Brunswick County on the southeastern
             coast.

             Emergency and law-enforcement units from Virginia to South Carolina have
             been invited to participate, as have those from the seven counties that
             surround Fort Bragg. Participation by military personnel and equipment will
             hinge on their availability.

             The exercise is thought to be the first to test the new National Response Plan
             that takes effect next month and requires coordination among local, state and
             federal officials in terrorism and emergency response.

             The idea came from Fort Bragg and the FBI, said Andy Albright, an exercise
             facilitator and civilian employee of the Coast Guard in Wilmington. Other
             military bases and state and local agencies were invited to join.

             Planning for the drill has been going on for a year, Albright said.

             The exercise is to begin with a weapons of mass destruction drill at Fort Bragg
             with some of the perpetrators escaping. Other events will occur over the next
             three days at or near other military bases in eastern North Carolina, at the
             State Port in Morehead City and in the Pamlico Sound.

             There will be a May 17 workshop in Morehead City to help prepare those who
             will participate and a July exercise to test communications before the August
             events, Albright said.

             Randy Thompson, Brunswick County's emergency services director, said it
             has been 31/2 years since local emergency management has tested its response
             to a situation at Sunny Point.

             The last time was when a boat loaded with munitions caught fire and burned at
             the terminal, the largest military munitions shipping point in the United States.

             http://www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.
             showstory&storyid=C9BFBBAC-F3CA-BD2E-008C7B34AFE33114

             NorthCom Press Release


             Exercise to focus on nuclear terror scenario

             Posted Jun 29, 2005 at 1:00:PM MDT

             FORT MONROE, Va. -- Here's the scenarioA seafaring vessel transporting a
             10-kiloton nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off the coast of
             Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle the warhead off
             the ship to detonate it. Is this really a possibility?

             Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) here is planning its next exercise on
             the premise that this crisis is indeed plausible.

             Sudden Response 05 will take place this August on Fort Monroe and will be
             carried out as an internal command post exercise. The exercise is intended to
             train the JTF-CS staff to plan and execute Consequence Management
             operations in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV's
             response to a nuclear detonation.

             Some of this year's objectives for SR05 are to refine nuclear incident Concept
             of Operations, produce a CM Operation Order, refine command post set-up
             procedures and maintain situational awareness of multiple CM incidents.

             The Sudden Response exercise has been held at Quantico, Va., in the past, but
             has been moved to Fort Monroe to maximize command post training time. The
             senior leadership felt that it was more important to accomplish training instead
             of losing up to a day and a half in travel time, said Paul Deflueri, J7 Lead
             Exercise Planner. "This will allow us to still meet our training objectives," he
             said.

             Some external participants may work with JTF-CS during the exercise.

             "We,re trying to get representatives from FEMA Region IV as well as
             representatives from South Carolina Emergency Management Division and
             active duty soldiers from the (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
             Explosive) Consequence Management Response Force to play the role of task
             force units," Defluri said. "Each time we do one of these internal exercises, we
             try to make it more robust and try to add in fidelity," Defluri said. "That's what
             we,re trying to do for SR05: create a good scenario and be able to replicate the
             effects as best we can. That way we can give the command a really good CM
             exercise."

             In the related exercise Operation Orbit Comet, held at Fort Bragg, North
             Carolina, under the command of Maj. Gen. Virgil Packett, the drill involved
             military response to the taking of several US Congressmen as hostages by
             terrorists. Congressmen Bob Etheridge and Mike McIntyre volunteered to play
             the victims in this exercise, which had some of the features of a dry run for a
             coup. This exercise was also slated to include a raid on a safe house, the
             detonation of a large explosive device on a ferry, and a simulated commercial
             oil spill at Morehead City.

             Without attempting a line-by-line exegesis, it ought to be clear that an exercise
             of this type would lend itself to transformation into an actual nuclear terrorist
             incident, including the detonation of some kind of nuclear device. This is
             especially true given the presence of Fort Bragg, home of the US special
             forces, founded by General Edward Lansdale, who was an integral part of the
             Allen Dulles-Lyman Lemnizter clique which has been key to secret
             government operations since the Kennedy-LBJ era. We cannot be reassured
             by the intent of the organizers to make these proceedings "more robust and try
             to add in fidelity," since the maximum of fidelity would be to include a nuclear
             device or nuclear detonation.

             We should also bear in mind that, before they settled on the nuclear test site of
             Alamogordo, New Mexico, US World War II nuclear planners had considered
             setting up their nuclear proving ground on the coastal islands of North
             Carolina. The advantage was seen in the fact that the nuclear fallout from a
             detonation along the North Carolina coast would tend to drift directly out over
             the Atlantic Ocean, instead of falling on populated areas, as the New Mexico
             fallout always threatened to do. This means that the rogue network could
             organize a quite spectacular nuclear 9/11 along the Carolina coast without also
             doing commensurate damage to their already rickety war machine.

             CITIZENS MOBILIZE TO STOP TERROR DRILLS

             It is possible to fight back. The mobilization that started at a Sunday, July 24
             morning workshop at the Washington DC Truth Convergence has perhaps
             disrupted the hidden agenda of Sudden Response 05. A mobilization by a
             number of websites especially www.total411.info -- and email blasters starting
             on July 28 identified the obvious subversive potential of Sudden Response 05,
             and urged vigilance by world public opinion and local citizens. On August 15,
             the website of the Charleston Post and Courier published a strange article
             which apparently represented the attempt of this paper to respond to
             widespread fears in the region that the planned drill was going to culminate in
             an actual nuclear detonation. Here we read:

             Still, this chatter has stirred up folks all over the Lowcountry, worried that
             nuclear fallout could seriously ruin their weekend. Officials with Charleston
             County, the state's emergency management personnel and even the
             Department of Defense have gotten worried calls from folks scanning the skies
             for mushroom clouds over Fort Sumter. Trouble is, as with most conspiracy
             theories, the facts often get in the way. Locals officials say no drills are
             planned this week, and the state Ports Authority says no plans have been made
             to detonate any nuclear weapons in the harbor.Other details, such as why Iran
             would blow up Charleston, are not explained in these theories.
             https://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=36369&section=localnews ]

             Of course, the web sites calling attention to this suspicious drill never implied
             that Iran would have anything to do with the possible explosion, which was
             always clearly attributed to the rogue network inside the US command
             structure. Otherwise, the denials respecting activity in the Charleston area was
             pure lying. Here was a case where the cockroaches of the invisible government
             may have wilted in the bright glare of publicity. Perhaps as a result of this
             negative publicity, the start of the drill was postponed from the scheduled
             August 17 to August 18 at 3:30 in the afternoon. In the afternoon of August 18
             it became apparent that the drill was going to be postponed a second time,
             probably to Monday, August 22, or perhaps definitively. Soon NORTHCOM
             announced that this dangerous drill was over. If local citizens can work to
             prevent terror drills from erupting into provocations, the task of the terrorist
             controllers and coup plotters will become complicated beyond measure. At the
             same time, the American people may finally break through to awareness about
             the crimes plotted within their own government, and shut those criminals down
             for good.

             Another highly dangerous drill series is the so-called Urban Dispersion
             Program, being held in New York City between August 6 and 26.
             (<http://urbandispersion.pnl.gov/>http://urbandispersion.pnl.gov/) As Salon
             reported, "Government scientists released colorless, harmless gas at four
             Manhattan locations Monday as part of an effort to find out how fast and far a
             toxic substance could spread if released in the city. According to this article,
             this program "aims to produce a computerized model of air flow patterns that
             could help authorities decide how to evacuate people after a chemical or
             biological attack." Another round of gas dispersion is scheduled to take place in
             the spring of 2006. This type of drill poses the obvious threat that a single
             rogue network official might be able to replace the harmless gas with some far
             more toxic substance.
             (http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8BRQSO80.html)
             The basic interest of New Yorkers is to have this pernicious drill series shut
             down as soon as possible.

             We should stress that there are numerous war drills and terror maneuvers
             going on, and all of them require vigilant scrutiny followed by timely
             denunciation and exposure as necessary. On August 18, a "multi-agency
             command and control tabletop exercise" was scheduled to be held on the
             University of California Maritime Campus with the participation of Booz Allen
             Hamilton, one of the most sinister of the private military firms, involving the
             hypothesis of port-related terrorism in and around San Francisco Bay. 200
             people were involved as "participants, evaluators, controllers, or observers."
             On Friday, August 19, a mysterious explosion, later ascribed to a defective
             transformer, took place in San Francisco. Were these events connected? Or
             again: from August 15 to August 19, NORTHCOM held Alaska
             Shield/Northern Edge, with an array of "simulated natural disasters and
             terrorist events in 21 communities." Incessant terror drills offer the rogue
             network multiple opportunities to go live with the provocation they are seeking,
             and also function as a kind of mass brainwashing. With these drills, the secret
             government is waging war on the people. One basic demand for activists is
             therefore that these sinister and suspicious drills be called off, since they
             represent a threat to the American people and to world peace.

             ANTI-NEOCON GENERAL OUSTED

             As noted above, the command center for operation Sudden Response 05 is
             Fortress Monroe, located near where the James River meets Chesapeake Bay,
             not far from the scene of the 1862 Monitor-Merrimac battle. The fort features
             a cell where Confederate leader Jefferson Davis was held prisoner after the
             Civil War on charges of high treason, and it is evident that some top military
             officers ought to be occupying that cell block today.

             One of these is General Peter J. Schoomaker, presently the US Army Chief of
             Staff, who is part of a utopian/irrationalist clique in the Pentagon which has
             been fostered by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Schoomaker was the
             commander of the Joint Special Operations Command in 1994-1996,
             commander of the US Army Special Operations Command in 1994-1996, and
             commander in chief of the United States Special Operations Command in
             1997-2000. Schoomaker was brought back from undistinguished retirement to
             head the Army after the firing of Gen. Shinseki, who had questioned the
             utopian recipes for the conquest of Iraq. He also took part in the aggressions
             against Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Haiti. Schoomaker was an integral part of
             the failed hostage rescue mission at Desert One in April, 1980, which once
             again prods us to ponder the high incidence of fascist outlooks among defeated
             military officers. Schoomaker may be usefully compared to Field Marshal
             Wilhelm Keitel, Hitler's military yes-man.

             On August 9, 2005 Schoomaker fired General Kevin P. Byrnes, one of the
             army's dozen or so four-star generals, from his post as leader of the Training
             and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). The ouster of such a high-ranking officer
             was a rarity, and the reason given was the transparent cover story of an
             extra-marital affair with a civilian woman. What makes this relevant to our
             purposes is that the Army's TRADOC plays a key role in maneuvers. In fact,
             the headquarters for Sudden Response 05 was located at Fort Monroe, placing
             the entire operation under Byrnes, command. Byrnes was replaced by Lt.
             Gen. William S. Wallace. (Washington Post, August 10, 2005) What was the
             goal of cashiering Byrnes, just as the Cheney drive for nuclear terrorism and
             nuclear attack on Iran went into overdrive?

             The utopian-terrorist faction of the US military loves to wage war on the
             cheap. More traditionalist views stress logistics and force structure. Byrne had
             reportedly clashed in 2002 with the Pentagon's utopian intelligence boss,
             Stephen Cambone (the keystone of the Cambone-Boykin-Miller clique
             responsible for Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib) over troop strength cuts.
             According to one version, Byrnes, command had been ordered to prepare for
             the influx of 50,000 raw recruits into Fort Rucker, Alabama possibly in the
             context of a reinstituted military draft. TRADOC had also been told to prepare
             to accept recruits with no education, with criminals records, with no ability to
             speak English practically penal divisions. Army retirees were also slated to be
             dragooned back into service. Byrnes would thus emerge as the leading figure
             of a military opposition of sorts against the crackpot aggressive planning of the
             Bush-Cheney-neocon regime. Byrnes was also said to be associated with a
             group of generals linked to the US Army War College at Carlisle Barracks,
             Pennsylvania. (www.waynemadsenreport.com, August 10, 2005) Carlisle
             Barracks is the home of Jeffrey Record, who is the author of a decidedly
             down-beat evaluation of the first Gulf War of 1990-91. Analysts associated
             with the War College have also been exceptionally blunt in their criticism of the
             current Iraq war. Record wrote in January 2004 that the Iraq war had been a
             "strategic error," and was being waged with a strategy that "promises more
             than it can deliver." The intriguing question remains as to whether Byrnes was
             also disinclined to have drills and exercises in which TRADOC was involved
             used as covers for state-sponsored terrorism.

             The events of 9/11 were prepared by a scenario film, The Lone Gunmen,
             which depicted an airplane coming under the control of a terrorist faction of
             the US government who used a sophisticated remote control system to attempt
             to crash a passenger airliner into one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade
             Center. Sudden Response 05 also corresponds to a terror scenario. This one
             was called Special Bulletin, and it revolved around terrorists seizing a nuclear
             weapon aboard a ship in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina and
             preparing to detonate it. US security forces attempt to disarm the bomb, but it
             blows up despite their efforts, causing a hecatomb. This film was shown on
             television in 1983, and was directed by Edward Zwick and written by Marshall
             Hersokovitz. It starred David Rasche, Michael Madsen, and Lane Smith. Its
             showing caused considerable uneasiness in the Charleston area.

             If these variations should not prove viable, there is always the possibility of
             staging a more traditional Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Persian Gulf or
             somewhere nearby, blaming it on Iran. The sinking of a US warship could
             easily be carried out by a third country UK, Israel, Australia, or any of the
             Echelon powers to reduce the possibility of exposure.

             MILITARY TAKEOVER

             Given the collapse of US middle class support for Bush and his neocon war
             adventures signaled by the resounding success of the Cindy Sheehan anti-war
             vigils on August 17, it might be expected that the new 9/11 followed by the
             Iran or North Korean attacks might cause protests and chaos inside the US.
             For such an eventuality, the neocons as disciples of Hitler's main legal adviser
             Carl Schmitt have the remedy: police-state, military dictatorship. At the end of
             the first week of August it became known that the US Army Northern
             Command (in other words, the madman Schoomaker and his cabal. Planners
             in Colorado Springs, including Admiral Timothy J. Keating, Northcom
             commander, and Major General Richard J. Rowe, chief operations officer,
             were said to be contemplating a total of 15 crisis scenarios presupposing
             multiple simultaneous terror attacks in the US. These mobilization plans were
             drawn up in CONPLAN 2002, a 1,000 page overall guide to a military
             takeover, and in CONPLAN 0500, which addresses the specifics of the 15
             scenarios. Both CONPLANS were said to be well on their way to becoming
             OPLANS, or operational plans. These activities are manifestly a continuation
             of the Pentagon's 1968 Operation Garden Plot, the original plan for a military
             seizure of this country. (9/11 Synthetic Terror, p. 377)

             The outcry against this thinly veiled plan for a military dictatorship in the
             traditional civil liberties community was decidedly muted. In fact, the most
             vociferous protest came from Homeland Security boss Chertoff, who
             complained in effect that the coming police state had to be organized under his
             own Department of Homeland Security, and not under the military.

             TERROR POTBOILERS

             An entire new scurrilous literary genre has grown up around the neocon
             campaign to attack Iran. This new vogue resembles the pre-1914 German
             attack scenario novels published in Great Britain, but at least those were
             clearly labeled as fiction. A recent tome in the new genre is Kenneth R.
             Timmerman's Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with
             Iran. Timmerman tries to pin the 9/11 attacks on Iran, in the same way Laurie
             Mylroie and Judith Miller tried to pin them on Iran. His black propaganda
             technique is too much even for the Washington Post, whose reviewer
             commented: "The reader gets the impression that Timmerman would rather
             not bother with facts precisely because they undermine his conspiracy theory.
             A persistent problem with this book is its absence of credible evidence."
             Another author who writes out of the attack Iran bag is Jerome Corsi, who
             was part of the Swift boat slanders against Kerry and has also founded the Iran
             Freedom Foundation the US domestic arm of the Mujaheddin e Khalq. Corsi
             responded to the leak of the NIE on Iran by warning that: "The atomic 9-11
             plot is in full swing as you are reading these words. The attack could happen
             any day." Corsi's book is entitled Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime
             Bought the Bomb and American Politicians; it is dismissed as "irresponsible"
             by the Washington Post, which notes that both Timmerman and Corsi "present
             their ideology as self-evident verity and their assumptions as incontrovertible
             facts. Still in the bookstalls is Paul L. Williams with his lurid Osama's Revenge:
             The Next 9/11, full of last year's stories about the suitcase bombs that are
             allegedly already inside the US. All of these figures are at home on Fox News,
             and also on the 9 PM to 1 AM John Bachelor Show on the ABC Radio
             Network, a kind of radio shock theater for practitioners of extreme neocon
             gothic. Among other key black propaganda conduits are Joseph Farah's World
             Net Daily and G2 Bulletin. Here we can read such elucubrations as these:
             "WND and G2 Bulletin previously reported, based on captured al-Qaida
             leaders and documents, that the terrorist group has a plan called American
             Hiroshima, involving the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already
             smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13
             street gang and other organized crime groups. (WorldNetDaily.com, August 8,
             2005)

             INTELLIGENCE WARFARE IN WASHINGTON DC

             In the first half of August, Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, whose
             intelligence contacts make him something of an unpredictable gadfly, came
             forward with allegations that a special military intelligence unit code-named
             Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta, the chief 9/11 patsy, as part of
             an al Qaeda cell in the United States. According to Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer,
             who said he had worked with Able Danger, the military intelligence people
             wanted to alert the FBI, but were prevented from doing so by lawyers. Shaffer
             also alleged that, after 9/11, he had informed Philip Zelikow, the highly suspect
             staff director of the Kean-Hamilton commission and a partner of Condoleezza
             Rice, about Able Danger's awareness of Atta's presence in the US prior to the
             World Trade Center attacks. The final 9/11 commission report had no mention
             of this matter. The 9/11 commission responded to this allegation with a chaotic
             series of denials, finally coming to rest with the assertion that Shaffer's story
             was not "historically significant." Since the report about Atta to the FBI had
             been blocked during the Clinton administration, Weldon and the right-wing
             radio demagogues appeared eager to exploit this story for partisan advantage,
             be it only to eclipse Cindy Sheehan. Weldon also appeared interested in
             attacking the Kean-Hamilton investigation. The reality was clearly that those
             who prevented the FBI from being alerted to Atta if this ever really happened
             -- were by all odds moles cooperating in the invisible government's 9/11
             project. As far as Zelikow's role in suppressing vital evidence, this incident
             would take its place in a long catalogue of such sabotage developed over the
             past year by the 9/11 truth movement. At the same time, it cannot be excluded
             that the entire affair was a dog and pony show staged in the context of the
             intelligence warfare of August 2005, not of summer 2000. The information
             about Atta was allegedly generated by the U.S. Special Operations Command
             at MacDill Air Force Base, and this is not a reliable source. Reacting to the
             Able Danger story Kristen Breitweiser of the Jersey Girls called the
             Kean-Hamilton 9/11 commission results "an utterly hollow report," and called
             for the creation of a new and independent investigation. Indeed: the only
             adequate answer to this new round of allegations is a real examination of 9/11
             by an independent, international truth commission not controlled by
             Washington insiders.

             Opposition to the Cheney war plan was also in evidence in the broader civilian
             Washington bureaucracy, where full-scale intelligence warfare was raging
             among the various factions. On August 1, the CIA issued its long-awaited
             National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. The main thrust of this document
             was to undercut the neocon hysteria according to which Iran was quickly
             approaching the point of no return at which it would join North Korea in
             possessing at least one nuclear device. According to the NIE, Iran, although
             determined to acquire nuclear weapons, was about ten years away from being
             able to do so about double the 5 years cited in February 2005 by Defense
             Intelligence Agency Director Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby in testimony to
             the Congress. CIA veteran Ray McGovern pointed out that the leaking of the
             NIE had been designed to undercut Cheney, Bolton, and their circle. However,
             noted McGovern, "Cheney does not feel at all bound by US intelligence."
             (TomPaine.com, August 3, 2005)

             A few days later, on August 4, additional indictments were forthcoming in the
             case of former Pentagon Larry Franklin, part of the Feith-Luti neocon shop,
             accused of traducing Pentagon secrets to Israel. Two FBI raids of the
             American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) over the previous months
             had led to widespread anticipation of further indictments . Indicted on this
             occasion were Steven Rosen, former AIPAC Director of Foreign Policy issues
             and a former CIA and RAND Corporation employee who held top security
             clearances, along with Keith Weissman, AIPAC's former Senior Middle East
             Analyst. Nor was this all. It was later reported that Rosen was meeting with
             David M. Satterfield, former US Ambassador to Lebanon and currently the
             deputy to neocon Zalmay Khalilzad at the US Embassy in Baghdad. According
             to the article, Rosen obtained classified information from Satterfield and sent it
             out in a memo to AIPAC employees, and then disclosed it to "a foreign
             national." (New York Times, August 18, 2005) Satterfield had been a loud
             protagonist of the Bush administration campaign to eject Syria from Lebanon;
             in February 2005 Satterfield had gone to Lebanon with neocon Paul Wolfowitz
             in an attempt to organize a US "people power" coup in that country. At that
             time, signs observed in Beirut street demonstrations read: "Satterfield Get out
             of Lebanon!" AIPAC was a significant target because it was a headquarters for
             so much of the neocon agitation for war with Iran: on May 24, Richard Perle
             had addressed the AIPAC annual convention with a call for war with Iran,
             ranting: "If Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no
             choice but to take decisive action."

             Another useful indictment was that of Jack Abramoff on August 11; Abramoff,
             in addition to being a gangster who served as money bags for Tom Delay and
             other Congressional Republicans, was also a pro-war ideologue in his own
             right. But at the same time it was clear that if the intent really was to stop the
             threatening conflagration, more and better indictments would be needed.
             Leading neocons were now at the confluence of a series of investigations: the
             Pentagon leaks to Israel, the Valery Plame matter, the forged Niger yellowcake
             documents, and the Achmed Chalabi leaks to Iran. Caught in the crossfire
             were such figures as Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Michael Ledeen, Douglas
             Feith, etc. Unconfirmed reports from the Chicago grand juries working with
             independent counsel Fitzgerald asserted that sealed indictments had already
             been returned against the top figures of the Bush administration, but there was
             no way to verify this in the short term.

             Underlying the entire Iran nuclear question is the hypocrisy of the double
             standards applied by the US. Just a few weeks earlier, the US had granted
             India various forms of nuclear assistance, despite India's active nuclear bomb
             program. Brazil was getting ready to export nuclear fuel, and yet was not
             targeted in the same way as Iran. The lesson is clear: countries the US is
             seeking to cultivate are not harassed, but critics of US policy are put through
             the wringer. Britain, France, and Germany, to some degree caught up in the
             distorted US view, offered to guarantee Iran that they would not start a nuclear
             attack on Teheran, but they could not offer any real assurances about what the
             US, Israel, India, Pakistan, or others might do. It must finally be recalled that
             the Bush regime's threats of preventive nuclear attack against non-nuclear
             states as embodied in the September 2002 national security statement, along
             with its efforts to develop new forms of mini-nukes to use in such sneak
             attacks, effectively destroy the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in its very
             foundations. No sovereign state could accept such infringements on its
             sovereignty as are now being demanded from Iran.

             THE ISRAELI ANGLE

             Another factor tending to heighten the adventurism of the US-UK-Israel
             grouping is the fact that Israeli society has been brought to the edge of civil
             war by the efforts of Sharon to dismantle Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip
             and to abandon that area as a Palestinian Bantustan or "living tomb" in the
             framework of a longer-term strategy to tighten the Israeli grip on Jerusalem
             and the West Bank. According to former Prime Minister Barak, Sharon's
             Likud Party is on the verge of collapse over this matter. Without going into the
             details, it is clear that the activism of these vociferous and violent Israeli
             right-wing fanatics makes an assassination of Sharon a distinct possibility. In
             the wake of such an assassination, even if it were carried out by Jewish
             terrorists, an Israeli attack on Iran would surely be more likely. This might be
             done in ostensible disregard of US wishes, according to the decades-old
             Breakaway Ally Scenario, which was embraced by Cheney on the morning of
             January 20, 2005. According to this, Israel strikes first, and then leaves the US
             to deal with the consequences. According to a pro-Israeli website, the war plan
             for Iran was presented to Sharon in 2004 under the title of "Project Daniel:
             Israel's Strategic Future," which was largely a recipe for Israeli pre-emptive
             action. Co-author Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, a former Knesset member and the
             former chief of planning for the Israeli Air Force, told WND military action
             should include "striking all known Iran nuclear facilities, including hidden
             facilities, underground tunnels, covert operations, such as the killing of
             scientists ... whatever is necessary." (Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily.com, May
             4, 2005)

             THE SHAME OF THE LEFT GATEKEEPERS

             The present crisis would not be possible if the overall lesson of September 11,
             2001 had been learned by a significant minority of the US population, and if
             that minority had an institution through which to act. Here the responsibility of
             the Democratic Party is very grave, since the Democrats have continued to
             portray themselves as the True Believers of the 9/11 Myth, the most faithful
             devotees of blaming 9/11 on al Qaeda, Bin Laden, the laptop, the cave, Atta,
             and the rest. Especially along the left extremity of the Democratic Party, we
             find a line of foundation-funded opinion leaders and commentators whom we
             can only define as left gatekeepers. These gatekeepers have stubbornly denied,
             mocked, vilified, censored, blacked out and embargoed any suggestion that
             9/11 was a provocation by a US military-intelligence network, which it so
             manifestly was. So much so that if we ask why the US population would still
             believe the Bush administration on 9/11 and the imminent terror attacks of
             2005 when they would not believe Bush about any other issue the answer
             must be that the left gatekeepers are responsible. If the American people do
             not finally move out of their present credulous gullibility and realize that the
             large-scale international terrorism of our time is overwhelmingly state
             sponsored, false flag synthetic terrorism, they will continue to be an easy mark
             for the unscrupulous factions who do not hesitate to employ terror as a means
             to power.

             HILEX 75: ROGUE DRILLS CAN BE STOPPED

             Finally, no one should give up in despair before the imminent danger of a new
             round of state sponsored terrorism designed to lead to war with Iran and/or
             North Korea. These plans can be defeated, and the key to defeating them is to
             produce a shock wave of publicity, of denunciation, of indignation, and of
             outrage. Such plans have been defeated before. Back in the late fall of 1975,
             the Anglo-American finance oligarchs and their secret team military operatives
             were reeling from the recent rout the previous spring in Vietnam. Some of
             them, including James Rodney Schlesinger, had held a meeting on Easter
             Monday, just after the fall of Saigon, to discuss desperate military expedients
             to prevent the possible collapse of the entire US-UK world strategic position.
             The method chosen was a possible nuclear confrontation with the USSR and
             the Warsaw Pact. Typically, this secret and illegal plan was built into a military
             staff exercise, in this case HILEX 75. HILEX (high level exercise) 75 was
             designed as a staff exercise, a headquarters drill, involving top government
             officials and simulating a strategic confrontation with Moscow. But in this case
             the staff exercise contained and concealed a real confrontation, to be set off
             over some appropriate pretext. What pretext? We do not know, since the
             world thankfully never got that far. A group of activists in the main NATO
             countries embarked on a campaign of denunciation and exposure weeks in
             advance, flooding newspaper, radio, and television offices, elected officials at
             all levels, key academics, and others with word of what was looming. On
             Christmas Eve 1975, I passed out leaflets with a half-dozen friends on the
             steps of the Milan cathedral in Piazza Duomo spelling out exactly what was
             planned. This was a part of a mobilization across western Europe, the US, and
             Canada. Somehow, the confrontation variant hidden within the HILEX 75 drill
             was allowed to lapse. We must now do the same thing with Sudden Response
             05 and similar terror drills and war exercises. As the astounding success of the
             Cindy Sheehan operation suggests, support for the Bush regime is now
             evaporating with breathtaking speed. In a climate marked by the radical
             rejection of Bush and everything he stands for, the 9/11 myth for which Bush
             was the leading salesman may also disintegrate, making a new 9/11 and a
             widening of the war that much more difficult.

             WHAT YOU CAN DO

             The organizing committee for the Independent International Truth Commission
             on the September 11, 2001 Events on July 24 set up a Monitoring Group to
             attempt to apply prospectively, into the future, the lessons about terrorism that
             had been learned from the intensive study of 9/11 and earlier cases. The IITC
             Monitoring Group is accordingly checking the public affairs departments of the
             official websites of NORAD, the Department of Defense and its subdivisions,
             FEMA, Homeland Security, the British Ministry of Defense and Home Office,
             NATO Headquarters, and similar sites in Russia, China and the OECD
             countries generally. The goal is to identify in advance those drills, maneuvers
             and exercises which lend themselves to cloaking acts of state sponsored
             synthetic terrorism, and to expose and denounce in advance the dangers that
             are thus identified. The cooperation of all persons of good will in this vital
             work is actively requested; send emails to tarpley@xxxxxxxxxxx. This essay
             would not have been possible without the first fruits of this monitoring activity.

             The methodology used here was presented to the IITC workshop at the Truth
             Convergence held at American University, Washington DC on July 24, 2005.
             The basic analysis presented in this article was posted in interview form on
             CloakandDagger.de on July 28, 2005, and in subsequent programs on August
             7, August 11, and August 18. It was presented to the McClendon study group
             at the National Press Club in Washington DC on August 3, 2005, on the Meria
             Heller internet radio program on August 17, 2005, and with Sally O,Brien on
             WBAI New York on August 21 and August 25, 2005..