Opinion

Archives

Advertise

Links

Video

ThoughtCrime for the day

If a tree falls in the forest and the news doesn't tell you, does the tree make a sound?

The Trials of Henry Kissinger (Streaming RealVideo)

Read George Orwell's `Nineteen Eighty Four' online

Read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World online

RENT
THIS
SPACE

RENT
THIS
SPACE

RENT
THIS
SPACE

RENT
THIS
SPACE

YOUR
MESSAGE
HERE

RENT
THIS
SPACE

ADVERTISE
HERE

RENT
THIS
SPACE

RENT
THIS
SPACE

SELL
YOUR
PRODUCT
HERE

PROMOTE
YOUR
SITE
HERE

PROMOTE
YOUR
BOOK
HERE

SUPPORT THIS
SITE

YOUR MESSAGE HERE

Touting the arrest as a major victory for coalition forces in Iraq, L Paul Bremer announced a short time ago that Saddam Hussein had been arrested after being found hiding in a hole approximately 15 miles south of Tikrit.

The confirmation that Saddam was arrested came early this morning from Tony Blair, but until the briefing at around noon, London time, no images of the captured Saddam had been released.

This sounds odd when one considers that the Americans have moved to push their US-friendly photographs and footage as soon as they have it.

Looking at the images of the captured `Saddam' and the conditions in which he was hiding, I doubt that it is the genuine Saddam we see in US custody. For the benefit of American readers, `tramp' is the English term used for `hobo'.

The `Saddam' depicted in the video released by US forces had long hair and a long beard, both severely matted. The hole he was apparently hiding in was somewhat squalid and very undignified.

Would the real Saddam Hussein allow himself to cowardly hide in this manner, and allow his circumstances to deteriorate so? Or would this instead be one of his many body-doubles?

BBC

Click here to download video of the bunker where `Saddam' was hiding

As is typical of the sycophantic `journalists'  who are reporting on the conflict of Iraq with the apparent benefit of access to coalition briefings, there was a marked absence of probing the true identity of the `Saddam' in custody.

The pictures shown of `Saddam' before and after his shave are of dubious quality, being displayed on a plasma screen for the cameras and having been taken in poor lighting conditions. This makes comparison with archive photos of the genuine Saddam impossible.

The information held in Saddam's head is too valuable to allow him to testify about his past activities. He holds too many damaging secrets about American administrations from 1959 onwards when, according to United Press International, (UPI) he was recruited by the CIA. The deals done between Saddam and George HW Bush first as Director of the CIA, then as Vice-President and President of the USA are too hot to handle for the media. It would be very inconvenient to publish details of the arrangements made between Saddam and his western benefactors.

This is demonstrated by stories such as Sherman Skolnick's `Overthrow of the American Republic' series, part 28 tells of the $16 billion dollars used by the Bush family to persuade Tony Blair to send troops to Iraq, and the $100 billion dollars transfered from Saddam to George HW Bush, laundered by HM The Queen through a joint bank account at Coutts Bank, London.

The Overthrow of the American Republic part 28

The document showing the $100 billion transfer

 The British press have of course avoided such awkward stories, despite the political editor of the BBC's flagship Newsnight programme being fully furnished with all the details.

For those who acknowledge that our enemies have previously been our allies, the supply of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq by the UK, USA and other countries is old news.

However, the reality presented by the gatekeepers of public consciousness, the mainstream media, has of late ignored these crucial details to paint Saddam as a rogue and a maverick who would use his mysterious stock of weapons (destroyed in the 1990's according to Scott Ritter) against the countries that once supported him.

Since the mainstream news has been devoid of the details of Saddam's sponsorship by the west, many members of the public only heard about what he was accused of possessing, not who originally supplied him with this merchandise. Repetition of this same message is tantamount to brainwashing for the current generation who are drip-fed entertainment like MTV, Fox News, `reality-TV' and chart-music.

It was as a result of this propaganda that many Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 11th September, despite there being no evidence to suggest his involvement. 

The fact that Saddam will be put on trial in Iraq is a big red flag. On trial, he could use any one of a number of facts incriminating the west as his defence. If he does not do so, then the trial will be nothing more than a fix. Stories of western involvement in Iraq since the late 1950's would be conspicuous by their absence, but would tell serious researchers who know their facts that the Saddam on trial was not working very hard to defend himself with the material which should be available to him.

In fact, those who have followed the news via the internet rather than from the glowing box in the corner of the room are already familiar with the following stories:

IRAQI COMMANDER SWEARS HE SAW USAF FLY SADDAM OUT OF BAGHDAD 

Iran continues to raise secret deal claim

Condoleeza holds talks in Moscow

Russian ambassador fired upon

Other awkward news articles include:

Saddam 'had time to commit suicide'

US Rep. LaHood: Hussein's capture imminent

Newsmax: Saddam recruited by CIA in 1959

Until the trial of `Saddam' begins, there are many who will consider this pure speculation. But we can already understand that what the real Saddam has to say is too damaging for the western powers.

So would the real Saddam Hussein please stand up."

- Editor

Thanks to PropagandaMatrix for its newsgathering

In the western world, only one newspaper reports the suicide of the woman who accused
George W Bush of rape

Her subsequent suicide earlier this year raised many eyebrows amongst those who learned of her death via the internet. Even though the sequence of events was bizarre, again the American media ignored Schoedinger completely.

However, the US press were not alone. Both the (London) Times newspaper and the BBC as well as other major news organisations in the UK were furnished with the story and sources for the original court filings. This should have garnered some attention for the story from the big media sources, if only to ridicule the allegations. Instead, in the same way the American media served its audience a stream of controlled news, so too did the British media by pretending Schoedinger didn't exist.

Schoedinger apparently committed suicide on 22nd September of 2003 but her death only attracted new attention on the internet in November of 2003. Only now has one small-circulation newspaper in the UK run the story of her demise. It found the story so newsworthy it ran its headline on the front page next to the title header.

The New Nation serves the black community of London and, according to a spokesperson for the newspaper,  has a circulation of 25,000. This spokesperson also stated that the newspaper had confirmed the details of the story before publishing and apologised for the misprinting of Schoedinger's death as 12th December 2003.

That a newspaper in the English-speaking part of the world has finally deemed this story worthy of publication finally gives legitimacy to it. If one paper can cover this then so can others.

Many regular readers of `quality' newspapers such as the Times, Telegraph and even the NY Times have never heard of Margie Schoedinger. Her tale illustrates how the news available on the internet is often of greater value than that which is paid for. Editors should be asked by their paying readers and viewers why this story has been censored.

One can only deduce that the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Lord Conrad Black and Greg Dyke of the BBC have chosen to keep their political masters happy by blacking out any reference to the allegations and apparent suicide of Margie Schoedinger.

Hopefully the public will learn that what is news by the standards of big-money radio, television and print may not be news according to their readers. The support of independent media and its reference as a reliable source is increasingly the only effective way to inform the public of the real events in the world."

- Editor

For linking purposes, please use the following page:

http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/bushrape.htm

Below are scans of the newspaper's coverage, as well as the full text of their story.

Click on any image to enlarge

WOMAN WHO SUED BUSH IS FOUND DEAD

by Orantes Moore

New Nation

Monday 8th December 2003

A black woman who claimed to have been raped by US President George W Bush and was planning to take him to court has died of a gun shot wound to the head.

Continues on page four

BUSH ACCUSER'S APPARENT SUICIDE

Continued from page 1

LAST FRIDAY (December 12), Margie Schoedinger, 38, was pronounced dead as a result of a 'gunshot wound to the head'. The death was officially registered as 'suicide' by the Harris County Examiner's Office.

As reported exclusively by New Nation in July, Schoedinger of Sugar Land, Texas, had filed a lawsuit against President Bush (a former Governor of Texas) in December 2002 accusing him of a series of 'individual sex crimes' against her and her husband.

In the amazing seven- page document, filed at Fort Bend County Court in Texas, Schoedinger claimed that Bush had abducted, drugged, raped and beat her.

She also suggested that she 'dated George W Bush as a minor', and the President may have been the father of a child she miscarried following the alleged rape.

Appear

Schoedinger said she had filed the lawsuit on December 3, 2002 and although court documents filed on the following day mention Bush and offer him 20 days to respond or appear in Fort Bend, it is still unclear whether the President was ever served with the suit.

Schoedinger was attempting to claim US$1 million in actual damages, plus US$49 million for punitive damages including emotional distress and loss of freedom.

Speaking earlier this year to American journalist Jackson Thoreau, Schoedinger said that the President had personally contacted her to say that he wanted her dead, but could trust no one to carry out the crime.

Of course, there is no indication that the president had anything whatsoever to do with her death.

Of the lawsuit she said: 'I am still trying to prosecute, but as yet, I haven't had a court date set.

'I want to get this matter settled and go on with my life. People have to be accountable for what they do and that is why I am pursuing this lawsuit.'

The US media had largely ignored the filing of the lawsuit and the story had only appeared in a local newspaper.

According to the BBC, the commission further recommends that

"Yom Kippur - the Jewish Day of Atonement - and Eid al-Fitr - the Muslim day marking the end of Ramadan - be celebrated in state schools."

There can be only one result from this and that is extreme tension between different religious groups. What are muslims going to feel when their daughters are banned from wearing their traditional head-scarf but have to celebrate Yom Kippur? How will Jewish boys feel when they are forbidden from wearing their skull-caps but are forced to celebrate the final day of Ramadan? How will Christians feel when they are told that they cannot be seen to be wearing obvious crucifixes but they must celebrate both Jewish and Muslim holidays?

The whole thing is bonkers, and is similar to the destruction of a traditionally secular Christian and tolerant society that we have had in the UK for many years.

The seasonal greeting card from the Department of Culture has no reference to Christmas at all, but does have images of Hindu and Muslim activities. There is no mention of the Jewish festival of Chanukah either.

As a British Jew, I have no problem with the traditional secular Christian identity that this nation once had, but I am very concerned about the way things are heading. The Red Cross of all organisations has according to the Scotsman,

"banned Jesus, nativity scenes and any other Christian symbolism from its 392 shops this Christmas for "fear of offending minority faiths.""

This can only cause disharmony and conflict between the different cultures. Is this setting the stage for the "New World Order" one-world secular religion? Sure looks that way."

- Editor

Following a segment about Al Gore coming out to back Howard Dean, Jeremy Paxman then had a live one-to-one with the BBC's Washington DC correspondent, Tom Carver. Both of them pointed out that Gore had lost the Presidential election in 2000.

Except that those of us who have done our research know that it wasn't as simple as that at all.

Before the programme had even finished I had already started writing an email to both of these `journalists'.

Here is my email, followed by Mr Paxman's response, received early this afternoon.

From: Simon Aronowitz 

Sent: 09 December 2003 23:28

To: 'jeremy.paxman@bbc.co.uk'; 'tom.carver@bbc.co.uk'

Subject: Al Gore and memory loss

Gentlemen,

When you both declared this evening on Newsnight that Al Gore lost the 2000 election, you seem to have forgotten the work done by the very programme you were speaking on.

It was not too long after the 2000 US Presidential election that that your very own Greg Palast reported on Newsnight of how the Bush mob and their cohorts had arranged the theft of the election in Florida. Subsequent investigations by other organisations and journalists have confirmed that were it not for the outright fiddling of various types, Gore would have won the state. Or to put it more accurately - Gore DID win Florida, but the Supreme Court presented the country with one of the most flagrant abuses of its power by INSTALLING Bush as the illegitimate occupier of the White House.

Other investigations appear to have demonstrated that fraud was perpetrated against the voters of Tennessee, Gore's home state. Many were [surprised] when he failed to carry his own territory.

So imagine my amazement when you declared this evening that Gore lost the election. No qualifications, no references to Palast's work, nothing.

By the way, isn't it about time you had Greg back on Newsnight to update British viewers on the dirty deals made by the Bush administration?

And have either of you read his book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"? If not, I recommend it as an excellent read.

In summary, I was dismayed at the plummeting quality of BBC journalism. Come on guys, it was a live broadcast, you could have said anything you wanted. If you had told the truth, Newsnight's viewers would have been ecstatic. Instead, you've let us down. Again.

Sincerely,

Simon Aronowitz

 

And now Paxman's response:

From: Jeremy Paxman [mailto:jeremy.paxman@bbc.co.uk]

Sent: 10 December 2003 12:31

To: Simon Aronowitz

Subject: RE: Al Gore and memory loss

 

I'm afraid you're simply wrong. We specifically said Gore won the popular vote. You cannot deny that Gore did NOT win the presidency at the end of the Florida shenanigans. As for Greg's book, which I found interesting, by his own admission, it contains '42 mistakes'.

Either Mr Paxman, who also hosts the BBC's `University Challenge' quiz show, can't read English, or he just didn't bother to absorb what I had written before writing his half-baked response.

You can see some of Palast's work on the theft of the election here, at the BBC's own website.

It seems that Newsnight's most infamous presenter really does have memory loss. I never did say that Newsnight reported that Gore had won the election. I did say that subsequent investigations had revealed that Gore had won Florida, once all the `shenanigans' were out the way.

If Paxman was worth his salt, he would have looked beyond the BBC's coverage and he would have discovered the count which eventually happened some time in 2001 that showed that Gore had won Florida. As I recall, the American media could not bear to make this fact known, so just like the BBC they ignored it, but those who followed that post-theft recount were well aware that the fix was in.

Shame on the BBC and shame on Jeremy Paxman for what is now becoming lazy journalism.

Comments, anyone?"

- Editor

Featured Articles

They're Coming To Take Me Away (Ha ha!)

Today's News