Friday, March 4, 2011

Neocon Court Coup and the Politics of Disaster Revisited - by Paul Collins (From the Archives)

TrotskyitesWWW, 2006 (Archived) - On September 8th, 2005, my article "Katrina and the Politics of Disaster" was published. The ink was not even dry as the article's major contentions were vindicated. No, this does not make me or anyone else who saw things in advance prophets. The article's accuracy can be attributed more to common sense (a scarce commodity these days) than anything else. Playing solitaire will get you better acquainted with yourself, but it will not make you a great poker player. On the other hand, watching Chris Ferguson or Phil Ivey play a few hands will give you an idea of how the game is played. The same principle applies here. Studying the cases of elite criminality and elitist tracts will give you the uncanny ability to predict the future.

Research reveals a certain method employed by bluebloods throughout history to consolidate power. A crisis is created by government action or inaction. This crisis leads to tremendous violence and social upheaval that in turn has the population screaming for a solution. The government then plays the role of savior, presenting an oppressive remedy to the problem. Society gets onto a totalitarian trajectory as the process is repeated over and over again. It worked for the Illuminist-bred Jacobins in France. It worked for the communists in Russia. It worked for Nazis in Germany. Today, it is working for the Neocons and other elitists hidden behind the Bush Administration.

In "Katrina and the Politics of Disaster," evidence was explored that seemed to suggest that warnings were ignored and assistance was intentionally delayed, causing the Katrina situation to intensify. An atmosphere of lawlessness and anarchy arose, causing people to call for Federal intervention. We now find ourselves in the midst of phase three as the government presents the cure for our ills. Apparently, that cure is a shot of totalitarianism that involves a very long needle. On September 13th, Stewart Powell reported:

President Bush on Monday urged Congress to examine whether the White House needs stronger powers to deal with catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina. Bush's backing for the congressional inquiry raised the possibility that lawmakers might expand presidential authority to:

  • Order mandatory civilian evacuations
  • Dispatch U.S.-based armed forces for emergency search-and-rescue operations
  • Grant wider leeway for active-duty U.S. military personnel to carry out law enforcement operations. (No pagination)

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the government solution is the call for the military to be used here at home. A September 17th Associated Press article went into this feature of the President's plan:

President Bush's push to give the military a bigger role in responding to major disasters like Hurricane Katrina could lead to a loosening of legal limits on the use of federal troops on U.S. soil.

Pentagon officials are reviewing that possibility, and some in Congress agree it needs to be considered.

Bush did not define the wider role he envisions for the military. But in his speech to the nation from New Orleans on Thursday, he alluded to the unmatched ability of federal troops to provide supplies, equipment, communications, transportation and other assets the military lumps under the label of "logistics."

The president called the military "the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." (No pagination)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has now entered the picture, ready to step up domestic militarization. The changes he will suggest to the President may allow the government to use natural disasters as a pretext for tearing down longtime bulwark to tyranny: the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The Associated Press reported:

[Spokesman Lawrence] Di Rita said Rumsfeld has not made recommendations to Bush, but among the issues he is examining is the viability of the Posse Comitatus Act. Di Rita called it one of the "very archaic laws" from a different era in U.S. history that limits the Pentagon's flexibility in responding to 21st century domestic crises. (No pagination)

Katrina has been used to make the unthinkable now thinkable. The notion that the military should be used to police civilians would make the Founding Fathers' skin crawl. Today, many Americans still share that sentiment with the architects of the Republic. However, most sit on their hands believing the system of checks and balances will remedy the problem. The branch most likely to step in on our behalf should bad legislation get passed is the Judicial. Using the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court can look at something the President or Congress does and declare it unconstitutional. However, the Administration intends to short-circuit any judicial attempts to block its acquisition of power with what can only be described as a Supreme Court coup. Integral to this coup is chief justice nominee John G. Roberts.

Roberts has been a Bush political operative since at least the controversial 2000 presidential election. In an article for the Miami Herald, Gary Fineout and Mary Ellen Klas elaborate:

U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.

Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald. (No pagination)

The article continued:

Roberts, himself a noted constitutional lawyer, and an unnamed law professor spent between 30 and 40 minutes talking to Bush in the governor's conference room, sources told The Herald.

Roberts' perceived partisanship during the recount has been enough for some Democrats to suggest that his nomination should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.

A spokesman for the governor confirmed Wednesday that Bush met with Roberts during the recount.

Roberts was "one of several experts who came to Florida to share their ideas," said spokesman Jacob DiPietre. Roberts came "at his own expense and met with Gov. Bush to share what he believed the governor's responsibilities were under federal law after a presidential election and a presidential election under dispute." (No pagination)

For some, Robert's connection to the 2000 election make his nomination to the Supreme Court very problematic. U.S. representative Robert Wexler summed up critics' misgivings:

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Boca Raton Democrat, seized on Roberts' participation in the 2000 recount and suggested it should be grounds for rejecting his nomination. Wexler suggested the nomination "threw salt on the wounds of the thousands of Floridians whose voting rights were disenfranchised during the 2000 election.

"Judge Roberts worked to ensure that George Bush would become president -- regardless of what the courts might decide," Wexler said, relying on news accounts that suggested Roberts gave the governor advice on how the state Legislature could name Bush the winner. "And now he is being rewarded for that partisan service by being appointed to the nation's highest court." (Fineout and Klas, No pagination)

Roberts was no doubt rewarded for his services with a nomination to the Supreme Court. When Rehnquist passed away, nomination was upgraded to that of chief justice. Roberts has jumped the first hurdle, the Senate Judiciary Committee. All that is left is to be confirmed by the general senate. With a republican majority, victory is almost a forgone conclusion. This makes the Roberts situation even more disturbing. Why? Unfortunately, the standard for being a great chief justice is not making upright and moral decisions. Instead, the standard is the ability to bring uniformity to the Court. Eisenhower considered his decision to nominate Warren one of his greatest mistakes. Given the man's involvement in the cover-up of the Kennedy assassination, Eisenhower's regret seems justified. That notwithstanding, the man is still considered one of this nation's great chief justices for his ability to get all the justices on the same page. As a result of all this, chief justices have learned to be great politicians and work to bring uniformity to the Court, not to bring about a moral outcome. Therefore, chief justice Roberts would work to bring the Court into lock step with the Bush Administration's agenda.

However, to call Roberts merely a Bush lackey would be inaccurate. It must be understood that this Administration (like so many administrations before it) is a front for some elite faction. In a speech given by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh, the puppeteers behind the Bush Administration were revealed: "One of the ways -- one of the things that you could say is, the amazing thing is we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government" (No pagination). Those on the left have misidentified this neocon cult as anti-communist right-wingers. These poor, misguided souls have failed to recognize the difference between being anti-communist and anti-Soviet. The cult of neoconservatism is, in fact, a revival of Trotskyism. Former neocon Michael Lind revealed this fact in his article "A Tragedy of Errors":

The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists. The idea that the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois "new class" was developed by thinkers in the Trotskyist tradition like James Burnham and Max Schachtman, who influenced an older generation of neocons. The concept of the "global democratic revolution" has its origins in the Trotskyist Fourth International's vision of permanent revolution. The economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism, promoted by neocons like Michael Novak, is simply Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history. (No pagination)

None other than the godfather of neoconservatism himself, Irving Kristol, vindicates Lind's allegations. In his book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Kristol writes: "I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyist and I have not a single bitter memory" (13). Left-wing activists love to charge the neocons with being fascistic anti-communists. Nevertheless, the neocons' crusade to tear down the Soviet Union and Soviet-connected regimes stemmed from the fact that they felt betrayed by Uncle Joe. Stalin had made the mistake of attacking their idol: Trotsky.

With the neocons in control, America is sure to continue on a socialist and statist trajectory. Future catastrophes, both man-made and natural, will provide the pretext for all of this. A Supreme Court with Roberts as its chief justice will declare the Administrations' actions completely legal and constitutional. All the while, the very document that is supposed to be guiding the Court's decisions, the Constitution, will be burning.

Sources Cited

Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he completed his Associate of Arts and Science degree. He is working to complete his Bachelor's degree, with a major in Communications and a minor in Political Science. Paul has authored another book entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11.


Jewish extremists may crash plane on Temple Mount (From the Archives)

Last Update: 25/07/2004 04:00

Officials: Jewish extremists may crash plane on Temple Mount

By Jonathan Lis, Yuval Yoaz and Nadav Shragai

WWW, 2004 (Archived) - Israeli security officials have recently become increasingly concerned that right-wing extremists might be plotting an attack on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to derail Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The Shin Bet security service and the police are preparing for a number of possible terror attack scenarios at the sacred Old City site, Israeli security sources said on Saturday night.

Speaking on the Channel Two "Meet the Press" program yesterday, Public Security Minister Tzachi Hanegbi confirmed that the security establishment had identified rising intent among right-wing extremists to carry out a Temple Mount attack.

"There is no information about specific individuals, because the Shin Bet and police would not let them continue [with their plot]," said Hanegbi. "But there are troubling indications of purposeful thinking, and not detached philosophy... There is a danger that [extremists] would make use of the most explosive site, in the hope that a chain reaction would bring about the destruction of the peace process."

Security sources on Saturday night said possible actions included an attempt to crash a drone packed with explosives on the Temple Mount, or a manned suicide attack with a light aircraft during mass Muslim worship on the Mount. Other possibilities include an attempt by right-wing extremists to assassinate a prominent Temple Mount Muslim leader, perhaps from the Waqf Islamic trust.

Israeli security sources speculate that the assassination scenario might be chosen, even though it would not cause mass injury or damage to the Al-Aqsa mosque or the Golden Dome shrine. The aim of the Temple Mount attack conspiracy, they said, would be to carry out a visible provocation that sparked violent confrontation in the territories.

Due to stringent security routines at the Temple Mount, Israeli security officials said Saturday, right-wing extremists would find it virtually impossible to use conventional routes to penetrate the site with explosives. Hence, the possibility of a large bomb being planted at one of the Muslim holy sites is "a lower-level possibility."

Saturday's disclosures about possible Temple Mount terror plans were preceded in recent months by a number of troubling indications. Nine months ago a suspect in a Jewish underground terror group affair, Shahar Dvir-Zeliger, told authorities a prominent West Bank settler activist had planned a Temple Mount attack. Zeliger cited two other names of West Bank settlers, suggesting the two were involved in the Temple Mount attack conspiracy.

Last Thursday, the Temple Mount Faithful group petitioned the High Court, asking to be given clearance to go up to the Holy Site for prayers later this week for Tisha B'Av.


US and Iran agree: Sharia is 'all you need...' (From the Archives)

Emperor's Clothes uncovers another suppressed news report!

The IDLO, Backed by the US and Iran, Planned Islamic Rule for Afghanistan

U.S. and Iran agree: Sharia, or Muslim religious law, is 'all you need...'

by Jared Israel

[Posted 26 May 2003]


WWW, 2003 (Archived) - If you have gotten the impression that the US is opposing Muslim extremism, the following will be shocking. At the end of 2002, the US, Iran and other powers convened a meeting in Rome to plan the creation of a new Muslim religious government for Afghanistan. A key official at the meeting announced that Muslim religious governments were in general a good idea for "developing" countries. There is overwhelming evidence that the sensational news of this shocking meeting was suppressed.

In the following text Jared Israel examines the nature of the Rome meeting and the purpose of its sponsor of record, the IDLO, and deals with the 64 dollar question: why is the US covertly creating Muslim extremist states while publicly opposing Muslim extremism?


1. Top legal group backs Sharia but the news isn't fit to print

2. Roundtable for Islamism

3. What is Sharia?

4. Who controls the IDLO?

5. The significance of the IDLO's endorsement of Sharia

6. Selling Muslims on self-destruction, or, 'Pride cometh before a fall...'

7. 'No news' ain't good news

8. A parting thought from Mr. Milosevic

[ ]

1. Top legal group backs Sharia but the news isn't fit to print

While doing research on the U.S.-led Empire's support for Muslim extremism in Iraq and Turkey, I chanced upon an important Associated Press (AP) dispatch whose contents were never made public.

Based on that AP dispatch, and some of my own research, this is what I know:

On the 16th and 17th of December, 2002, the powerful IDLO (International Development Law Organization) held a conference in Rome, ostensibly to discuss reforming the Afghan legal system.

This conference, or 'Roundtable' as it was called, was followed by a second conference, sponsored by the Italian government.

The AP reported that after the second conference, the director-general of the IDLO made a statement to the press. He said the conference had endorsed the use of Sharia, or Muslim religious law, as a sound basis for any modern legal system!

Nobody has published this news!

2. Roundtable for Islamism [1]

Searching the Web, I located the IDLO Website. There I learned a bit more.

According to a pre-conference mission statement, the purpose of the Roundtable conference was to help a commission trying to reform the Afghan legal system, laying the basis for a democratic, pluralistic society.

This sounds nice, but I have noticed that every time an Empire-controlled organization uses a nice word like 'democratic,' there's a catch: they are about to do something bad to ordinary people.

The IDLO Website has no report about the actual content of the discussions at the Roundtable. But we can get an idea from the mission statement and list of participants.

The mission statement begins:

"Afghanistan, an Islamic nation with a rich legal history, is in the process of ending decades of conflict and has entered a new period of reconstruction." [1A]

'Reconstruction' sounds nice, like 'democratic'. So where's the bad thing that's about to happen to ordinary people?

It's hidden in the phrase, "Islamic nation." For you see, the central issue during those "decades of conflict" was: should Afghanistan be defined in religious terms? Should it be governed by Sharia, Muslim religious law? Which in Afghanistan, and some other places, means domination by the harsh and repressive landlord class associated with Muslim fundamentalism.

Moreover, this conflict didn't just happen. The U.S. and its imperial allies in Europe and the Arab world put the whole financial/military/technical power of an Empire into empowering Islamic fundamentalism, and mujahideen terrorists, in Afghanistan. [2]

It would be nice to believe this policy has changed. Dream on. It is obvious from the list of participants that the IDLO Roundtable took as its starting point that Muslim religious law, Sharia, should govern Afghanistan.

Thus among the 60-odd participants were *none* of the teachers, professors, lawyers, judges or government officials who worked in the *secular* government that ran Afghanistan throughout the 1980s.

Instead there were officials from the current US-installed Muslim fundamentalist government, riddled with former mujahideen terrorists.

There were IDLO and UN officials.

There were government representatives from the US, Japan, Germany, Italy, *and Iran*! (Germany and Japan sent one representative each but Iran got three!)

There was a large group of pro-Sharia scholars, mainly from the Middle East. But not only. For example, the participant from Harvard Law School was one Frank E. Vogel, the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Adjunct Professor of Islamic Legal Studies." (!) He runs a Saudi-funded program at Harvard Law. (Just for the record, the Saudis do not fund educational programs out of love of learning. They spend their petrodollars to push Salafi Islam, the Muslim extremism known in the West as Wahabbi.) [H]

The Iranian wing of Muslim fundamentalism was represented by two Sharia judges, Mahmood Akhondy and Mohammad Reza Zandy, and by Ali Gholampour, Third Secretary in the Iranian Embassy in Rome. (The third secretary is often an intelligence post.) However, the Iranians had no representatives from U.S. Ivy League schools.

Clearly the conference was not aimed at encouraging Afghanistan to adopt a secular legal system or even to debate the issue. It was organized with an eye to making Sharia respectable in Afghanistan. And not just there:

[Excerpt from the AP dispatch starts here]

The conclusions of that meeting were that Islamic law has "all the elements that are really required to underpin a human rights agenda and a modern state agenda which are completely compatible with international standards," said William Loris, director-general of the International Development Law Organization, which trains lawyers and judges in developing countries. [3]

[Excerpt from the AP dispatch ends here]

Please notice that Mr. Loris did not confine his comments to Afghanistan. According to the IDLO chief, the conference ruled that Islamic law, or Sharia, has all the elements needed for *any* "modern state agenda"!

3. What is Sharia?

Sharia consists of elaborate rules governing every aspect of life, public and private. It is based on the rulings of Islamic scholars. They study religious texts including the Koran, which observant Muslims believe contains the word of God as revealed to his Prophet Mohammad, and the Hadith and Sunna, which are said to contain accounts of Mohammad's sayings and actions.

From these texts, Islamic scholars derive rules covering *every* aspect of life, including right and wrong opinions on contemporary issues. Thus human existence is governed by the decisions of a small number of men who have studied the writings, sayings and deeds of one man who lived 14 centuries ago.

Sharia criminalizes acts which modern secular societies leave to individual discretion, such as adult sexual relations and religious choices. 'Offenders' may be punished, and punishments, e.g., for adultery or for insulting Islam, may include death. The rules of Sharia discriminate against women, e.g. in court cases. Sharia makes non-Muslims second class citizens, at best. It grants religious scholars veto power over legislation, assuming there is a legislature. [4]

And most important, Sharia renders democracy as defined in non-Sharia societies impossible. This is because before a law can be put into effect religious scholars must decide whether it conforms to the words and deeds of Mohammad. How is it possible to make such a process coincide with democracy?

So it was big news that 5 months ago, the IDLO, the main organization training and advising legal personnel in 'developing countries', endorsed Sharia. And this news was indeed covered by two of the biggest news agencies, Associated Press and Agence France Presse, as well as by two Italian news agencies.

These agencies are not newspapers. Rather, they supply dispatches to newspapers and TV stations which subscribe to their services. The public reads an AP dispatch *only* if it is published by newspapers or broadcast on TV.

Yet despite the importance of this story, not one newspaper or TV station reported that the IDLO endorsed Sharia. Not one.

This article is the first time this news has been made available to the general public.

4. Who controls the IDLO?

How significant is it that the International Development Law Organization is pushing Sharia? That depends on the question: How influential is the IDLO? Answer: Very.

The IDLO (previously called the IDLI) is a project of the US-led Empire at the highest levels of power.

"Italy will continue to follow closely the activities of IDLO and its work with developing countries. The Italian Government already provides IDLO with substantial financial assistance for carrying out specific projects. In addition, the Government has granted IDLO a contribution by law..." - Carlo Ciampi, President of the Italian Republic, Addressing an IDLO meeting on 23 March 2003. [5]

The IDLO's main sponsors include: [6]

*The Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA);

* The Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (This fund is financed by the oil-exporting Arab countries and located in Kuwait. Given financial realities, it is surely dominated by the Islamic fundamentalist states - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates. One can imagine its 'social development' policies...) [7]

* The Kuwait Fund for Arab and Economic Development.

* The World Bank;

* The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

* USAID (This US funding organization, controlled by the foreign policy establishment, coordinates its work with both the CIA and the semi-covert National Endowment for Democracy. USAID is the funding agency that has been distributing tens of millions of Islamic fundamentalist schoolbooks in Afghanistan); [11]

* Coca Cola;

* The governments of Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Denmark, France, Netherlands and the USA;

* Microsoft;

The IDLO's current vice-chairmen are:

*Mohammed Y. Abdel-Aal Senior Legal Advisor Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (term expires 2004)

* Attilio Massimo Iannucci Deputy Director General General Directorate for Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy (Permanent Representative) [8]

5. The significance of the IDLO's endorsement of Sharia

The IDLO Roundtable was no minor affair. The status of the IDLO, the presence of representatives from the US (including the State Department), Japan, Germany, Italy and Norway, the heavy presence of top officials from the US-installed Afghan government, and the stated purpose, to reform the Afghan legal system, all make it clear that the US-led Empire endorsed this conference.

By the way, isn't it interesting that three representatives of the Iranian fundamentalist government took part? The Roundtable was ostensibly called to advise a commission reforming the legal structure in *US-run* Afghanistan. If it is true, as we have been told, that a) the US wants to combat fundamentalism and encourage secular rule and b) the US and Iran are enemies then c) why would Islamist Iran be helping plan the reform of the legal system of a country conquered by the U.S.?

(Emperor's Clothes has documented that despite public displays of hostility, the U.S. and Iran have covertly cooperated in terror. [9])

The IDLO is not a propaganda outfit. It advises 'developing countries' about their legal systems.

The credibility of this 'advice' does not derive solely from the expertise of the advisers. Indeed, if the issue were only legal expertise, the 'developing countries' could do without the IDLO. This is after all the 21st century, not the 19th. Poor countries may lack cash (hence the term, 'poor'), but they do not lack trained personnel. For example, tens of thousands of highly educated Afghan citizens fled when the secular government was destroyed by the U.S. and Saudi-backed mujahideen a decade ago. Many would return if their help were desired to build a secular society!

When IDLO 'experts' arrive in a 'developing country' bearing the message that Sharia contains "all the elements that are really required," they are not speaking simply as experts. They represent the power of the US-led Empire, just like officials of earlier empires.

And indeed the discourse of NGOs and other organizations of the US-led Empire has an eerie similarity to the outlook of the British and other Empires past. Consider the much-used phrases, 'developing world' and 'emerging nations' (were they previously shrouded in mist?) and then read the words of Rudyard Kipling, the poet of the British Empire:

"Take up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait, in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child." -- The White Man's Burden By Rudyard Kipling [10]

In reality the 'developing' and 'emerging' nations - which we are amazingly told include the Republics of the former Soviet Union! - are quite developed.

They are cauldrons boiling with political struggle.

In many areas, Muslim extremism, with its central demand to impose Sharia, is locked in mortal combat with anti-Sharia forces. These may include trade unions, secularist military forces, advocates of women's rights or secular education, socialists, nationalists, communists, non-Muslim religious groups, and Muslims who believe religion should be a private affair. (Many Muslims who oppose Sharia are intimidated into silence by the deadly menace of the extremists.)

So when the IDLO endorses Sharia it is intervening with great power on one side of a world-significant political conflict. It is putting its weight behind theocratic rule, against all the above-named forces.

There are two questions we must answer:

1) In saying that Sharia has "all the elements that are really required," is the Western establishment helping or hurting societies with large Muslim populations?

2) Why doesn't the media straightforwardly report the existence of the US-led Empire's pro-Sharia policy?

6. Selling Muslims on self-destruction, or, 'Pride cometh before a fall...'

One might get the impression from the media that the use of Muslim religious law is a foregone conclusion in areas with large Muslim populations. But in fact, many of these areas have had strict secular constitutions (Turkey) or even communist societies (Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and Western China) for many decades.

Most Muslims in these areas have (or used to have...) a secular orientation. It is the Western and Arab establishments and their satellites which have intervened to whip up Muslim fundamentalism to destabilize these areas, causing great suffering, including to Muslims.

*Case in point: Schoolbooks for extremism in Afghanistan*

Starting in 1983 and continuing to the present day, USAID has distributed tens of millions of Muslim fundamentalist schoolbooks in Afghanistan. During most of this period, the books had pictures depicting jihad fighters slaughtering infidels.

Now the White House justifies *continuing* to distribute millions of these schoolbooks (sans pictures) in Afghanistan because, they say, the books fit the religious orientation of local people! What hypocrisy! As if such sentiments, to the extent that they exist, do not derive in large measures from the *tens of millions* of extremist books that USAID distributed and which were the main schoolbooks for the innocent children of Afghanistan! Nothing like US aid! [11]

*Case in point: Saudi Arabia funds fanaticism*

It is precisely because so many Muslims are *not* fundamentalists that Saudi Arabia has spent billions of petrodollars proselytizing for Islamic extremism:

"The Saudi government has systematically financed the propagation of Salafi Islam, [also known as the Wahabbi sect] by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on three out of seven universities in Saudi Arabia [that] are religious universities. They built thousands of mosques around the world, including the United States. They have given free scholarships to non-Saudis, to come and study Salafi and become Salafi. They sent 2,000 Salafi clerics around the world every summer. They print books by the millions in every language to promote Salafi Islam. They have conventions, conferences." - Ali Al-Ahmed, interviewed on PBS, 9 November 2001 [11A]

So, Western and Arab governments and NGOs help the Islamists sell fundamentalism to Muslims.

In the U.S., salespeople say, "Don't sell the steak; sell the sizzle!" This means, close the sale by associating the product with some strong emotion.

In the case of Islamism, much of the sales pitch is based on pride and its flip side, shame. The Islamist says, 'We were civilized when Europeans were barbarians. But now look at us!' Thus, by evoking the emotions of pride and shame, the Islamist sells the past. Consider:

"...the provisions of the Qur'an are such that by their disciplined interpretation, with the aid of the Hadith and Sunna and other sources of interpretation, Islam can, as intended, provide the solution to contemporary social problems. Fourteen centuries ago Islam was a spiritual, social, and legal revolution. Its potential for effecting progress remains unchanged. This is essentially the belief of enlightened fundamentalist Muslims. Islamic fundamentalism is not, therefore, a regressive view of history and contemporary reality. Islam at the height of its civilization, between the seventh and eleventh centuries, was neither repressive nor regressive. It was a progressive, humanistic, and legalistic force for reform and justice." - Islamic Law -- the Sharia Middle East Library [12]

Note that the writer says, "Islamic fundamentalism is not...regressive..." But immediately after that:

"...Between the seventh and eleventh centuries, ...[Islam]"

Between the seventh and eleventh centuries? A thousand or more years ago? This reminder of past glory has powerful appeal in the Muslim world, and particularly in the Arab world, because of three factors:

a) Resentment towards anything that is presented as "Western" (e.g., classical liberalism, socialism, communism, Christianity, Judaism, etc.) as part of a rejection of Western colonialism, and current injustices, real or imagined;

b) The teaching of the Koran that God has ordained that Islam should rule the world and

c) The tremendous role of pride and shame in most cultures with large Muslim populations and the consequent passion over perceived loss of status.

Unscrupulous people, whether the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or Fatah, created by Hajj Amin's followers, or the Ayatollah Khomeini or the Saudi fundamentalists - all have played the pride/shame card to foment Muslim extremism, with its imposition of Sharia.

But why did the British Empire support Muslim extremism? Why did the British sponsor the Muslim fanatic, Hajj Amin al Husseini, who distorted political life in the Middle East? [13]

Why did the US spend billions of dollars destroying the secular government of Afghanistan in the 1980s? Was it 'just' to fight the Soviet Union? Then why, after the Soviet Union disappeared, did the US continue - why does it still continue - to ship millions of Muslim fundamentalist textbooks into Afghanistan? [11]

Why does the US-led Empire advocate the imposition of Sharia today, as exemplified by the IDLO conference in Rome?

Consider this comparison.

Suppose someone tried to tell the people of Denmark:

* That the Vikings were World-changing explorers;

* That they had an immense and progressive impact in the 10th century;

* That therefore it is not regressive for Danes today to memorize the writings of the Vikings and to put Viking scholars in charge of all aspects of Danish life;

* That from their interpretation of Viking texts these scholars should tell Danes how to live - whether to shave their facial hair, appropriate measures for disciplining (!) their wives, proper methods of intimate hygiene, punishments for people who say negative things about Denmark or who seek to give up Danish citizenship, and when it is allowable to kill non-Danes who refuse to pay a special tax.

How would the Danes respond?

Mr. Loris of the IDLO would not have the nerve to tell Danes that the writings of the Vikings have "all the elements that are really required to underpin a human rights agenda and a modern state agenda which are completely compatible with international standards."

If an organization with the power of the IDLO tried to foist such nonsense on the Danes, what would the Danes think? They would think: "These people want to colonize us and therefore they want to tie us to backward and outdated ideas which, in their generous opinion, 'are all we need' to be outdated, and backward, so they can take advantage of us!"

That is precisely the role of Sharia. It was the great and passionate advocate of the Turkish nation, Kemal Ataturk, who pulled Turkey out of certain destruction precisely by driving the caliphate - the religious center of the Muslim world - from Turkey. By doing so he cut the link between politics and religion in Turkey. [14] [Also see footnote on genocide in Turkey 14A]

Why, today, do we see the US-led Empire backing the institution of Sharia law in Turkey? As I will show in two upcoming articles, during both the Clinton and Bush governments the White House and Foreign Service have violated Turkish sovereignty by intervening in favor of Recep Erdogan, the leader of the Islamic fundamentalist party in Turkey.

Why has the US done this?

Why did the British Empire eighty years ago oppose Kemal Ataturk and back the Turkish Sultan? Why? Why do you think? Because Ataturk was a secularist and a modernizer who wished Turkey to be independent of foreign domination whereas the Sultan was a backward-looking Islamist in league with the British.

In the modern world adherence to Sharia law reduces the intellectual, political and scientific power of a people and renders them weak so they can be ruthlessly exploited economically, politically and militarily, so they can be used by Great Powers as a destructive force against secular states.

That is precisely the case with this Empire of Western and Arab Establishments run by the Americans. It is not love for Muslims that causes the Empire to back the fundamentalists, openly in Afghanistan and then Bosnia, covertly in Kashmir and Chechnya, openly in Kosovo and Macedonia, openly and covertly in Palestine. It is not love for Muslims that is behind the Empire's secret alliance with the Iranian destroyers of Iran and its open love affair with the Saudi destroyers of Arabia. [15]

The operatives of the US-led Empire understand the power of pride and shame in Muslim cultures. They go to the Muslims and they say: "To be great again you must do what you did 14 centuries ago. Sharia has 'all the elements that are really required...'"

And in this way, they push many people to *look backwards*.

'We are going on a trip,' say the Muslims. 'Shall we perhaps take the Land Rover?'

'On no,' say the Imperialists, 'No, no, you take this one-thousand-three-hundred-year-old camel. It is really all you need...'

And meanwhile, the Imperialists fly First Class.

Societies which look backwards self-destruct. That is a law of history.

If you would know anything, know this: you can't go home again because *home is no longer there*. You can love the past, or you can hate it, and in any case hopefully you will learn from it. But you *cannot* live in the past.

When people try, it is not the past they get but a present which is terrible. We must move forward, re-think, find new solutions out of human creativity, "climb the stairway of our own achievements," or we will not have a "progressive and humanistic effect." Quite the contrary.

The British told Turkey, 'Keep the Caliphate. It is really all you need.' And When Kemal Ataturk drove the Caliphate out of Turkey he declared, 'We will show them!' - meaning the West - 'We will show them that we can achieve just as much as they!' And to that end he removed from Turkish politics the religious baggage that held down Turkish political life so they could create a great modern nation.

God save the Muslims from these Empire builders who, posing as friends, sponsor fundamentalist leaders, saying that Sharia is "all you really need."

Yes, all you really need to be hopelessly backward, to be losers in *somebody else's* Empire, to be slaves.

7. 'No news' ain't good news

Most of what appeared in the Associated Press dispatch was misleading or sketchy, but it did include a) the fact that the IDLO had sponsored the Roundtable conference and b) director-general Loris' statement endorsing Sharia.

This was clearly newsworthy.


1) The US-led Empire *claims* it is battling Muslim fundamentalism;

2) The main demand of Muslim fundamentalism is to impose Sharia;

3) Yet the Empire is pushing Sharia.

What could be a more shocking, scandalous news story? The US went to *war* in Afghanistan supposedly to save the local people from fundamentalism. But now the U.S. led Empire is using Afghanistan as a showcase for marketing Sharia throughout the 'developing world.'

So tell me once again, why did the U.S. go to war in Afghanistan?

This is the type of news story that reporters live for. Supposedly.

And indeed Associated Press and Agence France Presse did cover the meeting. Both wire services posted dispatches on December 19th describing the IDLO's role. Thousands of newspapers and TV news programs received those dispatches. And yet we could find only *two* news reports on the Rome meetings!

One was a BBC report, which stated:

[Excerpt from the BBC begins here]

Mr Karzai has made it clear that Afghanistan, a predominantly Muslim society, intends to maintain sharia law, while at the same time establishing pluralistic democracy and an independent judiciary.

A preliminary conference of international lawyers meeting here in Rome earlier this week recommended that special measures should be taken to protect and promote the rights of women and children in Afghanistan.[16]

[Excerpt from the BBC ends here]

How amazingly misleading.

Notice that the BBC leaves out the fact that the IDLO sponsored the 'preliminary conference'! Instead, the IDLO Roundtable is presented as some generic 'conference of international lawyers,' a neutral body of experts. How could the BBC *overlook* the name of the sponsoring organization?

And how could it overlook the fact that this was *not*, most definitely not, a 'conference of international lawyers.' The briefest examination of the guest list makes it clear that this was not a neutral body of international lawyers. The legal people at the conference were advocates of Sharia, mostly from the Middle East and Afghanistan - hardly a typical body of "international lawyers." Moreover, this was an explicitly *political* conference; officials took part who are involved in the foreign policy of Iran, the US, Germany, Japan, and so on. What on earth were they doing there if this wasn't a conference controlled by the US-led Empire?

By omitting such details, the BBC could then portray Mr. Karzai as an independent leader. Hence the statement, "Mr. Karzai has made it clear that Afghanistan, a predominantly Muslim society, intends to maintain sharia law, while at the same time establishing pluralistic democracy and an independent judiciary."

In fact:

a) Mr. Karzai was handpicked to be President of Afghanistan by Zalmay Khalilzad, the member of the U.S. National Security Council in charge of Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. (If you think this may be hyperbole, check out footnote [17])

Coincidentally, Mr. Khalilzad was a key figure in the original mujahideen war against the Afghan secular government and its Soviet sponsors during the 1980s. [2]

b) Mr. Karzai is the puppet leader of a conquered country and

c) This conference, set up by the IDLO, an organization openly controlled by the US Empire, was obviously *designed* to limit Afghanistan's choices to...well, let's see:

-- "What will you be having today, Mr. Karzai? Would you like a little Sharia? It's in season."

-- "Why no, no. No, I think today I'll try the Muslim religious law."

Given this 'choice', Mr. Karzai "made it clear" he wants Sharia. He did? Gee, I didn't know puppets talked.

So much for the BBC. As for the other published report, it provides comic relief. It consists of a brief note in the December 23, 2002 edition of something called 'World Markets Analysis'. Never heard of it? Me neither. Nevertheless, 'World Markets' gets the prize because it is the *only* publication that actually mentioned the IDLO. True, it didn't quote Loris' statement about endorsing Sharia. But it did report the earth shaking news that Sharia was to be updated so it would "also draw on international commercial law"!

How can the failure of the entire English and French language media to cover the story of the IDLO's endorsement of Sharia be explained? I can think of only one explanation.

Many people in the West supported the attack on Afghanistan because they were convinced - due to misinformation - that this war would end fundamentalist rule in that tortured country. Do you remember Barbara Bush's speech, exhorting the West to save Afghan women from the extremists?

If these millions of honest but misinformed people learned that the US-led Empire was working together with various Muslim fundamentalists, including from Iran, to use Afghanistan as a base for spreading Sharia throughout the 'developing countries', they would be outraged.

To avoid this problem, the powers-that-be suppressed the IDLO/Sharia story. This suppression did not happen spontaneously. How could it have? How could thousands of newspaper editors decide independently *not* to publish the news that the US-led Empire was endorsing Sharia, in direct contradiction to its much-stated aims?

The suppression had to have been organized.

8. A parting thought from Mr. Milosevic

Commenting on the state of the Western mass media, the much-demonized Slobodan Milosevic said:

"By deceiving their public through a systematic manufacturing of lies, their government and their media have abolished democracy for their own people precisely to the extent to which they have withdrawn the people's right to truthful information. You can have the best possible mechanism for democracy, but if you feed it with lies, it cannot produce results that are humane, honest, and progressive."

Consider this chilling thought: If Emperor's Clothes had not chanced upon the AP dispatch, the very important fact that the IDLO is pushing for Sharia in 'developing countries' might never have seen the light of day. Deprived of this information (and how much more?), fed the lie that Western Establishments are trying to bring democratic, secular solutions to the 'developing world', how can people in the West make intelligent political decisions?

Mr. Milosevic spoke the truth.


Jared Israel Editor Emperor's Clothes

Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] The term 'Islamist' does not mean someone who follows the Muslim religion. It means someone who wishes Muslim religious law to control social and political life. A good example of an Islamist is Alija Izetbegovic, falsely represented in the Western media as the shining example of a moderate Muslim. See, "Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist? - Alija Izetbegovic, the Bosnian Leader Backed by Washington," by Francisco Gil-White at

[1A] If the following hyperlink to the IDLO Roundtable mission statement and list of participants doesn't work, please cut and paste it into your browser.

[2] Whenever the U.S.-led Empire is caught sponsoring Muslim terrorists it argues that, 'We only did it for the sake of expediency,' i.e., to satisfy some immediate need.

This reminds me of the man who pays the rent for a second flat, which is occupied by his mistress. When the wife learns about the mistress, the husband protests his innocence, explaining, "I only see her when I need to."

In the case of Afghanistan, the argument is that the U.S. 'only' sponsored the mujahideen (to the tune of billions of dollars) to fight the Soviet Union. This is contradicted by the overwhelming evidence that the U.S. insisted the mujahideen fight on to destroy the Afghan secular government, even after it was clear the Soviets would pull out.

See for example the article from Tass quoted in "Zalmay Khalilzad - Envoy for Islamic Terror," at and scroll down to the subheading for *May 1988*

[3] Associated Press; December 19, 2002; Headline: Karzai Pledges Equal Justice For All At Conference On Reforming Judiciary Byline: Nicole Winfield; Section: International News; Distribution: Europe; Britain; Scandinavia; Middle East; Africa; India; Asia; England Associated Press Writer Dateline: Rome.

The IDLO has posted, in full, the media coverage of the Roundtable and subsequent conference, so you can read the AP dispatch there. All the reports listed are wire service dispatches. These are not read by the public unless they are published by the media. The only actual media source is a BBC article which fails to mention the IDLO.

The AP dispatch is the first one on the page, at Afghanistan_Press_Articles.pdf+idlo+afghanistan&hl=en&ie=UTF-8t

[4] A few thoughts on Sharia:

"The Qur'an is the principal source of Islamic law, the Sharia. It contains the rules by which the Muslim world is governed (or should govern itself)..." -- 'Islamic Law—the Sharia'

The rules of Sharia, torturously argued by Muslim scholars, are based on the accumulated interpretations of 1300-year-old religious texts. There are many rules; they are intricate; breaking these rules is *sometimes* a violation of law:

"The rulings of shari`ah for all our daily actions are five: prescribed, recommended, permissible, disliked and unlawful. The distinctions between the five categories are in whether their performance (P) and nonperformance (NP) is rewarded, not rewarded, punished or not punished (see the table)." For full text, go to

Often there is more than one possible interpretation, and since the rules cover the most intimate areas of private life, and also public life, and since violating them *may* be a serious affront to God, those with authority to rule on Sharia wield immense power.

Moreover, it takes years of study to master Sharia, something ordinary Muslims have neither the time to do nor, in many cases, the education. (This is especially true since the key writings are in Arabic, not the native tongue of most Muslims!) Thus Sharia is obscure for ordinary Muslims. This obscurantism magnifies the power of those who issue rulings. And the obscurantism is in turn magnified by the methods of reasoning approved for the study of Sharia. Try making sense of the following explanation of the rules for deriving laws from Muslim religious texts:

"According to these rules, for example, one initially is to refer to a specific provision and then to a general provision dealing with a particular situation. No general provision can be interpreted to contradict a specific provision, and a specific rule will supersede a general proposition. A general provision, however, is always interpreted in the broadest manner, while a specific provision is interpreted in the narrowest manner. Reasoning by analogy is permitted, as are applications by analogy, except where expressly prohibited. Simplicity and clear language are always preferred."

I do not exaggerate when I say Sharia covers the most intimate details of private life. Thus one must constantly be on guard to make sure one is carrying out daily activities in conformity to God's word, as set down by a legion of scholars.

The effect of this can be to encourage compulsiveness and passivity. For an idea what these rules may cover, see


Regarding the treatment of non-Muslims under Sharia law, see "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State," by Samuel Shahid at

[5] Speech by Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, President of the Italian Republic at a private meeting with the IDLO board, March 28, 2003


[7] The HQ of the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development has to be seen. If they'd scrimped a little putting up this building, they could have Funded a lot of Social Development for poor Arabs...


[9] For more on US-Iranian relations, go to

[10] "The White Man's Burden," By Rudyard Kipling McClure's Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).

[11] 'Bush & the Media Cover up the Jihad Schoolbook Scandal, by Jared Israel at

[11A] We have provided a link to the transcript of the PBS broadcast on Saudi support for extremism, and also a link to our own page, which includes the full text of the broadcast but takes you direct to the quote cited above.

[12] Islamic Law--the Sharia Middle East Library

[13] "'Palestine Is Our Land And The Jews Are Our Dogs'- Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership," By Francisco J. Gil-White *


[14A] Regarding Ataturk and the genocide against the Armenian and Greek populations of Turkey during and after World War II, please see, "Regarding the Armenian and Greek Genocides in Turkey," at

[15] Regarding the involvement of the US-led Empire in terror in the Balkans, see, "The Terrorists Attacking Macedonia Are Nato Troops, Not Rebels," by Jared Israel and Rick Rozoff

* The US-Iranian alliance behind the Islamist terror in Bosnia is documented and discussed in the article, "U.S. & Iran: Enemies in Public, but Secret Allies in Terror," by Jared Israel, Francisco Gil-White, Peter Makara, and Nico Varkevisser at

* Regarding the US-Saudi sponsorship of the mujahideen in Afghanistan - to the tune of billions of dollars - see: 'Washington's Backing of Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate Policy,' by Steve Coll

And also see, "Afghan Taliban Camps Were Built by NATO,"

* Regarding our contention that the U.S. never severed covert ties to Osama bin Laden, see "Bin Laden in the Balkans," at

And also see, 'Newspaper Articles Documenting U.S. Creation of Taliban and bin Laden's Terrorist Network' at

And also see, "Gaping Holes in the 'CIA vs. bin Laden' Story," by Jared Israel at


[17] Saying that U.S. envoy Khalilzad picked Hamid Karzai to be President of Afghanistan is not hyperbole. It is well known that Karzai was elected at an Afghan grand assembly, a loya jirga, held in Germany two years ago. Here's how the LA Times described the process of 'electing' Karzai:

"Although challenged by two other candidates, his victory was preordained by the controversial influence of U.S. and other foreign advisors, which could taint the credibility of his tenure. Mohammad Zaher Shah, the nation's former king, withdrew from the political stage on the advice of President Bush's envoy [Zalmay Khalilzad]. Former President Burhanuddin Rabbani's departure from the race is believed to have been arranged in return for a prestigious title to be bestowed later. Still, Karzai's selection--he received 1,295 of the 1,575 votes cast--clearly reflected majority sentiment among those gathered for the weeklong convocation. Even his rivals joined in the spirit of celebration over what they see as the beginning of a new age in their homeland." (My emphasis) -- Los Angeles Times June 14, 2002 Friday Home Edition Section: Part A Main News; Part 1; Page 1; Foreign Desk Headline: The World; Karzai Chosen As Leader, Vows To Rebuild Nation;

Note that the first part of the above quote, where the Times states that the envoy (that's Khalilzad) got two candidates to withdraw, renders humorous the second part, about how the results reflected everybody's wishes. In today's Afghanistan, the elite, convened by Khalilzad, are free to democratically do whatever Khalilzad tells them, after which they are free to joyously celebrate their independence.


The US retreat from democratization (From the Archives)

WWW, 2004 (Archived) - An important motive behind the Bush administration's intervention in Iraq was the goal of fostering democracy in the Middle East. This motive, recognized as critical to United States interests following the September 11 attacks, is based on the belief that autocratic, non-democratic states have a higher potential to create disaffected individuals who join political groups that seek to use violence to exercise their political grievances. This pattern is especially prevalent in the Middle East, where autocracy is the norm and where most of the militants attacking US interests are located.

Therefore, following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration argued that the successful formation of democracy in Iraq would serve as an example to other Middle Eastern states. For one, it would provide a warning that the creation of a functioning market democracy in the region is possible, even through the use of force by an outside power. Additionally, by transforming Iraq from a country ruled by a dictator to one ruled by a democratically elected government, Washington hoped that citizens of autocratic states in the region would no longer stand by obediently while they were forced to obey an unpopular and autocratic regime.

While this was an important motive behind the intervention in Iraq, it has now lost the support of Washington policymakers, in addition to many insiders within the Bush administration. The reason behind this loss of support has been the continuous failure to transform Iraq into a market democracy. While it is still possible to arrest Iraq's present downward trend, until that moment occurs there will be little support for further test cases of democratic transformation in the Middle East.

Democratic transformation With the 2000 election win of President George W Bush, the administration appointed a select few individuals among the neo-conservative class of the American political spectrum. These officials - with the most prominent neo-conservative represented by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - were branded with a certain sense of idealism, believing that a democratic transformation of the Middle East was very possible through outside intervention, explaining why this political class has been labeled "democratic imperialists".

For example, before the invasion of Iraq began, influential members of the American Enterprise Institute - one of the leading institutions of neo-conservative thought - released repeated statements arguing the positive effects that an invasion of Iraq would bring. Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the Institute, stated in August 2002, "Change toward democratic regimes in Tehran and Baghdad would unleash a tsunami across the Islamic world."

In September 2002, Michael Ledeen, a freedom scholar with the institute, called for the US to begin "a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East". Ledeen succinctly argued the critical point of this theory, announcing that "it is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order." Bush himself stated in his 2004 state of the union address that "... we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world."

Theoretically, a democratic transformation of the Middle East could occur following the successful implantation of a market democracy there. However, the reason that this theory is hinged too much on idealism is that it exaggerates the ability of an outside power to create such a structure. Furthermore, the difference in culture and values between the implanting power - the US - and the recipient states - predominately of Islamic culture - also works negatively against the success of such a theory.

Iraq: The first test case These doubts were manifested in the US intervention of Iraq. While it only took weeks to eliminate the Ba'athist regime, many months have passed and there is still little stability throughout the country. Indeed, there is no evidence to definitively state whether progress is being made or lost. According to US senator Lincoln Chafee, who just returned from Iraq, and a member of the Bush administration's Republican Party, the situation has become worse in the last year. Speaking to CNN, Chafee said, "It's a very tenuous security situation. I'd been there a year ago - what a change ... in the Green Zone a year ago we felt very secure. Not so this time."

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has also questioned the viability of the Iraq intervention. The New York Times reported on December 7 that it had received a classified cable from the CIA's station chief in Baghdad warning that the security situation in Iraq will soon deteriorate further unless some major successes are scored.

Until it can be determined whether progress is being made or lost in Iraq, the intervention will do nothing to encourage other Middle Eastern political leaders and citizens to push for a democratic transformation in their countries; indeed, as of now, it has done the very opposite and has demonstrated the potential anarchy that can erupt following the weakening of a central government or the creation of a temporary power vacuum.

Furthermore, the intervention of Iraq demonstrated the political, military and economic toll that can affect the US negatively if an intervention goes awry.

For instance, while the Bush administration won the 2004 presidential election, it has lost a lot of support from the American people, and the population itself is split almost evenly into two political camps. Much of this national divergence can be blamed on the impact of the Iraq intervention to both the US military and economy.

The US has lost over 1,000 soldiers in Iraq, and it has been forced to keep over 100,000 troops in the country, with the total troop commitment presently hovering around 150,000. This sort of troop obligation has stretched the US military to the point where its present global commitment is simply unsustainable. The ramifications of the extended troop commitment to Iraq are already evident, seen through the May 2004 decision to withdraw an army brigade from the US Army's 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea to Iraq.

Finally, the funds required to sustain present operations in Iraq are exorbitant, helping to swell the US budget deficit to US$413 billion. Over the long term, continued high spending in Iraq could bring economic problems, such as an extended trade deficit and high inflation.

All of these factors explain how the intervention of Iraq has given the US little ability to engage in future interventions, whether for another test of democratic transformation or even for legitimate national security concerns. The troop commitment and financial costs being usurped by the Iraq intervention have weakened the ability of the US to project its power in the world.

If the Bush administration were to have seriously considered all the likely scenarios involved in the intervention in Iraq - including worst case scenarios - it is doubtful that it would have carried through with the invasion. The success of the neo-conservative vision of democratic transformation hinged on the realization of a best-case scenario, which was a reality that failed to occur. As clearly argued by Wolfowitz before the invasion, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep [troop] requirements down."

Instead, the US hasn't yet had the luxury to work on a true democratic transformation in Iraq because it is still trying to foster some sort of stability in the country. As stated by retired army Colonel Raoul Alcala, who served as an advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, "Plan A - what the US actually did - failed, and Plan B - the adaptations since the end of 'major combat' - hasn't worked either, so far." This leaves the US in the awkward position of not being able to resort to a viable military and political strategy.

Retreat from the transformation theory The Bush administration's retreat from its vision of a transformation to market democracy for Middle Eastern states is evident in the lead-up to the December 11 summit meeting in Morocco intended to promote democracy across the region. US officials have made clear that they will not demand the region's leaders to reform, instead coming with a package of financial and social initiatives - plans that will not create much discomfort in the region's autocracies. Middle East analysts Tamara Cofman Wittes and Sarah Yerkes of the Brookings Institution point to the problems of this strategy, "Economic reform is something for which nearly all Arab governments are willing to accept assistance, regardless of the donor, but whether economic change can contribute to the degree of liberalization that the United States sees as necessary to reduce political extremism is uncertain."

Discussing the upcoming meeting, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a radio interview that he hoped the Middle Eastern states attending the Morocco summit meeting would "come to an understanding of the need for reform and modernization in the broader Middle East and North Africa region". This is far from the administration's stance in January of 2004, when Bush announced, "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friend."

Conclusion One of the prime motives for the intervention in Iraq was to test the neo-conservative theory of democratic transformation in the Middle East. This theory's chance for success was questionable from the very beginning, since there are few historical examples of an outside power intervening in a country with vast cultural differences and successfully implementing a market democracy there. Additionally, Iraq was a very poor choice for the execution of this theory to begin with, considering that the country has never settled the question of how power will be shared between its three main ethnic/religious groups (Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurd); creating a power vacuum in such a state is a sure way to pull the intervening power into the center of civil strife and potential civil war.

The Bush administration and the US have discovered all of these difficulties in Iraq and are struggling to create some sense of stability. The overbearing cost of the Iraq intervention - in terms of political, military and economic costs - has demanded the full attention of the Bush administration, and it is unrealistic to expect the administration to push for further democratic transformations elsewhere in the region.

Instead, the administration can be expected to cut its geostrategic losses and try to preserve the gains it has made. A retreat from Iraq would be a devastating development to the image of the US in the eyes of its detractors, and would likely act as a huge boon for al-Qaeda's recruitment ability, similar to the effect that resulted from the Islamist victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It would also have the potential of weakening US power in the world, although this could be easily prevented by strong shows of force by the US in regional hotspots.

Nevertheless, because retreat carries such negative connotations, the Bush administration will isolate itself from policies that have as their potential outcome further political, military and economic pressure brought to bear on the US. For the time being, and until conditions turn favorably in Iraq, the Bush administration can be expected to shelve any serious designs at democratic transformation in the Middle East.


The Two Faces Of Donald Rumsfeld (From the Archives)

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea

2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

Randeep Ramesh Friday May 9, 2003 - The Guardian

WWW, 2003 (Archived) - Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.

The sale of the nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB's then chief executive, Goran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government.

The company also opened an office in the country's capital, Pyongyang, and the deal was signed a year later in 2000. Despite this, Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the de fence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time".

In a statement to the American magazine Newsweek, his spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that there "was no vote on this". A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors".

Just months after Mr Rumsfeld took office, President George Bush ended the policy of engagement and negotiation pursued by Mr Clinton, saying he did not trust North Korea, and pulled the plug on diplomacy. Pyongyang warned that it would respond by building nuclear missiles. A review of American policy was announced and the bilateral confidence building steps, key to Mr Clinton's policy of detente, halted.

By January 2002, the Bush administration had placed North Korea in the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq and Iran. If there was any doubt about how the White House felt about North Korea this was dispelled by Mr Bush, who told the Washington Post last year: "I loathe [North Korea's leader] Kim Jong-il."

The success of campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have enhanced the status of Mr Rumsfeld in Washington. Two years after leaving ABB, Mr Rumsfeld now considers North Korea a "terrorist regime _ teetering on the verge of collapse" and which is on the verge of becoming a proliferator of nuclear weapons. During a bout of diplomatic activity over Christmas he warned that the US could fight two wars at once - a reference to the forthcoming conflict with Iraq. After Baghdad fell, Mr Rumsfeld said Pyongyang should draw the "appropriate lesson".

Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington.

Many members of the Bush administration are on record as opposing Mr Clinton's plans, saying that weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from the type of light water reactors that ABB sold. Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the state department's number two diplomat, Richard Armitage, both opposed the deal as did the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, whose campaign Mr Rumsfeld ran and where he also acted as defence adviser.

One unnamed ABB board director told Fortune magazine that Mr Rumsfeld was involved in lobbying his hawkish friends on behalf of ABB.

The Clinton package sought to defuse tensions on the Ko rean peninsula by offering supplies of oil and new light water nuclear reactors in return for access by inspectors to Pyongyang's atomic facilities and a dismantling of its heavy water reactors which produce weapons grade plutonium. Light water reactors are known as "proliferation-resistant" but, in the words of one expert, they are not "proliferation-proof".

The type of reactors involved in the ABB deal produce plutonium which needs refining before it can be weaponised. One US congressman and critic of the North Korean regime described the reactors as "nuclear bomb factories".

North Korea expelled the inspectors last year and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in January at about the same time that the Bush administration authorised $3.5m to keep ABB's reactor project going.

North Korea is thought to have offered to scrap its nuclear facilities and missile pro gramme and to allow international nuclear inspectors into the country. But Pyongyang demanded that security guarantees and aid from the US must come first.

Mr Bush now insists that he will only negotiate a new deal with Pyongyang after the nuclear programme is scrapped. Washington believes that offering inducements would reward Pyongyang's "blackmail" and encourage other "rogue" states to develop weapons of mass destruction.



By Eric Samuelson, J.D.

WWW, 2006 (Archived) - I am presently researching a biography on David Rockefeller. An overview of the book will soon be sent to a New York City agent for circulation among all the major publishing houses. Among the topics that will be covered is the role of British USA Round Table member Rep. Wayne Hays (Demo-Ohio) in "killing" the Reece Committee investigation of tax-exempt foundations, the disappearance of the research on the Rockefeller-funded Kinsey studies and the "disposal" threats made to Reece Investigator Norman Dodd by a lobbyist for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

In 1986, Hoover scholar Antony C. Sutton published his "magnum opus" - AMERICA'S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ORDER OF SKULL AND BONES. In his preface Sutton said he had been given an eight-inch batch of documents which was "nothing less than the membership lists of an American secret society. Glancing through the sheets it was more than obvious--this was no ordinary group. The names spelled Power with a capital P." Throughout the book Sutton hinted at even deeper revelations he would make in books to come. However, the full list never was published by Sutton. In making inquiries of those who knew Sutton, I was told that he had become exiled in his own country. For months I searched the Web looking for a list of the members of Skull and Bones. At long last, a notebook was given to me which required the use of a magnifying glass to make out the names. So, the following semi-final list is about 97% accurate. It opens the door to the Bones realm at a time that one of their own is now hitting the campaign trail for the Republican presidential nomination.

For about the past ten years I have been studying secret elite groups. The average person has almost no knowledge of them and there are very few sources of information. These secret groups include the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Knights of the Garter, The Knights of Malta, The 33rd Degree Masons, the Rhodes Scholars, The Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission. What is needed is a historical roster of the membership of each of these groups.

The list that follows is only the first of an upcoming series of historic exposes of these secret societies. If you have any biographical information on any of these individuals, your sharing will be appreciated and reciprocated. Any suggestions or corrections appreciated.



Abbe Frederick Randolph 1848
Abbott John S.C.
Aberg, Jr. Donlan Vincent 1952
Abrams Peter Mark 1983
Acheson David Campion 1943
Ackerman Stephen H. 1957
Acosta John Sidney 1921
Adams Charles Edward 1904
Adams Charles Hemmenway 1866
Adams Frederick Baldwin 1862
Adams Frederick Baldwin 1900
Adams George Webster 1904
Adams Lewis G. 1920
Adams Mason Tyler 1899
Adams Stephen 1959
Adams, Jr. Frederick Baldwin 1932
Afeiju Bernard I. 1967
Ahlbrandt, Jr. Roger S. 1963
Aiken Edwin Edgerton 1881
Aitchison William 1848
Albritton Paul Berem 1978
Aldis Owen Franklin 1874
Aldrich Malcolm Pratt 1922
Alexander Eben 1873
Alexander William DeWitt 1855
Alexander William Felix 1851
Ali Mehdi Raza 1965
Allen Arthur Dwight 1901
Allen Arthur Huntington 1873
Allen Calvin Durand 1913
Allen Charles E. 1958
Allen Daniel 1926
Allen Frederick Winthrop 1900
Allen Henry Elisha 1924
Allen John DeWitt Hamilton 1876
Allen Parker Breese 1919
Allen Walter 1863
Allen William Palmer 1880
Allen, Jr. Archibald J. 1945
Allen, Jr. Clarence Emir 1913
Alling, Jr. Charles Booth 1947
Allison Samuel Perkins 1847
Allison, Jr. Robert Seaman 1930
Ames Allan Wallace 1918
Ames Sullivan Dobb 1899
Amundson John Arnold 1880
Anderson Edwin Alexander 1835
Anderson Thomas Hill 1951
Andrews John Wolcott 1876
Andrews, Jr. Edward W. 1945W
Andrews, Jr. John Wallingford 1870
Andrie Paul James 1984
Anthony Benjamin Harris 1886
Appel George Frederick Baer 1924
Ardrey Rushton L. 1925
Arms Charles Jesup 1863
Arnot John Hulett 1885
Arnot Matthias Hollenback 1856
Arras, Jr. Robert E. 1969
Asburn Frank Davis 1925
Ashe Victor Henderson 1967
Ashenfelter Alan Thompson 1975
Ashforth Albert Blackhurst 1929
Ashley Thomas William Ludlow 1948
Austen David E. 1931
Austin Roy Leslie 1968
Austin Samuel Monroe 1980
Avery Benjamin F. 1914
Avery Charles Hammond 1875
Aycrigg II William Anderson 1942
Ayeroff Frederick Charles 1974
Babcock Henry Harper 1853
Babst James Anthony 1971
Back Samuel H. 1962
Backus Joseph Willes 1846
Bacon Leonard
Badger Paul Bradford 1911
Badger Walter Irving 1882
Bailey Philip Horton 1897
Baker Richard Wheeler 1913
Baldridge Howard Malcolm 1918
Baldwin George William 1853
Baldwin Henry DeForest 1885
Baldwin Roger Sherman 1847
Baldwin Sherman 1919
Baldwin Simeon Eren 1861
Ball David George 1960
Banks Howard D. 1956
Bannard Henry Clay 1869
Bannard Otto Tremont 1876
Baran Mark R. 1978
Barasch Alan Sidney 1973
Baratte Julius Adolphus 1843
Barge Richard Mason 1974
Baribault Richard P. 1949
Barker George Payson 1856
Barlett John Knowlton 1838
Barlett Philip Golden 1881
Barnes Pearce 1874
Barnes William Deluce 1907
Barnes William Henry Lienow 1855
Barney Danford Newton 1881
Barnum William Milo 1877
Barr, Jr. Richard J. 1936
Barres Herster B.D. 1932
Barry William Taylor Sullivan 1841
Bartholemy Alan Edmund 1942
Bartholomew Dana Treat 1928
Bass James Edward 1982
Basset II Barton Bradley 1949
Bassi Keith Alan 1978
Bates Emmert Warren 1932
Bates Samuel Henshaw 1833
Bayard Thomas Francis 1890
Bayne Hugh Aiken 1892
Bayne Thomas Levingston 1847
Bayne-Jones Stanhope 1910
Beach John Campell 1833
Beach John Sheldon 1839
Beane, Jr. Frank Eastman 1960
Beard Anson McCook 1895
Beard William Mossgrove 1896
Beaumont George Anson Oliver 1834
Becket G. Campbell 1923
Becket Peter Logan 1963
Beckley John Werle 1860
Beebe William 1873
Beers Henry Augustin 1869
Begg William Reynolds 1893
Beirne Christopher James 1840
Belin Gaspard d'Andelot 1939
Bell Richard Dobbs Spaight 1844
Bell William Tompkins 1942
Bellinger Alfred Rammond 1917
Bellis Jon Michael 1974
Bellis Tedric Lawrence 1973
Beman Henry DeWitt 1851
Bench Edward C. 1925
Bender Kenneth Arthur 1975
Benedict Theodore Hudson 1840
Bennetto John 1887
Benninghoff Harry Bryner 1954
Benoit, Jr. Charles Edward 1965
Bent Joseph Appleton 1865
Bentley Edward Manross 1880
Bentley Edward Warren 1850
Benton Joseph Augustine 1842
Berger, Jr. George Bart 1928
Berry Coburn Dewees 1868
Bertron Samuel Reading 1885
Best Geoffry D.C. 1964
Biddle Thomas Bradish 1839
Bigelow Albert 1852
Bigelow Walter Irving 1877
Biglow Lucius Horatio 1908
Biglow, Jr. Lucius Horatio 1948
Bingham Charles Tiffany 1928
Bingham Egert Byron 1863
Bingham Jonathan Brewster 1936
Birge Robert Richards 1968
Bisaro Larry R. 1974
Bishop Noah 1833
Bissel Arthur Douglas 1867
Bissel Wilson Shannon 1869
Bissell George Thomas 1961
Bissell William Truesdale 1925
Blackman Charles Seymour 1857
Blackman Samuel Curtis 1854
Blaine Walker 1876
Blair Edwin Foster 1924
Blair James Grant 1925
Blair William McCormick 1907
Blake Dexter B. 1937
Blake Edward Foster 1858
Blake Eli Whitney 1857
Blake Henry T. 1848
Blake Henry Taylor 1848
Blake, Jr. Gilman Dorr 1945
Blakely Marvin 1977
Blakeslee Henry Clay 1852
Blanchard Jerred Gurley 1939
Blattner Robert William 1976
Bliss Charles Miller 1852
Bliss Robert 1850
Bliss William Root 1850
Blodgett George Reddington 1884
Blue Linden S. 1958
Boasberg III Emanuel 1956
Bockrath, Jr. Richard C. 1961
Bockstoce John R. 1966
Bodman William Camp 1959
Boies Charles Alred 1860
Boltwood Edward 1860
Boltwood Edward 1892
Boltwood Thomas Kast 1864
Booth Samuel Albert 1884
Booth Wilbur Franklin 1884
Borden Matthew Chaloner Durfee 1864
Boren David Lyle 1963
Bottum Elisha Slocum 1876
Boulos (Bouliaratis) William M. 1947
Bouscaren Michael Frederic 1969
Bowers Lloyd Wheaton 1879
Bowle, Jr. William Carter 1961
Bowles Henry Thornton 1899
Bowles John Eliot 1935
Bowman Ralph David 1957
Boyd Francis T. 1912
Boyden Henry Paine 1864
Bradford Amory Howe 1934
Bradford Arthur Howe 1905
Bradford Timothy McFall 1967
Bradley Charles Harvey 1921
Brand James 1866
Brandegee Augustus 1849
Brandegee Frank Bosworth 1885
Brandt John Henry 1962
Breed Edward Andrews 1844
Breen J. Gerald 1950
Bremmer Samuel Kimball 1886
Breslau Jonathan 1982
Brewster Benjamin 1882
Brewster Chauncey Bunce 1868
Brewster Walter Rice 1921
Brewster IV James Henry 1962
Brickell James Noaille 1845
Bridgman John Cloyse 1885
Brinsmade Horatio Walsh 1851
Brisrin John Ball 1846
Bristol Louis Henry 1859
Brodhead Henry 1859
Bronson David Bennet 1947
Bronson James Davis 1926
Brooke Frederick Hiester 1899
Brooke George Clymer 1897
Brooke, Jr. Frederick H. 1937
Brooks Henry Stanford 1885
Brooks James Wilton 1875
Brooks John Edward 1865
Brooks Peter Moody 1983
Brooks Tristam Anthony 1982
Brooks Walter 1877
Brown Alexander 1896
Brown Alexander Lardner 1869
Brown Christopher Walworth 1968
Brown George Clifford 1966
Brown Henry Armitt 1865
Brown Hubert Sanford 1861
Brown Jamot 1899
Brown John Mason 1856
Brown Joseph Venen 1842
Brown Robert Nelson 1979
Brown Samuel Taylor Glover 1944
Brown Walter Henderson 1945W
Brown William Scott 1970
Brubaker James Robert 1977
Brubaker John Kim 1976
Bruce Donald 1906
Bryan James Taylor 1971
Bryan, Jr. L. Thomas 1955
Buchanan Thomas Walter 1889
Buck III Charles Henry 1969
Buckland Joseph Payson 1857
Buckley Fercus Reid 1952
Buckley James Lane 1944
Buckley, Jr. William Frank 1950
Buckner Mortimer Norton 1895
Bulkey Jonathan Ogden 1923
Bulkey Tuzar 1865
Bull Cornelius Wade 1863
Bullock Stanton B. 1981
Bumstead Nathaniel Willis 1855
Bundy Frederick McGeorge 1921
Bundy Harvey Hollister 1909
Bundy Hollister 1909
Bundy McGeorge 1940
Bundy William Putman 1939
Bunnell Phil W. 1927
Burch Robert Boyd 1909
Burke III James Eugene 1975
Burke, Jr. Charles Clinton 1937
Burkus Gregory James 1982
Burnham Curtis Field 1840
Burpee Charles Winslow 1883
Burpee Lucien Francis 1879
Burr William Shedden 1834
Burr II Charles B. 1962
Burrell Joseph Dunn 1881
Burtt Edwin Authur 1915
Bush Derek C. 1967
Bush George Herbert Walker 1948
Bush George Walker 1968
Bush James S. 1922
Bush Jonathan 1953
Bush Prescott Sheldon 1917
Bushnell Samuel Clarke 1874
Bushnell William Benedick 1865
Butler Francis Eugene 1857
Butler John Haskell 1863
Butterworth Frank Seiler 1895
Buttles Albert Barnes 1842
Cable Benjamin Stickney 1895
Caldwell Samuel Smith 1933
Calhoun Governeur 1891
Callahan Hugh Andrew 1899
Came Charles Green 1849
Camp Arthur Goodwin 1907
Camp Clinton 1850
Camp Stuart Brown 1900
Camp Walter 1880
Campbell Alan Barnette 1919
Campbell Charles Soutter 1909
Campbell Gavin Elliott 1982
Campbell James 1849
Campbell James Alexander 1882
Campbell Kimberly C. 1981
Campbell Treat 1878
Campbell William Harvey Wilson 1856
Cangelosi Russell Joseph 1972
Capozzalo Douglas Daniel 1976
Capron Paul 1960
Capron Samuel Mills 1853
Carey John 1945W
Carlisle James Mandeville 1901
Carlsen Ray Allen 1957
Carlsson Mats Erik 1981
Carpenter George Boone 1902
Carpenter Robert John 1859
Carter Charles Francis 1878
Carter Edwin Osgood 1837
Carter Frederic Dewhurst 1919
Carter Lyon 1915
Carter Walter Frederick 1895
Case George Bowen 1894
Case, Jr. Philip Benham 1970
Caskey Taliaferro Franklin 1865
Casscells Christopher Dyson 1976
Cassel John A. 1958
Caukins, Jr. George Peck 1943
Caulkins John Erwin 1948
Cerveris Michael Ernest 1983
Chadwick George Brewster 1903
Chafee John Hubbard 1947
Chamberlain Daniel Henry 1862
Chamberlain Leander Trowbridge 1863
Chamberlain Robert Linton 1861
Chambers William Lyon 1843
Chandler William Henry 1839
Chapin Charles Frederick 1877
Charney Charles Meigs 1865
Chase Henry 1850
Chauvenet William 1840
Cheney Clifford Dudley 1898
Cheney Frank Dexter 1900
Cheney Howell 1892
Cheney Philip 1901
Cheney Ronald Lawton 1958
Cheney Russell 1904
Cheney Thomas Langdon 1901
Cheney Ward 1896
Cheney, Jr. Knight Dexter 1892
Chester Carl Thurston 1875
Chibundu Maxwell O. 1980
Child Linus Mason 1855
Childs Starling Winston 1976
Chimenti Norman Victor 1962
Chittenden George Hastings 1939
Choa Christopher James 1981
Chouteau Rene Auguste 1942
Christian Henry Hall 1901
Cirie John A. 1964
Clark Albert Barnes 1864
Clark Alexander Ray 1895
Clark Avery Artison 1909
Clark Charles Hopkins 1871
Clark Douglas Wells 1972
Clark Gerald Holland 1965
Clark Harold Terry 1903
Clark J. Bruce 1978
Clark Stephen Edward 1965
Clark Thomas W. 1961
Clark William Judkins 1948
Clark, Jr. R. Inslee 1957
Clarke Thomas Slidell 1875
Clarke William Barker 1849
Claude, Jr. Abram 1952
Clay Alexander Stephens 1964
Clay Cassius Marcellus 1918
Clay Green 1859
Clay Jesse Loring 1963
Clay Lowell Melcher 1939
Clay Timothy J. 1965
Clucas Lowell Melcher 1939
Cobb Henry Nitche 1855
Cochran Thomas 1904
Cochran Thomas 1894
Coe Edward Benton 1862
Coe Robert Elmer 1872
Coffin Edmund 1866
Coffin Henry Sloan 1897
Coffin James 1868
Coffin William Sloane 1949
Coffin, Jr. William Sloan 1949
Coffing Churchill 1834
Coggins Daniel Seton 1964
Cogswell John M. 1961
Cohen Kenneth Saul 1968
Cohen Robert Lewis 1974
Coit Joshua 1853
Coit William 1837
Coke, Jr. Henry C. 1926
Cole Hamilton 1866
Coleman John Caldwell 1881
Colgate Henry Auchincloss 1913
Collier Samuel (Sam) Carnes 1935
Collin Frederick 1871
Collin William Welch 1877
Colt LeBaron Bradford 1868
Colton Henry Martin 1848
Colton Willis Strong 1850
Condit Albert Pierson 1850
Condit Charles 1848
Condit Stephen 1856
Connelly, Jr. William James 1948
Connick Andrew Jackson 1952
Connick Louis 1945
Connor Lemuel Parker 1845
Connor William Gustine 1845
Connors David Michael 1974
Connors James Joseph 1959
Converse George Sherman 1850
Conway, Jr. Joseph Leo 1981
Cook Robert Johnston 1876
Cook II George 1945
Cook III George 1948
Cooke Eldridge Clinton 1877
Cooke Francis Judd 1933
Cooke James Barclay 1893
Cooke John Parick 1959
Cooke Robert Barbour 1936
Cooke Walter Evans 1895
Cooley Harlan Ward 1888
Coombs Orde Musgrave 1965
Coon John 1847
Cooper Carnell 1977
Cooper Henry Sage Fenimore 1917
Cooper Jacob 1852
Cooper John Sherman 1923
Cooper William Frierson 1838
Corbin William Herbert 1889
Corey Alan Lyle 1911
Corey III Alan Lyle 1965
Cornell Thomas Hilary 1915
Corning Erastus 1903
Cornish, Jr. Percy Gillette 1914
Cortelyou, Jr. George Bruce 1913
Corwin Robert Nelson 1887
Corwith John White 1890
Cosgrove Thomas Francis 1969
Costikyan Granger 1929
Cowdry Rex William 1968
Cowles Alfred 1913
Cowles Alfred 1886
Cowles William Hutchinson 1887
Cowles William Sheffield 1921
Cowles III Alfred 1913
Cox John Joughin 1891
Coxe Alexander Brown 1887
Coy Edward Harris 1910
Coy Sherman Lockwood 1901
Crampton Rufus Cowles 1851
Crane, Jr. Winthrop Murray 1904
Crapo Stanford Tappan 1886
Crapo William Wallace 1852
Crawley Brian Scott 1964
Cressler Alfred Miller 1902
Crile, Jr. George 1929
Crosby Albert Hastings 1922
Crosby Henry Stetson 1926
Crosby John 1890
Crosby, Jr. Benjamin Lewis 1892
Cross Alan W. 1966
Cross John Walter 1900
Cross Richard James 1937
Cross Walter Snell 1904
Cross William R. 1941
Cross William Redmond 1896
Croxton John Thomas 1857
Cruikshank, Jr. Paul Fessenden 1952
Crump John 1833
Csar Michael F. 1972
Cunningham Hugh Terry 1934
Cunningham Oliver Baty 1917
Curtin Francis Clare 1935
Curtis George Louis 1878
Cushing Charles Cyprian Strong 1902
Cushing William Lee 1872
Cushman Charles W. 1957
Cushman Isaac LaFayette 1845
Cushman, Jr. Lt. Gen. Robert E. 1958
Cutler Benjamin Crawford 1926
Cutler Carroll 1854
D'Avanzo Louis A. 1956
Daggett Oliver Ellsworth
Dahl George 1908
Dalby Michael Thomas 1966
Dale, Jr. Edwin Lyon 1945
Daly Frederick Joseph 1911
Dana William Buck 1851
Dana James Dwight
Daniels Forest Leonard 1907
Daniels John H. 1943
Daniels Joseph Leonard 1860
Daniels Rensselaer Wilkinson 1873
Daniels Thomas Leonard 1914
Danielson Richard Ely 1907
Darling Arthur Burr 1916
Darling Thomas 1836
Davenport Bradfute Warwick 1938
Davenport George Leovy 1980
Davenport John A. 1926
Davenport Russell Wheeler 1923
Davenport Stephen Rintoul 1915
Davies Philip Turner 1976
Davies Thomas Frederick 1853
Davies Thomas Frederick 1894
Davis Benjamin 1895
Davis Benjamin Franklin 1833
Davis Clinton Wildes 1911
Davis John 1835
Davis Lowndes Henry 1860
Davis Richard Marden 1933
Davis Robert Stewart 1860
Davis Walter Goodwin 1908
Davis II Horace Webber 1936
Davison Daniel Pomeroy 1949
Davison Endicott Peabody 1945
Davison Frederick Trubee 1918
Davison Harry Pomeroy 1920
Davison Henry Pomeroy 1920
Dawes Chester Mitchell 1876
Day Arthur Pomeroy 1890
Day Clive 1892
Day Dwight Huntington 1899
Day Huntington T. 1923
Day John Calvin 1857
Day Melville Cox 1862
Day Robert Webster 1875
Day Sherwood Sunderland 1911
Day Thomas Mills 1837
Day Thomas Mills 1886
Day William Edwards 1902
Day Henry N
Deans Robert Barr 1918
Dechert Henry Martyn 1850
Decker, Jr. Edmund Lockwood 1929
DeForest Stephen Elliott 1955
Demaree II Frank Edward 1969
Deming Charles Clerc 1872
Deming Henry Champion 1872
Deming Henry Champion 1836
Deming Lawrence Clerc 1883
Dempsey Andrew Squire 1956
Dempsey John Bourne 1911
Dempsey, Jr. James Howard 1938
Denegre Thomas Bayne 1915
DeNeufville John Phillip 1961
Denison Lindsay 1895
Dennis Frederic Shepard 1872
Denny Thomas 1854
Denslow Herbert McKenzie 1873
Dent Henry Hatch 1836
Depew Canson Goodyear 1919
Depew Chauncey Mitchell 1856
DeSa Pompeo Ascenco 1841
DeSibour Jules Henri 1896
DeSilver Albert 1910
Desjardins Peter Earl 1965
Devlin Michael William 1982
Devor, Jr Donald S. 1941
DeVore Mark Samuel 1980
Dexter Franklin Bowditch 1861
Dexter Morton 1867
Diamond Peter C. 1974
Dickinson Arthur 1856
Diller John Cabot 1924
Dilworth George Toby 1980
Dilworth Joseph Richardson 1938
Dimock Henry Farnam 1863
Dines Tyson 1908
Dixon Theodore Polehemus 1907
Dixon William Palmer 1868
Doane John Wesley 1891
Dodd Albert 1838
Dodge Francis Talmage 1904
Dodge Philip Lyndon 1907
Dodge Washington 1929
Dominick David DeWitt 1960
Dominick Gayer Gardner 1909
Donaldson William Henry 1953
Donnelley Gaylord 1931
Donnelley Reuben H. 1889
Donnelley Richard Robert 1889
Donnelley Thomas Elliott 1889
Doolittle Duncan Hunter 1943
Douglas Malcolm 1900
Douglass Willard Robinson 1887
Dousman Louis deVierville 1906
Dowling Brian J. 1969
Downing III Earl S. 1970
Doyle, Jr. Thomas James 1974
Drain Richard Dale 1943
Draper Arthur Joy 1937
Draper III William H. 1950
Dreisbach John Martin 1903
DuBois John Jay 1867
Dunham George Elliott 1859
Dunham, Jr. Lawrence Boardman 1938
Dunn George J. 1957
Dunning Rev. Albert Elijah 1867
Dunwody James Bulloch 1836
Durfee, Jr. C. Gibson 1956
Durham II Edwin A. 1953
Duryee Samuel Sloan 1917
Dutton Samuel W.S.
Dwight Timothy 1849
Dwight Winthrop Edwards 1893
Dyess Arthur Delma 1939
Eakin Emmet Alexander 1856
Eakin William Spencer 1846
Eames Benjamin Tucker 1843
Early Hobart Evans 1945
Eaton Samuel Lewis 1877
Eaton Sherburne Blake 1862
Ecklund John E. 1938
Eddy Maxon Hunter 1929
Eden John W. 1951
Edozien Anthony O. 1979
Edwards Alfred Lewis 1857
Edwards George Benjamin 1878
Edwards Newton 1842
Edwards Richard Henry 1901
Eels John Shepard 1901
Eichelberger Martin Smyser 1858
Eisenberg Bruce Alan 1974
Eisler Colin Tobias 1952
Ekfelt Richard (Dick) Henry 1971
Elder Samuel James 1873
Eldridge Charles St. John 1839
Elebash Shehand Daniel 1944
Elliot Henry Rutherford 1871
Elliot William Horace 1844
Ellis Garrison McClintock Noel 1951
Ellis Harland Montgomery 1930
Ellis Raymond Walleser 1930
Ellis, Jr. Alexander 1944
Ellis, Jr. F. Henry 1941
Ellis, Jr. G. Corson 1951
Ellsworth John Stoughton 1905
Elwell, Jr. Francis Bolton 1945
Ely Grosvenor 1906
Embersits John Frank 1958
Emerson Alfred 1834
Emerson Christy Payne 1953
Emerson Joseph 1841
Emerson Samuel 1848
English, Jr. William Deshay 1975
Eno John Chester 1869
Eno Wiliam Phelps 1882
Ercklentz Alexander Tonio 1959
Erickson Thomas Franklin 1940
Ernst Frederick Vincent 1960
Erskine, Jr. Albert DeW. 1930
Esselstyn Erik Canfield 1959
Esselstyn, Jr. Caldwell Blakesman 1956
Estill Joe Garner 1891
Esty Constantine Canaris 1845
Etra Donald 1968
Eustis William Tappan 1841
Evans Evan Wilhelm 1851
Evans Peter Seelye 1972
Evans T. Boyd 1954
Evarts Maxwell 1884
Evarts Sherman 1881
Evarts William Maxwell 1837
Ewell John Lewis 1865
Ewing Sherman 1924
Eyre Lawrence L. 1970
Farnam Charles Henry 1868
Farnam Henry Walcott 1874
Farnam John Dorrance 1890
Farnam William Whitman 1866
Farrar John Chipman 1918
Faulkner Endress 1839
Fearey Morton Lazell 1898
Fehr Gerald F. 1955
Feinerman James Vincent 1971
Felder John Henry 1844
Fenn William Henry 1854
Ferguson Alfred Ludlow 1902
Ferguson James Lord 1944
Ferguson, Jr. Alfred L. 1926
Ferry Orris Sanford 1844
Fetner Philip Jay 1965
FewSmith William 1844
Field David Irvine 1841
Field John Warner 1937
Finch Francis Miles 1849
Fincke Clarence Mann 1897
Finley John George Gilpin 1947
Finney C. Roger 1973
Finney Graham Stanley 1952
Finney John Warren 1945W
Fischer Louis Christopher 1856
Fish Stuyvesant 1905
Fisher Irving 1888
Fisher Samuel Herbert 1889
Fisher Scott B. 1972
Fisher George Park
Fishwick Dwight Brown 1928
Fisk Samuel Augustus 1844
Fisk Stuart Wilkins 1840
Fitch George Hopper 1932
Fitch James 1847
Flagg Wilbur Wells 1873
Flanders Henry Richmond 1885
Fleming Andrew T. 1980
Fleming William Stuart 1838
Fletcher Alexander Charles 1933
Flynn Alexander Rex 1906
Folsom Charles Seward 1883
Foote Charles Seward 1883
Foote Harry Ward 1866
Foote Joseph Forward 1850
Foote Thaddeus 1844
Ford George Tod 1865
Ford William 1942
Fore John Arthur 1979
Fort Donald Kenneth 1976
Fortgang Jeffrey 1971
Fortunato S. Joseph 1954
Foster David John 1967
Foster Dwight 1848
Foster Eleazar Kingsbury 1834
Foster George Forris 1879
Foster John Pierrepont 1869
Foster Joseph Taylor 1908
Foster Maxwell E. 1923
Foster Reginald 1884
Foster Roger 1878
Fowler Charles Newell 1876
Fowler Horace Webster 1863
Fowler William 1860
Fox Joseph Carrere 1938
Franchot Charles Pascal 1910
Francis Samuel Hopkins 1964
Frank Clinton E. 1938
Frank III Charles Augustus 1963
Frank, Jr. Victor H. 1950
Franklin Richard David 1983
Fredericks Joel Richard 1977
Freeman Henry Varnum 1869
French Asa Palmer 1882
French Robert Dudley 1910
Friedland Johnathan David 1970
Fritzche Peter B. 1957
Frost Elihu Brintnal 1883
Frost, Jr. Albert Carl 1922
Fuller Henry W. 1969
Fuller Philo Carroll 1881
Fuller Stanley Evert 1935
Fuller William Henry 1861
Fulton Robert Brank 1932
Furbish Edward Brown 1860
Gachel Charles Nicholas 1843
Gage Charles Stafford 1925
Gaillard Edward McCrady 1919
Gaillard, Jr. Samuel Gourdin 1916
Gaines Edwin Frank 1975
Gaines Milton J. 1956
Galbraith Evan Griffith 1950
Gale Frederick Scott 1983
Gallaudet Edson Fessenden 1893
Gallaudet Herbert Draper 1898
Gallico III G. Gregory 1968
Galvin Michael Gerard 1971
Gammell Arthur Amory 1911
Gardner Robert Abbe 1912
Garfield Newell 1918
Garnsey Walter Wood 1930
Garnsey William Herrick 1960
Garnsey William Smith 1933
Garnsey, Jr. Walter W. 1967
Garrison Elisha Ely 1897
Garvey John Joseph 1929
Gates Artemis L. 1918
Gates Edward Raymond 1976
Gerard Sumner 1897
Gibbs Josiah Willard
Gibson, Jr. Richard Channing 1976
Giegengack, Jr. Robert F. 1960
Gifford Richard C. 1954
Gile Clement D. 1939
Gile Clement Moses 1914
Gile Lawrence Maclester 1978
Gill B. 1936
Gill Brendan 1963
Gill Charles Otis 1889
Gill George Metcalf 1888
Gill Michael Gates 1963
Gillespie Kenrick S. 1929
Gillespie, Jr. S. Hazard 1932
Gillette Augustus Canfield 1841
Gillette Curtenius 1897
Gillette, Jr. Howard Frank 1964
Gilman Daniel Coit 1852
Gisen, Jr. Arthur R. 1954
Glaenzer Georges Brette 1907
Gleason William Henry 1853
Glover III Charles Carroll 1940
Goedecke William Skinner 1947
Goldberg Richard Julius 1977
Gonzalez Timoteo F. 1974
Goodenough John Bannister 1944
Goodyear Robert M. 1949
Gordon Alexander Blucher 1834
Gordon Edward McGuire 1938
Gordon George Arthur 1934
Gould Anthony 1877
Gould James 1918
Gould James Gardner 1845
Gow Robert Haigh 1955
Grammar Christopher 1843
Grandine Thomas Allan 1981
Granger Gideon 1843
Granger John Albert 1855
Grant Edward Dromgoole 1858
Graves Henry Solon 1892
Graves William Phillips 1891
Graves, Jr. Earl Gilbert 1984
Grayson James Gordon 1940
Grayson William Cabell 1944
Grayson, Jr. Cary Travers 1942
Grayson, Jr. William Cabell 1977
Gready William Postell 1842
Green Benjamin P. 1973
Green Charles Grady 1955
Green Edmund Frank 1880
Green Henry Sherwood 1879
Green James Payne 1857
Green Rudolph 1975
Greenberg Stephen David 1970
Greene Waldo Wittenmyer 1930
Greenway James Cowan 1900
Gregory Daniel Seelye
Griggs John Cornelius 1889
Griggs Maitland Fuller 1896
Griggs, Jr. Herbert Stanton 1928
Grimes David Charles 1948
Griswold Dwight Torrey 1908
Griswold William Edward Schenck 1899
Grove Manasses Jacob 1929
Grover Thomas Williams 1874
Growel Alfred 1853
Grubb Charles Ross 1873
Gruener Gustav 1884
Guernsey Raymond Gano 1902
Guidotti Hugh G. 1955
Guinzburg Thomas Henry 1950
Gulliver Henry Strong 1875
Gulliver William Curtis 1870
Guthrie Robert K. 1968
Gwin Samuel Lawrence 1930
Gwin, Jr. Samuel Lawrence 1963
Haas Frederick Peter 1935
Hadden Briton 1920
Hadley Arthur Twining 1876
Hadley Hamilton 1919
Hadley Morris 1916
Hadley James
Haffner, Jr. Charles C. 1919
Haight Ducald Cameron 1847
Haight George Winthrop 1928
Haight, Jr. Charles S. 1952
Haines Thomas Frederick David 1924
Haldeman Richard Jacobs 1851
Hale, Jr. Eugene 1898
Hall Daniel Emerson 1834
Hall Edward Tuck 1941
Hall Jesse Angell 1936
Hall John Loomer 1894
Hall John Manning 1866
Hall Robert A. 1930
Hall William Kittredge 1859
Hall, Jr. Frederick Bagry 1933


Latest Publications From The Babylon Observer Forum


In case the article(s) on this page was quoted from another source, the two following statements apply:
-1- Fair Use policy applies since the quote is for non-profit educational and research purposes only. For more information, go to:
-2- The Babylon Observer has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of the articles nor is The Babylon Observer endorsed or sponsored by the originator.