USA Today: Pentagon Fails to Learn from Gulf War Illnesses
Citizens' Initiative Omega | 17.07.2003 13:34 | Anti-militarism | Globalisation | Repression | London | World
Anger at advisers' biotech links - Supreme Court Preemption decision - Bush's Lies Unraveling - Bush's Lies to Start War: "A Firm Basis for Impeachment" - Cheney Under Pressure to Quit Over False War Evidence - US faces 'Iraqi guerrilla war'
Anger at advisers' biotech links
--------------------------------
In message #536 I suggested to a possible conflict of interest in having a Motorola radiation expert as a radiation/health consultant on the NH&MRC's expert committee on electromagnetic energy. The following article from the UK Observer further explores concerns over scientists with industry links dominating expert committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops.
Its no different in Australia. One only needs to look at the membership of most of the Australian standards setting committees to get a list of whos-who in industry land.
Don
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,997205,00.html
Anger at advisers' biotech links
Dossier reveals Ministers' worries over connections between science experts and leading drugs firms
Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend
Sunday July 13, 2003
Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues have close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by The Observer.
Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists' commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.
- A key member of the committee advising Ministers on the safety of GM products has received research funding from biotech giants Monsanto and Syngenta. Professor Phil Mullineaux also works for the John Innes Centre - the GM research centre funded by Science Minister Lord Sainsbury;
- More than three-quarters of the members of the committee which advises Ministers on food safety have direct links to major food companies and drug giants including Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Syngenta. Its chair, Professor Ieuan Hughes, has personal interests in Pharmacia - which in April was bought by Pfizer to create the biggest drugs company in the world - and owns shares in BP Amoco where his daughter works.
- A former deputy chairman of the committee which examines the safety of pesticides, Professor Alan Boobis, received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline for his department at Imperial College but never declared it. Other members of this committee have links to agrochemical firms like Aventis, Astra Zeneca and Monsanto. The current head of the body, Professor David Coggon, was a close friend of Esso's chief medical officer and received a gift from the oil giant.
- The chair of a group examining air quality in Britain, Professor Stephen Holgate, is a consultant to drug giant Merck. His university department has received grants from Glaxo and Astra Zeneca. Others work for biotech and drug giants like Novartis and Schering-Plough.
- Almost three out of four members of the committee advising Ministers on the cancer risks of chemicals in food and other consumer products either own shares in or work for major biotech and drug corporations;
While the scientists openly declare their interests, Meacher was so exasperated by the structure of committees advising him that he personally intervened on a number of occasions in an attempt to get more environmentally friendly members on them.
Last week it emerged that Whitty was so alarmed about the industry links on the committee advising him on the safety of farming chemicals that he broke official rules and hired a toxicologist, Dr Vyvyan Howard, who is known to be more sensitive to environmental issues.
In one internal Defra document, Meacher scribbled his concerns in the margins: 'I do not agree with this. No member of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides should have current commercial considerations because this fundamentally undermines their integrity and judgement.'
Alongside his comments, a government official admits that Whitty shares his concerns and will be writing to the relevant parties to make his concerns clear.
Last night Meacher told The Observer: 'These committees are absolutely critical. They give definitive advice which Ministers at their peril seek to overturn. I constantly argued that nobody with significant commercial links should be allowed to sit on these bodies. It is vital they are truly independent.'
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry.'
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.
He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'
The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any scientists of international repute will have some current or past links with industry.
'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few shares in a company is ridiculous.'
Informant: Don Maisch
--------
Re: Books and refs on understanding EMF....and the chemical connection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy, Iris, and all:
Good book refs Iris!!
For background and understanding the natural and artificial exposure reasons why EMF/Chem sensitivities exist (usually both together) take a look at these additional two books, which I have found as probably the best general explanation info which supports and updates Dr. Becker's excellent earlier work "The Body Electric"..
Oschman, J.L., "Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis," Harcourt Brace/Churchhill, Edinburgh Livingstone, Spring 2000. NOTE: THIS BOOK, AT $40, from Amazon.com IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AS AN EXCELLENT, EASILY UNDERSTOOD, OVERVIEW OF NATURAL, KNOWN ENERGY FORCES AND THE PART THEY PLAY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF NORMAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING.
Ho, Mae-Wan, "The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms", 2nd Edition, World Scientific Pub.Co., 1998.
NOTE: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AS AN EXCELLENT OVERVIEW OF NATURAL, KNOWN ENERGY FORCES (EMFs, MFs, LIQUID CRYSTALS) AND THE PART THEY PLAY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF NORMAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING.....about $20 from Amazon.com....well worth the buy....a bit more technical than Oschman's book, above, but one can skip the formulas.
Some additional refs, general info and available detailed publications/CD, from my 40 yrs collecting data in this area, may be found on my website www.emfinterface.com
Regards to all,
Jim Beal
EMF Interface Consulting
EMFEFFECTS@aol.com
www.emfinterface.com
--------
RE: HAARP - A CHUNK OF THE IONOSPHERE is blown out into space
---------------------------------------------------------
EGroup and Friends (excerpt)
This was posted by someone on my discussion group and the entire article is here below - part of it in a zipped file attached. This confidential report goes right along with, and unfortunately supports, the material in Scalar Wars
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm
that I sent the day before yesterday.
Neill
Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/message/31993
--------
Supreme Court Preemption decision
----------------------------------
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-306.pdf
Judge Catherine Blake who is overseeing the RF cell phone health lawsuits has asked counsel in the several cell phone headset cases to respond taking this new Supreme Court decision into account. She has yet to rule whether to remand the cell phone headset cases back to state court. Her inclination so far has been to keep those cases in federal court and hold that federal regulation of radiofrequency radiation overrules state product liability arguments.
RCR Wireless News
Supreme Court ruling may impact health lawsuits
by JEFFREY SILVA
July 14, 2003
WASHINGTON-A Supreme Court ruling has thrown into question whether brain cancer and health-related consumer lawsuits currently pending in federal court should be sent back to state court, a venue mobile-phone carriers and equipment manufacturers have managed to largely avoid to date.
In health lawsuits, scientific evidence is critical. But so is jurisdiction. Industry has put together a string of victories in court cases by making persuasive scientific arguments and removing state lawsuits to federal court, which has proved legally advantageous to lawyers defending wireless firms.
The dynamics of health litigation could drastically change if the wireless industry cannot keep the cases in federal court. The chances of wireless health lawsuits returning to state courts, however, appear relatively small. But such a scenario remains a possibility. All pending wireless health lawsuits, except for one in Las Vegas, reside in one federal court or another.
At a minimum, the immediate impact of the high court's June 2 ruling in Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson could be to freeze for months proceedings-including consideration of scientific evidence on medical causation-in nine brain cancer lawsuits against industry overseen by U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake in Baltimore.
Blake is poised to rule on pending motions to remand the nine lawsuits to various state courts where they were first filed.
Blake solicited comment June 6 on whether to halt further action in the nine brain cancer lawsuits until a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., rules on health-related litigation involving issues of jurisdiction.
Blake's previously strongly held wireless health claims give rise to a federal question that does not belong in state court, saying some lawsuits "amounted to a disguised attack on the validity and sufficiency of federal safety regulations regarding cell phones."
Indeed, in addition to the nine cancer cases in Blake's court, the ruling also has implications for five class-action lawsuits dismissed by Blake in March and on appeal in federal circuit court in Richmond, Va.
The class actions on appeal, originally filed in state court, see damages on the theory that wireless carriers should have warned consumers about potential health risks from mobile phones and supplied them with headsets to protect against possible radiation injury.
The plaintiffs' opening brief in the headset cases was to have been filed today, but the court granted an extension to Aug. 1.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond is also entertaining the $800 million lawsuit that began in a Maryland state court before being transferred to Blake, who dismissed the suit for lack of scientific evidence last fall. Oral argument in the case is set for September.
Beneficial involves a lawsuit filed in state court against a national bank by parties who argued interest rates on loans from the bank were excessive and violated the common law usury doctrine. Bank lawyers had the lawsuit moved from state court to federal court. A federal court rejected a motion to remand the case to state court. But the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the lawsuit was improperly moved from state court to federal court.
A Supreme Court majority (7-2) thought otherwise and ruled "the cause of action arose only under federal law and could, therefore, be removed" to federal court.
Both plaintiffs and industry defendants in wireless health lawsuits said the Supreme Court's decision in Beneficial favor them on the jurisdictional issue.
"The complaints in these actions ... not only conflict with federal law, but also intrude directly on a limited field-the technical aspects of radio transmission and the regulatory of RF [radio-frequency] emissions from licensed radio equipment-governed exclusively and pre-empted completely by federal law. The complaints thus trigger not only the blocking effect of ordinary pre-emption, but also the displacing effect that the Beneficial court recognized is the essence of complete pre-emption," wireless firms stated in a June 20 letter to Blake.
Industry lawyers told Blake they favor a stay of proceedings in the nine brain cancer cases before her until the 4th Circuit rules on the headset appeal.
Lawyers for Sarah Dahlgren, one of nine plaintiffs in brain cancer lawsuits before Blake, have a different take on the Supreme Court ruling in Beneficial.
"Unlike the non-existent state usury claims asserted in Beneficial, the statue cited by defendants in Dahlgren as the basis for federal question jurisdiction (the Federal Communications Act), provides neither a prescribed remedy for the damages alleged in the Dahlgren complaint or any ordained procedure for obtaining relief. Indeed, far from implying complete pre-emption, the FCA contains a savings clause that expressly preserves state law causes of action such as those contained in the Dahlgren complaint," stated Dahlgren's attorneys. The lawyers oppose delaying the case.
In a blistering dissenting opinion penned by Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, in which Judge Clarence Thomas joined, Scalia stated: "The proper response to the presentation of a nonexistent claim to a state court is dismissal, not the `federalize-and-remove' dance authorized by today's
opinion."
Janet Newton
The EMR Policy Institute, P.O. Box 117, Marshfield VT 05658
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: www.emrpolicy.org
--------
USA Today: Pentagon Fails to Learn from Gulf War Illnesses
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=883
Fox News Reporter: Bush's Lies Unraveling
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=885
More Big Lies Exposed in Bush Speech
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=890
Bush's Mis-State-Ment Of The Union Fiasco
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/071603.html
Bush's Lies to Start War: "A Firm Basis for Impeachment"
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=887
Cheney Under Pressure to Quit Over False War Evidence
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=892
--------
US faces 'Iraqi guerrilla war'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3072899.stm
Informant: George Paxinos
--------------------------------
In message #536 I suggested to a possible conflict of interest in having a Motorola radiation expert as a radiation/health consultant on the NH&MRC's expert committee on electromagnetic energy. The following article from the UK Observer further explores concerns over scientists with industry links dominating expert committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops.
Its no different in Australia. One only needs to look at the membership of most of the Australian standards setting committees to get a list of whos-who in industry land.
Don
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,997205,00.html Anger at advisers' biotech links
Dossier reveals Ministers' worries over connections between science experts and leading drugs firms
Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend
Sunday July 13, 2003
Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues have close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by The Observer.
Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists' commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.
- A key member of the committee advising Ministers on the safety of GM products has received research funding from biotech giants Monsanto and Syngenta. Professor Phil Mullineaux also works for the John Innes Centre - the GM research centre funded by Science Minister Lord Sainsbury;
- More than three-quarters of the members of the committee which advises Ministers on food safety have direct links to major food companies and drug giants including Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Syngenta. Its chair, Professor Ieuan Hughes, has personal interests in Pharmacia - which in April was bought by Pfizer to create the biggest drugs company in the world - and owns shares in BP Amoco where his daughter works.
- A former deputy chairman of the committee which examines the safety of pesticides, Professor Alan Boobis, received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline for his department at Imperial College but never declared it. Other members of this committee have links to agrochemical firms like Aventis, Astra Zeneca and Monsanto. The current head of the body, Professor David Coggon, was a close friend of Esso's chief medical officer and received a gift from the oil giant.
- The chair of a group examining air quality in Britain, Professor Stephen Holgate, is a consultant to drug giant Merck. His university department has received grants from Glaxo and Astra Zeneca. Others work for biotech and drug giants like Novartis and Schering-Plough.
- Almost three out of four members of the committee advising Ministers on the cancer risks of chemicals in food and other consumer products either own shares in or work for major biotech and drug corporations;
While the scientists openly declare their interests, Meacher was so exasperated by the structure of committees advising him that he personally intervened on a number of occasions in an attempt to get more environmentally friendly members on them.
Last week it emerged that Whitty was so alarmed about the industry links on the committee advising him on the safety of farming chemicals that he broke official rules and hired a toxicologist, Dr Vyvyan Howard, who is known to be more sensitive to environmental issues.
In one internal Defra document, Meacher scribbled his concerns in the margins: 'I do not agree with this. No member of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides should have current commercial considerations because this fundamentally undermines their integrity and judgement.'
Alongside his comments, a government official admits that Whitty shares his concerns and will be writing to the relevant parties to make his concerns clear.
Last night Meacher told The Observer: 'These committees are absolutely critical. They give definitive advice which Ministers at their peril seek to overturn. I constantly argued that nobody with significant commercial links should be allowed to sit on these bodies. It is vital they are truly independent.'
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry.'
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.
He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'
The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any scientists of international repute will have some current or past links with industry.
'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few shares in a company is ridiculous.'
Informant: Don Maisch
--------
Re: Books and refs on understanding EMF....and the chemical connection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy, Iris, and all:
Good book refs Iris!!
For background and understanding the natural and artificial exposure reasons why EMF/Chem sensitivities exist (usually both together) take a look at these additional two books, which I have found as probably the best general explanation info which supports and updates Dr. Becker's excellent earlier work "The Body Electric"..
Oschman, J.L., "Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis," Harcourt Brace/Churchhill, Edinburgh Livingstone, Spring 2000. NOTE: THIS BOOK, AT $40, from Amazon.com IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AS AN EXCELLENT, EASILY UNDERSTOOD, OVERVIEW OF NATURAL, KNOWN ENERGY FORCES AND THE PART THEY PLAY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF NORMAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING.
Ho, Mae-Wan, "The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms", 2nd Edition, World Scientific Pub.Co., 1998.
NOTE: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AS AN EXCELLENT OVERVIEW OF NATURAL, KNOWN ENERGY FORCES (EMFs, MFs, LIQUID CRYSTALS) AND THE PART THEY PLAY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF NORMAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING.....about $20 from Amazon.com....well worth the buy....a bit more technical than Oschman's book, above, but one can skip the formulas.
Some additional refs, general info and available detailed publications/CD, from my 40 yrs collecting data in this area, may be found on my website www.emfinterface.com
Regards to all,
Jim Beal
EMF Interface Consulting
EMFEFFECTS@aol.com www.emfinterface.com
--------
RE: HAARP - A CHUNK OF THE IONOSPHERE is blown out into space
---------------------------------------------------------
EGroup and Friends (excerpt)
This was posted by someone on my discussion group and the entire article is here below - part of it in a zipped file attached. This confidential report goes right along with, and unfortunately supports, the material in Scalar Wars
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm that I sent the day before yesterday.
Neill
Source:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/message/31993 --------
Supreme Court Preemption decision
----------------------------------
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-306.pdf Judge Catherine Blake who is overseeing the RF cell phone health lawsuits has asked counsel in the several cell phone headset cases to respond taking this new Supreme Court decision into account. She has yet to rule whether to remand the cell phone headset cases back to state court. Her inclination so far has been to keep those cases in federal court and hold that federal regulation of radiofrequency radiation overrules state product liability arguments.
RCR Wireless News
Supreme Court ruling may impact health lawsuits
by JEFFREY SILVA
July 14, 2003
WASHINGTON-A Supreme Court ruling has thrown into question whether brain cancer and health-related consumer lawsuits currently pending in federal court should be sent back to state court, a venue mobile-phone carriers and equipment manufacturers have managed to largely avoid to date.
In health lawsuits, scientific evidence is critical. But so is jurisdiction. Industry has put together a string of victories in court cases by making persuasive scientific arguments and removing state lawsuits to federal court, which has proved legally advantageous to lawyers defending wireless firms.
The dynamics of health litigation could drastically change if the wireless industry cannot keep the cases in federal court. The chances of wireless health lawsuits returning to state courts, however, appear relatively small. But such a scenario remains a possibility. All pending wireless health lawsuits, except for one in Las Vegas, reside in one federal court or another.
At a minimum, the immediate impact of the high court's June 2 ruling in Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson could be to freeze for months proceedings-including consideration of scientific evidence on medical causation-in nine brain cancer lawsuits against industry overseen by U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake in Baltimore.
Blake is poised to rule on pending motions to remand the nine lawsuits to various state courts where they were first filed.
Blake solicited comment June 6 on whether to halt further action in the nine brain cancer lawsuits until a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., rules on health-related litigation involving issues of jurisdiction.
Blake's previously strongly held wireless health claims give rise to a federal question that does not belong in state court, saying some lawsuits "amounted to a disguised attack on the validity and sufficiency of federal safety regulations regarding cell phones."
Indeed, in addition to the nine cancer cases in Blake's court, the ruling also has implications for five class-action lawsuits dismissed by Blake in March and on appeal in federal circuit court in Richmond, Va.
The class actions on appeal, originally filed in state court, see damages on the theory that wireless carriers should have warned consumers about potential health risks from mobile phones and supplied them with headsets to protect against possible radiation injury.
The plaintiffs' opening brief in the headset cases was to have been filed today, but the court granted an extension to Aug. 1.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond is also entertaining the $800 million lawsuit that began in a Maryland state court before being transferred to Blake, who dismissed the suit for lack of scientific evidence last fall. Oral argument in the case is set for September.
Beneficial involves a lawsuit filed in state court against a national bank by parties who argued interest rates on loans from the bank were excessive and violated the common law usury doctrine. Bank lawyers had the lawsuit moved from state court to federal court. A federal court rejected a motion to remand the case to state court. But the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the lawsuit was improperly moved from state court to federal court.
A Supreme Court majority (7-2) thought otherwise and ruled "the cause of action arose only under federal law and could, therefore, be removed" to federal court.
Both plaintiffs and industry defendants in wireless health lawsuits said the Supreme Court's decision in Beneficial favor them on the jurisdictional issue.
"The complaints in these actions ... not only conflict with federal law, but also intrude directly on a limited field-the technical aspects of radio transmission and the regulatory of RF [radio-frequency] emissions from licensed radio equipment-governed exclusively and pre-empted completely by federal law. The complaints thus trigger not only the blocking effect of ordinary pre-emption, but also the displacing effect that the Beneficial court recognized is the essence of complete pre-emption," wireless firms stated in a June 20 letter to Blake.
Industry lawyers told Blake they favor a stay of proceedings in the nine brain cancer cases before her until the 4th Circuit rules on the headset appeal.
Lawyers for Sarah Dahlgren, one of nine plaintiffs in brain cancer lawsuits before Blake, have a different take on the Supreme Court ruling in Beneficial.
"Unlike the non-existent state usury claims asserted in Beneficial, the statue cited by defendants in Dahlgren as the basis for federal question jurisdiction (the Federal Communications Act), provides neither a prescribed remedy for the damages alleged in the Dahlgren complaint or any ordained procedure for obtaining relief. Indeed, far from implying complete pre-emption, the FCA contains a savings clause that expressly preserves state law causes of action such as those contained in the Dahlgren complaint," stated Dahlgren's attorneys. The lawyers oppose delaying the case.
In a blistering dissenting opinion penned by Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, in which Judge Clarence Thomas joined, Scalia stated: "The proper response to the presentation of a nonexistent claim to a state court is dismissal, not the `federalize-and-remove' dance authorized by today's
opinion."
Janet Newton
The EMR Policy Institute, P.O. Box 117, Marshfield VT 05658
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: www.emrpolicy.org
--------
USA Today: Pentagon Fails to Learn from Gulf War Illnesses
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=883 Fox News Reporter: Bush's Lies Unraveling
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=885 More Big Lies Exposed in Bush Speech
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=890 Bush's Mis-State-Ment Of The Union Fiasco
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/071603.html Bush's Lies to Start War: "A Firm Basis for Impeachment"
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=887 Cheney Under Pressure to Quit Over False War Evidence
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=892 --------
US faces 'Iraqi guerrilla war'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3072899.stm Informant: George Paxinos
Citizens' Initiative Omega
Homepage:
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega241.htm
