Recent Articles in the Creek

---

Navy Releases McCain's Records

USS Forrestal, July 29, 1967 - The worst accident aboard a US Navy surface vessel since WWII

BY WAYNE MADSEN/WAYNE MADSEN REPORT

The Navy released John McCain’s military record after a Freedom of Information Act request from the Associated Press. The record is packed with information on McCain’s medals and commendations but little else. The one thing that the McCain campaign does not want to see released is the record of McCain’s antics on board the USS Forestal in 1967. McCain was personally responsible for the deadliest fire in the history of the US Navy. That catastrophe, with 27 dead and over 100 wounded trumps McCain’s record as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

WMR has learned additional details regarding the deadly fire aboard the Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, on July 19, 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The additional details point to then-Lt. Commander John McCain playing more of a role in triggering the fire and explosions than previously reported.

On January 16, 2006, WMR reported that according to a US Navy sailor who was aboard the Forrestal on the fateful day of the fire, “McCain and the Forrestal’s skipper, Capt. John K. Beling, were warned about the danger of using M-65 1000-lb. bombs manufactured in 1935, which were deemed too dangerous to use during World War II and, later, on B-52 bombers. The fire from the Zuni missle misfire resulted in the heavy 1000 pound bombs being knocked loose from the pylons of McCain’s A-4 aircraft, which were only designed to hold 500-pound bombs.”

WMR further reported, “The unstable bombs had a 60-second cook-off threshold in a fire situation and this warning was known to both Beling and McCain prior to the disaster.” WMR also cited the potential that McCain’s Navy records were used against him by the neo-cons in control of the Pentagon, “The neo-cons, who have had five years to examine every file within the Department of Defense, have likely accessed documents that could prove embarrassing to McCain, who was on board the USS Forrestal on July 29, 1967, and whose A-4 Skyhawk was struck by an air-toground Zuni missile that had misfired from an F-4 Phantom.”

WMR has been informed that crewmen aboard the Forrestal have provided additional information about the Forrestal incident. It is believed by many crewmen and those who have investigated the case that McCain deliberately “wet-started” his A-4E to shake up the guy in the plane behind his A-4. “Wet-starts”, done either deliberately or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.

In McCain’s case, the “wet-start” apparently “cooked off” and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration. “Wet starting” was apparently a common practice among young “hot-dog” pilots.

McCain was quickly transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred). Three months later, McCain was shot down over North Vietnam on October 26, 1967.

As WMR previously reported, at the time of the Forrestal disaster, McCain’s father, Admiral John McCain, Jr., was Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR) and was busy covering up the details of the deadly and pre-meditated June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the NSA spy ship, the USS Liberty.

The fact that both McCains were involved in two incidents just weeks apart that resulted in a total death count of 168 on the Forrestal and the Liberty, with an additional injury count of 234 on both ships (with a number of them later dying from their wounds) with an accompanying classified paper trail inside the Pentagon, may be all that was needed to hold a Sword of Damocles over the head of the “family honor”-oriented McCain by the neo-cons.

WMR has also been informed by knowledgeable sources, including an ex-Navy A-4 pilot, the “wet-start game” was a common occurrence. However, it is between “very unlikely” and “impossible” for the Forrestal “wet start” to have been accidental. “Wet starts” were later rendered impossible by automated engine controls.

Wayne Madsen reports on military and political affairs in Washington at his website, WayneMadsenReport.com

---

Liberal Media Echo White House 9/11 Talking Points

BY SHEILA CASEY / RCFP

When BuzzFlash editor and publisher Mark Karlin dipped his toe into 9/11 waters, he got an earful from his readers. In a May 12 blog post, Karlin states unequivocally that “9/11 was not an inside job,” (although he does concede an 80% probability that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania).

Judging from the comments at http: //www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/ 089, his audience was not impressed. Reader after reader tries to set Karlin straight by presenting pieces from the overwhelming mountain of evidence indicating that we were sold a bill of goods about 9/11. So far Karlin has been silent. If he’s reading the reactions to his post, he gives no sign of it.

Buzzflash is a liberal news site that accepts no advertising and prides itself on being an unadulterated alternative to the whorish mainstream media. It pulls no punches in exposing the mind-boggling awfulness of the current administration— with one major exception. Like almost every other liberal outlet, it gives the Bush administration a free pass on 9/11.

The position of BuzzFlash, AlterNet, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Nation, The Progressive and many other liberal outlets seems to be:

“Bush and Cheney stole the 2000 and 2004 elections and are in office illegitimately. They lied shamelessly to get us into illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in the death and injury of millions of innocents. They are torturing prisoners at Gitmo in violation of the Geneva Conventions. They have decimated the Constitution, abolished habeas corpus, and are in the process of instituting a police state. They directed the Justice Dept. to fire US attorneys who were not considered “good Bushies,” and then covered it up by flatly refusing to submit to Congressional oversight. They have spied on Americans illegally, reading our emails and listening to our phone calls without a court warrant. They let Americans die like rats in the streets of New Orleans and then lied about rebuilding the Gulf coast after Katrina.

“They’re evil. They are devils straight from the bowels of hell. But would they kill US citizens and blame it on Osama bin Laden to create a pretext for war to steal oil in the Middle East? Don’t be ridiculous. They may demonstrate all the wisdom and compassion of Attila the Hun, but surely they wouldn’t murder their ‘own people’ in cold blood. Only wacky conspiracy theorists think that. Certainly not solid, well-established liberal publications like us. Don’t lump us with them.”

Speaking of 9/11 truthers, Manuel Garcia of Counterpunch (Sep. 9, 2006) makes accusations of “wild theories fueled by paranoia,” and states that “conspiracists” “cannot accept” the real reasons for the attack, and instead must “find comfort” in an irrational hypothesis.

Sure, Manuel. It’s much too scary to believe that we were attacked by bearded men hiding in caves nine time zones away. It’s so much more soothing to believe it was our own government, the nexus of which is located just down the road, and which, at its discretion, can label me a terrorist and lock me up indefinitely. It makes me feel so warm and cozy that I tell it to my kids as their bedtime story. Media Matters for America, a nonprofit devoted to correcting conservative disinformation in the media, saw the results of a May 2007 Rasmussen poll, which found that 35% of Democrats believe that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and had only one thought: this makes the Dems look bad. In an article from May 15, 2007, titled “Conservative media tout flawed poll to call Dems 9/11 conspiracy theorists,” Media Matters bends over backwards to excuse the poll results, protesting that the question was ambiguous. They bemoan the opportunity the results gave to right wing commentators to label Dems as “deranged and dangerously uninformed,” and “out of their gourds.” Media Matters faults the pundits for overstating the poll results, but never considers that Dems have nothing to fear from this. Is it so unthinkable that Media Matters might have actually investigated the evidence for themselves and reported that those 35% were so far ahead that they appear to be behind?

Even those who themselves doubt the official 9/11 story take pains to stress that they are not “conspiracy theorists.” In an August 2007 column for The Independent titled “Even I Question the Truth About 9/11,” Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk presents several aspects of the official story that bother him, such as: “What about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose “Islamic” advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comradesin- murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the “Fajr” prayer to be included in Atta’s letter.

Fisk wonders about the long awaited (and still pending) report from NIST about the free fall collapse of WTC 7, and the three al Qaeda “hijackers” who are still alive.

But before going into his doubts, Fisk feels compelled to first differentiate himself from the others who have such doubts. He refers to people who ask him questions about 9/11 at lectures as “ravers.” And he closes with “Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist.” In an article for the Guardian, Peter Tatchell puts forth the case for a new investigation in “9/11 The Big Coverup”, (2007) but then distances himself from 9/11 truth groups. He writes that some groups “promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite nonexpert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof.” He states “I do not believe in conspiracy theories.”

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, did his level best to squash any questions about the official account in a piece for Alternet in 2002. He adopts the now predictable tone of condescension and disdain for 9/11 activists, starting his piece with: “Please stop sending me those emails. You know who you are. And you know what emails I mean…”

Corn asks: “Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing?” From the vantage point of 2008, I can only answer: Yup.

Why have the liberal media so fallen down on the job regarding 9/11? Why do they ridicule and belittle the citizen journalists who have taken on the task that they refuse to do? There is a peculiar disconnect between the views liberal journalists purport to hold of our current leaders, and their unshakable faith that we were told the truth about 9/11. Oh, they may admit that there was a little fudging around the edges, but basically they buy the official story, hook, line and sinker. Not only do they buy it, they exhibit a nearly pathological rage at those who don’t buy it. Theoretically, journalists believe in the value of digging for truth, so there is something very odd about this situation.

What accounts for this strange state of affairs? I have a couple of ideas.

There has been an enormously successful propaganda campaign to paint conspiracy theorists in the worst possible light. According to Wikipedia, the term “conspiracy theorist” was first used in 1909, but not until the 1960s did it acquire its “current derogatory sense.”

According to Wikipedia, “The term is used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example ‘conspiracy nut’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ are used as pejorative terms.” If conspiracy theorists are such wacky moon bats, then surely no conspiracies exist?

Not at all. To quote Wikipedia:

History contains numerous proven conspiracies, some of which were not the subject of any widespread speculation until they were exposed. Historical conspiracies include:
* The Pazzi conspiracy, which
included the Pope, of the late 1400s. * The Main Plot of 1603
* The Bye Plot of 1603
* The Gunpowder Plot of 1605
* The conspiracy of 1865 to assassinate U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and members of his cabinet
* The 1894 (and ongoing) French government’s attempted cover-up following Emile Zola’s accusations in the Dreyfus Affair
* The 1903 efforts by the Tsar’s secret police to foment anti-Semitism by presenting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic text.
* The 1939 Operation Himmler and its Gleiwitz incident
* The 1948 (and ongoing) Operation Mockingbird
* The 1953 (and ongoing) MKULTRA mind control program
* The 1954 Lavon affair
* The 1962 Operation Northwoods
* The 1969 Manson Family murders
* The 1972 Watergate burglary and cover-up
* The 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack
* The 1987 Iran-Contra Affair
* The 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway

Some theorists, like Charles Pigden, argue that the reality of such conspiracies should caution against any casual dismissal of conspiracy theory. Pigden, in his article “Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom,” argues that not only do conspiracies occur but that any educated member of society will believe in at least one of them; we are all, in fact, conspiracy theorists.

Authors and publishers, such as Robert Anton Wilson and Disinfo, use proven conspiracies as evidence of what a secret plot can accomplish. In doing so, they demonstrate that the label “conspiracy theory” does not necessarily indicate that a theory is false. Theories cited in making this case include those listed above as well as:

* the Mafia
* the Business Plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933
* various CIA involvements in overseas coups d’état
* the 1991 Testimony of Nayirah before the US Congress to rally the support of the US public to launch the Gulf War
* the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male
* the General Motors streetcar conspiracy
* the plot by the British Secret Service to destabilize Prime Minister Harold Wilson, among others.
* the plot by some Gaullists of the French Secret Service to destabilize future president Georges Pompidou, known as the Markovic affair
* the series of incidents in Italy connected to the so called “strategy of tension”
* Operation Gladio

Despite the existence of these well documented conspiracies that were kept secret for many years, to believe in a conspiracy before it has been exposed apparently marks one as cuckoo.

When I studied the evidence about 9/11 and voiced my doubts to a friend, she immediately shot back that she wasn’t interested in “conspiracy theories.” I hadn’t advanced any theory at all, I had only said that I had questions, that things didn’t add up. But this liberal friend with a Ph.D had drunk the Kool Aid, she knew that people who said the things I was saying, were “conspiracy theorists.”

The PR efforts of the CIA and Pentagon have been enormously successful. They have convinced most Americans, and even many journalists, that only lunatic fringe nutcases doubt the official story about 9/11. The PR campaign around 9/11 has been so vast and so complete that even those who have doubts are reluctant to voice them, for fear of losing their credibility and being branded a voice lowered to a whisper “conspiracy theorist.”

That is my safe explanation.

Here’s the unsafe one: some of these journalists may be on the CIA’s payroll. The ongoing conspiracy listed above, Operation Mockingbird, involves the CIA infiltrating the media to influence the news. Rolling Stone reported in 1977 that journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time and The Miami News were doing the CIA’s bidding. Thirty years have passed since the Rolling Stone report, who is doing the CIA’s bidding now?

To be sure, there are a few wild theories in the 9/11 camp. Nature abhors a vacuum, and when there is a dearth of credible information about a major event, speculation is inevitable.

But any harm done by spurious speculation is trivial compared to the enormous force for good that serious 9/11 researchers, writers and film makers have been. If there had never been a David Ray Griffin, a Dr. Stephen Jones or a Dylan Avery, the facts about that ghastly event might never have been exposed, and our nation would be more lost, more confused and have less chance of righting itself than it has now. Those who so cavalierly dismiss their thousands of hours of research with snide and contemptuous remarks are blind to the enormous debt of gratitude owed to the 9/11 truthers, who labor tirelessly to expose this horrible wrong to the world.

Something is deeply rotten in the state of Denmark, like a metastasizing cancer on the soul of our society. Until it is diagnosed and cut out, we cannot progress and indeed will regress to an ever more animalistic state. It is sad and frightening that those who aspire to be a voice of progress and compassion—our liberal media—have failed so utterly to assist with the surgery.

Sheila Casey is a DC area journalist. Her opinion pieces have appeared in The Denver Post, Common Dreams, and BuzzFlash. She blogs at SheilaCasey.com

---

Rice Directed Torture from White House

BY SHEILA CASEY / RCFP

In December 2005, Condoleezza Rice testified to Congress “The United States does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances.”

But ABC News has now revealed that during 2002 and 2003, Rice led dozens of meetings to discuss specific torture techniques with the National Security Council Principals Committee in the White House Situation Room. The committee included Vice President Dick Cheney and former Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. They approved using the “enhanced interrogation techniques” of sleep deprivation, waterboarding, sexual assault, pushing and slapping.

Comedian Jon Stewart has joked that waterboarding sounds fun, as in “I’m going to hop in my Chevy Tahoe, get a six pack, and head out for some waterboarding.” But until recently the United States considered waterboarding to be torture, and prosecuted Japanese officers for subjecting prisoners to waterboarding in World War II. In waterboarding, a prisoner is strapped to a board with his head lower than his feet, while water is poured steadily over his nose and mouth, until his lungs fill with water. Prior to death, the process is stopped and the victim revived, often to endure it yet again. It can leave victims with lung damage, brain damage and death, if they cannot be revived.

Waterboarding was designated as illegal by US generals in the Vietnam War. On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial photograph of two US soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier waterboarding a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang. The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army. Former Navy instructor Malcolm Nance testified before Congress that “Waterboarding is misnamed. That’s just the device that we use. It should be called the drowning torture, and has been called the drowning torture in the past.”

“The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,” says John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

Rice has made many public statements disavowing any use of torture by the United States. In January 2005, she said “[the president] has made very clear to American personnel that we will not condone torture,” and “let me be very clear. The United States doesn’t and can’t condone torture.” In December 2005, Rice testified that “Torture and conspiracy to commit torture are crimes under US law.”

According to ABC News, in the summer of 2004, Rice told the CIA, regarding the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” “This is your baby; go do it.” According to ABC, one top official said that John Ashcroft asked out loud after one of the Situation Room meetings, “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

Prior to airing the story, ABC reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg contacted all of the committee members. She couldn’t reach John Ashcroft, and all others replied with “no comment” through their spokespersons.

George Tenet sought to receive approval for the techniques from the highest levels so that the CIA agents conducting the interrogations would be protected. He has stated that the interrogation techniques were legal because they were approved by the Attorney General.

At some meetings with Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, CIA officers physically acted out the tactics to make sure the group fully understood what the al-Qaida suspects would undergo. “Discussions were so detailed that the interrogations were almost choreographed,” said one source. Tenet asked the group for permission to combine several interrogation methods at a time, (such as waterboarding an already severely sleep deprived prisoner). Several in the group, including Dick Cheney, gave the okay.

The group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using these methods would break domestic or international laws. “No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about,” said a former senior intelligence official. “People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command.”

The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods. In one, dated August 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering “only extreme acts” causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives. Both legal opinions since have been withdrawn.

In his book the The Terror Presidency, Bybee’s successor, Jack Goldsmith, writes that the torture memos had “no foundation” in any “source of law.” Yet they were prized by the administration as offering a “golden shield” against prosecution of CIA agents who used torture.

A senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations. The department issued a memo in October, 2001 that sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack. The Justice Department has so far refused to release it, citing attorneyclient privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a “torture memo.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, DMass., lambasted what he described as “yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture.”

“Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?” Kennedy said in a statement. “Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration’s renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights.” The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.

“With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House,” ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. “This is what we suspected all along.”

As of this writing, the most watched video in the News and Politics section of YouTube is a two minute film by Robert Greenwald called Condi Must Go that contrasts clips of Rice making repeated statements to Congress that “we do not torture,” with the recent expose of her role by ABC News. It was viewed almost 300,000 times in the first 24 hours.

Sheila Casey is a DC area journalist. Her work has appeared in The Progressive Populist, Common Dreams and The Denver Post. She blogs at sheilacasey.com.

---

Toxic Mercury in Fish

by Elaine Sullivan

The New York Times published an article on January 23, 2008 stating that high levels of mercury are found in tuna sushi. Laboratory tests performed on tuna from 20 Manhattan stores and restaurants found so much mercury in tuna sushi that a regular diet of six pieces a week would exceed the levels considered acceptable by the EPA (49 micrograms of mercury a week). Analyzed by Dr. Michael Gochfeld, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, NJ and Dr. Joanna Burger, Professor of Life Sciences at Rutgers University, the tuna from some of these establishments had mercury levels so high that the FDA could take action to remove the fish from the market.
Mercury in fish is not a new phenomenon. In March 2004 the FDA and EPA teamed up to issue a warning to the public about mercury in fish. The joint advisory stated that although fish and shellfish are important parts of a healthy diet and are good sources of protein and other nutrients, some of us should monitor how much we eat. The FDA and EPA warning states: “…depending on the amount and type of fish you consume it may be prudent to modify your diet if you are: planning to become pregnant; nursing; or a young child.” The advisory went on to list three recommendations for selecting and eating fish and shellfish that would allow the consumer to “…receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.”
FDA and EPA recomendations 1. Do not eat Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury. (Tuna was not tested in this study but should also be avoided.) 2. Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury. (Select animals lower down on the food chain, but not North American lobster which is very high in methylmercury.)
3. Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, limit consumption to 6 ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but don’t consume any other fish during that week. For a more extensive list, go to: www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html The FDA and EPA are supposed to warn the public of health risks such as this, but, the advisories don’t go far enough. They tell us to reduce our “exposure to the harmful effects of mercury”, but not how long mercury stays in our bodies or how to get rid of it.
According to Drs. Mercola and. Klinghardt in “Mercury Toxicity and Systemic Elimination Agents” an article published in the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (March 2001), “Mercury in the central nervous system causes psychological, neurological, and immunological problems in humans. Mercury bonds very firmly to structures in the central nervous system through its affinity for sulfhydryl-groups on amino acids. Other studies have shown that mercury is taken up in the periphery by all nerve endings and rapidly transported inside the axon of the nerves (axonal transport) to the spinal cord and brainstem. Unless actively removed, mercury has an extremely long half-life of somewhere between 15 and 30 years in the central nervous system.” So, reducing exposure to the harmful effects of mercury may help you from accumulating more mercury in your system, but does little for the mercury that is already there. A process called chelation can be employed to speed the removal of mercury from the body, it uses a regimen of diet change and cleansing for several days to help flush mercury from the system.
Sources of Mercury
Mercury is a naturally occurring element in the earth. Natural sources of mercury, such as volcanic eruptions and emissions from the ocean, have been estimated to contribute about a third of current worldwide mercury air emissions, whereas humancaused emissions account for the remaining two-thirds. According to the EPA, “These estimates are highly uncertain. Much of the mercury circulating through today’s environment is mercury that was released years ago, when mercury was commonly used in many industrial, commercial, and residential products and processes. Land and water surfaces can repeatedly re-emit mercury into the atmosphere after its initial release into the environment.” Human-caused emissions are roughly split between these re-emitted emissions from previous human activity, and direct emissions from current human activity.
The EPA estimates that 83% of the mercury deposited in the US originates from international sources, with the remaining 17% coming from US and Canadian sources. Most of this mercury is from power plants and municipal and medical waste incinerators. Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or onto land where it can be washed into water. Fish and shellfish are the main sources of methylmercury exposure to humans. Once deposited, small creatures, such as plankton, convert the mercury into a highly toxic form called methylmercury. The plankton is eaten by small fish and crustaceans where it accumulates in the animals flesh. These small fish and crustaceans are eaten by larger fish which in turn are eaten by predator fish like tuna, swordfish, shark, king mackerel and others. Along this chain the mercury accumulates and concentrates; because the large fish also have longer life spans they can accumulate toxic levels of methylmercury. This, unfortunately, is passed along the food chain to us. Eating fish and shellfish that are lower on the food chain; shrimp, salmon, and tilapia can help to reduce the amount of mercury you get, but you will have to do some research to determine which fish and shellfish are safest to eat. The FDA and the EPA have extensive lists of fish and their mercury levels.
According to the EPA website US mercury emissions account for about 3% of the global total, of that about one third is deposited within the contiguous US the remainder enters the global cycle. Asia is reported to contribute 53% of global emissions with Africa following at 18%, Europe 11%, North America 9%, Australia 6% and South America at 4%. The Clean Air Network Fact Sheet of August 1999 cites “The Electric Power Research Institute calculates that up to 10% of the mercury released deposits within 62 miles of a power plant; 50% within 621 miles and the rest is transported regionally and globally.”
According to the EPA website, “The United States is leading an effort within the United Nations Environment Programme to create a program that would establish partnerships designed to help developing countries reduce mercury emissions. The partnerships will leverage resources, technical expertise, technology transfer, and information exchanges to provide immediate effective action that will result in tangible reductions of mercury use and emissions. It accelerates the work of the UNEP Mercury program, originally proposed by the US at the 2003 UNEP Governing Council meeting.”
The US has cut its own mercury emissions from 220 tons per year in 1990 to 115 tons in 1999 with the biggest changes in the municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators. Regulations that were issued in the 1990s to control mercury emissions burning waste require more than a 90% reduction in emissions from these facilities. However, President Bush has tried to do an end run around these regulations through the Clear Skies legislation which would allow for 3 times the amount of mercury emissions as the Clean Air Act.
In spite of attempts by the Bush administration to gut mercury emission regulations, the US remains a very small contributor to global mercury emissions. However, the whole world shares the same oceans, so reducing mercury pollution is a global, not just a national, problem. Since many types of fish are caught and sold internationally, effective exposure reduction will require reductions in global emissions. In the meantime, don’t eat the spicy tuna roll.

---

Japanese Diet Debates 9/11Truth

On January 11, extraordinary testimony from Japan’s upper house of legislature (Diet) was transmitted into Japanese homes and offices nationwide. For over 20 minutes, Yukihisa Fujita, an opposition party leader of the upper house and member of the Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, challenged the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers to justify Japan’s continued participation in the US global war on terror. He questioned the ministers as to what proof, if any, the US has offered as to the facts of 9/11.

Fujita challenged the very premise of the “Global War on Terrorism” saying that, since the Afghani people are the greatest victims of the fight against terror, Japan should be supplying drinking water for the people of Afghanistan rather than oil for US warships.

Mr. Fujita then proceeded to put before the ministers, and the people of Japan, a series of unanswered questions and troubling facts which contradict the official 9/11 narrative. His presentation would be familiar to anyone versed in the litany of the 9/11 truth movement: buildings exploding, the lack of air defense, firefighter testimonies, the removal of the physical evidence, and official silence on the strange case of WTC building 7.

The debate was precipitated by the request from George Bush that Japan resume its participation in support of the gulf wars. Japan had been providing naval refueling services in the Indian Ocean in support of the US war effort, but that operation was halted when the upper house voted it down based on the concern that such operations were in violation of the Japanese Constitution which forbids offensive military activities.

Prime Minister Fukuda, was forced to resort to extraordinary parliamentary procedures in order to restart the naval operations. Fukuda managed to pass the war funding bill only after he secured the 2/3 majority in the lower chamber needed to over-ride the block. This procedure is so extraordinary that it has not been used in over 40 years and it puts Fukuda at risk of a no-confidence vote.

Read the complete coverage of the historic testimony in the House of Councilors in the Japanese Diet in the Feb. 2008 issue.

---

From the Gulf of Tonkin to the Strait of Hormuz

Matt Sullivan

To anyone old enough to remember the Vietnam War, the similarities between the recent Iranian speedboat encounter and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident are hard to miss. The Navy claimed, in August 1964, that the destroyer Maddox had come under attack by small North Vietnamese gunboats. This “confrontation” was seized upon by war hawks in the Johnson administration and used as the justification for “The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution”, a dramatic escalation of hostilities in southeast Asia. There’s only one problem with the Tonkin incident­—it never happened.

It’s been suspected for many years that the Tonkin Gulf incident was a fraud, but official acknowledgement has been a long time coming. In October 2005, the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the incident. A full report was released in January 2008 by the National Security Agency and published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

“It’s a dramatic reversal of the historical record” FAS said in a statement; “[The report] demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was ‘unimpeachable,’ but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that no attack happened that night.”

In the recent Iranian gunboat encounter we are presented with a very similar set of alleged circumstances. We have huge American warships encountering much smaller enemy watercraft on international waters. And we have an administration looking for any provocation to justify an attack. But this time there are differences.

There is a lot more skepticism among the American public of administration intentions as a result of the WMD fiasco and other deceptions. While FOX News and CNN tried to play up the event, complete with video mash-up containing ominous voice-over; “I’m coming at you and you will blow up in a couple of minutes.” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the Iranian boats were operating at “distances and speeds that showed reckless and dangerous intent – reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent.”

But the American public just wasn’t buying it.

Also different this time; Iran was able to counter with their own videos of the event released on YouTube and Al Jazeera. By week’s end, the administration and the networks were seriously backpedaling. The Navy has now distanced itself from any claims that the warships were ever threatened. The mysterious ominous voice is now being blamed on someone playing pranks over the marine radio channel.

Apparently the American public learned the lesson from the Gulf of Tonkin incident after all.

---

International Regulation of Dietary Supplements Looms

by Elaine Sullivan

Over 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse reactions to prescription drugs. Contrast this with 10 deaths in 20 years due to adverse reactions of vitamins.

We, of course, have governmental and world agencies to help protect us from such tragedies. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services and is responsible for the safety regulation of most types of foods, dietary supplements, drugs, vaccines, biological medical products, blood products, medical devices, radiation-emitting devices, veterinary products, and cosmetics.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, (Codex Alimentarius is Latin for “Food Code”) based in Rome, Italy, and created in 1963, is an international organization jointly run by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations. One of its 27 committees, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use (CCNFSDU) is responsible for Dietary Supplements and Special Foods. The CCNFSDU meets yearly in Germany. Codex’s published goals are to develop and adopt uniform food standards for its member countries and to promote the free and unhindered international flow of food goods, thereby eliminating trade barriers to food and providing food safety. This is called “harmonizing”. The 29th session of the CCNFSDU (CAC) met in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany, November 12-16, 2007.

In 1994, President Clinton signed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. The DSHEA acknowledges that millions of consumers believe dietary supplements may help to augment daily diets and provide health benefits. Congress’s intent in enacting the DSHEA was to meet the concerns of consumers and manufacturers to help ensure that safe and appropriately labeled products remain available to those who want to use them. In the findings associated with the DSHEA, Congress stated that there may be a positive relationship between sound dietary practice and good health, and that, although further scientific research is needed, there may be a connection between dietary supplement use, reduced health-care expenses, and disease prevention.

The DSHEA established a formal definition of “dietary supplement” using several criteria. A dietary supplement:

• is a product (other than tobacco) that is intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients: a vitamin, a mineral, an herb or other botanical, an amino acid, a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total daily intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combinations of these ingredients.

• is intended for ingestion in pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid form.

• is not represented for use as a conventional food or as the sole item of a meal or diet.

• is labeled as a “dietary supplement.”

• includes products such as an approved new drug, certified antibiotic, or licensed biologic that was marketed as a dietary supplement or food before approval, certification, or license (unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services waives this provision).

The DSHEA was supposed to ensure uniform labeling of supplements, make sure that the amount of ingredients and potency listed on labels is what is actually in the supplement, and that pesticides, contaminants, etc., are not in your supplements. However, the DSHEA also limits what a dietary supplement can put on its label regarding any actual health benefit claim.

The FDA, FAO, WHO and the FTC, as well as, other governmental agencies are very cautious about letting the consumer decide whether or not to take supplements and how much you can take. Every year these groups gather together as a part of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to discuss and decide on these matters, as well as others. What can we expect under Codex? To give you an idea, here are some important points:

• Dietary supplements could not be sold for preventive (prophylactic) or therapeutic use.

• Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages. Only the drug companies and the big phytopharmaceutical companies would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products (at inflated prices).

• Prescriptions would be required for anything above the extremely low doses allowed (such as 35 mg. on niacin).

• No dietary supplement sold as a food can exceed potency (dosage) levels set by the commission; common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug.

• Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding (escape clauses would be eliminated). Codex standards for dietary supplements would become the reference international standard under GATT, and a reference international standard under NAFTA.

• All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.

• Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labeling.

The Codex Alimentarius proposals already exist as law in Norway and Germany where the entire health food industry has literally been taken over by the drug companies.

The current trend is for countries to adopt the international standards either individually or in regional compacts. If that happened in the US, all new dietary supplements would automatically be banned unless they conform to Codex standards- (which would require going through a very expensive drug like approval process.) The Delaney clause, which used to protect us against carcinogens in our food supply, has already been “harmonized” to a Codex standard which favors pesticide manufacturers, and not a single member of Congress protested against this.

“WTO is using what is known as the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) to further restrict the free use of nutritional supplements within the United States and worldwide. Specifically, the CAC is setting ‘Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.’ These guidelines are more restrictive and will supercede current US regulations by dictating to the US which nutrients are safe, the maximum and minimum amounts allowed in a product, and related packaging and labeling requirements.”

The Drug Company Influence on Your Health, Shane Ellison M. Sc., December 5, 2007. This is all part of the “harmonizing” efforts of the Codex.

Certainly it is important to ensure consumers have safe products and there are regulations and standards for prescription drugs also. But it is interesting to look at how differently dietary supplements are treated compared to pharmaceuticals.

Let’s contrast the way the FDA treated ephedrine with the way it treats prescription drugs. In 1999, an estimated 12 million Americans used the supplement, ephedra which was banned in 2003 as an “unsafe risk”. According to the FDA, “No dosage of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids is safe and the sale of these products in the United States is illegal and subject to FDA enforcement action.” What is ephedra? “Ephedra (also known as Ma huang, Chinese Ephedra and epitonin) is one of the world’s oldest medicines. The Chinese discovered ephedra more than 5000 years ago. Research has shown that ephedra increases metabolism and helps promote weight loss, relaxes the air passages in the lungs to help treat asthma and cough, promotes perspiration to help a person recover from a minor cold and helps promote urination to help relieve edema.” (www.ephedra.com) Native Americans and Mormon pioneers drank a tea brewed from ephedra called Mormon tea.

5000 years of usage and NOW we think it’s unsafe at any dosage? Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, says more than 150 deaths occurred between 1995 and 2004 that were “linked” to ephedra. 12 million people over 8 years and 150 deaths – that’s a pretty low risk factor and some of the deaths that were “linked” to ephedra may have had other causes. Ephedra has been used by people on a regular basis for millennia!

In contrast, between 1999 and 2006 as many as 140,000 injuries and 60,000 deaths in the US were caused by patients taking either Vioxx or Bextra. Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrax are in a class of drugs known as NSAIDs (Non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug). NSAIDs are drugs with analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory effects - they reduce pain, fever and inflammation and are used for a variety of ailments. Certain NSAIDs, including ibuprofen and aspirin, have become accepted as relatively safe and are available over-the-counter without prescription. And yet, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) 2005 database, there were 25 deaths due to ibuprofen alone in 2005 and only 1 death due to all dietary supplements combined. The report shows that analgesics are the substances most frequently involved in human poisonings. Twenty-five deaths a year over 8 years would be 200 deaths by ibuprofen alone.

Seven years and 60,000 deaths; are NSAIDs found to be “unsafe at any dosage” and banned? No. Vioxx, Bextra, and Celebrex were temporarily pulled from the market because of major heart attack risks. Vioxx was withdrawn from the US market in 2004, Bextra was withdrawn in 2005. Celebrex is still available by prescription.

The deaths occurred because of FDA failure to protect the public. Clinical trials of Vioxx began in 1998. Study “090” conducted by Merck revealed serious cardiovascular problems as compared to patients not taking Vioxx. This study was never published; Merck insisted that it was not large enough to provide definitive data. The FDA approved Vioxx in 1999.

Pfizer first acknowledged cardiovascular risks associated with Bextra in October of 2004. The American Heart Association soon after was presented with a report indicating patients using Bextra while recovering from heart surgery were 2.19 times more likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack than those taking placebos.

On April 7, 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the US market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke and also the risk of a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction.

So let’s recap: a dietary supplement that’s been around for 5000 years and is reportedly “linked” to 150 deaths in an 8 year period gets banned while; a manufactured drug, NSAIDs, that have been around for less than 10 years and reportedly causes 60,000 deaths in a 7 year period are not. Even our little bottle of Motrin kills 200 people in a similar time frame. Consumers must feel secure knowing that the Codex is working to keep us safe from dangerous supplements.