Britain and Sept 11

"I went with colleagues from the CIA and the Military and we'd have what I'd describe as a 'no shit' conversation."
Richard Armitage, BBC Radio 4 Interview, broadcast 27 Aug 2002

"..... Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons [when the US assisted Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980s] ..... Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program...."
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
New York Times, 17 Aug 2002

"...'According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in [Pentagon] transactions,' Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million. 'We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on,' said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service."
The War On Waste
CBS News, 29 January 2002

"Between 1985-89, US firms exported Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatam, Brucella melitensis, Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene), Clostridium tetani (tentanus), Escherichia coli, and 'dozens of other pathogenic biological agents,' to Iraq."
Iraq's Biological Weapons Program
Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey, California

"Nothing - not even Ashcroft - raises so many warning flags about the intentions of the Bush administration than does the resurrection of this veteran of some of the sleaziest and most corrupt periods of American foreign policy, including the CIA-drug trade love fest in SE Asia and the Iran-Contra scandal. If we had a press and a Democratic Party worthy of their names, the Armitage appointment would be major news..."
'Behind the Bushes'
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW

"After his appointment in 1981, Armitage began working in Southeast Asia to track down reports of MIAs in Viet-Nam; [Ross] Perot suspected him of not doing enough. Last October, Perot met with Armitage at the Pentagon and bluntly demanded that he resign....... At the meeting, Armitage vigorously denied any implication that he had anything to do with an illicit arms or drug network, Perot then took his case to George Bush. The Vice President's office has confirmed that Perot raised 'what he considered to be evidence of wrongdoing ' by Armitage. Bush told Perot to go to the 'proper authorities.' So the billionaire called on FBI Director William Webster. Perot has also made at least one visit to the White House carrying a pile of documents. Yet he has received no support from the Reagan Administration. In fact, National Security Adviser Frank Carlucci in January called him in to ask him to stop pursuing Armitage....."
PEROT'S PRIVATE PROBES
Time Magazine, 4 May 1987

"....for the foreseeable future oil will remain an essential commodity. Greater attention must therefore be given to increasing supplies of oil in ways that diversify supplies from areas other than the Persian Gulf. The most promising new source of world supplies is the Caspian region, which appears to contain the largest petroleum reserves discovered since the North Sea. This geopolitical crossroad, which includes Iran, Russia, and a number of newly-independent states struggling with post-Soviet modernization and dangers of Islamic extremism, demands more attention by American policymakers."
AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS
A Report from The Commission on America’s National Interests, July 2000
Co-authored by Richard Armitage et al [pdf]

"....Enron secretly employed CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas.... an FBI source told The Enquirer: 'Enron and Unocal dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan and the Taliban. The pipeline would relieve our dependence on Saudi Arabia -- and Enron would make billions.'... The visit [to Texas in 1997 at the invitation of Enron and Unocal] was aimed at getting Taliban cooperation to build the pipeline, which would carry vast gas and oil deposits from [Caspian Sea States] Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Enron had exclusive contracts with the former Russian republics, according to another former Enron employee. The pipeline was to travel through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean."
Enron gave Taliban $millions
National Enquirer, Monday March 4, 2002

"Khalilzad is not the only person from the Unocal payroll to figure prominently in the new U.S. policy towards Afghanistan, both pre- and post- September 11. Richard Armitage, the current Deputy Secretary of State was also contracted by Unocal to work on Central Asia pipeline interests in 1997 when he was head of Armitage Associates."
Drillbits and Tailings
Volume 7, Number 1, January 31, 2002

"From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company....."
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS,
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 12 February 1998
Evidence by Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation (US oil company)

"....until August [2001], the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime 'as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean....But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, 'this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'..... At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs', Brisard said in an interview in Paris."
U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors
Inter Press Service, 15 November 2001

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's [Sept 2001] attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October..... Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place."
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
BBC Online, 18 September 2001

"... DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE ARMITAGE:
9:30 a.m.[10 Sept 2001] Meeting with Sir David Manning, Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (KCMG), Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Tony Blair.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)....."
Daily Appointment Schedule, US State Department
US State Department, September 10, 2001

"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11..."
Tony Blair Speaking To House of Commons Liaison Committee
'Britain backs US plan for attack on Iraq'
London Times 17 July, 2002

"The 1994 Scott Inquiry into Britain's illegal supply of arms to Saddam Hussein found that deception was widespread among senior British officials and diplomats. One of those commended by Sir Richard Scott for the honesty of his evidence was the former head of the Iraq Desk in Whitehall, Mark Higson, who described 'a culture of lying' in the Foreign Office."
IRAQ: THE LYING GAME
The Mirror, 27 August, 2002

How does this connect to the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl
and why do Britain and the US not want his alleged killer to give 911 testimony?
Please Read On

One of the many perplexing things about the events that unfolded on the day of September 11 last year was the rapid speed at which British Prime Minister Tony Blair drew his own conclusions about the nature of the attacks. His all but his instant offering of completely unqualified support for the Bush administration was remarkable.

For some it seemed that a more reassuring approach would have been to allow a delay of a day or two to receive Foreign Office and intelligence briefings - in order to fully consider what was believed to have happened, who was behind it, and what should be the appropriate response.

One eminent foreign policy expert warned the next day that Britain's immediate pledge to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with America in the aftermath of the attacks could have far-reaching implications for foreign relations. Professor Bulmer-Thomas, Director of London's Royal Institute of International Affairs, told the BBC 12 September that the consequences of offering such strong support for potential US retaliation could not be accurately gauged at such an early stage: "The danger is they do it far too early, before the facts are in."

By contrast, however, Blair gave the impression of being a man who did not need any briefings. Was this because, unbeknown to the rest of us, Blair already knew in advance exactly what the score was?

As time passes it becomes increasingly clear that the British government knew a great deal about was in the offing by the end of the summer of 2001, and that it was communicating its knowledge to the Bush administration. A few press reports provide something of an outline in this respect:

So it seems fairly clear that Tony Blair had a good idea, and may be very good idea, of at least the general nature of what was coming.

But did Britain also have good information on the specifics about when the attacks were coming and the targets? And if it did, why was America seemingly so unprepared for them? Additional published material encourages further examination of these questions:

So what was the UK's 'national security adviser' doing in America on Sept 11? Was his visit prompted by the terrorist threat that Tony Blair now confirms 'everybody knew' was being planned?

Despite his de facto status as Blair's special envoy on foreign affairs and security matters the US State Department appointment records show no scheduled meetings for Manning with Secretary Powell himself during the days immediately prior to the attacks.

Those records do, however, show that he was meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on September 10th. Armitage is second in command to Colin Powell who left for a trip to Peru later that day, meaning that the Bush administration's principal 'dove' was out of the country when the attacks happened. In Powell's absence "when the storm breaks [on 911] Richard Armitage... is at its heart" according to the BBC's Edward Stourton (Radio 4, 27 August: 'With Us or Against Us').

So who is Richard Armitage? Described by Stourton as a 'bulldog diplomat', Armitage has had a 'colourful' previous history. This embraces alleged covert operations with the CIA, including illegal arms and drug running on behalf of the US government. Those activities include illicit dealings with people within what is now know as the 'axis of evil' (see links at bottom of page). He was also deputy to Dick Cheney when the Vice President was Secretary of Defense in the previous Bush administration. However, Armitage's wider interests are especially pertinent to the situation that had developed in Afghanistan by the summer of 2001.

As Armitage himself has publicly acknowledged the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea region are of great strategic importance to America and its allies in the industrialised world. But they also appear to be of some personal importance to Armitage himself.

A report by the US National Bureau of Asian Research cites an article in the Washington Times 28 July 1997 which lists Armitage, along with Dick Cheney, as having business or consulting interests in the Caspian zone. It is also claimed that Armitage was contracted by US oil and gas corporation Unocal to work on Central Asia pipeline interests in 1997 when he was head of Armitage Associates (also at Armitage Associates was Peter Watson, previously Director of Asian Affairs at the National Security Council in the first Bush administration. Watson was appointed President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) by George W. Bush in 2001. OPIC provides political risk insurance and loans to US companies operating overseas 'because it is in America's economic and strategic interest'. Since Watson's appointment, in a deal worth $350 million, Unocal has absorbed nearly the whole of the allocation of an OPIC joint initiative with the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency for US business investment in Indonesia . The allocation had been announced September 2001. The deal is despite Unocal's human rights record and allegations that State Department documents indicate the company's involvement in 'corruption, collusion and nepotism' in several billion-dollar power plant deals with the Suharto government. Similar allegations have also been made against Enron).

The importance of Afghanistan in this context was spelt out in evidence given to a congressional hearing in 1998 by Unocal's Vice President for International Relations, John Maresca: "Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves......[one] option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges..... From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company....."

Unfortunately efforts by the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Taliban over the proposed pipeline collapsed in the summer of 2001. No longer willing to tolerate an impasse the US government threatened Afghanistan with military action during at a meeting which the BBC reports took place in Berlin in July. According to one representative of Pakistan who attended the meeting a US attack on Afghanistan was already planned for October.

Thanks to the special 'skills' of US diplomacy, therefore, it seems that the first overt provocation in the west's new war with the Taliban was made by the US in Berlin in July 2001, and not by al-Qaeda in New York on Sept 11.

It is something of an understatement to say that in the history of international affairs is not unknown for provocation to produce response. Given the threat made by the US in July, it would be reasonable to have expected trouble there onwards. The intelligence picked up by the British and other governments last summer would seem to confirm this.

This brings us back to Sir David Manning's meeting in Washington with Armitage on September 10. Presumably Manning also had other meetings in Washington that day, although with whom it is not clear. Neither is the purpose of his visit.

Was he in fact passing on specific intelligence information about the impending terrorist attacks? It is certainly possible. By coincidence or otherwise Newsweek magazine reported 24 September that on that same day "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

It would be interesting to know what, if any, security issues relating to America where discussed by Manning during his pre-Sept 11 meetings in Washington and whether they involved any specific intelligence.

Certainly when Manning visits a foreign country it is not likely to be on a trivial errand: "Downing Street has two foreign affairs advisers, Stephen Wall and David Manning, who people say are more influential than [Foreign Secretary] Straw himself." confirmed the Guardian, 28 January 2002. Manning is "one of the most powerful people in the Prime Minister's entourage." (Observer, 14 October 2001) and "The man the White House knows will speak for Blair" (Guardian, 18 September 2001).

By this time, however, warnings of imminent attacks were already being provided to Washington from numerous countries. The Washington Post 17 May also confirms that on 5 July 2001 the White House head of counter-terrorism, Richard Clarke, warned fellow security officials that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon". The term 'spectacular' seemingly echoes the wording a 1999 US National Intelligence Council report which specifically identified al-Qaeda suicide aircraft attacks on prominent US buildings as an expected possibility.

Over the next few weeks the flood of cautionary advice from abroad became a torrent, making it all the more remarkable that on the day itself America appeared completely unprepared. Certainly it is clear that the US air force did not respond in a timely fashion on the day. It should have been ready to go.

In the event hijacked aircraft flew around US air space for approaching two hours on Sept 11 without being intercepted by the air force. No plausible explanation for that has been given.

Not surprisingly given these circumstances, it has been suggested in many quarters that the US allowed the attacks to take place in order to create a pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly been planed well in advance (recently uncovered official records show that exactly this approach was taken by President Roosevelt in relation to Pearl Harbor in 1941 in order to take America into the second world war. Although these revelations are rarely discussed in 'polite circles', they have been covered by mainstream media outlets including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and C-Span.).

The BBC report of the Berlin meeting in July 2001 confirms that the new war against the Taliban was already scheduled for October. But how could such a war be justified to an unprepared public with little concept of the strategic importance of that impoverished country to western economic interests?

Whilst making the observation with a different purpose in mind (to justify a 'we must strike Iraq before it strikes us' position post Sept 11) an additional remark of the British Prime Minister gives some unexpected further credence to this interpretation of events. According to the London Times Blair informed the House of Commons Liaison Committee meeting in July 2002 that: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11..."

So in that respect certainly the 911 attacks served some useful purpose as far as the industrialised world was concerned. Whether that achievement was by design or default depends on what intelligence the Americans had of the strikes and what security measures they took to protect against them. Given the outcome of the July Berlin meeting, when the principal protectors of al-Qaeda were directly threatened with war, it is arguable that no further intelligence would be required in order to justify putting full precautionary measures into place. Certainly the air force should have been on standby.

There's no doubt, however, that the strikes provided certain opportunities for the US and Britain (of which seeking a regime change in Iraq and the associated greater control over Persian Gulf oil reserves is currently only the most topical). According to the Washington Post 28 January 2002 Bush and Blair spoke on the phone on the morning of 12 September and "The two leaders agreed it was important to first move quickly on the diplomatic front to capitalize on international outrage about the terrorist attack."

Certainly there was plenty of available motivation besides issues of international terrorism. In the first presidential debate of 1992 Ross Perot observed that the previous Gulf War was fought solely for control of oil and nothing more. The incentive now is even greater.

The misguided pursuit of war-for-energy-resources has become an overriding imperative for two reasons. Firstly, economic analysis shows a major imbalance in world oil supply-and-demand on the near horizon. Secondly the close relationship between the Bush-Blair administrations and petroleum interests severely limits their willingness to promote competing alternative energy technologies (most recently the British government scandalously rejected innovative proposals by BMW to commence migration to petroleum-free fuel cell technology in the motor industry. Ministers took this position "after deciding that fossil fuels will not be phased out for at least another 50 years" according to the London Times, 22 April. The outrageous nature of this situation is only fully appreciated when it is realised that Blair's own chief scientific adviser had made a previous call in the Independent on Sunday 17 February "for a complete ban on selling gasoline- or diesel-powered cars" citing fuel cell technology as a replacement.)

In examining potential signs of pre-911 war planning the Centre for Research on Globalisation confirms that Sir David Manning was not the only 'interesting' foreign visitor to Washington both immediately prior and during the 911 attacks. To do nothing to reduce speculation in this area, it also transpires that the head of Pakistan's intelligence services, the ISI, 'happened' (according to the BBC) to be in Washington at the time.

It is of course, Pakistan, which has been the US's other key ally in the subsequent strikes on neighbouring Afghanistan. A lengthy visit to Washington by Lt General Mahmoud Ahmad, is an event not to be taken lightly. As one Pakistani commentator put it in a prophetic article in the Karachi News on Sept 10:

"ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan . . . and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days." (The later remark relates to General Musharraf's seizing of power in a coup in October 1999)

There are a number of things to note about General Mahmoud as head of Pakistan's Intelligence Services:

Before taking a look at the Daniel Pearl dimension the simple conclusion is that we have here a disconcerting link connecting the World Trade Centre attacks to a CIA-client intelligence service heavily involved with Islamic militant groups in Afghanistan. The leader of that service was meeting with the CIA and senior members of the Bush administration immediately before, during and after the attacks.

As the Times of India put it: "A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attacks could have enormous repercussions." Almost instantly after 911 Pakistan became the US's principal regional ally in the ensuing invasion of Afghanistan despite being one of the few countries to have recognised the Taliban.

Recent comments by President Musharraf of Pakistan pour more fuel on the fire. According to an Associated Press report relayed in Canada's Toronto Star 5 August: "Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, a strategic ally in America's war against terrorism, said in an interview he does not believe that Osama bin Laden planned the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States..... Speaking of bin Laden, Musharraf said in the interview: 'He was perhaps the sponsor, the financier, the motivating force. But those who executed it were much more modern. 'They knew the U.S., they knew aviation. I don't think he has the intelligence or the minute planning. The planner was someone else.' Musharraf does not say who he thinks was behind the attacks...."

Musharraf had earlier also somewhat enigmatically indicated that Pearl was murdered because "Unfortunately [he] got over-involved". Originally thought to be pursuing an aspect of the Richard Reid shoe bomber story it now seems more likely that Pearl was delving deep into the workings of the ISI according to Pakistani journalists quoted by the Times of India 11 March.

Was Pearl following up on the General Mahmoud sacking story? It would certainly have been very dangerous for him if he had made any progress in pursuing a CIA connection. However, as head of the Wall St Journal's Asian bureau, it is also extremely unlikely that Pearl would have been unaware of this possibility - one already much talked about on the internet since the Times of India report last October. Digging up the detail would have been a journalistic coup.

But the story does not end with the death of Daniel Pearl. Intriguingly it is precisely the same man used by General Mahmoud to wire money to 911 hijacker Mohammed Atta who has now been detained and tried for the murder of Pearl. More importantly, however, this does not explain why this young man - Omar Sheikh - was not previously detained when it became clear last October that he had wired $100,000 to Atta. This is a truly extraordinary circumstance given America's direct control over Musharraf and the CIA's own links with the ISI.

Why did the US government not insist on Pakistan's detention of Sheikh once it became known that he was involved in the funding of lead hijacker Atta? Why was he allowed to roam free in Pakistan when the country was America's principal Asian ally in the 'war against terrorism'?

Indeed, why is Sheikh still not being charged for his alleged involvement in the 911 attacks now that he is finally detained? Why isn't Armitage pursuing this?

There is no outsider better placed than Armitage to command the system within Pakistan. According to a discussion paper produced by the India based South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG): "Mr. Armitage, who had spent some years of his career in the CIA/DIA and holds the highest Pakistani civil decoration that could be awarded to a foreigner for his role during the Afghan war of the 1980s, has a large circle of friends in the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate." (Produced in May 2001 the SAAG paper was commenting on "the unpublicised visit of Mr. George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to Islamabad where he had an unusually long meeting with Gen. Pervez Musharraf").

Although protesting his innocence in the murder of Pearl, Sheikh was sentenced to death in July. An appeal is now pending. There is little doubt from his personal history that Sheikh has been actively involved in militant Islamic groups of the kind so long supported by the CIA in the region. Because of where it might lead, however, it would certainly be extremely 'difficult' for the Bush administration if the link between Sheikh and CIA-appointed General Mahmoud was to be exposed in detail. The link between Sheikh and 911 is, after all, already seemingly established.

The 911 connection with Mahmoud was in fact raised by an accredited Indian journalist on 16 May at a White House press briefing run by US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. The briefing was about what the Bush administration knew pre-911. The journalist asked with whom the head of the ISI had been meeting in Washington around the time of the attacks. Rice denied knowledge and swiftly moved on. Ominously both White House and CNN transcripts of the press briefing omit this reference to Mahmoud in the journalist's question. They simply leave out the relevant words in the case of the White House version, or insert 'inaudible' in the case of CNN. However, the wording is audible on the official video recording of the briefing.

If such embarrassing connections were to have real implications, then the execution of Sheikh would certainly be useful in dealing with the CIA's problem of how to limit further investigation into any wider role it may have played in the events surrounding 911 via its involvement with the ISI. In that area Sheikh is the prime witness after Mahmoud himself, who no doubt is now enjoying a comfortable pension in return for his silence.

In this respect the clamour from the Bush administration to spare Sheikh's life so that he can give evidence as to General Mahmoud's and his own involvement in the transfer of 911 money to Mohammed Atta is deafening by virtue of its total absence. Would the White House not like to know the details of that? Would the families of those who died in the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon not like to know too? When are those families going to sue the Bush administration over this?

Sheikh was tried for the murder of Pearl behind closed doors. His father has commented that Sheikh was convicted because of injustice "and some kind of pressure". His brother told the BBC "One of the co-accused complained via his lawyer that the police had been beating him quite brutally for hours, trying to make him sign a confession that pinpointed Omar Sheikh as the mastermind behind the kidnapping and he refused. The police then threatened to bring his mother and sister to the police station and gang rape them, at which point he signed the confession."

A further BBC report elaborates: "...the most controversial decision was to hold the trial behind close doors. Even though the case was about the murder of a reputable foreign journalist, at no time were reporters allowed to cover the proceedings. Pakistan's anti-terrorism law specifically states that the entire process should be complete within seven days, but the Pearl murder case went on for more than three months. Not just that, but during this period, the trial judge and the venue were changed three times.... The main accused, Omar Sheikh, described the evidence against him as 'a tissue of lies', and said it had been fabricated 'to please the Americans'.... "

The BBC reports one man on the street in Hydrabad saying that Pakistanis were expecting the verdict "because Pakistan has to accept the dictates of the US."

The BBC quotes Sheikh's reaction to the verdict via his lawyer: "I will see whether who wants to kill me will first kill me or get himself killed." In addition to Musharaff it is perhaps not difficult to imagine Richard Armitage shifting uneasily in his seat at this point.

Initially the prosecution told the court that it would produce more than 50 witnesses, but according to the BBC in the end only 'a handful' of people testified on behalf of the government, one of which was an FBI agent who gave 'an opinion' on how Pearl's captors used the internet to distribute his photographs and other messages.

'Interestingly' says the BBC, the complainant in the case, Pearl's widow, did not appear at the request of the prosecution. This required an 'extraordinary concession' from the judge. Mrs Pearl had left the country to give birth to their child. Nonetheless, because she often worked with Pearl on his stories she might have provided some interesting evidence as to what he had been investigating and who he had been meeting with in the period leading up to his abduction. Legal sources close to the Pakistani government reportedly confirm that at the very least Pearl was investigating the ISI.

In a statement released by his lawyers during the period of the trial Sheikh described the Sept 11 attacks on America as 'deserved' and warned that new attacks could come because of US military action in Afghanistan and Israel's actions against the Palestinians. Clearly this is a man who would have had little objection to money passing from Pakistan to the 911 hijackers. It increasingly looks like the twenty four year old was used for that purpose and that those who used him now want that trail blanked off.

Sheikh is a British born and educated Pakistani. He is a British Citizen. But this has not resulted in the British government securing an open trial for him. The BBC confirms that: "News that a British-born Islamic militant has been found guilty of the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl has been welcomed by the Foreign Office." Foreign Office support for the verdict is 'interesting' given that no body or murder weapon has been found, and that one of the main pieces of evidence relied on for the conviction is a confession by Sheikh which he has since retracted claiming it was extracted under torture.

The other principal piece of 'evidence' is testimony from a taxi driver who claims he saw Sheikh meeting with Pearl in Karachi. Sheikh denies it, although if true it would certainly lend considerable weight to speculation that Pearl was on the 911 Mahmoud-Sheikh-ISI-CIA trail. According to Gulf News 25 March "It is ....rumoured that Pearl was in fact especially interested in any role played by the U.S. in training the ISI or backing it in any way". The paper quotes a source 'close to the Pakistan foreign office' as stating "Details of any U.S.-ISI cooperation would of course not be appreciated even in Washington, especially regarding U.S. cooperation in promoting any kind of Islamic militancy".

The possibility that Sheikh has been framed (certainly he is an ideal candidate given his previous involvement with militant groups) in order to engineer his execution cannot be discounted. The group which claimed to have abducted Pearl is one which had never been heard of before, neatly limiting the options for pursuing additional leads. Was this group manufactured for the specific purpose of framing Sheikh? And if so, by whom?

The BBC observes that despite strong anti-US feelings in Pakistan "none of the more than 2,000 foreign journalists who converged on Pakistan when US air strikes on Afghanistan began, has been kidnapped or harassed". This suggests Pearl was onto something exceptionally sensitive.

Given the widespread culture of deception and lying uncovered within the British Foreign Office during the Scott inquiry into the UK's illegal supply of arms to Saddam Hussein, the omens do not look good. Only wishful thinking can support a belief that the situation is any better within the US government, whose reputation for deceit stretches well back to the dark days of the Nixon-Kissinger era and beyond (Nixon and Kissinger even asked foreign leaders to join them in lying to their own Secretary of State, William Rogers, as reported in Time magazine, 5 November 2001).

Despite the absence of a body in the evidence used to convict Sheikh in the murder of Pearl the BBC states that "Apparently one of the main reasons for proceeding with the trial in Pakistan was because of the mounting pressure from the United States".

Meanwhile the enthusiasm of the British government for the trial's guilty verdict brings us neatly back once again to the US's principal western ally in the so-called 'war against terrorism' and indirectly to Sir David Manning.

There is a additional interesting element to Sir David's appointment as an adviser to Tony Blair, taking up his post as it happens just shortly before Sept 11 according to the Observer 20 January 2002. Sir Richard is former British Ambassador to the organisation currently headed by a former British minister and through which Britain typically wages war alongside the US. That organisation is, of course, NATO. (The BBC reports 25 August that it was the British Secretary General of NATO who came up with the idea of using Article 5 of the alliance's treaty for the first time to apply a doctrine that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all. Lord Robertson, seemingly better prepared for the event, advised Colin Powell on the issue over the phone after the attacks. Initially Powell didn't get the point. Robertson told him: "I have got a draft statement ready".)

According to the Observer 24 February: "In appointing the former ambassador to Nato, Sir David Manning, as foreign affairs adviser just before 11 September, Blair was sending a signal about the importance of the role." Was Blair in fact expecting war?

The Mail on Sunday 14 October 2001 confirms that: "Condoleeza Rice, a key member of the Bush war cabinet, is in regular contact with Sir David Manning, Blair's National Security Adviser.... It is Manning, Campbell and Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, who are seen as the Prime Minister's real war cabinet."

There is not much doubt about Manning's role in building the right environment for the war in Afghanistan. According to the Observer 18 November 2001: "On [Blair's post Sept 11 overseas war coalition building] trips his constant companions have been Alastair Campbell, Anji Hunter - Blair's friend from his teenage years who was head of government relations before announcing she was leaving No 10 to join BP - and his chief foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning. The fact that they, rather than the Foreign Secretary, have accompanied Blair on his diplomatic whistle stops has given ammunition to those like Mo Mowlam who claim that the Prime Minister has been sidelining his Cabinet in war..."

So if Manning is the man who makes war for Blair alongside the United States then his discussions with Richard Armitage in Washington on September 10 may serve to provide a dimension to the 911 tragedy well beyond mere issues of 'national security'.

In this transatlantic 'special relationship' is it, for example, such a coincidence that Armitage has links to Unocal and that Ms Hunter has now left the side of Blair and Manning in order to assist British Petroleum following the displacement of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the consequent reshuffling of the Caspian deck of hydrocarbon cards? Generally regarded as his closest aide the London Guardian has described Hunter's move to BP as cementing "a cosy relationship between the Blairites and a corporation already dubbed 'Blair Petroleum' for its ties with the administration". The paper points out that "Eyebrows were raised at the timing of her decision, after the loyal lieutenant returned with Mr Blair from talks with President Bush in Washington."

British Petroleum is the major stakeholder in a consortium of oil companies funding another multi-billion dollar Caspian Sea pipeline intended to link the region to the Mediterranean. This pipeline is also strongly backed by the United States as part of a strategy which Bush himself heralded the same month that Hunter left Downing St. On 28 November he confirmed that the pipeline formed part of a system which "advances my Administration's National Energy Policy by developing a network of multiple Caspian pipelines .... These projects will help diversify U.S. energy supply and enhance our energy security, while supporting global economic growth.".

In preparation for and following the invasion of Afghanistan the US has succeeded in establishing a military presence in various neighbouring oil and gas rich former Soviet countries in the Caspian Sea region reaching as far west as Georgia. As Armitage told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation 18 February ".......Central Asia now is a repository for a lot of oil. We have the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan, places of that nature. It seems to me that this is going to give us many more choices and certainly lessen somewhat our dependency on the Persian Gulf for oil but oil is a valuable commodity and any shortage anywhere affects all of us whether you live in Brisbane or whether you live in Adelaide or whether you live in Washington DC and it's going to be a factor for some time to come."

Other interesting characters who have held positions with this innocuous-sounding oil industry funded organisation include: James Baker, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, John Sununu, and Richard Perle . That's quite a lot of Bush related heavyweight attention for a small country that most people would not even be able to pin point on a map. As one commentator put it "Azerbaijan looks like [the] first big winner in [the] Caspian oil race. International consortium, A.I.O.C., has started oil export on November 12, 1997, and [the] country's abundant reserves could bring prosperity within a decade." Unocal is one of 10 shareholders in the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Operating Company) consortium with a 10.28-percent interest. BP is the operator for both AIOC and the associated BTC pipeline project which is planned to pass through Georgia on the way to the Mediterranean.

Addressing a later Caspian Sea Senate hearing, and expressing concerns about the upholding of US sanctions against Azerbaijan following the development of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the Chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America could clearly see where all this was heading: "The confusion over what the U.S. government should be pursuing was initially caused by reports ....... about the Caspian's oil reserves constituting a strategic alternative to established resources in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.... U.S. political and economic interests can end up paying a fairly high price for compromising American principles which value clean government, fair play, and respect for human rights..... Local public resentment of U.S. regional influence is likely to occur once governments realize that the U.S. government officials they once trusted as impartial negotiators are now working for oil companies... Imagine the reaction in the region when Ambassador Maresca upon leaving government service went to work for one of the major oil companies [Unocal] lobbying Washington to ingratiate itself with Azerbaijan.... upon leaving government service, the official responsible for negotiating Section 907 language, Richard Armitage, joined many other Administration officials by enthusiastically lobbying for repeal of Section 907. Instead of observing the law, prior and present Administrations are working to circumvent it, while promising Azerbaijan that Congress would repeal it."

That was in 1998, the year that Maresca himself gave evidence to the House of Representatives on behalf of Unocal. His evidence concerned the need for a sympathetic government in Kabul in order to proceed with the company's proposed trans-Afghan pipeline for the transportation of Caspian region gas. At the time the proposals had hit the buffers in negotiations with the Taliban.

Just as it seems to be in the case of Armitage himself, the interim leader of Afghanistan installed by the United States, Hamid Karzai, is a former consultant to Unocal. Following the successful occupation of Afghanistan by US forces and their allies, Karzai met with President Musharraf of Pakistan and the President of Turkmenistan in Islamabad on 30 May. At the meeting a memorandum of understanding for the construction of the $2 billion trans-Afghan pipeline was finally signed. The pipeline will transport gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan terminating at the Pakistani port of Gwadar on the Arabian sea. According to the BBC "The Pakistani leader said once the project is completed, Central Asia's hydrocarbon resources would be available to the international market".

By means of a spur extension across the Pakistani border the gas from the pipeline had also previously been scheduled to service a giant energy plant in northern India. It happened to be a plant owned by an American company who had donated up to $300,000 towards the inauguration of President George W. Bush at the beginning of 2001.

"Welcome back. In his book, 'Forbidden Truth' - 'U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden' its subtitle - author Jean Charles Brisard makes some disturbing allegations regarding a connection between oil, Saudi Arabia, the Clinton and Bush administrations and al Qaeda."
Phil Donahue, MSNBC, 13 August

STOP PRESS - 'PUBLIC CONSENT' LATEST
US Police Use Rubber Bullets and Pepper Spray Against Anti-Bush Protesters in Portland August 22

Land of the Free. Eye witness reports of unprovoked police violence. Watch amateur video of protesters during Bush visit to Portland, Oregon. Was this across the front page of your newspaper? No? Wonder why? Watch video - click here. Still photos - click here and here.

"Portland police are saying they believe the retaliation came from officers called in from other jurisdictions. Portland police say they believe the rubber bullets and pepper-spray came from officers from Tigard, Beaverton or Clackamas County.... Several of our own KPTV/KPDX employees were sprayed. One of them was photographer Beth English, her tape shows that a police officer takes a dead-on aim at her face. Police tell us they work jointly with the US Secret Service. No one from either the Washington DC or the Portland offices returned our calls."
Scene of Violence and Chaos in Portland (local press report)
Foxpdx News, 23 Aug 2002

"..Atul Davda, who worked as a senior director for Enron's International Division until the company's collapse, confirmed ....: 'Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials. Building the pipeline [across Afghanistan] was one of the corporation's prime objectives.' .."
Enron gave Taliban $millions
National Enquirer, Monday March 4, 2002

Do You Have Unanswered 911 Questions
For Richard Armitage?

You Can Put Them To Him Personally
5 September 2002
The Capitol Hilton, Washington, DC
Special Conference Entitled
'911 A Year On'
click here for more information
Guest Speaker Richard Armitage
Hurry
Registration Deadline 29 August!
Too late to get a ticket? Then wait outside for him.

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity…
Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable."
Politics and the English Language
George Orwell, Essay, 1946

Advice From 'Global Outlook' Publisher
Now available. Subscribe online
Order by phone from publisher
Call (toll free) 1-888-713-8500 CRG Readers, Citizens' Coalitions, Anti-war and Civil Rights Groups: We need your Help to Distribute Global Outlook Contact us at editor@globaloutlook.ca

"We much appreciate your support, Also if you have people who would like to order (including bulk orders) they can do it online or they can do it on line or call us: bulk orders to 1-705-726-7300, talk to Ian; otherwise toll free 1-888-713-8500 "
Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N6N5 email/couriel: chossudovsky@videotron.ca

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.....We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war...."
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

"The Dutch government has released a report that details the alliance between the United States and the Islamic effort to help Bosnian Muslims. The report determined that the United States provided a green light to groups on the State Department list of terrorist organizations to operate in Bosnia. This included the Lebanese-based Hezbollah. For the European Union, the U.S. effort marks a stain that calls into question Washington's war on terrorism. For nearly a decade, the Clinton administration helped Islamic insurgents aligned with Chechnya, Iran and Saudi Arabia destabilize the former Yugoslavia.... More than a few European countries, consequently, have turned their nose up at the Bush administration's appeal to take Islamic terrorism seriously."
U.S. gave green light to terrorists in Bosnia
WorldNetDaily, 24 April 2002

Letting It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) - 911 - Creating a Pretext For The Oil and Gas War

To Be Truthful About It, Here Is The Graph
''Growing World and US Dependence on Imported Oil: 1990-2020"
(Av Daily Domestic Production V Demand)
click here to see why Bush and Blair are in a panic
and why Iraq is next

" [One way to maintain security is] to use international action to address global threats to energy security.
On just about any scenario the UK will become more dependent on imports both for both its gas and its oil. "
The Energy Review
A Performance and Innovation Unit Report, UK - February 2002

"The removal of Saddam is, in effect, the removal of the last threat to the free flow of oil from the Gulf as a whole.
There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world. It's the big prize."
Gerald Butt, Gulf editor of the Middle East Economic Survey
London Times, 11 July 2002

"A map produced by Harvard, Unocal and others in the spring of 2002
shows the first stages in the encirlcement of OPEC. Added in August, additional troop deployment indentified by FTW,
show that OPEC is not only surrounded, but about to be devided for peicemeal consumption"
From the Wilderness Publications, 21 August 2002
Click here to view map

Oil Dependency Means War, It's Time To Change To Renewables

Solar Energy, Agriculture and World Peace - click here

"Because warning is critical to the prevention of terrorist acts, the FBI also has expanded the Terrorist Threat Warning System first implemented in 1989. The system now reaches all aspects of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. ... Due to the measures I've discussed and several other initiatives, we are much better prepared to address the international terrorist threat than we were just a few years ago."
Statement for the Record of Louis J. Freeh, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation
on U.S. Government's Response to International Terrorism
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee United States Senate Washington, D.C., 3 September 1998

"[The FBI] were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11"
FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
London Guardian, 7 November 2001

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters....Yousef was planning simultaneous bombings of 11 U.S. airliners prior to his capture. Whatever form an attack may take, bin Laden will most likely retaliate in a spectacular way for the cruise missile attack against his Afghan camp in August 1998."
'Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism'
US National Intelligence Council Report, Sept 1999

"Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."
Richard Clarke, White House Terrorist Adviser, Informing Multiple Security Agencies, 5 July 2001
Washington Post, 17 May 2002

"The main [September 11] suspect [Zacarias Moussaoui] in US custody .... had been picked up by immigration authorities in August but the FBI refused to let its field agents search his laptop computer which contained clues as to the September 11 mission....."
'FBI arrogance and secrecy dismays US'
London Times, 3 Nov 2001

"The author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks...The FAA confirmed that it stepped up security measures concerning Mr Rushdie but refused to give a reason.”
Rusdie's Air Ban
London Times, 27 September 2001

"On Sept. 10.... a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
Newsweek 24 September 2001

"Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation [as on Sept 11] with 4 hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."
Horst Ehmke, former coordinator of West German secret services
"Euro Intel Experts Dismiss 'War On Terrorism' As Deception"
American Free Press - 4 Dec 2001

"Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. We had such facts too. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up.”
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Airforce, Anatoli Kornukov
Pravda online: 18:50 hrs 12th Sept 2001

"Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent....The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation... [despite this, nlpwessex] in no case was there apparently enough time after the FAA's warning for fighter planes to reach the hijacked airliners. More puzzling, there were 45 minutes between air traffic controllers losing contact with the third airliner, which took off from Dulles airport just outside Washington, and its crash on to the Pentagon."
Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks
London, Daily Telegraph, 16 September 2001

"Tony Blair has no plans to change the [pre-Sept 11] chain of command system under which he has to give personal authorisation to the RAF to shoot down a hijacked commercial airliner threatening London or other British cities, a government source said yesterday....The government source said the [British] Prime Minister was always instantly contactable under the special communications system wherever he was, at home or overseas. An RAF source said that even if an airliner was hijacked at Heathrow and then turned east towards London, there would still be time to act...."
Blair Controls Response to Hijack
London Times, 29 Sept 2001

Click on the above image to access 911 'unanswered questions' and click here for list of witnesses required for proper 911 inquiry

"In 32 years of reporting on international affairs, I have never seen Britain and the United States more separated from each other: not during the terrible last years of the Vietnam War, not during President Reagan's Iran-Contra dealings or his espousal of the crackpot Star Wars system. The way George W Bush's administration deals with the outside world is affecting even the most traditionally pro-American elements in British society. On two occasions last week I met senior civil servants from government departments in London who would normally be regarded as the natural bedrock of support for the Atlantic Alliance. In both cases I found open contempt for current American policy....."
Simpson on Sunday: 'Arrogant' Bush shakes British bedrock of Atlantic Alliance
London, Sunday Telegraph, 30 June 2002

White House Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights As Putin 'Special Relationship' Falters

"Both Washington and Moscow say al Qaeda members and Chechen separatists are holed up in Pankisi Gorge, a mountainous region in northeast Georgia. Russian officials have claimed that military Islamic organizations, including al Qaeda, historically have supported Chechen fighters. The Russian political establishment has long described the Chechen rebels as terrorists...."
Rooting out terrorists in Georgia
CNN, 1 March 2002

"Georgia claims that Russian jets bombed villages near the gorge on Friday. Russia strongly denied the claim but the United States issued a rebuke against a 'violation of Georgian sovereignty'. The Georgian authorities acknowledged months ago that the gorge was providing shelter for rebels ....."
Georgian troops enter rebel refuge
BBC Online, 25 August 2002

"An Iraqi military spokesman said that American and British jets used Kuwaiti airbases yesterday to bomb targets in Basra province, southern Iraq, killing eight people and wounding nine. In London the Ministry of Defence said that allied aircraft had attacked an Iraqi radar site after they were threatened [of course the US and Britain aren't threatening anyone are they?, nlpwessex]"
Bush to woo Saudi envoy in meeting at ranch
London Times, 26 August, 2002

"Even as Mr. Putin was speaking to journalists in Kazakhstan, an official at the Georgian Defence Ministry in Tbilisi disclosed that a 'large group' of U.S. military specialists were to arrive in Georgia later this month in the 'first phase' of the planned U. S. troop deployment in the republic, while American media spoke of hundreds of U. S. troops heading for the Caucasus [to bring the oil transit routes in former Soviet countries under American control - see map; the conflict in Chechnya is part of the battle for control of Caspian oil, nlpwessex]"
Russia resigned to U.S. presence in Caucasus
The Hindu, 3 March 2002

"Some Russian analysts argue that Turkey and the US are supporting the Ceyhan [rival pipeline] project [which passes through Georgia] so as to elbow Russia off the Caspian. Furthermore, Ankara's quiet support to the Chechen militants has been said to be designed to sustain volatility in the northern Caucasus - which would make it impossible for the competing CPC [Russian pipeline] project to proceed."
CONFLICT-CAUCASUS: Petrodollars Behind the Chechen Tragedy - Inter Press Service - 7 Dec 1999

"Forget the war on terrorism. The United States is once again supporting the drug dealers, gangsters and warlord fundamentalists. The other day a [US] State Dept. official met Chechnya’s self-declared foreign minister, Ilyas Akhmadov. The Russians were dismayed. Having thrown their lot in with the supposed common struggle against terrorism, they find the Americans giving support to terrorists. .....The Russians professed to be 'amazed' that the United States, as Agence France Presse reported, would meet with Chechens, 'whose direct links with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are being proven with constantly emerging, irrefutable evidence…' Chechnya has always been seen here as a rerun of Kosovo, which itself was a rerun of Afghanistan...."
The Bush Administration supports Terrorists in Kosovo, Macedonia and Chechnya
New York Press, Volume 15, Issue 6, February 2002

"It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush [Snr], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."
ABC News Nightline, June 9, 1992

"A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program....During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf.... Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons..... Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program...."
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
New York Times, 17 Aug 2002

"...the GOP [Republican Party] leaders are mostly cowardly men who evaded service in Vietnam....
Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft all avoided service in 'Nam'..."
Just Call Them cowardly hypocrites
BuzzFlash.com

Maharishi’s Weekly Global News Conference Each Wednesday
11:00 a.m. (US Eastern Time)
17:00 hours (Central Europe Time)

Connect live via Internet webcast: www.mou.org

Connect live via teleconference: (USA) +1-512-305-4600
and then enter the code 55689, followed by the # key.

To ask Maharishi questions: Please email your questions during the
press conference to WorldPeace@Maharishi.Net or telephone (USA) +1-641-470-1344

To View Text Summaries of Previous Press Conferences
click here

To Watch Video Replays of Previous Press Conferences
click here

'MAHARISHI'S MEDICAL RESEARCH GAINS RESPECT'
Des Moines Register, Health Front Page, 19 Aug 2002

Second Article Same Edition - Education - click here

Terrorist reprisals are all but certain now that the U.S. has launched its military campaign to 'eradicate' terrorism. For this reason, a proven solution to terrorism is especially urgent. Please follow the link below, read carefully, and act decisively. There is no other effective defense against terrorism.
Please click here