What does Wiki Leaks say about the Gaps in the JFK evidence?
18 minute gap in the Watergate tapes.
6 missing frames from the Zapruder film.
6 minute tape from the motor cycle officer’s (McCain) stuck microphone.
Watergate: In the 5 minutes before the 18 minute gap we hear Nixon, Bush & Haderman talking about “We have to pay Howard Hunt $1 million in cash to keep him from talking about our role in the Dallas ambush of JFK.”
After the gap, again we hear Nixon, CIA Director George Bush & Halderman still talking about paying Hunt $1 million to keep him from getting us all arrested for the JFK murder.
Do you have to guess what Bush & Nixon were talking about on the 18 minute gap, created by the CIA erasing the 18 minutes of tape.
Now in 2011, we have the technology to un-erase the 18 minute erasure.
Finally we get to hear Bush & Nixon confessing to killing President Kennedy.
Arrest & prosecute Bush. Give him the death penalty for murdering JFK.
Zapruder: The 6 missing frames from the Z film show 3 rifle bullets all hitting the freeway sign at the same time, proving 3 CIA shooters: Hunt, Sturgis & Bradley, all fired at the same time 1, 2, ...3, & hitting JFK in the neck.
Then you can hear the 4th & 5th shots hitting JFK in the right forehead. How did the shots miss Jackie?
The audio tape from the Motorcycle officer, McCain, you can actually hear the 5 shots so clearly, it prove there were 5 shots, which all came from the grassy knoll.
From the sound prints we can prove the types of the 3 rifles.
This investigation is starting to get juicy.
Arrest CIA Bush for the JFK murder.
Ramsey Clark helped the CIA attack DA Jim Garrison in the March 1967 trial of CIA agent Clay Shaw, for the assassination of President John Kennedy.
When Garrison subpoenaed the files of Shaw, to determine if he was a CIA agent, Clark blocked the subpoena, because the file contained the names of Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Geo HW Bush and all the Cuban exiles in Miami who worked for Bush and were the people most angry at JFK for refusing to invade and napalm Cuba to death. Garrison subpoenaed Manual Artime, who the CIA then killed.
Ramsey Clark was intimately involved with the CIA in the ambush of JFK.
Ask yourself, "Who killed Ceasar?"
It was 12 Senators.
Likewise in the JFK ambush, There was a whole section of the US ruling class, from the corporations: Rockefeller & Mellon, to 12 Senators, the Pentagon, the Media: ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, to the Justice Dept. & yes, even little Ramsey Clark. They all conspired to block DA Garrison and Mark Lane.
Clark is now 80, and has written a book confessing his involvement in the JFK assassination. The book will be released in 2013, on the 50th anniversary of the JFK military style ambush.
It is title: “The JFK Assassin In the Mirror.” Clark’s guilt has been eating him to death for 50 years. He began a website, calling for the impeachment of Bush to try to assuage his guilt.
Born Wm. Ramsey Clark 12-18-27 in Texas, son of a famous racist judge, Clark never grew up. He never was a good thinker, just a puppet of his father and their class.
Behind Earth Day
Editor -- Regarding the Sept. 27 Open Forum article: Why was April 22 chosen as Earth Day? What event happened? I may know, because in April 1968, San Francisco State College celebrated the first Earth Day.
Following the oil spill in Santa Barbra, three biology students at S.F. State, who were also part of SDS, the Joe Hill caucus, decided to hold a event to unify the green and the red movements on campus. The administration gave us the main auditorium. We had eight speakers, including Guissippi Slater, Paul Kangas, Doug Kitt and Golden Gate Park's head gardener. I wish I could remember his name, because he was a very funny speaker. He brought a bag of human waste, from the SF Waste Disposal Unit, which he said was what they were fertilizing the Park with. Shocked people. Very funny.
We decided to hold the first Earth Day on April 22, because that was V.I. Lenin's birthday. We thought using that date would unify the greens and the reds. So now you know the rest of the story.
Bush killed JFK. See the Photos. This slideshow will cover the secret history of George Bush, from the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, to Dallas & the JFK assassination, to Vietnam, to Watergate. No one covers it better than Private Investigator Paul Kangas, former Guard for President Kennedy and member of the US Bay of Pigs Invastion of Cuba.
Meet Paul Kangas, in person, Wednesday, 1-14-08, 6-9pm, 401 Van Ness & McAllister, rm 219, second floor, above the Herbst Theater.
Paul Kangas will be speaking and answering questions. Seating is limited to the first 50 people only. You must be in your seat by 5pm. Doors close after the 50th person. No one will be allowed in after the doors close.
Tyranny of a tiny minority of farmers - Wondering why Congress rarely passes anything the public wants? Then grab Thomas Geoghegan's 1999 memoir, "The Secret Lives of Citizens."
But here is what civics class didn't teach: With each state getting two senators regardless of population, 41 percent of the Senate often represents not a significant minority, but an infinitesimal one.
Using Census figures, Geoghegan discovers that the 11 percent of Americans living in the least populated states have enough Senate votes — 41 — to sustain a filibuster. Yes, 89 percent of the population may support a policy, but 11 percent of the population has the senators to block that policy's enactment. When you go further than Geoghegan and consider the election-focused mindset of politicians, you see the situation is even more absurd.
Lawmakers trying to keep their jobs only need support from a majority of those who turn out to vote. In those 21 least populated states with filibuster power, that majority is typically about 7 million voters, based on turnout data. That's just 3 percent of America's total voting-age population wielding enough Senate representation to stop almost anything.
To see how this works, consider what followed a July CBS News/New York Times poll that found 69 percent of Americans support Congress either enacting a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq or defunding the war completely. When the Senate voted on timetable legislation that month, 47 senators voted "no" — enough to filibuster.
Should we be surprised that a policy supported by more than two thirds of America drew opposition from almost half of the Senate? No, not when we consider the math.
Those 47 senators understand they don't answer to mainstream public opinion.
They rely on merely 16 percent of the nation's total voting-age population to get elected and re-elected — a miniscule segment of America comprising the hard-core Republican base.
Obviously, small-state senators would block Constitutional amendments making our government more democratic. So why bother to know these numbers? Because they tell us how and where we can achieve progress.
In the Karl Rove age of base politics, this Senate setup means that most domestic reforms will not come from D.C., no matter which party controls Congress or the presidency. Change will come instead from the arenas that are more democratic and have no filibuster: state legislatures.
This isn't wishful thinking. As energy, universal health care and consumer protection initiatives face Senate filibusters, legislatures are acting. For instance, California already passed one of the planet's most far-reaching clean energy mandates and may soon enact a universal health care plan. North Carolina passed predatory lending laws that are setting national standards. Such examples could fill a phone book.
Of course, foreign policies like the Iraq War are federal issues and legislating those policies must involve the Senate. But the filibuster hardly means the campaign to end the war is pointless — it just means it requires a new strategy making the Senate's drawbacks the campaign's strength.
Specifically, Senate Democrats whine about not having 60 votes to pass Iraq-related legislation. They pretend they are innocent bystanders with no means to act, and some anti-war groups give the charade credence by echoing these excuses. Yet, if properly pressured, those Democrats might be able to muster 41 votes to stop war funding bills.
It is all about comprehending power. Geoghegan's book exposes the mechanics permitting a tyranny of the tiny minority — one that makes most of us feel disenfranchised. But the numbers also explain which arenas will likely deliver results, and which will not; where we should expend resources pushing for change, and where we should not; and what strategies are appropriate, and what strategies are not.
The question is, will we heed the lesson?
Iraq and the Betrayal of Trust
by George Lakoff
Last modified Sunday, September 16, 2007 07:05 PM
Read George Lakoff's related blog post, Whose Betrayal?, about MoveOn's "General Betray Us?" ad and share your comments on the Rockridge Nation Blog.
MoveOn's "General Betray Us?" ad has raised vital questions that need open discussion.
MoveOn hit a nerve. In the face of truth, the right-wing has been forced to change the subject — away from the administration’s betrayal of trust and the escalating tragedy of the occupation to of all things, an ad! To take the focus off maiming and death and the breaking of our military, they talk about etiquette. The truth has reduced them to whining: MoveOn was impolite. Rather than face the truth, they use character assassination against an organization whose three million members stand for the highest patriotic principles of this country, the first of which is a commitment to truth.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich, right about so many things, got it wrong when he criticized the ad in his Sunday column.
He overlooks the fact that the "distraction" he worries about has led the supporters of the Iraq occupation to endlessly evoke the Betrayal of Trust frame, identifying themselves with the Betrayer of Trust in that frame. The betrayers themselves took MoveOn's bait.
Thanks to their making it a national issue, we can now proceed to discuss their Betrayal of Trust on the national stage they have conveniently provided. The importance of this frame is discussed in "Betrayal of Trust: Beyond Lying" — Chapter 6 of Don't Think of an Elephant!
Betrayal is a moral issue, and with respect to war, mass destruction, maiming, and death, it is a moral issue of the highest order. Betraying trust is a matter of deception that knowingly leads to significant harm. There is little doubt that the Iraq War and its aftermath have done considerable harm — to our troops, to the Iraqi people, and to our nation as whole. It is equally clear that there has been a considerable amount of deception in the instigation of the war and throughout the occupation. In short, there has been, and continues to be, a considerable betrayal of trust. It goes well beyond the general and the fudging of his figures.
The issue is this: Who has been betraying the trust of the American people — including our troops — in bringing about the American invasion of Iraq and in continuing the occupation? What were the acts of betrayal and with what consequences? And is a betrayal of trust still going on, and if so where, how, and by whom?
The old examples are well-known: The fabrication of intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction, the made-up link between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, telling troops that by fighting in Iraq they are protecting America, failing to provide adequate body armor or humvee protective armor, and so on. But it was not just the Bush administration that betrayed the trust of the American people. There has been and continues to be collusion. If you knowingly aid and abet betrayal, you too are a betrayer. That includes those in Congress who have supported the administration's deceptions, and the right-wing think tanks, media outlets, and pundits. It includes Frank Luntz, the Republican language consultant who recommended referring to the Iraq occupation as the War on Terror. And then there is Betrayal by Negligence: Journalists who simply used the administration’s deceptive framing when the facts undermining those frames were readily available. Finally, there are the major Republican Presidential candidates, who are perpetuating the administration’s deceptions and its betrayal of trust.
Betrayal for Oil?
Why the deceptions? Why the false intelligence on WMD's? Why the false link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? Why Cheney's acceptance of the "quagmire" he warned against in 1994? And why his acceptance of the massive casualties he said would occur when in 1994 he was so proud of having had few casualties in the Gulf War?
Those at the hearings kept referring to America's "vital interests." "Vital interests" is a code word, and what we seem to have here is Betrayal by Code Words. One of the main vital interests is oil. As Alan Greenspan said in his new book, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Yes, oil! The word is hardly ever mentioned in discussions of Iraq. The main event is oil. The oil legislation that the Bush Administration is so hot to push through the Iraqi government is not just about the sharing of revenues among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. It includes a crucial "production sharing agreement" (or "PSA") — a legalistic code word. What it means is that, while the Iraqi state would nominally be in control of its oil, actually American and British oil companies — ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Hunt, Conoco — would get exclusive 30 year oil development contracts yielding them up to 75% of oil profits until their investment was paid for and 20% (double the usual royalty rate) thereafter. These contracts would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. And they are written so that the terms cannot be changed by future Iraqi governments. In short, they take democratic control of Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Iraqi people and give irreversible control of facilities and the oil to American and British companies. For 30 years.
Why is Bush proposing that 130,000 troops be kept in Iraq for many more years? In significant measure, to protect those oil interests — American investments and the American personnel doing the developing.
To read up on American corporate and government involvement in Iraqi oil, go to this report by Global Policy Forum, a nonprofit that consults for the United Nations Security Council.
Does the use of the term "vital interests," but not "oil," constitute Betrayal by Code Word? The question must be asked, and oil must be discussed. Especially the question of whether the war was really begun for the sake of oil. A few weeks ago, MoveOn ran the following clip of a 1994 video interview with Dick Cheney, in which Cheney points out that, if we had gone into Baghdad during the Gulf War of 1991 we would face all the horrors that we have seen: a sectarian civil war, a country we could not govern or control, guerilla warfare, mass casualties, and chaos. In short, Cheney knew what we would face there, and presumably so did Bush. They also knew that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the first week of his presidency. They were also both oilmen. Did they invade for the oil? The question must be asked. If so, there is a lot of blood in that oil. Would they or their supporters forsake the American oil contracts and take our troops out? The question must be asked.
And a final impertinent, but crucial question. At a time when the nation and the world is clamoring for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and for eliminating dependency on oil, why should we be promoting the extraction of even more oil — in Halliburton's estimate, 50 million barrels a day more by 2010. Are ExxonMobil's profits a good reason?
Encouraging the production of even more oil is a betrayal of trust to the detriment of future generations. Oil ties Iraq and Global Warming into a single issue.
The Politeness Trap
There are certain politeness conventions that members of Congress follow. For example, anyone in a US military uniform must be commended for his patriotism, ability, and dedication — even if it is a political appointee on a political mission, like Petraeus.
There is a reason for this, what linguists call 'metonymy,' a mode of thought in which a leader stands for the institution he or she leads. If this commonplace metonymy is used, a general in uniform reporting to Congress would be seen as standing for the military as an institution.
Here is an example of the metonymy at work. Bradley A. Blakeman, president of Freedom's Watch, a White House front group, said "To question the character and patriotism of brave men and women who combat terrorism everyday is too much, it's in poor taste and it will not go unchallenged." Via metonymy, to call Petraeus into question is to question the troops' patriotism.
Literally, MoveOn was doing the opposite — the ad as a whole (hardly discussed in the media) insisted on the truth, even by a general acting politically for the President. MoveOn.org was upholding the "character and patriotism," as well as the well-being, of the troops by insisting that they no longer be deceived, that the betrayal end. Blakeman takes advantage of the commonplace Leader-for-Institution metonymy to tell a further lie, and continue the betrayal.
Because the Leader-stands-for-the-Institution metonymy is widespread, members of the Senate and the House therefore treated the general with utmost respect at the hearing — lest some members of the public think that they were not respecting the military, which they in fact do respect, and should. The troops, after all, are not betraying us, whatever their commanders and political leaders might be doing. But they and their parents and friends might be offended if someone wearing the uniform were insulted at a Congressional hearing—even if the intended target was the political appointee wearing the uniform and following political orders.
The Bush administration, knowing all this, made sure Petraeus testified in uniform. They knew that no really impertinent questions could be asked, nor impolite accusations made. The event was staged — with Bush going to just about the only relatively safe place in Iraq a few days before. Bush's framing — that the commanders in the field know best — took advantage of the metonymy. Where Bush had actually let Petraeus know in no uncertain terms what Petraeus was to tell Congress, he used the respect for the military to gain respect for his policy. With his popularity down to about 33% and credibility lacking, Bush was betting on the popularity and assumed integrity of the military. Moreover, Bush made political use of 9/11. He had Petraeus testify on 9/11, when nobody could possibly say anything but nice things and use code words. In short, Bush had put opponents to his policy in a politeness trap. To point out the betrayal inherent in the policy and in the general's report, they would have had to be disrespectful to the general, which they could not.
But in a country that takes its freedoms seriously, freedom of speech must be maintained. Betrayal through deception is much worse than being impolite. Where tens of thousands of deaths and maimings are concerned, it is immoral not to point out betrayals when they are real. It is patriotic to root out betrayal on grand scale wherever it occurs.
I do not question the need for decorum in Congressional hearings. But that decorum itself can be put to political use, as was done in the Petraeus testimony. Because of the Politeness Trap, the questions were set within Petraeus' framing. You might question the numbers or the graphs, but not the framing of the testimony itself, namely, that the military outlook in Iraq is improving. To negate the frame is to reinforce the frame. Asking how much it is improving, preserves the frame. Arguing that it is not improving negates the frame, and therefore preserves the frame. Even asking whether it is improving preserves the frame.
What the nation saw was Institutional Betrayal by the administration and the general — betrayal of trust by manipulating the politeness conventions of the Congressional hearing.
The politeness conventions of Congress extend even further. A polite Senator or Congressman cannot describe what he or she sees if the description is impolite. A good example is the recent observation by Glenn W. Smith that the President is effectively holding our troops hostage. The Constitution makes Congress the ultimate Decider when it comes to military action. Congress has the authority and the duty to tell the President what to do, and the President has the duty of carrying out what Congress authorizes. The Constitution automatically ends any military action if Congress does not positively authorize paying for it. Congress, by doing nothing, could allow its authorization of military action to end, and say it would only authorize funds for immediate troop withdrawal. The President would then have the Constitutional duty to end our military involvement and bring the troops home.
But the President has put the Democrats in Congress in a political trap. Bush has defied the Constitution before — with signing statements, and has even made a principle of it with his Principle of the Unitary Executive. The Democrats very much care about the lives of our 160,000 troops in Iraq. Many of them believe that Bush does not care about the lives of the troops — as shown by his failure to supply body armor, or adequate troop numbers, or adequate treatment for veterans, as well as his willingness to keep a large number of troops in Iraq for another decade. In effect, Bush is saying, "Give me the funding I want to continue the occupation, are I will leave the troops there without funding, let them get massacred, and blame you." It is political blackmail. In his dealings with the Democrats in Congress, the troops are his hostages. Can anyone in Congress say so? Not by the rules of Congressional politeness. It would be accusing him of betrayal of trust.
But we citizens can — and must — say what we see.
The Conservative Smokescreen
John McCain says that the Democrats are calling for "surrender." Norm Coleman calls Democrats "defeatist." That's not very polite, nor is it true. What conservatives have been doing for years is accusing progressives questioning their policy of betraying our military endeavors by being "weak." Anyone who questions policies favoring military action is in for a betrayal attack — one without foundation at all. Remember "cut and run." It will come back. And it will not be polite. It was not exactly polite for Sen. John McCain, a presidential candidate, to say, "MoveOn.org ought to be thrown out of this country."
The conservatives' rewriting of history in Vietnam hinges on the myth of liberal betrayal, that by not being strong, liberals betrayed America in Vietnam. The same myth is being perpetrated. This is a strategy for hiding their own betrayal of trust. Bring it up and you will be marked as not supporting the troops, as being weak, as surrendering, as "defeatist." It is name-calling.
What we need is a serious discussion of facts, from the perspective of who is being harmed, and who, in a position of authority, has been creating serious harm to our troops and to our nation by being deceptive. That is the Betrayal of Trust issue.
Read George Lakoff's related blog post, Whose Betrayal?, about MoveOn's "General Betray Us?" ad and share your comments on the Rockridge Nation Blog.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today, 1-31-07, (SF Chron, pg A11) said she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have agreed they will vote for MORE money for the immoral war in Iraq! They oppose cutting off the funds to the expanded war effort offered by President George Bush, Jr.
They oppose Impeachment. The majority support impeachment. We will Impeach the bum.
Even though a MAJORITY of the US Troops in Iraq, say they do not want more money, they do not want more guns, they want the war funding cut to ZERO now, they want to stop the war and go home!
Pelosi has said she will expand the war. It is the duty of the People of the United States to stop Bush Jrs. bloody attack on Iraq. The Democrats think they can run the war better. We say no! The Troops say No! We must cut off all funding NOW!
We must stop this war by Christmas 2007.
What can You & I can do to pressure the spineless Democrats to stop the war? What power does one individual have? The Democrats were elected, not because they spoke out against the war, but because the anti-war movement , on the streets, demonstrating monthly, in the 50 largest cities in the U.S., and the world, changed public opinion against the war.
First the Activists marched alone. Then the Zogby Poll, 2006, reported that 70% of the soldiers in the field in Iraq though the US had lost the war, and they wanted to go home. Who wants to be the last kid to die in Iraq?
Slowly, the media came out against the war. Then the majority turned against the war. Even the TV news show ,60 minutes, came out, when Andy Rooney gave this great, serious, 3 minutes speech, calling for the war to stop now, and for Bush to go on TV and admit he was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Then the churchs turned against the war. Then the Zogby Poll reported in 2007, that 51% of even the US Marines wanted to go home fast.
Finally, some of the lame Democrats came out, weakly, against the war. Now that the Democrats are in power, they want to run the war better. The Democrats want to pull the troops out of the cities of Iraq, and keep forts around the oil wells.
Barack Obama was quoted in the New Yorker, (1/15/07) that if he was President he would sent in 150,000 more troops to save the oil fields. Obama is a willing slave to the Oil Companies. Before the war, Iraq was pumping 3.5 million barrels a day. Now it is down to 2 million. The Democrats claim, if they ran the war, they could raise oil production up to 6 million barrels a day.
Edwards will get his chance.
The peace movement: Code Pink, Veterans for Peace ( VFP ), (THC) ( Troops Home by Christmas ), (THC), World Can't Wait, ( WCW), Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, ( ANSWER ), MoveOn, etc, want the war budget cut to zero by Saturday, March 17th. Hey, even the majority of the US troops are opposed to the war. The troops do not want more money or guns. The troops want to come home according to the Zogby poll of over 3,000 troops in the field in Iraq. Even 51% of the Marines want the lost war to end.
Let,s support our troops by doing what they want, to come home by Christmas 2007.
Once the budget is cut to zero, then the contractors will stop, and the war will stop. Beware. The Democrats do not want to stop the war. Remember Vietnam. Once LBJ came into power, the Democrats expanded the war, with the Christmas bombing of Hanoi. What a bloody Christmas suprise that was. From the damn Democ Rats. Expect the same in 2007.
America needs the money spent on curing Heart Disease, in rebuilding the housing and schools of America.
We will only get the government we demand. Get ready to march against the war Budget every month in 2007, or else the DemocRats will sneak us back into the war. Please write one letter every month to your representative in Congress, but back it up with one peace vigil every week. The next national march is March 17, Sat. 11am in SF, NY and in every state capitol. Please join us. IM and email your friends today to plan to attend.
There is a mutiny
happening in Iraq right
Right now in Iraq, 2-1-07, hundreds of troops are
demanding to go home
for Christmas. The troops all know the war is over. Christmas is a time for peace and family. Accept the fact, we lost this wrong war.
Stop the useless killing for oil. The troops know the idiot Republicans who sent them into hell, have been driven from the Senate and the House. The war is over.
We elected the Democrats to stop the war. Not to invade Iran or tap dance around the issue to total withdrawal immediately. As it Vietnam, fewer lives will be lost if we release the only President of Iraq, allow him to see if he can bring back some sanity, and the U.S. troops, our kids, should come back by Christmas. The war is over. If you agree, ACT. Write Congress. Do not let the Democrats play games with the lives of these kids in uniform. Make Christmas a time of world peace.
This has happened before, during a war.
Remember, during WWI, the
troops actually stopped
the war at Christmas,
to sing peace songs,
then refused to fight
after the Xmas pause.
See this movie, Joyous
Noel, Marry Christmas,
about the WWI mutiny. It is a very timely movie.
The movie is available right now at your local video
store now. Please rent
the movie to understand this
mutiny in Iraq now.
Congress to demand the troops
come home for Christmas. It was the pressure from the Peace movement that got the Democrats elected. Now it is time to bring all the troops home by Christmas.
During the Korean war, Ike ran on the slogan, Bring all the troops home by Christmas.
Veterans for Peace.
Paul 7Kangas @cs.com
Kurt Vonneguts book, Sh5, really opened my eyes to the reality of WWII. Joy & carnage,
My favorite parts of the book were Vonneguts joyful description of being liberated from the basement jail the Nazi had kept him in, in the beautiful city of Dresden. Dresden, German , had no military significance, other that it had a small prison camp, for 200 American & other prisoners of war, including Vonnegut. Vonnegut was released from the prison when the Red Army, liberated the City. On May 1st, 1945 even Berlin fell to the Russian Red Army. The Americans were sitting out the war, waiting & hoping the Germans would capture Moscow. But the secret US-German alliance lost WWII. Now by Feb 1945, the Red Army had pushed the Germans out of Dresden.
Vonnegut knew he would soon be free. The huge Red Army was now pushing the defeated German Army across Germany. Dresden was now filled with 900,000 civilian refugees, fleeing the war. The war was over. No one was expecting an air raid, since there was now no military value to Dresden. If was just a quiet city filled with refugees. The war was over. Peace was at hand. The Nazis had been defeated by the Red Army. The Nazi flag came down last month. Soon the red flag of liberation would soon fly over the huge library in Dresden.
Suddenly the air was filled with American bombers. Vonnecuts month of joy turned to confusion, to then see the US Air Force bomb the whole beautiful city of Dresden into nothing, after the Red Army had defeated the Nazi. Historians have called this senseless attack by the American the greatest massacre in the history of WWII. Then the Brits came in and fire bombed Dresden, killing even more tens of thousands of civilians.
Over 100,000 thousand children were burned to death in Dresden. Vonnegut called this the worse carnage ever witnessed in 1 week, during whole of WWII -- greater than the worse loss of life anywhere else in the war. Why would the US & do something so brutal, so inhumane, so stupid??? Burning 100,000 children and women to death for no military reason.
Vonnegut said the only reason the US bombed Dresden was to keep the dozens of huge Science libraries and over 100 excellent glass manufacturing plants, out of the hands of the Russians, ... revealed that the US was really on the side of the Nazis! All of WWII was just a war by the Bush family in a stupid attempt to capture Russia. This is the bloody facts about WWII, that Vonnegut wrote about, and was the main reason the US tried to ban Vonneguts books!
10) John Black, The Truth about the 1945 Bombing of Dresden (23rd February 1995)
Dresden was a center of cultural and architectural wonders, including the famous Zwinger Museum and Palace and the cathedral, the Frauenkirche.
There were no military objectives of any consequence in the city - its destruction could do nothing to weaken the Nazi war machine. U.S. and British air warfare had left the beautiful city of Dresden intact until that point.
By February 1945, refugees fleeing westward before the onrushing Red Army had doubled Dresden's population. The Soviet military forces were poised to seize the city from the Nazis. It was at that moment that the military and political strategists of United States decided to launch a terror bombing attack.
Winston Churchill was Britain's prime minister then. He was also responsible for war strategy, especially regarding its political aims. Churchill's goal in Europe was not only to destroy the military machine of Britain's imperialist secret ally - Germany - but to stop the advance of the Soviet Union.
With the latter in mind, he decided to bomb Dresden...
Official figures issued by the new city government of Dresden, set up in the wake of the city's surrender to the Red Army, indicate that 135,000 people - mostly women, children and older people - suffocated in the firestorm or burned to death. Other studies give a much higher casualty figure for the attack. The presence of so many refugees made accurate counts difficult. Vonnegut lived thru this holocaust, and lived to write the truth. Few Americans know this yet.
American Apologists for the bombing point to Nazi Germany's own crimes. Following the war's end, however, the U.S. and Britain occupiers were quick to allow the top Nazi leaders to play important roles in western Germany - to gain these criminals as allies against the USSR.
In fact, the US brought the top 2,000 Nazi leaders to the US, and they joined the CIA, as documented in the Treaty of Fort Hunt.
To reach the same political goal, the U.S. and British rulers could easily sacrifice more than 100,000 children, with the bombing of Dresden.
The US, specifically the Bush family, was the main financial backers of Hitler. The SF Mime troop did a show about the Bush family & Hitler --- Back to Normal.