In his State of the Union Address made January 2003, George W. Bush said the following infamous sixteen words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Nearly everyone listening to those words, which Bush used to dramatic effect, immediately realized that that was the tipping point. If Saddam Hussein had "sought significant quantities of uranium" while his country was under UN sanctions, then there could be little doubt that he was attempting to create a nuclear weapon or weapons or at least the material for so-called dirty bombs (conventional explosives that would scatter radioactive material.

The statement was not couched as an unconfirmed or unsubstantiated possibility. It was made in a way to say that there is no doubt.

Joe Wilson had been to Niger for the CIA a year before the State of the Union Address. He had followed the leads and concluded they were false. The basis of the claim made in the Address was a forgery called the Yellowcake Forgery that came out of the Niger embassy in Italy.

The trail concerning exactly how the forgery got there was deliberately under investigated. Most people on the inside suspect Michael Ledeen. Ledeen is a rabid hawk, neocon, false Zionist, Machiavellian who worked deeply in US/Italian intelligence over the decades and who has consistently written advocating immediate, unmerciful, total war on Islam.

The CIA then informed the White House that there was no credible evidence that Iraq had sought any uranium at all. The White House pulled the claim from a speech made before the State of the Union Address but reinserted it for the Address and then blamed it on the CIA.

Meanwhile Hadley [deputy national security adviser] assistant Robert Joseph also claimed, again deceptively, that CIA had accepted the phony charge for the Bush speech. Security adviser Condi Rice promptly went over the cliff, telling reporters the language had only been in the Bush speech because of the CIA. Again it was Cheney, Libby and Hadley who worked into the night to concoct George Tenet's [CIA director] statement in which the CIA took the blame for the deceptive "sixteen words." Cheney then dictated more talking points to guide Fleischer [White House press spokesman] in his interactions with the press. He also gave Libby, instead of his [Cheney's] press aides, the action with reporters and planned the press conference where White House communications director Dan Bartlett would release the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] and attempt to explain the phony charges in the State of the Union address, previewing the show for conservative columnists at a luncheon at his own official residence. George Bush, stuck in darkest Africa by Condi Rice's gaffes, went along meekly.

There can be no question that Cheney was the puppeteer in this entire production. 1

This was typical of the propaganda and disinformation tactics of the neocon Bush administration in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. The same thing is going on now concerning Iran.

Joe Wilson went public about the disinformation tactic. Vice president Dick Cheney then started a campaign to discredit Joe Wilson. It was decided that the White House and the office of the vice president would leak to the press that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was at the time an undercover CIA agent. Cheney apparently thought that this would call into question the un-biasness of Wilson's findings. The ploy backfired.

Right now Dick Cheney's former chief of staff at the time, Scooter Libby, is being scapegoated to protect Karl Rove and others by being criminally tried for leaking the identity of a CIA covert operative. This does not mean that Libby is innocent. He isn't. He's to be the witting fall guy. He's to take the brunt of the hit for the sake of the neocon agenda. He isn't cooperating. The sharks are turning on each other in the bloody waters.

Many aspects of how the White House used willing journalists has come out concerning this uranium issue and other deliberate misinformation leading the American people and the world into war.

To date, the British have not retracted their claim, despite the evidence of the forgery. They are maintaining that they heard communications suggesting Iraq's interest in obtaining uranium. Well, the NSA has ears concerning all such traffic, why then is it the British who are out front on this alleged information?

What is the credibility of the British considering the Downing Street Memo(s)? What is the credibility of the British considering all of its history of imperialism and lying?

Mossadegh's nationalization move was not made without concern for British interests. His government promised to pay 25% of oil profits to the British as compensation and guaranteed the safety of British jobs. Nonetheless, the British refused to negotiate and responded with a show of naval force, followed by economic blockades, boycotts and the freezing of Iranian assets. [That was 1951-53 Iran. Mossadegh was the duly elected prime minister of Iran.]


To prepare the way for the desired coup the British Information Research Department (IRD) was called into action. They ratcheted up their efforts to control radio broadcasts into Egypt and they planted false stories in the BBC, the London Press Service and the Arab News Agency. Forged documents were created that suggested that Nasser was planning to take over the entire Middle East oil trade, and a bogus report was disseminated that alleged that Egyptian dissidents were being sent to a concentration camp manned by ex-Nazis. [That was 1955 Egypt.]


The secular Egyptian government has traditionally been one of the toughest enemies of Islamic terrorism, whereas the single most important backer of Egyptian terror groups has been Britain. This last statement goes entirely against the preconceptions of most British and American citizens....


[Concerning the Arab oil embargo] ...the rise in oil prices was something that had been planned previously by the Anglo-American Establishment and mentioned at the Bilderberg conference in May, 1973 in Saltsjoebaden, Sweden. Kissinger was the point man in engineering the Arab-Israeli conflict that created the excuse for the oil price hike that helped to rescue Britain's North Sea oil projects that had previously been seen as risky investments. The most catastrophic effect, however, was that the rise in energy prices put a quick halt to Third World industrialization, forcing many countries to borrow a great deal of money over the years to pay for energy, thus setting the stage for the long-term indebtedness of the Third World to Anglo-American banks.


After taking over from Mossadegh the Shah began to push forward a number of nationalist policies that increased his popularity at home but, in some cases, worried the Anglo-American Establishment. First, he signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company. Then in 1963 he pushed forward on a series of popular reforms that became known as the White Revolution. The Shah evolved into a nationalist whose path paralleled that of Nasser far too much for the Establishment's liking:

- He bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown's own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers, allowing over one a [sic] half million people to become land owners and ending the old feudal system.

- He allowed women the right to vote, and brought an end to the wearing of the veil, which were "Westernizing" moves unwelcomed by the religious sector.

- He pushed forward on a $90 billion nuclear power program.

- He moved to shut down the lucrative opium industry that had been created during the days of British Empire control that had been running for a hundred years. [This was the dictator of Iran put into place by the US and UK.]

In 1973 The Economist magazine featured Iran on the front cover with the caption: "Iran the Next Japan of the Middle East?" Iran's economy had grown at a rate of 7-8% each year from 1965-1973 and was becoming an example for the developing nations of the world to follow. As far as the Anglo-American Establishment was concerned this could not be allowed to continue. Establishment goals were focused on world de-population and de-industrialization as formulated by policy makers like Lord Bertrand Russell and as advocated by establishment lackeys such as Kissinger, Zibigniew [sic] Brzezinski and Robert McNamara (the head of the World Bank)....


The attack on the Shah's government came through the Muslim Brotherhood and through the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, supported and manipulated by British Intelligence.


The BBC Persian Service came to be nicknamed in Iran the "Ayatollah BBC" for its non-stop coverage of everything that Khomeini wanted to say.... Soon a large segment of the Iranian public, most of them impressionable young students, became convinced that the Shah truly was evil and that a return to pure shi'ite Islam under the Ayatollah's leadership was the only way to save their country. The Carter Administration, manipulated by British lackey Zbigniew Brzezinski, then collaborated with the British to topple the Shah and install Khomeini. 2

The British have a long history of lying for imperialist reasons. The British Empire was the heir to the Roman Empire that is now shared with, and dominated by, America. America's status and power as that heir is being eroded by Europe that wants most of it back. They have always been America's rival.

As for the Middle East and energy and mineral resources in general, the Empire (the American-European oligarchs) will always seek to knock off anyone who moves to egalitarianism rather than allowing the rape of the land and people by the Empire. To knock them off, the oligarchs will use anyone who is a rival to the particular leader in question. Once that rival is put into power, the same thing applies. Meanwhile, the non-oligarchs within the Empire are fed a pack of lies all designed to obfuscate what is really going on, which is greater and greater consolidation of power, control, and wealth in the hands of the top oligarchs, who themselves are rivals. They cooperate only to keep the game going. It is sheer insanity and sheer evil (selfishness).

Disinformation is a bigger part of the information given to the people than are facts when it comes to so-called intelligence. Appearances are everything. The idea is to fool the people into going along with the iniquity of imperialism. It has ever been so.

One must never forget the Office of Special Plans, which was a disinformation factory, a frantic psy-ops factory in the Pentagon headed up by neocon policy wonks and not professional, career intelligence officers. It was a Team B grade lie factory.

One must never forget the complicity of the mainstream media in the plan of the global oligarchs. The mainstream media is owned and operated by that oligarchy. If the oligarchy wants something spun a certain way, the journalist will do it or be terminated.

Therefore, all the claims out there that there were reasonable grounds for George W. Bush to use those sixteen words in his Address are that spin. It is perception management. It is open dissemination of counter and false arguments designed to continue the lies. It is designed to bolster credibility in the eyes of the duped that the administration may not now be lying about Iran.

Well, Iran isn't perfect, far from it; however, it isn't what the administration is painting.

Just how bent upon empire is Iran? Just how far would Iran go if unchecked by America and Europe? What do they ultimately want? What is their ultimate vision of the region and the world?

Well, of course those in power now want sharia (Qur'anic law) everywhere. Do we want that? Is the Bush-way the best way to counter it? Absolutely not, but the world isn't going to get right so long as the oligarchs are enthroned. Those oligarchs are the ones who put the sharia advocates in power rather than allowing the Iranians to have their nationalist and more egalitarian society back in the 1950's. Why do the people follow the oligarchs allowing those oligarchs to stay in power? Without followers, they are powerless.

The people need to consolidate their own egalitarian society independent as much as possible from those oligarchs. Set it up parallel to the system. Nurture it. Make it grow and spread. Show what can be done with cooperation versus competition. The people need to convince all the brothers and sisters not to do the beck and call of the oligarchs who turn them against each other in violence. The people must be convinced that the oligarchs do nothing but trick them into facilitating the oligarchs' hyper parasitism. The oligarchs have robbed and robbed and robbed the people of their rightful inheritance.


1 John Prados. "Cheney To The Stand." January 30, 2007. Link. (last accessed: Thursday, February 01, 2007). Return to text body.

2 "The British, the Middle East and Radical Islam." Link. (last accessed: Thursday, February 01, 2007). Return to text body.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.