Additional Titles







The Defenition
of Insanity

Big Brother Comes
To Wal-Mart

Welcome to the

Seat Belts,
Cigaretts and

S.A.R.S. Simply Another
Ridiculous Scam

Why N.C. National Guardsman Daniel Moody Didn't Get
| His mail

Big-Time Spooky

So Much Sewage







By Mary Starrett
24, 2004

With those words to the young widow of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, President George Bush marked the year anniversary of the start of the (undeclared) war there.

To others at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the Commander in Chief (whose own military record is anemic and riddled with evidence of shortcuts and no-shows) delivered a "job well done" message saying "each of these Americans brought pride to our country". He was referring to the 65 soldiers killed in Iraq and the 7 killed in Afghanistan. Hard to feel "pride" about a war that was never, ever supposed to be. Hard to feel "pride" about men and women who lost their young, promising lives for a war based on lies. Hard to feel "pride" when daily, more and more information comes to light about how we, as a nation, allowed ourselves to be deceived about the "urgent" need to invade a sovereign nation. Hard to feel "pride" when heretofore heroes came back from American wars in flag-draped caskets televised to the nation. I've wondered why the networks don't show those caskets on the evening news anymore. There are certainly enough of them, and they keep coming. Could it be that this bitterly-divisive invasion is on some level, making even the most staunch Iraq-hawks (including the ever-obedient media lap dogs who apparently have no intention of displeasing the administration by airing the unpleasant results of this "war on terrorism") avert their eyes, look down and silently wonder what in God's name we are doing to our soldiers and theirs?

"My heart aches for you". Those words remind me of stories you hear of killers attending their victim's funerals, offering condolences to the bereaved, then silently slipping away; all the while the mourners had no idea the very cause of their grief had just been in their midst.

In what the administration desperately wants us to see as a connected story, Congress has doubled to $50 million the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden. The link between what happened on 9-11 (by Osama�s al- Qaeda) and Saddam Hussein has never been established. When pushed real hard even higher-ups in the administration will admit this. That, of course is a minor detail, and well, details never did matter to this bunch; details like whether there actually were weapons in "them thar" sand dunes in Iraq capable of blowing us all back to the Pleistocene era.

Osama bin Laden is all of a sudden back on our short list. (This being the same man who'd been treated in at least one U.S. hospital-while he was considered a bad guy- and the same man who was offered up to us by a number of foreign regimes in the past and whom we politely declined to nab.)

Now, with a vote of 414-0 the House unanimously voted to up the reward money to catch this guy. It's part of a bill to expand the State Department's "anti-terrorist rewards program" to provide cash and other benefits to those who help authorities track down "drug traffickers who support terrorist activities". Psst! To those who still don't get it, this bill had less to do with nabbing the bearded one than with making it even EASIER for the feds to take your stuff based on specious charges of drug dealing and helping "terrorists". Most Americans (even the ones who actually DO read the paper) blew right by this. After they read the headlines and the fact that there's a bill headed to the Senate to increase a 1956 limit on terrorist reward money from $25-$50 mil, they still thought it was about Osama.

These are the same people who think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about catching terrorists. They think the fact that (Dick Cheney�s) Halliburton's overcharging of the U.S. government on their (no-bid) reconstruction contracts is in no way connected to why we're in Iraq to begin with. These people somehow still believe this war wasn't planned long before September 11th, 2001. These are the people who probably won't read the new book out by David Griffin titled "The New Pearl Harbor[1] The author, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology uses primary source material to come to startling conclusions. The new book is causing quite a buzz among the well-informed. But you'll likely not see Professor Griffin on O'Reilly's show or Hannity's either.

Syndicated columnist and author Wayne Madsen says of Griffin�s book:

"The facts presented in this book are disturbing-and they should be�what did the President know and when did he know it?"

The attorney who defended Randy Weaver whose family was slaughtered at Ruby Ridge, Idaho by U.S. sharp shooters (because only "madmen" like Saddam Hussein kill their people for no reason) also read Professor Griffin's book. Gerry Spence says: "The book gives us a foundation to discuss the truth, one we may not want to hear".

Reading the news with a critical eye is a must these days. So much is happening that's not as it seems.

While most dismiss the chaos in Haiti as business as usual for that tropical hell-hole few noticed the apparent proof that the country's erstwhile president Aristede WAS, in fact ousted by the powers heading up our empire.

Read this excerpt from the March 15th Washington Post.Note, what should have been a headline bombshell was buried in paragraph EIGHT:

"Aristede gives a detailed account of what he has all along contended was a coup and a modern day kidnapping carried out by the U.S." �On the morning of February 29, while Aristede was preparing to talk to the media a "considerable number of American military personnel" surrounded his house. But instead of being taken to meet the media as he was promised "we went straight to the plane" which he described as an unmarked white plane with an American flag". Aristede says he was obliged to board the plane and was followed by a number of U.S. troops in full combat gear who changed into civilian clothes and baseball caps once they were aboard the plane. Aristede's account was supported by two witnesses�. One�a pilot and aide to Aristede� the other was an American security guard".

Just a few examples of what passes for "coverage" of the news.

Keep your eyes open and read between the lines. What's not said is often more important than what is said.


[1] Interlink Publishing

Other news tidbits failed to garner much attention as well. All the anti-Semitic crimes that were supposedly to have resulted from Mel Gibson's "The Passion"? Where were they? On the contrary, there were a larger than normal number of fires in churches all across the country, including rocks thrown through stained glass windows, shattering Christ's face at a Glendale, Az. Church. You can bet that if the fires and vandalism had occurred even one time at a synagogue it would have been Mel's fault. However, the crimes occurred against Christian houses of worship and media outlets barely reported the incidents. What about the visiting professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna College who reported a"hate" crime involving anti-Semitic and sexist epithets scrawled on her car. After days of student protests against the "crime" it was discovered that Professor Kerri Dunn had written all that nasty stuff and torn up her OWN car!

� 2004 Mary Starrett - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Mary Starrett was on television for 21 years as a news anchor, morning talk show host and medical reporter. For the last 5 years she hosted a radio program. Mary is a frequent guest on radio talk shows. E-Mail [email protected]








"Women don't belong on bases, in submarines or combat areas with men. Why? Actually it's very simple. Men rape women. Men in combat situations or close living quarters don't always play by the rules..."