Dec 8, 2009

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol


Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol



Copenhagen Climate Summit In Disarray
After 'Danish Text' Leak

By John Vidal

08 December, 2009
The Guardian

Copenhagen : The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints in developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2009


Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Read books on your computer:

Get Kindle for PC
Mac version coming soon


Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367



Because of Holocaust: "Everyone should be circumcised!"


Pediatrician's wife, American Academy of Pediatrics Annual Conference Hyatt-Regency Hotel, Chicago, April 14, 1996 Said:

"Millions of Jews were murdered during the Holocaust
because circumcision marked them as Jews! This must 
never happen again! Everyone should be circumcised!"

Where Is My Foreskin?

The Case Against Circumcision

Paul M. Fleiss, MD


* Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands--glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.[11] The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.


Western countries have no tradition of circumcision. In antiquity, the expansion of the Greek and Roman Empires brought Westerners into contact with the peoples of the Middle East, some ofwhom marked their children with circumcision and other sexual mutilations. To protect these children, the Greeks and Romans passed laws forbidding circumcision.[1] Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has passed many similar laws.[2,3] The traditional Westernresponse to circumcision has been revulsion and indignation.

Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew verywell that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision curedepilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema,bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse,wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight,idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity.[4]

In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine has beenclaimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocatedroutine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.[5] The antisexual motivations behind an operation that entails cutting offpart of the penis are obvious.

The radical practice of routinely circumcising babies did notbegin until the Cold War era. This institutionalization of what amounted to compulsory circumcision was part of the same movement thatpathologized and medicalized birth and actively discouraged breastfeeding. Private-sector, corporate-run hospitals institutionalized routine circumcision without ever consulting the American people. There was no public debate or referendum. It was only in the 1970s that a series of lawsuits forced hospitals to obtain parental consent to perform this contraindicated but highly profitable surgery. Circumcisers responded by inventing new "medical" reasons for circumcision in an attempt to scare parents into consenting.

Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be considered irrational. Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medicalconsiderations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along withleeching, skull-drilling, and castration. The fact that it has notsuggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the "reasons,"later.

Millions of years of evolution have fashioned the human bodyinto a model of refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with every part having a function and purpose. Evolution has determined that mammals' genitals should be sheathed in a protective, responsive, multipurposeforeskin. Every normal human being is born with a foreskin. Infemales, it protects the glans of the clitoris; in males, it protectsthe glans of the penis. Thus, the foreskin is an essential part of human sexual anatomy.

Parents should enjoy the arrival of a new child with as few worries as possible. The birth of a son in the US, however, is often fraught with anxiety and confusion. Most parents are pressured to hand their baby sons over to a stranger, who, behind closed doors,straps babies down and cuts their foreskins off. The billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry has bombarded Americans with confusing rhetoric and calculated scare tactics.

Information about the foreskin itself is almost always missing from discussions about circumcision. The mass circumcision campaigns of the past few decades have resulted in pandemic ignorance about this remarkable structure and its versatile role in human sexuality.Ignorance and false information about the foreskin are the rule inAmerican medical literature, education, and practice. Most American medical textbooks depict the human penis, without explanation, as circumcised, as if it were so by nature.

What Is the Foreskin?

The foreskin is a uniquely specialized, sensitive, functional organ of touch. No other part of the body serves the same purpose. Asa modified extension of the penile shaft skin, the foreskin covers and usually extends beyond the glans before folding under itself and finding its circumferential point of attachment just behind the corona(the rim of the glans). The foreskin is, therefore, a double-layered organ. Its true length is twice the length of its external fold,comprising 80 percent or more of the penile skin covering,[6] or at least 25 percent of the flaccid penis's length.

The foreskin contains a rich concentration of blood vessels and nerve endings. It is lined with the peripenic muscle sheet, a smooth muscle layer with longitudinal fibers. These muscle fibers are whorled, forming a kind of sphincter that ensures optimum protection of the urinary tract from contaminants of all kinds.

Like the under surface of the eyelids or the inside of the cheek, the under surface of the foreskin consists of mucous membrane.It is divided into two distinct zones: the soft mucosa and the ridge dmucosa. The soft mucosa lies against the glans penis and containsectopic sebaceous glands that secrete emollients, lubricants, andprotective antibodies. Similar glands are found in the eyelids and mouth.

Adjacent to the soft mucosa and just behind the lips of the foreskin is the ridged mucosa. This exquisitely sensitive structure consists of tightly pleated concentric bands, like the elastic band sat the top of a sock. These expandable pleats allow the foreskin lipsto open and roll back, exposing the glans. The ridged mucosa gives the foreskin its characteristic taper.

On the underside of the glans, the foreskin's point of attachment is advanced toward the meat us (urethral opening) and forms a band like ligament called the frenulum. It is identical to the frenulum that secures the tongue to the floor of the mouth. The foreskin's frenulum holds it in place over the glans, and, in conjunction with the smooth muscle fibers, helps return the retracted foreskin to its usual forward position over the glans.

Retraction of the Foreskin

At birth, the foreskin is usually attached to the glans, very much as a fingernail is attached to a finger. By puberty, the penis will usually have completed its development, and the foreskin will have separated from the glans.[8] This separation occurs in its own time; there is no set age by which the foreskin and glans must be separated. One wise doctor described the process thus, "The foreskin therefore can be likened to a rosebud which remains closed and muzzled. Like a rosebud, it will only blossom when the time is right.No one opens a rosebud to make it blossom."[9]

Even if the glans and foreskin separate naturally in infancy,the foreskin lips can normally dilate only enough to allow the passage of urine. This ideal feature protects the glans from premature exposure to the external environment.

The penis develops naturally throughout childhood. Eventually,the child will, on his own, make the wondrous discovery that his foreskin will retract. There is no reason for parents, physicians, or other caregivers to manipulate a child's penis. The only person to retract a child's foreskin should be the child himself, when he has discovered that his foreskin is ready to retract.

Parents should be wary of anyone who tries to retract their child's foreskin, and especially wary of anyone who wants to cut it off. Human foreskins are in great demand for any number of commercial enterprises, and the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multi million-dollar-a-year industry. Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies use human foreskins as research material. Corporations suchas Advanced Tissue Sciences, Organo genesis, and BioSurface Technology use human foreskins as the raw materials for a type of breath able bandage.

What Are the Foreskin's Functions?

The foreskin has numerous protective, sensory, and sexual functions.

* Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands--glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.[11] The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.

* Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line allbody orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense.Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.[12] Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface. Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infections.

* Erogenous Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.[15] These specialized nerve endings can discernmotion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations oftexture.[16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]

* Coverage during Erection: As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably overthe shaft and glans.

* Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped allthe way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion isthe mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated.

* Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enablesthe penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female isthus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.

The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners byenveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allowthe male's internal organ, the glans, to meet the female's internalorgan, the cervix--a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.

The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood. Scientists in Europe recently detected estrogen receptorsin its basal epidermal cells.[24] Researchers at the University of Manchester found that the human foreskin has apocrine glands.[25]These specialized glands produce pheromones, nature's chemical messengers. Further studies are needed to fully understand these features of the foreskin and the role they play.

Care of the Foreskin

The natural penis requires no special care. A child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same reason itis inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eyeballs, it isinadvisable to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans.Immersion in plain water during the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean.[26]

The white emollient under the child's foreskin is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma."[27]

Studies suggest that it is best not to use soap on the glansor foreskin's inner fold.[23] Forcibly retracting and washing a baby's foreskin destroys the beneficial bacterial flora that protect the penis from harmful germs and can lead to irritation and infection.The best way to care for a child's intact penis is to leave it alone.After puberty, males can gently rinse their glans and foreskin with warm water, according to their own self-determined needs.

How Common Is Circumcision?

Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, South America,and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men throughout the world are circumcised. The vast majority of whom are Muslim.[29]The neonatal circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to34.2 percent.[30] This relatively diminished rate may surpriseAmerican men born during the era when nearly 90 percent of baby boyswere circumcised automatically, with or without their parents'consent.

How Does Circumcision Harm?

The "medical" debate about the "potential health benefits" ofcircumcision rarely addresses its real effects.

* Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cutoff, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feetof veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

* Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes thepenis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself.Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis arejust beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried bysuccessive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.

* Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated.When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans hasno sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of theforeskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking andbleeding.

* Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans,normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces ofthe glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.[32]

Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve orbow during erection.[33] The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or buryingit completely.[34]

* Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed bythe line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflowinstead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond thescar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify,obstructing the flow of urine.[35] This condition, known as meatalstenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is foundalmost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.

Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting thecirculation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful,disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

* Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has long lasting detrimental effects on the developing brain,[36]adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.[37]Developmental neuro psychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels ofneurological damage, as well. [38, 39]

* Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskinl eaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.

The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. Itis not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive.This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped proto mucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.

Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans andmeatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine,feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.

Female partners of circumcised men do not report a lower rate of cervical cancer,[40] nor does circumcision prevent penile cancer.[41] A recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle Eastern immigrant workers, is almost unheard of.[42] Indeed,researchers should investigate the possibility that circumcision has actually increased the rate of these diseases.

Circumcision does not prevent acquisition or transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases,including AIDS. Rigorously controlled prospective studies show that circumcised American men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viralSTDs, especially gonorrhea,[43] non gonoccal urethritis,[44] human papilloma virus,[45] herpes simplex virus type 2,[46] and chlamydia.[47]

* Circumcision is always risky: Circumcision always carries the risk of serious, even tragic, consequences. Its surgical complication rate is one in 500.[48] These complications include uncontrollable bleeding and fatal infections.[49] There are many published case reports of gangrene following circumcision.[50]Pathogenic bacteria such as staphylococcus, proteus, pseudomonas,other coli forms, and even tuberculosis can cause infections leading to death.[51, 52] These organisms enter the wound because it provide seasy entry, not because the child is predisposed to infection.

Medical journals have published numerous accounts of babieswho have had part or all of their glans cut off while they were being circumcised.[53 54 55] Other fully conscious, unanesthetized babies have had their entire penis burned off with an electrocautery gun.[56,57,58] The September 1989 Journal of Urology published an account offour such cases.[59] The article described the sex-change operation as"feminizing genitoplasty," performed on these babies in an attempt to change them into girls. The March 1997 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicinedescribed one young person's horror on learning that "she" had been born a normal male, but that a circumciser had burned his penis off when he was a baby.[60] Many other similar cases have been documented[61,62] Infant circumcision has a reported deathrate of one in 500,000.[63,64]

* Circumcision harms mothers: Scientific studies have consistently shown that circumcision disrupts a child's behavioral development. Studies performed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine showed that circumcision is followed by prolonged,unrestful non-REM (rapid eye movement) sleep.[65] In response to thelengthy bombardment of their neural pathways with unbearable pain, thecircumcised babies withdrew into a kind of semi coma that lasted daysor even weeks.

Numerous other studies have proven that circumcision disruptsthe mother-infant bond during the crucial period after birth. Research has also shown that circumcision disrupts feeding patterns. In a study at the Washington University School of Medicine, most babies would not nurse right after they were circumcised, and those who did would not look into their mothers' eyes.[66]

* Circumcision violates patients' and human rights: No one has the right to cut off any part of someone else's genitals without that person's competent, fully informed consent. Since it is the infant who must bear the consequences, circumcision violates his legal rights both to refuse treatment and to seek alternative treatment. In 1995,the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics stated that only a competent patient can give patient consent or informed consent.[67] An infant is obviously too young to consent to anything.He must be protected from anyone who would take advantage of his defenselessness. The concept of informed parental permission allows for medical interventions in situations of clear and immediate medical necessity only, such as disease, trauma, or deformity. The human penis in its normal, uncircumcised state satisfies none of these requirements.

Physicians have a duty to refuse to perform circumcision. They also must educate parents who, out of ignorance or misguidance,request this surgery for their sons. The healthcare professional's obligation is to protect the interests of the child. It is unethicalin the extreme to force upon a child an amputation he almost certainlywould never have chosen for himself.

Common Sense

To be intact, as nature intended, is best. The vast majority of males who are given the choice value their wholeness and keep their foreskins, for the same reason they keep their other organs of perception. Parents in Europe and non-Muslim Asia never have forcedtheir boys to be circumcised. It would no more occur to them to cutoff part of their boys' penises than it would to cut off part of theirears. Respecting a child's right to keep his genitals intact isnormal and natural. It is conservative in the best sense of the word.

A circumcised father who has mixed feelings about his intact newborn son may require gentle, compassionate psychological counseling to help him come to terms with his loss and to overcome his anxieties about normal male genitalia. In such cases, the mother should steadfastly protect her child, inviting her husband to share this protective role and helping him diffuse his negative feelings. Most parents want what is best for their baby. Wise parents listen to their hearts and trust their instinct to protect their baby from harm. The experience of the ages has shown that babies thrive best in a trusting atmosphere of love, gentleness, respect, acceptance, nurturing, and intimacy. Cutting off a baby's foreskin shatters this trust.

Circumcision wounds and harms the baby and the person the baby will become. Parents who respect their son's wholeness are bequeathing to him his birthright--his body, perfect and beautiful in its entirety.

Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, is assistant clinical professor of pediatricsat the University of Southern California Medical Center. He is the author of numerous scientific articles published in leading nationaland international medical journals.


1. T. J. Ritter and G. C. Denniston, Say No to Circumcision: 40 Compelling Reasons, 2nd ed. (Aptos, CA Hourglass 1996), 6-20.

2. "Incipit Libellus De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis et Religione Christiana Collectus. Liber II.XC, XCI" in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, vol. 132 (Paris: Apud Garnier Fratres, Editores et J. P. Migne Successores, 1880), 301-302.

3. S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the Xllth Century, vol. 2, ed. K. R. Stow (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 246-247.

4. See Note 10, 17-40.

5. M. E Camphor "The Male Genital Tract and the Female Urethra," in Urology, eds. M. E. Campbell and J. H. Harrison, vol. 2, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1970), 1836.

6. See photographic series: J. A. Erickson, "Three Zones of Penile Skin." In M. M. Lander, "The Human Prepuce," in G. C. Denniston and M. E. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 79-81.

7. M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce: Natural History of the Foreskin" (photograph 1), British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.

8. J. Oster, "Further Fate of the Foreskin," Archives of Disease in Childhood 43 (1968): 200-203.

9. H. L. Tan, "Foreskin Fallacies and Phimosis," Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 14 (1985): 626-630.

10. F. A. Hodges, "Short History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the United States" in G. C. Denniston and M. E. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 35.

11. A B. Hyman and M. H. Brownstein, "Tyson's 'Glands": Ectopic Sebaceous Glands and Papillomatosis Penis," Archives of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.

12. A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce, "British Journal of Demmatology 81 (1969): 899-901.

13. G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.

14. P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983): 189-202.

15. Z. Halata and B. L. Munger, "The Neuroanatomical Basis for the Protopathic Sensibility of the Human Glans Penis," Brain Research 371 (1986): 205-230.

16. J. R. Taylor et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.

17. H. C. Bazett et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Themometic Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.

18. D. Ohmori, "Ueber die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate als Peripheren Aufnahmeapparat der Genitalen Reflexe," Zeitschriht fuer Anatomie and Entwicklungspeschichte 70 (1924): 347-410.

19. A. De Girolamo and A. Cecio, "Contributo alla Conoscenza dell'innervazione Sensitiva del Prepuzio Nell'uomo," Bollettino delta Societa Italiana de Biologia Sperimentak 44 (1968): 1521-1522.

20. A. S. Dogiel, "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der aeusseren Genitalorgane des Menschen," Archiv fuer Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893): 585-612.

21. A. Bourlond and R. K. Winkelmann, "L'innervation du Prepuce chez le Nouveau-ne," Archives Beiges de Demmatologie et de Syphiligraphie 21 (1965): 139-153.

22. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic 34 (1959): 39-47.

23. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Demtotology 26 (1956): 53-67.

24. R. Hausmann et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection of Estrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.

25. See Note 12.

26. American Academy of Pediatrics, Newboms: Care of the Uncircumcised Penis Guidelines for Parents (Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1994).

27. See Note 1.

28. See Note 1.

29. S. A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, Jehovah, His Cousin Allah, and Sexual Mutilations," in Sexual Mutilations A Human Tragedy, eds. G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 41-62.

30. National Center for Health Statistics of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.

31. See Note 17.

32. G. I Klauber and J. Boyle, "Preputial Skin-Bridging: Complication of Circumcision," Urology 3 (1974): 722-723.

33. J. P. Gearhart, "Complications of Pediatric Circumcision," in Urologic Complications, Medical and Surgical, Adult and Pediatric, ed. E. E. Marshall (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1986), 387-396.

34. R. D. Talarico and J. E. Jasaitis, "Concealed Penis: A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of Urology 110 (1973): 732-733.

35. R. Persad et al., "Clinical Presentation and Pathophysiology of Meatal Stenosis Following Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 75 (1995): 90-91.

36. A. Taddio et al., "The Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses during Vaccination in Boys," Lancet 345 (1995): 291-292.

37. A. Taddio et al., "The Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," Lancet 349 (1997): 599-603.

38. J. W. Prescott, "Genital Pain vs. Genital Pleasure: Why the One and Not the Other" Truth Seeker 1 (1989): 14-21.

39. R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997), 139-175.

40. M. Terris et al, "Relation of Circumcision to Cancer of the Cervix," American Joumal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 117 (1973): 1056-1065.

41. C J. Cold et al., "Carcinoma in Situ of the Penis in a 76-Year-old Circumcised Man," Journal of Family Practice 44 (1997): 407-410.

42. M. Frisch et al., "Falling Incidence of Penis Cancer in an Uncircumcised Population (Denmark 1943-90)," British Medical Journal 311 (1995): 1471.

43. B. Donovan et al., "Male Circumcision and Common Sexually Transmissible Diseases in a Developed Nation Setting," Genitourinary Medicine 70 (1994): 317-320.

44. G L Smith et al., "Circumcision as a Risk Factor for Urethritis in Racial Groups,"American Journal of Public Health 77 (1987): 452-454.

45. L. S. Cook et al., "CIincal Presentation of Genital Warts among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic," Genitourinary Medicine 69 (1993): 262-264.

46. I. Bassett et al., "Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection of Heterosexual Men Attending a Sexual Health Centre," Medical Journal of Australia 160 (1994): 697-700.

47. E. O. Laumann et al., "Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice," Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (1997): 1052-1057.

48. W. E. Gee and J. S. Ansel, "Neonatal Circumcision: A Ten-year Overview With Comparison of the Gomco Clamp and the Plastibell Device," Pediatrics 58 (1976): 824-827.

49. G. W. Kaplan, "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 543-549.

50. S. J. Sussman et al., "Fournier's Syndrome: Report of Three Cases and Review of the Literature," American Journal of Diseases of Children 132 (1978): 1189-1191.

51. B. V. Kirkpatrick and D. V. Eitzman, "Neonatal Septicemia after Circumcision," Clinical Pediatrics 13 (1974): 767-768.

52. J. M. Scurlock and R J. Pemberton, "Neonatal Meningitis and Circumcision," Medical Journal of Australia 1 (1977):332-334.

53. G. R. Gluckman et al., "Newborn Penile Glans Amputation during Circumcision and Successful Reattachment," Journal of Urology 153 (1995): 778-779.

54. B. S. Strimling, "Partial Amputation of Glans Penis during Mogen Clamp Circumcision,"Pediatrics 87 (1996): 906-907.

55. J. Shemman et al., Circumcision: Successful Glandular Reconstruction and Survival Following Traumatic Amputation," Journal of Urology 156 (1996): 842-844.

56. J. R. Sharpe and R. P. Finney, "Electrocautery Circumcision,"Urology 19 (1982): 228.

57. C. K. Pearlman, "Caution Advised on Electrocautery Circumcisions," Urology 19 (1982): 453.

58. C. K. Pearlman, "Reconstruction Following Iatrogenic Burn of the Penis" Journal of Pediatric Surgery 11 (1976): 121-122.

59. J. P. Gearhart and J. A. Rock, "Total Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup," Journal of Urology 142 (1989): 799-801.

60. M. Diamond and H. K. Sigmundson, "Sex Reassignment at Birth: LongTerm Review and Clinical Implications," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 151(1997): 298-304.

61. J. Money, "Ablatio Penis: Normal Male Infant Sex-Reassigned as a Girl," Archives of Sexual Behavior 4 (1975): 65-71.

62. D. A. Gilbert et al, "Phallic Construction in Prepubertal and Adolescent Boys," Journal of Urology 149 (1993): 1521-1526.

63. R. S. Thompson, "Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View," Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990): 189-196.

64. T. E. Wiswell, "Circumcision Circumspection," New England Journal of Medicine 336 (1997): 1244-1245.

65. R N. Emde et al., "Stress and Neonatal Sleep," Psychosomatic Medicine 33 (1971): 491-497.

66. R. E. Marshall et al., "Circumcision: II. Effects upon Mother-Infant Interaction," Early Human Development 7 (1982): 367-374.

67. Committee on Bioethics, "Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice," Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314-317.


Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton


Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367



FAURISSON: The Revisionist Method Applied to the History of the Third World War


Robert FAURISSON                                                                           May 11, 2003

The Revisionist Method

Applied to the History of the Third World War 

      The American government considers itself in a state of worldwide war against what it calls international terrorism. The Americans went to war with Iraq because, according to them, Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States. In support of that charge, they have not, up to now, provided any real evidence but instead only fallacious displays. 

      Some observers think this absence of real evidence must be embarrassing both for the White House and for those who, in the international community, have chimed in with George W. Bush and Tony Blair to assure us that Saddam Hussein had such weapons. Those observers are mistaken. They are unaware of the history of war propaganda; on this subject they ought to consult the revisionist authors. Then they would learn that, for the public at large, the best proof of the existence of those weapons is precisely the fact that no trace or evidence of them is to be found. 

Lies of the past 

      Let us recall here the witch trials, the so-called "Nazi war crimes" trials and the cases brought against historical revisionists. 

      In centuries past – in particular from 1450 to 1650, but still towards the end of the 18th century – certain ecclesiastical tribunals and learned university men maintained that there were sixtyplaces on a woman's body where traces of sexual intercourse with the Devil could be noted. But other courts, and minds no less learned, deemed that, despite all the fine details furnished by experts, the best proof of said contact lay in the fact that the Devil had erased all traces thereof; if he hadn't, they asserted, he would not be the Devil. 

      In the last century, especially in 1945-1946, with the show trials at Nuremberg, then during an endless series of cases brought – still today! – against "camp guards", "war criminals", "collaborators" and, finally, in actions against revisionists, a similar phenomenon could be observed as regards the alleged genocide of the Jews and the alleged Nazi gas chambers. Here, the learned ones initially held that, considering the abundance of evidence and witnesses, it was enough to state that those horrors were "facts of common knowledge" (Article 21 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg). Then, in their writings, other learned ones desired, all the same, to carry out a demonstration, but in the end it emerged that, all told, and by those experts' own admission, only "beginnings of proof" were to be discovered, accompanied by testimonies to be received with caution (the case, for example, of Jean-Claude Pressac with his bulky book, in English, devoted to the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and of Robert Jan van Pelt, author of two works on the same subject). Lastly, the more cunning among them have chosen to declare: "Everyone knows that the Nazis destroyed those gas chambers and systematically eliminated all the witnesses": this statement comes from Simone Veil (France-Soir Magazine, May 7, 1983, p. 47), who thus has us understand that Hitler would simply not have been Hitler if he had left behind the least trace of his gigantic crime. In fact, in the millions of documents left in our world by that new Satan, one will not find so much as a single order to kill Jews, nor any plan to exterminate millions of them (not even in the report of a certain meeting held at Berlin-Wannsee)nor any directive stating that the Jews had to be physically eliminated (not even as concerns the Einsatzgruppen), nor any hint of a budget for so vast an enterprise. Also, in all the globe, there is nowhere to be seen even a single execution gas van or a single execution gas chamber, apart from some grotesque Potemkin village or theatrical prop-style gas chambers clumsily "reconstituted" after the war. When confronted with this utter void in the way of evidence, such an authority as that most learned among the "Holocaust" experts, the Jewish master called Raul Hilberg, ended up explaining, in desperation, that the formidable slaughter had taken place thanks to "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy", the German bureaucracy, that is. More diabolical than Beelzebub himself, Adolf Hitler had not been content with erasing all evidence of his crime but, the better to fool everyone, he also left evidence meant to have people believe he had never wanted, much less tried, to exterminate the Jews in the first place. To take but three examples: first, he had spared the lives of millions of them; then, as the documents prove, he had sought, in order to solve "the Jewish question in Europe", only a "final territorial solution" (with the Madagascar plan, or some other one); finally, his military courts convicted and sentenced to death Germans guilty of killing just one Jew. And so on and so forth. As for the magical gas chambers, he made them disappear so well that afterwards nobody could take up the challenge of historical revisionists demanding that one of the crime weapons be shown or, at the very least, drawn or described. It also proved impossible to explain how those chemical slaughterhouses could function without killing the personnel assigned to clear them of thousands of corpses infused with cyanide, and therefore untouchable. So it was that Adolf Hitler left the Jews incapable of proving their main accusation against him, thus confirming his thoroughly diabolical nature. 

Today's lie 

      At this beginning of the 21st century, it seems we're being replayed the same script with Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. And I do say "seems", for stress needs to be laid on a sizeable difference. While intercourse with the Devil was physically impossible and the Nazi gas chamber was chemically inconceivable, one must agree that the terrifying weapons of Saddam Hussein are, in theory, perfectly possible, from the point of view of physics and chemistry, if only because his accusers, beginning with Ariel Sharon, are themselves in possession of huge numbers of those very things, albeit known by the innocuous name of "weapons of mass deterrence". 

The eternal big lie 

      In wartime all political regimes of whatever stripe, whether Saddam Hussein's or G.W. Bush's, employ the coarsest of lies. To launch a country into a war, maintain warlike fervour or justify a military crusade after the fact, only a good old-fashioned big lie will speak to the crowd. An ingenious lie or a newly invented one will not do the trick. There exist formulas for moving a mass of people to indignation, anger, the desire to fight, formulas for arousing, at least temporarily, the will to commit oneself heart and soul to the war effort. The politician with experience in handling the masses knows the powers of the simplistic, and also knows that the ultimate skill consists in elaborating on the theme "I love you; love me!", or "I'm good, you're good and the others are wicked." The televangelist intones: "God is love, God is with us and against the evil ones." The first weapon of the ordinary confidence man is not some genius for swindling but an ability to gain sympathy when approaching the victim and to proceed with the very simplest talk. In a leader taking his country into a war one will necessarily find these features and these expedients of the politician, the televangelist and the swindler. From this standpoint, Franklin D. Roosevelt will perhaps go down in history as the slyest of the 20th century warmongers. Will Bush outdo him in the new century? 

The comfort of credulity 

      The perfect crime leaves no trace, no evidence. Similarly, here the perfect accusation is not based on anything verifiable. The war propagandist knows this. It will suffice for him to launch the eternal atrocity stories about opponents who spend most of their time killing babies, using invisible weapons, operating corpse factories located near mass graves. These accounts will win people over only if not accompanied by any purported evidence, or if flanked merely by "clues", "testimonies" or references to unidentified "sources." Hard evidence has the drawback of restricting the imagination and passions. With clues there is the advantage of giving free rein to the fancy. As for testimonies, they touch sensitive souls, especially if accompanied by tears or scenes of fainting (a speciality of some Israeli witnesses). A gratuitous and stereotyped slander will do the job better than one with detailed accusations and supporting evidence. One favourite recipe is a genuine photograph with a false caption; for example, the photo will show dead bodies but the caption will tell of the killed, the massacred, the exterminated. Ideal witnesses provide no other information on the crime than inexact bits of exactness: this allows people who lend them credence to build the décor in their own heads, and reconstitute the crime scene to their liking. Without difficulty, as if on a magic carpet, the listeners, in their minds, fly off towards Auschwitz, Timisoara or the Kuwait City hospital where, according to Bush the elder, the Iraqis had, in 1991, disconnected incubators with premature babies inside. Those who hear or see such a witness feel delightfully flooded with compassion, and thoroughly enjoy themselves: they satisfy all at once a taste for the spectacle of horror (to which they could never admit), their inner need to hate and their aspiration for the finer feelings. The shrewd propagandist thus leaves those he tricks with the illusion of a certain personal freedom. 

The need to believe 

      The common crowd is simple, and it will never be said too often that a simple mind finds real charm in elementary reasoning, particularly in circular reasoning. For instance, people can be told that the proof that someone is wicked is that he is wicked. The proof that the man is wicked is that he doesn't love us. If he doesn't love us, it's that he's barbaric. If he's barbaric, it's that he doesn't see things as we do. This wicked barbarian belongs to another world, which can only be the nether world. If he is of the nether world, it follows that we are of a higher world. And so it's confirmed that, if we are good, our enemy is fundamentally bad. The circle is complete: it's perfect. Any other proof is superfluous and, just as Henri IV's white horse is white because it's white, it also ought not to be wondered how the mass murder attributed to Hitler was technically possible: "It was technically possible, since it happened." That extravagant asininity was proffered, in a joint declaration, by Léon Poliakov, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Fernand Braudel and about thirty French historians when in 1978-1979 I had, in a way, beseeched those people to explain how the gassings of Jews, such as they were described to us, had been technically possible (Le Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23). As for the weapons of Saddam Hussein, if they aren't in his country, then they must be somewhere else. If they aren't in Iraq, it's because they're in Syria. Or in Iran. Or on the moon. Or the Devil knows where! But what does it matter? The masses have a short memory. They will not go and hold the liars to account for anything. For them, with or without a weapon, with or without any evidence, the crime of the defeated side remains a crime and the defeated criminal, a criminal. Circular reasoning delectably finds its place in the cerebral convolutions of the simple-minded. It's snug and cosy there. Reptilian or not, isn't the brain a more or less soft, spongy, formless mass? Isn't the heart basically just a pump that sucks in and pushes out without one's having to think about it? Isn't laziness voluptuous? And thinking, tiring? The effort of memory, hard? Then why, in a consumer society, complicate one's life when it's quite enough to receive, absorb, regurgitate, then, with a refilled belly and a brain full of air, feel good-hearted alongside the winning killer? 

The Third World War is recycling the old lies 

      American leaders have never shown much interest for nuance or detail. And ever since 1898 at the latest, in order to justify their incessant military expeditions they have employed the same inventions. Why would they change them? Those inventions have successfully covered over the horrors that the boys piled up during the Second World War, their war in Vietnam and in twenty other military adventures. The same fakeries were used to justify the masquerade of a trial at Nuremberg and are still found now in the hideous holocaustic propaganda of which American Jews have made themselves the champions. Just recently, the White House and its Judeo-Israeli camarilla have done nothing more than recycle the most worn-out concoctions of war propaganda in making up and exploiting a fable about weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam Hussein who, for that matter – let it be said in passing –, forgot to put them to use when the time came. Their second war against Iraq has illustrated the progress of the Americans' inventions in all fields except, on the one hand, the fabrication of horrors ascribed to the opponent and, on the other hand, the fabrication of their own soldiers' alleged prowess. Their propaganda may have changed shape but the content has never varied. In an accessory manner, we have now been treated to Saddam Hussein's doubles (six in all, of whom none has yet been found) as well as a heroic, if purely fictional tale with the young soldier Jessica Lynch's rescue story. 

      The revisionists are lucky. Over the course of the new world war, their task will be easy. War propaganda will remain imperturbably the same. Jean Norton Cru, in dealing with the First World War, and Paul Rassinier, with the Second World War, have in a way already described for us the great deceptions of this third world war. It should be enough to read these authors again. They have, if one dare say, recorded in advance the long-standing lies of Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Blair and Sharon. The third world war will be quite different from the two great wars that have gone before and will innovate in a number of fields, but its propaganda based on atrocity stories will continue to abide by tradition. Crass and deeply cynical, it will continue to illustrate a truth borne out by experience: in time of war fever, the accusation that really carries with the masses is one that is not actually accompanied by evidence. The Americans will compensate for this absence of genuine evidence with spin doctors' arrangements, further clownery à la Colin Powell (who made believe, for the cameras, to be waving a tube of Iraqi poison), or else with still more vile Hollywood productions in the Shoah Business and Holocaust Industry tradition. Applied to the history of the third world war, the revisionist method will at least offer the benefit of flushing out this sort of fakery.



A MUST READ: The 45 minute to Doomsday claim...


Dec. 8, 2009


My apologies for barging in  with reminders of some almost forgotten happenings in our recent history, particularly at this time when our full national attention is focused on such important matters like the personal affairs of Tiger Woods.

Here is a reminder of some of the claims made by some of our leaders from a  government elected in an exercise of popular will that can only be described as a "miracle", by the greatest democracy of the greatest people known to history, in justifying the making of war against another country in a far away part of the world. 


CLAIM: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."  --Colin Powell, 2/5/03

CLAIM: "[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas." --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

CLAIM: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." --Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

CLAIM: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons"And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." --President Bush, 9/26/02

CLAIM: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." --President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: "His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons." --Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03


The source of the intelligence to advance such claims? It could be as plain and simple as an Iraqi taxi driver in the western desert of Iraq, overhearing a conversation by two passengers who are / were Iraqi military officers. This driver's statement, funnelled through another Iraqi "source" to British intelligence and eventually to the US intelligence (which costs a googooplex of dollars to maintain so it will ferret this kind of information to protect us from our enemies).

All of our American officials above named, are well and enjoying their well-deserved and comfortable retirements or pursuits, unconcerned with such pedestrian matters as unemployment, health insurance, mortgages...



45-minute WMD claim 'came from an Iraqi taxi driver'

Tory MP and defence specialist Adam Holloway says MI6 got information from a taxi driver who had heard Iraqi military commanders talking about weapons


Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton


Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367




Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Folks you can't make this stuff-up..!!!

"An Iraqi taxi driver was the source of the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein could unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a Tory MP claimed today."


Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton


Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367