The host, Bruce DuMont, (excellently!, I thought) summarized the findings of our election analysis (TiM GW Bulletin 98/11-4, 11/11/98). It seemed almost as if he were reading from the TiM Bulletin's summary paragraph (maybe he was?). Then he asked me to expound on our findings

* I agreed that, indeed, I said, that it is an establishment media fallacy that America has shifted to the "left." Assuming, of course, that the Republicans stand for the American "right," which is a debatable point, since there is virtually no difference between the "left" and the "right" when it comes to foreign policy, for example;

* American elections have become a "demo farce," I continued, with both top teams playing for the same owner. It's kind of like an intra-squad game between the Yankees Blue Team versus the Yankees White Team playing for the World Series. And if we, Americans, want a real change, we should toss out of office both the Republicans and the Democrats;

* The 62% absenteeism from the ballot boxes is an indication of a deep alienation which most Americans feel from the current, morally corrupt political system which is disenfranchising us. There was one clear winner on Nov. 3 - Ms. Apathy;

From there, the discussion within the panel and some callers veered off to Jesse Ventura's election as a surprise Reform Party governor of Minnesota. One thing that marked that vote was the highest turnout - of 59% - one of the panelists pointed out.

In other words, when the "silent majority" of Americans chose to be heard, it spoke up in droves against the establishment parties. After Ventura's election in Minnesota, no one will ever be able to accuse the Reform Party of being a "political lightweight."

On other, foreign policy topics, I was also able to point out that

* The current Iraqi crisis is hardly that; it has all the excitement of watching old movies; it's a bi-annual saber-rattling Clinton administration and Saddam Hussein dance. Without it, neither the Clinton administration, nor Congress would be able to justify the enormous costs - in the hundreds of millions of dollars - of our military presence in the Gulf (which, for what it's worth, is over ten times more than our government has promised by way of humanitarian aid to the Hurricane Mitch victims).

When the host, DuMont, challenged me to show how media had failed to report the truth in the case of the latest Iraqi crisis, I said

* Sometimes the media fails to report the FULL truth, or all sides of an issue. Sometimes the supposedly 'independent media doesn't exercise independent judgment and due diligence and research before swallowing the questionable 'axioms' being offered to it, either by our government, or by the foreign politicians.

* In the case of Saddam, I said that the outcome of the latest "crisis" was as predictable as that of NATO's threat to bomb Serbia over Kosovo a few weeks ago. No one was going to bomb anyone. It's all a part of the "perpetual war for perpetual commerce" globalists' strategy at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers. Without the Saddam's of this world, or the Milosevic's, in the case of Serbia, the Clinton administration might have a harder time explaining to the American people why we are in the Gulf or in the Balkans. So it's a symbiotic relationship which helps both Saddam and Clinton, while hurting the interests of both the American and the Iraqi people.

At the end of the show, the host, DuMont, graciously asked me to give his listening audience the Internet address at which our "very worthwhile" reports can be found. Which I gladly did. And he said that he was looking forward to having me back on his show.

Best,

Bob Dj.

FROM WASHINGTON, DC

[Yes, from within the Beltway. Can you believe it? Less than 24 hours after being Beyond the Beltway! -) ]

Thanks for having me on your show, Bruce. It was fun. And I am getting a lot of positive feedback. If you ever take the show to PHX, maybe we'll do it live in the studio? Thank you also for letting me plug our Web site URL. After having to spell out the whole thing, it was quite a mouthful. So I've decided to register the name "www.truthinmedia.com" or something like that instead.

By the way, if you're interested, the point I was about to make and give you an example of how this Clinton really has no coherent foreign policy was as follows (at which you had to interrupt me because of the commercial break, but we never got back to it):

[...]Meanwhile, the Italian news agency, ANSA, reported on Nov. 9 that Osama bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian fugitive, who has been accused by the U.S. government of financing and masterminding the recent bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, is planning to send 300 of his Islamic mercenaries to reinforce the (predominantly Muslim) Albanian separatist-terrorists in Kosovo.

So get this On the one hand, the U.S. government accuses this Arab sheik of being a terrorist, on the other hand the Clinton administration backs the same Albanian terrorists as bin Laden. Just as they did in 1994, when they winked at Iran, America's sworn enemy, secretly shipping weapons to the Bosnian Muslims.

And you wonder why the Europeans are upset? Actually, one should wonder why more "average Americans" aren't more upset about it, either.

But, of course, there is an answer to all this. And it's not the "average American's" fault. The answer lies in the "Dumbing down of America." The NWO globalist elite, having claimed a monopoly on the U.S. foreign policy, evidently deem such information - read contradictions- to be "too complex" for an average American to grasp. As did the Soviet censors when it came to telling the truth to the Russian people. And the complacent establishment media are obliging by not printing a word about it. [...]

Maybe you can touch on it yourself, Bruce, if the topic ever comes up again?

I also had to bite my tongue when some of your guests offered the usual worn out excuse for keeping up the sanctions against Iraq, supposedly in the hope that the people being killed by them would rise up and topple a dictator. I had some State Dept. people tell me the same thing, so I have an idea where this nonsense is coming from.

The argumen is total BS! People who talk like that should name ONE instance where the sanctions have produced a desired result (of toppling a dictator). Did in happen in North Korea? Did it happen in Serbia? Did it happen in Libya? Did it happen in Iran? Did it happen in Iraq?

Of course, not. Nor were they (the sanctions) applied consistently. We hit Iraq with the sanctions, in part, because Saddam is killing the Kurds (one of your guests said). But we look the other way when the Turkish government kills a lot more Kurds. Ditto re. Indonesia and East Timor. Etc.

When challenged about things like that, some State Dept. officials lamented to me that "regrettably, the sanctions are indeed a blunt instrument."

Bruce, sanctions are not only a "blunt instrument." Sanctions are genocide, pure and simple. And the people who advocate sanctions as a part of foreign policy should be among the first to be charged with genocide and hauled off to the Hague or whatever other World Court Tribunal court which prosecutes crimes against humanity.

I saw with my own eyes the devastating effect of the UN sanctions on the Serbs in the 1992-1996 time frame. Even the New York Times has published one of my letters about it in Oct/93. Sanctions are like burning down a forest to kill a deer. Except that they kill people, not wild game. Which makes certain nations fair game for our racist government ("Vogelfrei" - birds free to shoot at will in German).

Sorry... I got to spout off on that, but as I said, I was biting my tongue last night. If you're interested about some of my eyewitness "field reports" from the Belgrade hospitals in 1993 about the sanctions' effect on ordinary people, let me know.

Best,