Avoiding Another "Long War": Intelligence Officials Reveal "Dubious" IAEA Report on Iran's Alleged Nuclear Weapons Program

Obama following in footsteps of his savior and mentor George W. Bush and spasmodic, Alzheimers-ridden Dick Cheney

Global Research

By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

01/05/2012

Exaggerated coverage of a dubious report by the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program has spurred a rush toward a new war in the Middle East, but ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Obama to resist the pressures and examine the facts. "Velayat-90" naval war games in the Strait of Hormuz 01/01/2012 MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) SUBJECT: Avoiding Another Long War As professionals with collectively hundreds of years of experience in intelligence, foreign policy, and counterterrorism, we are concerned about the gross misrepresentation of facts being bruited about to persuade you to start another war.    We have watched the militarists represent one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. In the past, they supported attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Afghanistan, as well as Israel’s attacks on Syria and Lebanon — nine Muslim countries – and Gaza.     This time, they are using a new IAEA report to assert categorically that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that allegedly poses a major threat to the U.S. Your intelligence and military advisors can certainly clarify what the report really says. Attack on Iran would engulf entire region As you know, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran’s nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring those facilities around the clock. While there is reason to question some of Iran’s actions, the situation is not as clear-cut as some allege.     Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former IAEA director-general, said recently, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.” He is not alone: All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded “with high confidence” in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had halted its nuclear-weapons program as of 2003.    We are seeing a replay of the “Iraq WMD threat.” As Philip Zelikow, Executive Secretary of the 9/11 Commission said, “The ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel."     Your military and intelligence experts can also provide information on unpublicized efforts to derail Iran’s nuclear program and on the futility of attempting to eliminate that program – which is dispersed and mostly underground – through aerial bombing. Sen. Joe Lieberman.     Defense Secretary [Leon] Panetta and other experts have stated that an air attack would only delay any weapons program for a year or two at most. Ghader surface-to-ship missile launched during Iran's navy dril Former Mossad head Meir Dagan said that an air force strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be “a stupid thing,” a view endorsed in principle by two other past Mossad chiefs, Danny Yatom and Ephraim Halevy. Dagan added that “Any strike against [the civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law.”     Dagan pointed out another reality: bombing Iran would lead it to retaliate against Israel through Hezbollah, which has tens of thousands of Grad-type rockets and hundreds of Scuds and other long-range missiles, and through Hamas.     We are already spending as much as the rest of the world combined on National Security and $100 billion per year on a Long War in Afghanistan. The Israel lobby has been beating the drums for us to attack Iran for years, led by people with confused loyalties like Joe Lieberman, who once made the claim that it is unpatriotic for Americans not to support Israel. U.S. miltary bases in Gulf Region Another Long War is not in America’s or Israel’s interests, whatever Israel’s apologists claim. Those are the same people who claim that [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said he would “wipe Israel off the map.”           Persian specialists have pointed out that the original statement in Persian actually said that Israel would collapse: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”     What we have is a situation where Israel’s actions, for example in sending 300,000 settlers into the West Bank and 200,000 settlers into East Jerusalem, are compromising U.S. security by putting us at risk for terrorist retaliation.     We have provided Israel with $100 billion in direct aid since 1975. Since this is fungible, how has funding settlements contributed to our security? You agreed to provide $3 billion in F-35s to Israel in exchange for a 90-day freeze on settlements. What you got was 90 days of stonewalling on the peace process and then more settlers. What more do we owe Israel? Certainly not a rush to war. We have time to make diplomacy and sanctions work, to persuade Russia and China to make joint cause with us. James Madison once wrote that “Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded.… War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. …No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”     We are currently winding down what you labeled a “dumb war;” we should not undertake another dumb war against a country almost three times larger than Iraq, that would set off a major regional war and create generations of jihadis. Such a war, contrary to what some argue, would not make Israel or the U.S. safer. Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) Phil Giraldi, Directorate of Operations, CIA, retired Ray McGovern, US Army Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA, retired Coleen Rowley, former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI Ann Wright, Col., US Army Reserve (ret.), former Foreign Service Officer, Department of State Tom Maertens, Foreign Service Officer and NSC Director for Non-Proliferation under two presidents Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council David MacMichael, former history professor and CIA and National Intelligence Council analyst

Global Research Articles by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5^th Estate.

Images:  Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more »

If you can believe it: Judith Miller (Iraq WMDGate) former New York Times: "Times Now Lying" About Iran's Nuclear Program

So, infamous Judith Miller, co-author of Iraq War, shows up just in time to start another one:

This is an astounding story by a failed journalist and co-conspirator with Bush for starting Iraq war; covering for Bush "lack of WMD" in New York Times; Miller now completely discredited, works for Penney Saver writing ads, obituaries

Global Research
by Judith Miller
01/06/2012

It's deja vu all over again. AIPAC is trying to trick America into another catastrophic war with a Middle Eastern country on behalf of the Likud Party's colonial ambitions, and the New York Times is lying about allegations that said country is developing "weapons of mass destruction."

In an article attributed to Steven Erlanger on January 4 ("Europe Takes Bold Step Toward a Ban on Iranian Oil "), this paragraph appeared:

Miller: When not blowing CIA, Bush,
blowing U.S. Generals

The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign. [my emphasis]

The claim that there is "a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective" is a lie.

As Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton noted on December 9,

But the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor does it say it is building one, only that its multiyear effort pursuing nuclear technology is sophisticated and broad enough that it could be consistent with building a bomb.

Indeed, if you try now to find the offending paragraph on the New York Times website, you can't. They took it down. But there is no note, like there is supposed to be, acknowledging that they changed the article, and that there was something wrong with it before. Sneaky, huh?

But you can still find the original here.

Indeed, at this writing, if you go to the New York Times website, and search on the phrase, "military objective," the article pops right up. But if you open the article, the text is gone. But again, there is no explanatory note saying that they changed the text.

This is not an isolated example in the Times' reporting. The very same day - January 4 - the New York Times published another article, attributed to Clifford Krauss ("Oil Price Would Skyrocket if Iran Closed the Strait of Hormuz "), that contained the following paragraph.

Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons [my emphasis].

At this writing, that text is still on the New York Times website.

Of course, referring to Iran's "development of nuclear weapons" without qualification implies that it is a known fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But it is not a known fact. It is an allegation. Indeed, when U.S. officials are speaking publicly for the record, they say the opposite.

As Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton noted on December 9,

This is what the U.S. director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March: "We continue to assess [that] Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5^th Estate.

Images:  Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more »

UK rules out preemptive strike on Iran

Cameron and the rest of the cross-dressers in UK government getting the willies as madman Obama, Clinton, JCS expects them to really participate in yet another insane, illegal Persian Gulf war

Agencies

01/06/2011

The British Defense Secretary says London is against preemptive military action against Iran as it will threaten the global economic growth by disrupting oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz.

British politicians do not want a replay of
Falkland Islands

Addressing a conference on "NATO and the Case for Collective Defense in the 21st Century" at Atlantic Council in Washington, Philip Hammond noted, “We would not be in favor of a preemptive strike on Iran.”

"It is in all our interests that the arteries of global trade are kept free, open and running,” he added.

    Hammond emphasized that the disruption of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz would threaten regional and global economic growth.

    The British minister added that his government follows "a strategy of pressure and engagement with Iran,” which is similar to the Obama administration's approach in its early days in office.

    He said that in line with that strategy, the British government has “largely, and quite reasonably, put the engagement half of that [strategy] on the back burner.

   Hammond said that despite the saber-rattling and talk about a nuclear Iran being unacceptable, the military option has merely theoretically been on the table in the past years with regards to Iran.

Iran has recently put a satellite
into orbit

He stressed that “It would seem obviously in the interests of all concerned to avoid war in Iran.”

On Saturday, December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed into law fresh economic sanctions against Iran's Central Bank requiring foreign financial firms to make a choice between doing business with Iran's Central Bank and oil sector or with the US financial sector.

Iran has warned that it can respond to the proposed Western oil sanctions and threats against the Islamic Republic by choking the oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz.

    Iranian First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi said on Tuesday, December 27, 2011, that the imposition of oil sanctions against the Islamic Republic will prompt Tehran to prevent oil cargoes from passing through the strategic route.

    “If they impose sanctions on Iran's oil, not even a drop of oil will be allowed through the Strait of Hormuz,” he added.

     Iran's Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari also announced on December 30 that the country's naval forces can readily block the strategic Strait of Hormuz if need be.

    “Our (Iran's) intention is to bring stability and security to the region and we would like to show everyone that we can provide the security of the region without needing extra-regional powers,” he said.

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5^th Estate.

Images:  Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more »

Iran strategy: retaliation against enemy

American forces in Persian Gulf would suffer heavy casualties; Obama placing U.S. Naval forces in grave danger; possible CIA sponsored "false-flag" to sacrifice American lives in exchange for starting war:  Lyndon Johnson's USS Liberty and SS Mayaguez, both bogus operations, both examples of lying, murdering President, reflection of Obama

PRESS TV
01/06/2012

A senior Iranian lawmaker says the Islamic Republic reserves the right to respond in kind to any threat posed to its interests from any part of the world.

    Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh said Friday that if the United States continues its threatening presence in Iranian waterways, Iran will respond in kind.

The lawmaker, who heads the Majlis (parliament) Foreign Policy Subcommittee, emphasized that Iran does not follow an aggressive strategy; rather its strategy is defined within a defensive framework.

“Iran has never initiated war and military confrontation and our military does not use the language of threat, rather [it uses] the language of defense,” he added.

    The lawmaker explained that NATO changed its statute in 1994 to adopt a new policy of military aggression.

    “Iran is a country that differs from [other] countries which have been targeted by US aggressive strategy. Iran can deal counterblows to any aggressive country and has strategic depth which makes the management of a war impossible for the party that starts it,” he said.

Iranian Navy exercises last week

Falahatpisheh further stated that since Washington uses the language of threat, Iran must consider any military move by the US in the region as a threatening move and respond by holding military drills.

   “[Military] drills held by the Islamic Republic following the imposed war [with Iraq] have been proportionate to threats posed to Iran from time to time by its enemies,” he added.

    On December 24, 2011, Iran's Navy launched a massive 10-day naval exercise codenamed Velayat 90 which covered an area stretching from the east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden.

   Different classes of submarines, including Tareq and Ghadir, the newest ground-to-sea missile systems and torpedoes were employed in the maneuvers.

    The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy announced on January 5, that the IRGC is set to hold a major military maneuver in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz in February.

    IRGC Navy Commander Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said the drill, the seventh in a series of drills dubbed the Great Prophet, will be different compared to previous exercises held by the IRGC.

    The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman, connects the Persian Gulf with the Sea of Oman and is a major oil route.

SS/HGH

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5^th Estate.

Images:  Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more »

'Iran prepared for US miscalculation'

Rescue of Iranian civilians from pirates by U.S. Navy was in spirit of most U.S. military personnel who want nothing to do with another illegal war or wars courtesy Obama and crew

PRESS TV

01/06/2012

A senior political analyst says while the recent spike in US and Israeli threats and allegations against Iran are “unlikely” to translate into an attack on the country, Tehran is geared up for any “American miscalculation.”

U.S. aggression could spark naval war
in Persian Gulf

“The United States and Israel, along with other Western countries have repeatedly made military threats against the Iranian people, while the Iranians have never made threats of their own,” Professor Seyyed Mohamed Marandi told Press TV on Friday.

Nevertheless, the prominent political commentator added it's unlikely that the US would venture on a military confrontation with Iran, “Because even senior American leaders admit that the consequences would be highly detrimental to the United States and its interests. 

    Washington and Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, based on the allegation that Iran's nuclear work may consist of a covert military aspect.

     

    Last week, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said the US military is ready to launch a military strike against Iran, if occasion necessitates. 

Iran tests anti-radar missile last week

"We are examining a range of options. I'm satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary," Dempsey said.

 

    Dempsey's warmongering tirades came on the heels of the equally aggressive remarks by US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that "no options were off the table" regarding Iran's nuclear program. 

    The Israeli officials have also recently stepped up their war rhetoric against Iran. On November 21, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that "time has come" to deal with Iran. 

    Israeli President Shimon Peres also threatened on November 6 that an attack against Iran is becoming "more and more likely."

     “The mere threats themselves are seen as inhuman and irrational; because of such American behavior, Iran has prepared itself for any potential American miscalculation,” Marandi asserted.

   Iranian Admirals just as good as U.S. counterparts
- perhaps better

He added though the Iranians are firmly committed to the peace and stability of the region, “A look at a map makes clear that Iran has the ability to respond to threats throughout the region and beyond.”

    “If there is no security for Iranians or for Iranian oil exports, then, in Iranian eyes, there will be no security for Iran's antagonists in the region,” the political analyst said. 

    On New Year's Eve, US President Barack Obama signed into law fresh economic sanctions against Iran's Central Bank in an apparent bid to punish foreign companies and banks that do business with the Iranian financial institution. 

    The bill aims to prevent refiners across the world from paying for Iran's oil. The European Union is also considering measures that would forbid its member states from importing the crude

Iran stated oil sanctions are act of war, will close
Persian Gulf

Iran's First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi has warned that imposing sanctions against the country's energy sector will prompt Tehran to prevent oil cargoes from passing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

    “If they impose sanctions on Iran's oil, not even a drop of oil will be allowed through the Strait of Hormuz,” he warned. 

    Iran's Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari has also reiterated that Iran has complete command over the strategic waterway and that “closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces.”

    “Under such conditions, the United States and its allies should not expect oil or gas to flow out of the Persian Gulf, northern Iraq, or Central Asia,” Marandi said.

     “It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the Islamic Republic's military power and resolve as well as the region's popular response to yet another western act of aggression in a very unstable region,” the senior political analyst concluded.

HMV/HGH

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5^th Estate.

Images:  Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more »

'Recent bombings: US revenge on Iraqis'

Obama, Clinton, CIA and the rest have already proven to world they are capable of doing, saying anything

PRESS TV

01/06/2012

Tehran's interim Friday Prayers leader says after being forced into a shameful retreat, the US resorted to bombings to take revenge on the Iraqi nation and government.

Iraqi cameraman catches this Baghdad blast

“To take revenge on Iraqis for their joy over the withdrawal of the occupying [American] forces, the US commissioned consecutive bombings and killings in Iraq in order to [also] convey that the Americans were the source of peace in the country and that their withdrawal created instability,” said Hojjatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi said on Friday.

    The Iranian cleric added that the presence of American forces in Iraq resulted in Muslim hatred and international loathing for the US, emphasizing that Shia, Sunni, Kurd and Arab all wanted US troops out of Iraq.

    Seddiqi advised the Iraqi nation to maintain unity and continue resistance to thwart enemy plots.

    Iraq has witnessed a surge in violence and bombing attacks over the past few weeks.

Bombings too sophisticated for homegrown
terrorists

At least 78 people were killed during multiple bomb attacks that rocked the capital's mainly Shia neighborhoods of Sadr City and Kazimiyeh and the city of Nassiriya on Thursday.

   December 31 marked the termination of a nearly nine-year US military invasion and occupation of Iraq in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement signed by Baghdad and Washington during the administration of former US President George W. Bush.

   
Despite the withdrawal, however, some 8,000 US troops, some 14 warplanes, 125 helicopters and 28 US drones continue to remain in the country's northern Kurdistan region, reports say.

    In addition, US President Barack Obama has vowed to maintain what he has described as a robust diplomatic presence in Iraq, which includes a large number of armed security guards.

SF/AZ/HGH

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5^th Estate.

Images:  Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more »

Iraq blasts kill 70 in second onslaught since US pull-out

FACT:  U.S. military still has personnel in Iraq

The Irish Times

By Michael Jansen

01/06/2012

AT LEAST 70 people were killed and 130 wounded yesterday in bombings in Baghdad and southern Iraq. These were the most devastating attacks since late December, when 63 people died in 14 co-ordinated bombings in the capital.

    In Baghdad 24 were slain in four bombings in the Shia quarters of Kadhamiya and Sadr City, while in the southern city of Nasiriya, suicide bombers killed 46 pilgrims bound for the holy city of Kerbala.

Timing of bombings, forensics indicate possible
CIA involvement

Every year bombers target the hundreds of thousands of Shia pilgrims who walk to Kerbala for the Shia rites of Arbaeen, due to be marked next week.

Iraqi army spokesman Maj Gen Qassim al-Moussawi said the bombers’ objective was to “create sedition among the Iraqi people”, but he did not identify the culprits.

     No group has claimed responsibility, although these attacks seem to bear the hallmark of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which claimed the December 22nd wave of bombings.

    On Wednesday, there were attacks on the homes of police officers and a member of a Sunni militia that joined the 2007-08 US campaign to crush al-Qaeda.

   The steady rise in violence has followed the withdrawal from Iraq on December 18th of the last US combat troops, and coincides with a political crisis precipitated by a boycott of parliament and cabinet by the secular Iraqiya bloc.

Bombings designed to cause havoc in Iraq to invite
U.S. back in

It garnered 80 per cent of the secular and Sunni votes in the 2010 parliamentary poll and won the largest number of seats but was unable to form a government due to prime minister Nuri al-Maliki’s refusal to leave.

  
    With Iran’s aid, he put together a coalition cabinet after nine months of bickering.

    Iraqiya withdrew after Mr Maliki, head of the dominant Shia fundamentalist alliance, accused Sunni vice-president Tareq al-Hashemi of organising assassinations of political opponents.

   Mr Hashemi fled to the northern Kurdish autonomous region, arguing he would not receive a fair trial in Baghdad.

    Mr Maliki has dismissed this charge.

Over thirty civilians have died
in Baghdad today

He has also called on the assembly to dismiss Sunni deputy premier Saleh al-Mutlak, another leading Iraqiya figure, after he accused Mr Maliki – who also holds the portfolios of defence and interior – of behaving like a dictator.

Iraqiya’s boycott has brought about the collapse of the “national unity” arrangement brokered by Washington, which the US had hoped would work to stabilise the country after the pull-out of its troops.

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5^th Estate.

Images:  Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more »