Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

William B. Fox Archive
Mission of Conscience Book I Contents

"Iraq, Ramzaj and a Neutron Bomb" photo at Russian site, with caption: "Burned out Abrahms at Baghdad airport. The battle of Baghdad Airport marked the end of the Ramzaj reports, while the US media's war and US casualty reporting disconnected completely from reality."

Chapter 2

The Battle of Baghdad Cover-Up

First posted 23 May 2009
Most recently updated, reedited 6 Nov 2011

When the Sept 11, 2001 attacks took place, Capt. May initially accepted the official government story and national media accounts at face value for emotional reasons.  In fact, he felt a strong patriotic urge to get back into the military and go overseas to fight Muslim insurgents. 
By fall 2003 he became so embittered with the Bush administration that he wrote a hostile email to neo-con national media pundits Hannity and Colmes:

Hey, I’ll tell you what, I’ll reactivate my commission if you’ll enlist for some combat.  I’ve already tried to do it after 911, I even went to my best man and best friend, Chase Untermeyer, (a Bush family friend and former Asst Secretary of the Navy for Reagan/Bush), and asked him to pull strings to get me into the Marines or the Navy.  It was April 5, 2002, the 25th anniversary of my first enlistment at 17.  Call him and ask, coward. Here’s his number…I’m for real, just ask him.  Ask him about me, boy. You see, I was getting a little bored teaching martial arts and practicing weapons, and I was ready for a little action. I had no luck, though.  The services all rejected me because of a couple of fights I had on my record.

The first foreshadowing of high level intrigue that literally hit home for Captain May in Houston were National Security Agency (NSA) warnings of a terror attack that preceded the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003.  May commented in a Zeph Report interview:

Captain May:  The NSA had been leaking information that was published in the local media in Houston to the effect that Al Qaeda was planning a strike against the Houston port facility and they started doing that in 2002. Now that made perfect sense to me, and I even wrote a piece for the Houston Chronicle about it. The target analysis of Houston saying Houston was the most likely target in the nation. Because the Bush family was there. Because oil targets are the easiest to blow up. Because NASA was there. I did not realize that I was playing right into the setup scenario. The reason the media was running that story that NSA had overheard Bin Laden talking about blowing up Pasadena [ Texas ] --in fact there is a Pasadena in my state-- was because we were supposed to be getting our minds ready. They tell you what they are going to do before they do it. That way when you do it, you are not surprised and you think it makes sense.

May wrote his article, “Don’t laugh at duct tape, it saves livesHouston Chronicle Outlook, which was published on February 23, 2003.  Later, he would construe a macabre coincidence with this article, just like the KPRC editorial mentioned in Chapter One that coincided with the date of the Oklahoma City bombing. 

As we poise to attack Iraq , our military leaders worry that our forces will have to survive and function on the “dirty battlefield” of chemical and biological contaminants. They are preparing for that worst-case scenario, which is the best thing to do. Here at home, on the other hand, I’m afraid that too many of us are expecting the best-case scenario – that we will be untouched by the war – which is the worst thing to do. We are negligent in our civil defense.
Take the duct tape squabble as an example. Earlier this month, the Bush administration heightened the nation’s alert status, and gave the specific advice that citizens have emergency supplies, including duct tape and plastic sheeting, in the event of possible chemical or biological attacks on American soil. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, more concerned with the war for the presidency in 2004 than the war for Iraq in 2003, mocked the administration’s ineptitude, saying that it would have to do better than duct tape to protect the American people.
Daschle is wrong. One of the first tricks of survival in a contaminated environment is to seal up a room with duct tape and plastic, breathing the ample inside air until any wind-borne toxins outside have dissipated.
Dismissing Daschle’s argument, I went down to a local hardware store to get supplies a few days ago, only to learn that he had already influenced many shoppers. Duct tape and plastic sheets in hand, I asked the checkout clerk from the back of the line how many people were stocking up on the items. “Not many,” she replied, “duct tape won’t work.” I explained to her why duct tape would work. To most of the shoppers in earshot, this seemed to be welcome news, and several of them went back to the shelves for supplies. The hardware store made a handful of dollars in profit, and a handful of people made purchases that could save their lives.
Now is the time for all wise people to come to the aid of… themselves. Civil defense, like all forms of self-defense, is an unpleasant concept. It demands that we accept our own stated reason for going to war: There are evil people in the world who hate and seek to harm us with weapons of mass destruction. We are in a war with terrorists – and terrorists are in a war with us. Not just with our service personnel, intelligence agencies and police forces; not just with citizens of our political and financial capitals, but with all of us. Terrorists deal in terrifying deeds. The know that a thousand civilian casualties in America are more devastating to the nation’s morale than a thousand U.S. military casualties in Iraq, and may well be easier to inflict.
The Houston area is unquestionably among the top homeland targets for agents of evil. Consider:

· We’re the nation’s fourth most populous city.
· We’re the home of the Johnson Space Center
· We are the declared home town of the Bush family.
· We have the nation’s largest chemical district.
· Our climate enhances the lethality of a chemical attack.

When I was a general staff officer we routinely envisioned worst-case scenarios to test our preparedness. Let’s use one for ourselves:
Early one morning there is a massive explosion in the chemical district along our ship channel. Lethal gases, similar to the ones released in the catastrophe of Bhopal , India , erupt into the atmosphere. An early morning inversion temperature gradient – our climatic norm – keeps the toxic cloud on the ground, while gentle southeasterly breezes – again, our norm – blow it northwest inside Loop 610, where our population is most dense. It may reach beyond that. In any case, the toxins would not dissipate until the afternoon, when our atmospheric conditions usually cause ground pollution to rise.
If anyone thinks that my scenario may give the bad guys ideas they haven’t already thought of, think again. Terrorists like the ones who simultaneously hijacked four planes and turned them into missiles are smart enough to think of blowing up toxic factories in populous areas. They are constantly thinking of the bad things they can do to us – and we’d better start thinking about them ourselves.

In his 23 Feb 2006 Whalen interview, May admitted that: “Right before the war started, I was publishing very strong pieces on the war of terror specifically thinking that Al Qaeda was going to hit us. So I was strictly on board with the Bush people going into the beginning of the Iraq War.”




Illustration from the 10 Aug 2011 article Oslo terror Illuminati Card by Tor Karlstad, [English Translation page], "Conspiracy Theorists are the enemy, but also to help Illuminata, while they can destroy all their game by revealing it..." Also, please see the discussion of "Predictive Programming" at the beginning of Chapter 37 and also on the Fukushima Catastrophe web page.


According to May, government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency would start issuing the same alert half a year after his initial analysis.  He later concluded that Bush insiders were hijacking work that he naively created prior to the invasion for their own false flag planning purposes.  
In fact, May even thinks the publication date February 23, 2003, shown numerically as 02-23-2003,  might not have been an accident. I might have had numerological significance for insiders, using the terror date code system we will explore in greater detail later in this book.  (As a sneak preview, 02-23-2003 converts to 22323, which contains within it “322” backwards.  “322” being the number that appears in the Skull & Bones logo.)
There was another major anomaly that deeply concerned Capt May prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This existed on a grand strategic level.  Back in 1992 he had written “Success of Desert Storm being judged unfairly.” In this piece he supported the decision by President George H.W. Bush to halt the advance of American troops once they took Kuwait , and not press on to Baghdad .  After all, America had accomplished its political objectives by driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait , and the costs of taking Baghdad and holding down a hostile Arab country were probably not worth any long term gains.
At that time, this opinion made him a “fair-haired boy” among the general staff, because it was in line with their shared opinion as well.
Now, just prior to the invasion in 2003, he observed a complete flip-flop among senior Army leaders in favor of invading Iraq . They sheepishly followed the Bush establishment line, despite its lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and connections with Al Qaeda. 
Captain May noted dryly in subsequent interviews that when promotions and medals are at stake, it always hard for officers to question their superiors.
Later on retired LtGen William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency, would call America ’s invasion of Iraq the greatest strategic disaster in American history. 
The failure of more officers to speak up would ultimately cost them far more than personal promotions; it would threaten the survival of the Constitution and this country.
Despite warnings from major political leaders around the world that an invasion of Iraq would be folly, and despite strenuous efforts by the Iraqi government to comply with all of Bush’s demands to prove they no longer had any weapons of mass destruction, George Bush and his handlers had to go ahead and have their conquest of the oil rich enemy of Israel anyway.
Wikipidia observes that “On March 17, 2003, George Bush addressed the nation and demanded that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline. But Bush actually began the bombing of Iraq on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On March 18, 2003, the bombing of Iraq by the United States without UN support began, unlike the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan.”
Los Angeles assistant district attorney Vincent Bugliosi, author of the 2008 book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, would later provide the following testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding this invasion:  (Reported in Wayne Madsen's 2 Aug 2008 talk show):  



Bugliosi: [In my book The Prosecution of George W.] Bush for Murder, I present evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Bush administration officials took this nation to war in Iraq on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore under the law they are guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4000 young American soldiers who have died so far in Iraq fighting their war. And let us not forget the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children, and babies who have died horrible violent deaths because of this war. I am fully aware that the charge that I have just made is a very serious one, but let me say that at this stage of my career I do not have time for fanciful reveries. I never in a million years would propose a murder prosecution of administration officials if I did not believe there was more than enough evidence to convict them, and that I was standing on strong legal ground. What is some of that evidence? Because of time constraints I am only going to mention one piece of evidence today. I have documentary evidence that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7th, 2002 that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA had told administration officials just six days earlier in a classified report on October the 1st, that Hussein was not an imminent threat. But it gets worse. On October 4th the Bush administration put out an unclassified summary version of the classified report so that they could give it to Congress and the American people. And this unclassified version came to be known as the White Paper. And in this White Paper which I have in front of me, the conclusion of U.S. Intelligence that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted. Every single one of these all important words was taken out, so Congress and the American people never saw any of this..

American media portrayed the U.S. military blitzkrieg that swept from Kuwait for over 500 miles of up the Tigris and Euphrates valleys towards Baghdad as an act of liberation.  It was also lauded as a resounding success, with few casualties.
As American troops were closing in on Baghdad , May stuck to the same position he had espoused before invasion.  He penned his op-ed, “Visions of Stalingrad: Claim victory in Iraq now” (Houston Chronicle Outlook, April 3, 2003).

We might fare worse in the Iraqi summer than the Germans did in the Russian winter. Saddam has likely stockpiled weapons of mass destruction for the grim eventuality of a defense of his capital.
From this we may infer that our troops, if ordered to storm Baghdad , will do so in a dirty battlefield of chemical, biological and perhaps even radioactive contaminants. This means a summer of donning protective clothing and straining to breathe through protective mask filters while engaged in combat in the desert. Such predictions would prostrate our forces and leave them highly vulnerable.
It’s hard to take capital cities. Take World War II cities as examples. London endured years of German bombing; Moscow withstood the German assault, while regional capitals Leningrad and Stalingrad fought back legendary sieges. Berlin was nearly leveled by years of Allied bombing before the Soviet army, hell-bent on revenge, reached it. It still put up a street fight with the Red Army over the rubble. Hundreds of thousands died.
We wish neither to receive nor inflict such heavy casualties. Our plan for a quick knockout – the classic aim of blitz warfare – is disappearing, and a protracted war means more time for international frictions to spark new conflicts with an irritable U.S. government. Britain has lined up with us, not to forget Italy , Spain and sundry others. But Germany, France, Russia and Turkey seem to have lined up against us, not to forget the public opinion of the Islamic world. NATO is split. The Arab world wants to convene a General Assembly of the United Nations to condemn us. Meanwhile, North Korea is threatening a nuclear tantrum and Japan is leaning toward rearmament. Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has recently said that the world is at its most dangerous point since the Cold War. A question frightens me: With all this geopolitical jostling, just how many mistakes are we away from World War Three?
We should isolate Saddam’s capital, but not cross his so-called “Red Line” – the point at which he will throw every dirty weapon he has at us. He’ll just die, like Adolph Hitler before him, in a bunker with a funeral pyre instead of a human city over him. We can’t let ourselves be called the new butchers of Baghdad .
I believe that now is the time for the commander in chief to show the utmost flexibility in his war plans. We and our brave ally, Great Britain , should proclaim victory on the basis of our current successes: While we have not deposed Saddam, we have punished him by reducing him from the president of Iraq to the mayor of beleaguered Baghdad . We have liberated the majority of Iraq , and Saddam has cleared it of weapons of mass destruction for us. We have achieved success, albeit limited. Voters in our countries will condemn or praise the war, depending on whether or not they liked the leaders in the first place.
It is important that we share the control of liberated Iraq with a coalition of other nations who are sincere as we are about protecting its people and its resources. That would assuage the errant world opinion that we are fighting a war for oil.

May turned out to be right that there would be a stiff fight for Baghdad .  However, his article also shows the naïveté of someone who still believed the official 9/11 story and still held enough faith in his government to seriously consider reentering the military to fight in the Middle East .
In actuality, it was quickly turning into a war for OIL, that is, Oil , Israel , and Logistical bases.  The bad will and costs of this war would threaten to become destructive to America ’s long term legitimate national interests. 
May had taken Bush administration claims that Iraq still had poison gas at face value.   Other military experts such as the late Col David Hackworth, a respected Vietnam War veteran and critic of Pentagon ineptitude who posted his columns at, had also strenuously warned about “the poisoned battlefield” before the invasion.  However, it turned out that the Iraqis had already destroyed their poison gas stocks, as required in the ceasefire agreement that ended Persian Gulf War I. 
May had also assumed that the Bush administration was concerned about achieving humanitarian objectives.  He thought it cared about maintaining international goodwill by limiting its military operations.  
He underestimated the Bush administration’s willingness to manipulate media, hide American casualties, engage in torture, make first use of nuclear weapons, genocide hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through the use of depleted uranium, and completely subordinate itself to Israeli goals.
Despite its limitations, May’s piece was still a landmark dissenting opinion for its time.  Capt May commented in his interview with Iconoclast editor Leon Smith 2 April 2007 interview:

The same day my editor at the Chronicle ran the piece, he told me "I’m running it today because you’re the voice in the wilderness and the Army’s going to reach Baghdad tomorrow and prove you’re wrong." The next day, the Army reached Baghdad . We were overwhelmed at the Baghdad Airport , we went nuclear, and we nuked the Constitution to cover it up. I would say my prophecy of a quicksand war was validated within 24 hours of going to press.”

Ironically, what American media conveyed to public was the exact opposite of this. There was no mention of troops getting overwhelmed at the Baghdad Airport .  No mention of the U.S. going nuclear.  There was not even any mention of a Battle of Baghdad.
For Captain May, the anti-climatic media silence was thunderous.  It was analogous to an offensive team in the Super Bowl getting within a few yards of touchdown, and suddenly the cameras shift to cheerleaders and the marching band. The audience never gets to see the touchdown play.   In his article “
3/7 Cavalry, Tragedy and Travesty” 13 April 2003, Capt May wrote:

My readings of the international press, my own observations and a few choice conversations led me to believe that the American media had self-mobilized to support the war effort, much in the same way it self-mobilized to support the war effort in World War II; it had become something of a national propaganda agency, like the former Soviet TASS, or like Nazi Josef Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry. 911 was waved like a bloody shirt. Whatever did fit the war picture (e.g., patriotism and profiteering) was hyped, while whatever didn’t fit the war picture (e.g., lack of WMD evidence and lack of terrorist connection evidence) was neatly omitted. The propaganda crested as U.S. forces approached the city of Baghdad , which they began to surround for an eventual assault…

As American forces closed in on Baghdad , Saddam Hussein promised another “mother of all battles.”  He had tens of thousands of Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam (guerillas) sworn to fight to the death.
According to Captain May, on Friday night, April 4, the 3rd Infantry Division had seized control of the Baghdad airport after a three-day fight.  It left its scout unit, the 3/7 Cavalry, to hold the airport while it encircled the city.  There was plenty of tension in the faces of the TV embeds that night, because Saddam Hussein had promised an “unconventional” attack before dawn, which consisted of five regiments of his Republican Guard and units of his guerilla force Fedayeen Saddam…

… Well, he kept his promise. Friday night at 8:30 p.m. (Central), I was watching CNN showing the predawn of Saturday 5:30 morning half-way around the world in Baghdad
All at once the skyline of the besieged city erupted with the flash and report of sustained explosions. The CNN people (Aaron Brown and Fredricka Whitfield) reacted with surprise, saying that U.S. public affairs hadn’t alerted them that there would be a major fire mission tonight. I immediately became anxious, knowing it exceedingly unlikely that public affairs hadn’t contacted affected media about a major fire mission in a choreographed war. “It probably wasn’t us doing the firing,” I thought.
In the next few minutes CNN’s reporter Walter Rodgers, embedded with the 3/7 Cavalry, attempted to make a report from the Baghdad Airport . Rodgers’ voice was indistinguishable because of the extreme background noise of artillery impacting around him, automatic small arms fire striking his vehicle and the shouts of the soldiers inside. It was the fog of war, no doubt about it. Aaron Brown offered no explanation of the noise, merely stiffly saying that the network was having technical difficulties.
Thankfully, Walter Rodgers’ luck held. A half hour later Fredericka and Aaron were off the clock and Larry King Live carried an interview between Rodgers and Lt. Col. Terry Ferrell – the commander of the very 3/7 Cavalry under fire at the airport. I had never seen the unit commander in two weeks of the TV war, so his sudden appearance was just more sad corroboration of my theory that we were getting the worst of it in the early Battle of Baghdad. Lt. Col. Ferrell bravely tried to keep a straight face as he told Rodgers that all was well at the airport, but ended up in tears; Rodgers was too choked up to pick up the conversation. The put-up interview was yet more tragic corroboration of my sad analysis, and I began to cry along with Lieut. Col. Ferrell and Rodgers, for the boys of the 3/7 Cavalry, remembering that I had once been a young cavalryman, too.
…. The attack made military sense for the Iraqis. The airport was key terrain for the control of Baghdad , and had been fiercely contested. It would have been a surprise to me if they had not rigged it as a booby trap, targeted it for a counterattack, or both.
Saddam had banked on winning the war by repeating the debacle of Mogadishu , in which a handful of well-publicized casualties had swung American public opinion against military involvement in Somalia . At the Baghdad Airport he had executed the best ambush since the Little Big Horn, where Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull destroyed the same Seventh Cavalry Regiment. By morning writers would pen the name George “Custer” Bush and national resolve for the war would plummet.

When Capt May appeared on the Hal Turner talk show, a caller, “Rick from Ohio,” explained how national media handled the Battle for Baghdad Airport.

Rick: …I just wanted to remind people that the problem with people in this country is they don't have a memory. But if you remember back when, what did they call him, Baghdad Bob was on TV.
Turner: Yes.
Rick: He was talking about the Battle of Baghdad, he said the American forces had penetrated into the airport, but they were immediately counter attacked by Fedayeen and Iraqi forces and they were being pushed out as he spoke. Now this ties in with what he said there was an ongoing battle there, had been going on for hours, but they were being driven out, they were being destroyed by the Iraqi forces.
Turner: Yes.
Rick: And then the way the media handled it, of course, they showed film of humvees parked outside the airport, GI's walking around and then they just laughed at Baghdad Bob. The spokesman, and that is when they gave him the nickname "Baghdad Bob."
Turner: I remember.
Rick: And they just laughed at him and tried to humiliate him and that was the propaganda on the American people. Because it is easy for them to go in there, get out, take a little footage of the troops walking around, before the counter attack comes.
Turner: Sure.
Rick: So the effect is here, he was telling the truth.
Turner: He was.
Rick: Their response to him was to laugh at him. Ridicule him.

In contrast, Arab media provided a totally different picture of this battle. It not only reported that Iraqis had recaptured the airport, with hundreds of Americans killed in action, but also there were scenes of American prisoners being beheaded. 
The Bush Administration violently retaliated against this media.  May wrote:

The English-language web site for Al Jazeera paid events in Baghdad more attention.  So many Americans were turning to it over the weekend that its site crashed, and the archives for the events of April 5/6 still won’t come up.  The Arab journalists’ decision to stay close to the battle cost them dearly, though.  Several of them died in bad-luck bombings by the US military after the Battle of Baghdad was over…
…I fear my president ordered assassination in the “bad luck” incidents of Army tanks shelling the Baghdad hotel that housed foreign journalists. The Arab media believes it was murder, and they were telling the truth about the 3/7 Cavalry. (3/7 Cav, Tragedy and Travesty).

Killing journalists to cover up a story was bad enough, but the ultimate deception came when Bush administration went nuclear. Capt May commented during his Hal Turner interview: 

Capt May: …To get to the particular night of the Baghdad Airport , there is something called The Secret History of the Iraq War. Your folks can find it by looking in the book store where there is very little told about the Baghdad Airport battle, except that it was a six hour fight that reached close quarters. Now I have picked up from different international contacts of mine that it was at the point that there were actual war atrocities being carried out on captured American soldiers on film. They got in close, there were captured people, there were hundreds of dead boys, and what happened is that after six hours of a fire fight, in which U.S. ground forces, that being the Third Infantry Division, particularly the 3-7 Cavalry Squadron, the 101st Airborne, and possibly some Marine forces, they expended all their ammo after six hours. The Iraqis had at least five battalions of Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam, or their volunteer forces.
Turner: Right.
Capt May: At the end of it all, with the U.S. forces running low on ammo, somebody from somewhere gave authorization to use a neutron warhead over the Baghdad Airport . Now I got this multi-source through Army people who were there, Marine people who were there, and Arab journalists who were there or who talked to people who were there. The important thing is that the American boys did not know what had happened. They were never --the details were never filled in. But what happened was the American forces went and buttoned up inside their armored vehicles. Armored vehicles have pretty good protection against radioactive transmission. They have a good transmission factor, it is called in professional terms.
Turner: Right.
Capt May: Since they were inside and buttoned up, the Iraqis were outside and exposed, and the way I got it from the Iraqi side through Arab journalists, was they thought they were doing good until all of a sudden they started melting. So at that point a nuke went off over Baghdad Airport , maybe a series of nukes. And we think neutron is enhanced radiation, as I am sure you know Mr. Turner.
Turner: Yes, I am aware of that. But it wasn't a fission device, it wasn't the big bang, it was a neutron warhead.
Capt May: Right. You know, the old Russians had a good propaganda line about that. The neutron warhead has high toxicity because it has radioactive emission, but it has low burst, so the Russians used to make a joke about it in the 1980's when we were trying to introduce it into the European arsenal by saying it was the perfect capitalist weapon because it killed people and saved property.

General Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi, who commanded Iraqi forces at Baghdad Airport , confirmed that Bush used a neutron bomb in his 9 April 2007 Al Jazeera interview 6 on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad .  He said that it incinerated about 2,000 elite Republican Guard troops but left buildings in tact.

The al-Rawi interview

Interestingly enough, shortly after this interview David Hambling, author of “Weapons Grade: How Modern Warfare Gave Birth to Our High-Tech World,” wrote that the U.S. has another weapon called the AGM-114N, which is a “thermobaric device” that uses chemicals such as powdered aluminum to achieve a similar effect as a neutron weapon. These kinds of weapons are also being used in Iraq and Afghanistan .
However, there is considerable evidence that the Bush administration went nuclear-all-the-way with a neutron bomb.   May commented in Sunday Magazine “The Battle of Baghdad & the Unreported Neutron Bomb:”

If one looks into international data, there are reportings of enhanced radiation of some livestock, and of human metabolic effects – death and disease. It explains why, after the Battle of Baghdad, we got fragmentary stories of things like truckloads of dirt being moved out and moved in. It made no particular sense at the time, until one puts it into perspective, as a decontamination operation. Again, that part of the Battle of Baghdad, the fact that we went nuclear, explains a lot of things that came out afterwards and also explains why it is that it had to be covered up. You can’t go to a country to try to make sure that nobody tries to start a war with WMDs against you and WMD ’em. It’s a highly embarrassing position to be in.
Baghdad laid bare that USA really wasn’t going into a limited war at all, it was going into a world war, and prepared to use nukes. Incidentally, since the nuking of Baghdad Airport , the Bush Administration has retrofitted our military doctrine to allow for the use of tactical nukes in that sort of situation.
From a strictly tactical point of view, using a neutron warhead killed the Iraqis who were in the open, while giving U.S. forces, who were inside armor, a chance at survival. Had I been one of the commanders on the battlefield at Baghdad Airport, one would have preferred the neutron option to being overrun and destroyed by the Iraqi forces. But war is never simply tactical. As Clausewitz, the Prussian military philosopher, puts it, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” It’s on the political level that the nuking of Baghdad Airport was a disastrous decision.
Unlike the nuking of Japan , which was admitted to the American people, the nuking of Baghdad was kept from them, meaning that we had decided to keep them in the dark about the conduct of the war. Further, the Arab world knows very well what we did in Baghdad , and that only added to their hatred for the United States , so the big picture of the Baghdad Airport neutron bomb is that we saved ourselves from limited military failure, but thereby caused ourselves unlimited domestic and foreign disaster.
It’s one of history’s great ironies that the Bush Administration was screaming that WMDs would be used on us in the Iraq war, and then when all is said and done, WMDs were used — not on us, but by us.

Blog sites such as support the neutron bomb story.  They include accounts of top soil being extracted from the Baghdad airport, major portions of the airport being placed off limits under guard, cancer symptoms associated with air port workers, and a strong electromagnetic pulse that jolted electrical utilities during the battle.
In his 11 Sept 2007 interview with Bob Stockwell, May elaborated on Al-Rawi's story and how he confirmed the neutron weapon from vets:

Bob Stockwell Was there a particular area of the airport where the neutron bomb was exploded?
Capt May:
I cannot place it particularly, but I do know that there were bunker facilities of some sort within which the Fedayeen Saddam and the Republican Guard were staying. The Iraqi general Al-Rawi gives a figure of something like 20-30,000 who were "martyred." This is an Al-Jazeera interview of April 2007 coming a couple of days after my interview with the Iconoclast on the same material. Now the caveat here, one of the things you will hear about Baghdad Airport, BIA, Baghdad International Airport is an acronym for it, after the Battle of Baghdad --which by the way you will never hear on TV, you always hear "after the fall of Saddam." You will never hear the phrase "Battle of Baghdad" used to describe the Battle of Baghdad in 2003. But after the Battle of Baghdad, the first hint I caught that what I knew was a battle might have been a WMD, a nuclear biological chemical warfare scenario, was that there were huge amounts of dirt being trucked into and out of the Baghdad Airport. There was apparently a decontamination operation going on. Now the part that I discussed of there being a neutron warhead was widely stated throughout the Middle East on the Internet. It was Internet chatter that I picked up. I did not believe it at that point. It was only after I had gone through various sources which had to do with international scientific evaluations, cancer rates around the airport, of livestock and poultry kill-off around the Baghdad Airport, and then really I suppose the capper was when I went out to Camp Casey, I was part of the original Camp Casey, Texas. And I got together with some combat vets of the invasion, and we sat around and put together what they knew, because both of them were outside of Baghdad. One was a Marine barely outside when the Battle of Baghdad happened, the other was a U.S. artillerist barely outside when the Battle happened. And we had a couple of Arab journalists there and it became apparent very quickly that we put together the different things that people had seen. It was like a Perry Mason case. It became quite apparent there had been some kind of usage. The artillerist for instance was saying, our command kept saying there was an ammunition bunker was blowing up, but it went on for six hours. OK, well that doesn't work. So that was the battle sound. He said then towards the end of it they made us take cover, and evidently they had taken occupied bunkers, whatnot, so they were told to take cover within. He specifically said that the only person who saw what happened was the company commander. And I am thinking that poor man may have cancer by now if he stood up and was exposed to it. So the move to go nuclear with a neutron warhead at Baghdad airport seems pretty fixed in my mind. Whatever you see now --the only thing that would be interesting -- get a geiger counter or an alpha radiation badge and see what kind of reading you get.

Lastly,  Leuren Moret, an international expert on depleted uranium weapons, sent an email on 19 June 2004 to Capt May that supported the neutron weapon account:

Dear Eric
I spent a lot of time in 2003 in other countries attending conferences and testifying in Japan and Manila at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan (18 public hearings and 4 tribunals) which was organized by Japanese citizens.  I met some high level Iraqis who told me what they observed, and other nationalities who served as Human Shields during the 2003 war in Iraq
I was told that there were 4 very large flashes in close sequence in Baghdad at the beginning of the fighting. Later on after the Iraqis were defeated, the US closed the airport to ALL for about 2 weeks. I also read later about hundreds of US driven dump trucks removing "contaminated" soil from the airport and dumping it out in the desert and returning with clean sand. This was supposedly to keep the occupying forces from "getting contaminated". I do not know if it was to remove depleted uranium contaminated soil or US bodies, but it could have been either or both.
Your story is very interesting and convincing. I was reading Russian intel daily on the internet (translated into English by reporters), reported from satellites, Russian intercepted US radio traffic in Iraq , and personnel on the ground reporting to the Russians. The US met formidable resistance and had a very much tougher time than reported here. The sandstorms ate up engines and parts in aircraft that at one point more than 70% were on the ground with no parts to repair them. The air cover was the backbone of the US part of the war. The Russians gave excellent details and an analysis of the war, just like a sports game. It was fascinating.
Anyway, a deal had to have been made at some point with the top Iraqis who were then flown out of the country. I was notified by the UN Observer in the Hague that it was reported in one Jordanian newspaper when there was a sudden ceasefire, that Cheney's daughter was on the way to Baghdad with a delegation from the State Dept. where she worked. (I think Condoleeza Rice went to Russia at that time but I am not sure) After the State Dept. delegation ended the talks in Baghdad , they left and the war ended a few days later.... because the US was sucking sand...


It was bad enough that the battle for the Baghdad Airport was covered up –and stayed covered up, but this was only the beginning.   The Bush administration also covered up the overall battle for the city of Baghdad that lasted for several days.  On top of all this, it also fabricated a bogus story about Private Jessica Lynch as a distracter.
Captain May commented: (Leon Smith: 14 Aug 2006):

The Battle of Baghdad started that night when the 3/7 Cavalry was engaged by Iraqi forces at the Baghdad airport. I immediately knew they had covered up. There are 20 different indicators I put on the introduction of my website of why I knew it was being covered up, all of which I picked up as you would in your own area expertise if you knew something was being covered up. The biggest clue was Jessica Lynch. The media covered up the biggest U.S. battle in decades by contriving a human interest story. The Jessica Lynch story lasted until the Army had taken Baghdad and they were ready to pull down the statue of Saddam. It was a total propaganda job.”

Later, Jessica Lynch showed tremendous moral courage and exposed the fabricated stories portrayed by American media.  Capt May commented:

So at last we know the real Private Jessica Lynch:  She was moving north across the desert in a lost convoy when a rocket slammed into her vehicle, causing her to crash, breaking her bones and knocking her out.  She is a brave young woman who served her country, bled for it, and sustained life-long injuries as a result.  Like all the other casualties, she deserves our deep respect and gratitude.
But the truth above wasn’t what we were told when Army public affairs created the “Private Jessica” hoax that tantalized the nation for the weekend of April 5/6.  No, that was a far different person, described in terms like these:

Private Jessica killed four Iraqi soldiers in a desperate firefight before her rifle jammed.  She then continued to fight,  [burned up two clips of ammunition, kept firing after bayoneted  while] broken-boned and bayoneted, until captured.  After being held captive, she was heroically rescued in a bold Special Forces raid.

Now we know that the Army made it all up, but at the time we thought it was the truth.  As a former Army public affairs officer, I’m outraged that my colleagues so abused the public trust…

In an effort to pierce through the veil of propaganda during the Battle of Baghdad, Captain May compiled twenty one  “indicators.” 
The calendar for 1st two weeks of APRIL 2003:



Friday April 4th

1. Explosions outside Baghdad , circa 2130 hours (Eastern)

2. Report from Embed: shouts, explosions and automatic fire hitting the vehicle.

3. CNN military experts, including General Clark, in studio become pessimistic in

their analysis.

4. Larry King shouts “Oh, my God!” in studio, as images come in. (He apparently

forgot that his mike was on.) c. 2215 hours

5. Lieutenant Colonel Ferrell, the 3/7 Cavalry Commander, begins to cry in an

interview with CNN reporter Walter Rodgers. Rogers apparently had intended

to create the impression that all was going well at the airport and asked how

were the troops? c. 2230. ( Rogers is close to tears, too.)

6. CNN report “Hundreds of reinforcements” rushing to airport. c. 2245 hours

7. Fox concurrently reports reinforcements to airport.

8. 3rd Division of the U.S. Army 7th Cavalry reported as on foray into Baghdad

9. Baghdad Bob says Iraqi forces control airport, have killed 300 US troops.

Saturday April 5th

10. Tape released of a jubilant Saddam Hussein (probably taken the day before

when US troops took the airport and therefore stepped into a trap).

11. Pentagon cancels its 1230 (Eastern) briefing

12. Bush flies to Blair in England – stays Saturday and Sunday

13. CNN’s Aaron Brown says “There are things we can’t tell you now.”

14. Saturday evening CNN Christiane Amanpour, in a panel discussion, hints

broadly that the Arab and American media don’t agree on the facts of ongoing

events. A flunky Kuwait editor lamely suggests that Arab media should not be

making reports without hearing the American side first (i.e., he doesn’t deny

any of the reports).

Sunday April 6th

15. Sunday afternoon, c. 1900 (Eastern), a national conservative talk show host

with Clear Channel Communications (950 AM in Texas ) mocks the Egyptian

newspaper figure of 200 American KIA at airport. After a commercial break he

stops mocking Arab media, and begins to hint that something terrible has

happened in Iraq and that we need to rally behind the President.

Monday April 7th

16. Shelling of Arab media in Baghdad (by U.S. forces).

Wednesday April 9th

17. In an interview: Aaron Brown asks: “Does the 3/7 feel safe?” Walter Rodgers

answers: “Lieut. Colonel Ferrell summed it up for the men when he said that

none of them would feel safe until they were home in Fort Stewart , Georgia .”

Other Broadcast Indicators

18. Wesley Clark leaves CNN, stressing his need to show himself “objective”

several times.

19. Middle East media broadly impugns integrity of US media.

20. Al Jazeera English site crashes. (I still haven’t been able to pull up its

archives for the weekend we took Baghdad .)

21. Multiple confirmations by international students at University of Houston

Honors College of massive US losses at airport.

Eyewitness accounts from foreign journalists completely contradicted American media. One example includes the article “Battle of Baghdad” filed by Robert Fisk, UK Independent, on Sunday, 6 April 2003.   It hardly described an Iraqi military ready to capitulate without drawing blood.

…there were the Iraqi bodies, piled high in the back of a pick-up truck in front of me, army boots hanging over the tailboard, a soldier with an automatic rifle sitting beside them. Beside the highway, a squad of troops was stacking rocket propelled grenades beside a row of empty shops as the ground beneath us vibrated with the impact of American air strikes and shellfire. The area was called Qadisiya. It was Iraq ’s last front line.
Thus did the Battle for Baghdad enter its first hours yesterday, a conflict that promises to be both dirty and cruel. Even the city’s police force was sent to the front, its officers parading in a fleet of squad cars through the central streets, waving their newly issued Kalashnikov rifles from the windows.
What is one to say of such frantic, impersonal – and, yes, courageous – chaos? A truck crammed with more than a hundred Iraqi troops, many in blue uniforms, all of them carrying rifles which gleamed in the morning sunlight, sped past me towards the airport. A few made victory signs in the direction of my car – I confess to touching 145km an hour on the speedometer – but of course one had to ask what their hearts were telling them. “Up the line to death” was the phrase that came to mind. Two miles away, at the Yarmouk hospital, the surgeons stood in the car park in blood-stained overalls; they had already handled their first intake of military casualties.
A few hours later, an Iraqi minister was to tell the world that the Republican Guard had just retaken the airport from the Americans, that they were under fire but had won “a great victory”. Around Qadisiya, however, it didn’t look that way. Tank crews were gunning their T-72s down the highway past the main Baghdad railway yards in a convoy of armoured personnel carriers and Jeeps and clouds of thick blue exhaust fumes. The more modern T-82s, the last of the Soviet-made fleet of battle tanks, sat hull down around Jordan Square with a clutch of BMP armoured vehicles.
The Americans were coming. The Americans were claiming to be in the inner suburbs of Baghdad – which was untrue; indeed, the story was designed, I’m sure, to provoke panic and vulnerability among the Iraqis.
True or false, the stories failed. Across vast fields of sand and dirt and palm groves, I saw batteries of Sam-6 anti-aircraft missiles and multiple Katyusha rocket launchers awaiting the American advance. The soldiers around them looked relaxed, some smoking cigarettes in the shade of the palm trees or sipping fruit juice brought to them by the residents of Qadisiya whose homes – heaven help them – were now in the firing line.
But then there was the white-painted Japanese pick-up truck that pulled out in front of my car. At first, I thought the soldiers on the back were sleeping, covered in blankets to keep them warm. Yet I had opened my car window to keep cool this early summer morning and I realised that all the soldiers – there must have been 15 of them in the little truck – were lying on top of each other, all with their heavy black military boots dangling over the tailboard. The two soldiers on the vehicles sat with their feet wedged between the corpses. So did America ’s first victims of the day go to their eternal rest.
“Today, we attack,” the Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, was to announce an hour later, and he reeled off a list of Iraqi “victories” to sustain his country’s morale. Seven British and American tanks destroyed around Basra , four American personnel carriers and an American aircraft destroyed near Baghdad . At the airport, the Iraqis “confronted the enemy and slaughtered them”. Or so we were told.
Well, an Iraqi friend of mine who lives near the airport told me that he had seen a tank on fire, a tank with a black “V” sign painted on its armour. The “V” is the American symbol of “friendly force”, intended to warn their pilots from bombing their own soldiers by mistake. So this must have been an American tank.
But Mr Sahaf’s optimism got the better of him. Yes, he told journalists in Baghdad , Doura was safe, Qadisiya was safe. Yarmouk was safe. “Go and look for yourselves,” he challenged. Ministry of Information officials were ashen-faced. And when foreign correspondents were bussed off on this over-confident adventure, they were turned back at the Yarmouk hospital and the ministry buses firmly ordered to carry reporters back to their hotel.
But an earlier 35-minute journey around the shell-embraced suburbs proved one thing yesterday: that the Iraqis – up till dusk at least – were preparing to fight the invaders. I found their 155mm artillery around the centre of the city, close to the rail lines. One artillery piece was even hauled up Abu Nawas Street beside the Tigris by a truck whose soldiers held up their rifles and shouted their support for Saddam Hussein.
And all day, the air raids continued. It gets confusing, amid the dust and smoke, all these new targets and new pockets of ruination. Was the grey-powdered rubble in Karada a building yesterday, or was it struck last week? The central telephone exchange had taken another hit. So had the communications centre in Yarmouk. And then I noticed, along the front line where the Iraqi soldiers were preparing to become heroes or “martyrs” or survivors – the last an infinitely preferable outcome to the sanest of soldiers – how small craters had been punched into the flowerbeds on the central reservations.
Ever so slowly, the suburbs of Baghdad were being turned into battlefields.

Capt May wrote in Sept  2004 about how American media finally began to leak truth about the Battle of Baghdad and the cover-up.

The truth has finally sneaked into an obscure part of the media:  In the summer of 2004, Defense Paul Wolfowitz teased the media for being too frightened of the mess Iraq has become to leave their bunkers and go out and get more bogus stories about what a success Iraq is!  That was the last straw, and the media (for once) showed some spunk.  On June 29, 2004, on the MSNBC Chris Mathews Show, Hardball, (Andrea Mitchell substitute host), the media finally admitted that there had been a Battle of Baghdad.
Ms. Mitchell interviewed David Zucchino, the Los Angeles Times reporter who was present at the battle with the 3rd Infantry Division about his book Thunder Run, which gives a watered-down version of the three-day battle.
Andrea Mitchell:  “You write very dramatically in this terrific book, ‘Thunder Run,” David, about the assault on Baghdad .  It‘s not as we saw it in real time on television, is it?  There was a much grittier story on the ground.”
David Zucchino:  “No, not at all.  I think the impression that came from those three days of combat was that the Iraqis rolled over, that there wasn‘t much of a fight and the American forces just rolled into the city.  And it was anything but that.  There was just some fierce, savage fighting.  There were thousands of, you know, Iraqis and Jordanians and Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and ditches.  They inflicted casualties.  They caused a lot of problems for the armored columns.  And this was never reported … but it really was not an easy victory at all.” 
[Full transcript at ]

Another example of a very delayed acknowledge was the AP article "Soldiers Who Captured Baghdad Back for Round Two in Iraq,", AP, Mar 5, 2005, by Chris Tomlinson. Commenting on the return of the Third Infantry Division to Baghdad in mid 2005, the article matter-of-factly stated midway through: "The last time the 3rd Infantry was in Baghdad , it entered with overwhelming force, fighting sustained urban combat from April 7-11, 2003. Their square patch with diagonal stripes became known as `the Death Patch’ among Iraqis.”

Captain May also described the massive cover up of U.S. casualties:

Just how many US soldiers and Marines do you think had to die to take a city the size of Los Angeles from “thousands of Iraqis and Jordanians and Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and ditches?”
Before you take a guess, bear in mind that in any military operation, the defender has a considerable advantage – and that advantage is greatest when he is defending a city.  OK, now factor in the average deaths per day in the three days before the Battle of Baghdad, when the Bush media reported thirty-one dead GI’s (or ten per day).
How much higher was the number from the Battle of Baghdad?
Before you guess, here’s a professional analysis.  A week before the battle began, by the way, US retired general Barry McCaffrey estimated that an assault on Baghdad would cost around 3,000 US casualties:
"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday. "In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war.  Article from March 24, 2003,
Now go ahead and check the official numbers for the three-day battle [].  The Bush media admits a total of thirteen deaths for in the period of April 5-7, 2003, when the young American soldiers and Marines fought and died in the Battle of Baghdad.  Welcome to the brave new world of Bush and his media, liars extraordinaire, and traitors to the American People.

In a separate article Capt. May concluded:

….According to Pentagon figures, the number of soldiers killed in subduing a city larger than Houston was only two for Saturday, April 5 and three for Sunday, April 6.  Even more interesting, those numbers were greatly down from the daily averages of the days both before and after the Battle of Baghdad, when from five to ten soldiers were dying each day.  In other words, we had the fewest deaths on the days we were doing the most   fighting…

According to Captain May’s sources, the real number of American dead in the Battle of Baghdad had to be at least in the range of 500 to 1,000.   This does not count delayed deaths from depleted uranium exposure or the wounded who die en route to hospitals outside of Iraq .
Even the toppling of the large Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad became a Psyop for American consumption.  According to the July 4, 2004 update from Citizens for Legitimate Government:

Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue -- As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad , site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking. After the colonel — who was not named in the report — selected the statue as a "target of opportunity," the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member. But Marines had draped an American flag over the statue's face.



Joe Vialls, and independent Internet journalist, published at his web site photos that exposed the Saddam statue scam:

From “Mrs Saddam Says Saddam is not Saddam” by Joe Vialls,
18 June 2004




U.S. Marines tear down statue of Saddam Hussein in Paradise Square, Baghdad, at 1130 hrs on 9 April 2003. Four hours after this American public relations spectacular, the real Saddam Hussein appears less than six miles north of Paradise Square mobbed by armed supporters! (Caption by Joe Vialls).



Even to this day, national media still refuse to use the term “Battle of Baghdad,” but instead say “The Fall of Baghdad.”    The impact of this deception was enormous for Captain May.  He reflected in his 23 Feb 2006 Frank Whalen interview, 3rd hr:

Everything that happened in Baghdad was propaganda used against the American people. And every bit of that is in violation of the Department of Defense principles of information, which represents the Bible of ethics by which public affairs officers are trained. So from that moment, did I realize that things were being staged, contrived, manipulated set-up. The realization began for me the week end of the Battle of Baghdad cover up.

Capt. May also commented in his 2 April 2007 Leon Smith interview:

…. The Battle of Baghdad is one of the many events of this war that simply show that our government has lied to us and that the media has been embedded by that government in the very worst connotations of that word. In fact, the word embedded should have never been admitted into the lexicon of the American media were it not for the fact that they were in bed with the government.”



Additional update references:


2013-04-09 Media Still Hype Staged Toppling of Saddam Statue as Genuine
The tearing down of Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003 was a propaganda event, choreographed by US psy ops
by John Glaser,

Tuesday was the 10-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad by invading US troops, marked infamously by the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad’s Firdous Square.

The event is still treated in the media as a pivotal, symbolic moment in the Iraq War when ordinary Iraqis, freed by valorous American soldiers, triumphantly tore down the tyrannical image of the dictator.

But it has been confirmed over and over again that the event was staged by the US Marines psychological operations teams who knew the propaganda value of such a photo op.

Marking the 10-year anniversary of the statue’s toppling, The Associated Press described the memorable event: “Joyful Iraqis helped by an American tank retriever pulled down their longtime dictator, cast as 16 feet of bronze. The scene broadcast live worldwide became an icon of the war, a symbol of final victory over Saddam Hussein.”

Unmentioned in the AP report was the fact that “It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue,” as The Los Angeles Times reported back in 2004.

In fact, US soldiers needed to use loud speakers to gather Iraqis around the statue – a necessary ingredient if the choreographed propaganda effort was to be convincing.

“It was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking,” The Times report added.

Iraq War advocates, then and now, still cite the event as symbolic of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” They are more right than they know. The event was symbolic. It was emblematic of the whole Iraq War: a massive lie perpetrated simultaneously on millions of innocent Iraqis and Americans.

2011-04-26 Did the US use a tactical nuke in Iraq? (pt 1) (video)
2009-11-10 90,000 Casualties, but Who’s Counting? by Kelley B. Vlahos


November 2009: Shooting the Messenger, "Al Jazeera's documentary on the deliberate killing and intimidation of journalists in conflict zones, has been nominated for a presitigious Emmy award. In the past, members of the media were considered to be neutral in time of war. They were much like paramedics in the sense that their main concern was not victory, but saving lives..."


1994 video in which Dick Cheney explains why the invasion of Iraq and capture of Baghdad could lead to quagmire

2008-11-30 Baghdad Bob Was Dr. Horrorwitz; "...The US then apparently counter attacked the Iraqi defenders at the airport, using a single neutron bomb, which wiped out all resistance. Of course this was not mentioned by the media at all. Its not clear exactly what date and time this was done. Likely in the range April 6th to 8th, 2003. This is perhaps the very first time a tactical nuclear weapon has been used in a battlefield situation, unless rumours of nukes used by the USA in Afghanistan can be verified. At the time the Ramzaj reports ceased so suddenly, their stated reason didn’t seem to provide an adequate explanation for the halt. Now perhaps we can make a more informed guess. The Russians knew the US had used a tactical nuclear weapon in Iraq. A public accusation from a Russian quasi-official source, that the USA had used a nuclear weapon in Iraq, would have placed the Russian government in a very difficult diplomatic position. The Ramzaj reports were attempting to stand out by their truth in a sea of lies, but could now either lie, or admit that Russia knew, or cease. They chose to cease operation. One line from their brief farewell notice on 8th April reads: “… we do not have the right to reveal classified, ‘top secret’ information.” Now we know what that information was."
2005-11-23 I was there...Baghdad International Airport Battle. A blogspot with no mention of a neutron weapon. An effort by trolls to sanitize?



Forward to Chapter 3
Back to Chapter 1
Return to Contents
Books I-III Summary Table of Contents

Short URL for this web page:

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.