Update on plans for November 20th Anti-Bush protest

Hi all you expat Yanks,

Just to let you know that plans are proceeding apace for Expats Against Bush to participate in the planned November 20th protest in London during Bush's State Visit. I have had a number of people write in to express interest in joining the protest action.

This week I will announce details of a meeting place and time for the demo on the 20th, and possibly a pre-meeting next week as well.

I am coordinating design and production of placards for use in the demonstrations that will clearly identify us as expat Americans who are unhappy with Bush having the red carpet rolled out for him. Of course, the placards will say that a bit more succinctly. At this point it looks like the main placard idea will be the one I proposed initially:

I AM AMERICAN
I AM ASHAMED

With an ExpatsAgainstBush.org logo along the top and bottom. I have already had several kind offers of DTP/Graphic Design help and will be taking some of you up on those offers.

If you have any more ideas to add to the placard designs that have already been suggested, let us know!

Stay tuned here for an announcement in the next couple of days!

Comments

[abdul]

I was at an anti-Bush rally in Dublin once and a lady who headed the American contingent had an opportunity to speak up against Bush.
Kind of curious if you have spoken with the UK Stop the War Coalition organizers? If they are aware that a group of Americans has joined them to protest against Bush, they might give us a couple of minutes to have our say. It would be an ideal opportunity to show the US/UK that we are not all in love with Bush.

[A]

Read George Monbiot's article in Nov. 13th's Evening Standard for why Americans should protest.

[Bobbi Jones]

I am an ex-pat American living in Oxford (and a member of the Oxford anti-war coalition); please could you keep me on your mailing list?

[L. G. Collins]

Now is the time

[America Firster]

Please access the "Articles" message board via clicking on "War against Terror" after arriving at www.warwithoutend.co.uk

[America Firster]

Subj: JINSA/PNAC Cheney on "Newsweek" Cover this Week

Date: 11/11/03 11:01:18 AM Pacific Standard Time

From: MORRIS434

To: michael isikoff

Dear Mr. Isikoff,

Thank you for your time on the telephone earlier today. Here is the email which I mentioned that I would send you with comment on your cover article for Newsweek this week: Cheney's Long Path to War (Cover Article in the November 17th, 2003 issue of "Newsweek" magazine):

The Hard Sell: He sifted intel. He brooded about threats. And he wanted Saddam gone. The inside story of how Vice President Cheney bought into shady assumptions and helped persuade a nation to invade Iraq:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp?0cv=CB20

This "Newsweek" magazine article is about the Cheney Neoconservative cabal that pushed US to invade Iraq for Israel and oil (as Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA and was involved with PNAC as well-he was also the CEO for Halliburton). The "Newsweek" article still falls short though because it doesn't mention that Cheney, Feith, and Perle (who are all mentioned in the article as being part of the Neoconsevative cabal) are all associated with JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) which had wanted regime change in Iraq for years before the tragic 9/11 attack ... The article allowed Cheney to have a staff member get away (without being challenged about Cheney's JINSA/PNAC association) with conveying that Cheney wasn't for "regime change" in Iraq until the tragic 9/11 attack.. As JINSA had wanted regime change in Iraq for years before 9/11 (and Cheney had been associated with JINSA and PNAC), Cheney (via his staff member who commented for that "Newsweek" article) is lying. In addition, Cheney was associated with PNAC (Project for the New American Century) which had wanted regime change in Iraq well before 9/11 as well (see the Bob Barr article on PNAC which is included below as it also mentions Cheney). So of course Cheney was involved with distorting and "cooking" intelligence to suit his JINSA/PNAC agenda of wanting to invade and do regime change in Iraq as soon as possible. To read about Iraq and JINSA, type in "Iraq" at http://www.jinsa.org (if the "Iraq" material is still referenced there like it was before the Iraq invasion). In addition, Wolfowitz (whose mentor was JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremist Richard Perle) had put together that pre-emptive strike doctrine while Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush Senior in the early 1990's, so Cheney was fully aware of it and wanted regime change in Iraq for years before the 9/11 attack.

Also, the writers of that "Newsweek" article didn't mention the Israeli spies at the Pentagon as you can read in the "Israeli Spies at the Pentagon" article from the UK Guardian newspaper which is linked under the photos of the Zion traitors (Israel Firsters) at http://www.nowarforisrael.com . In addition, the "Newsweek" writers did not mention that "A Clean Break" document which JINSA Zionist extremists Richard Perle and Douglas Feith wrote for Israeli Zionist extremist Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 (as "A Clean Break" advised for Israel to do regime change in Iraq and in Syria as well as dissolve the Palestinian peace process). When Perle and Feith got into power/influential positions at the Pentagon in the current Bush regime, they had the US military do regime change in Iraq instead of Israel (with Syria to follow soon if they can get away with it). Zionist (Jew) extremist David Wurmser (who is also mentioned in the "Newsweek" article) was also involved with putting together that "A Clean Break" advisory paper (which you can read by clicking on the embedded link for "A Clean Break" at the following URL):

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100603.html

It is important to also know that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and John Bolton (all mentioned below in the article from the "Forward" which is a respected Jewish publication out of New York) are JINSANs as well.. Perle is also associated with PNAC (which would like to have a confrontation with Russia and China sooner rather than later as you can access the JINSA web site at www.jinsa.org and PNAC's URL via www.newamericancentury.org). Robert Fisk (a respected journalist for the London Independent newspaper as you can read more via www.robert-fisk.com) wrote about JINSA (and Dick Cheney's association to JINSA as he is also associated with PNAC) in the following article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0910.html

Fisk mentions this article ("Men from JINSA and CSP") from "The Nation" which is a must read as well:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020902&s=vest

March 24, 2003 issue

The American Conservative Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America¹s interest.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

Counterpunch December 13, 2002

A Rose By Another Other Name The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

Countdown to Armageddon?

Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?

Exclusive to American Free Press
By M. Raphael Johnson

http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon/countdown_to_armageddon.html

According to a recent article by veteran British military analyst Joseph Vialls, Russia has sent the most advanced and feared missile in the world, owned only by Russia and China, the P270 Moskit, also known as the "Sunburn," to Damascus and Tehran. This can only be understood as a counter to the Israeli threats to use nuclear weapons against their enemies.
The Sunburn flies at an altitude of 60 feet and is nearly impossible to defend against. A few fired at Israel could make that state "history."
Add to this a new Russian air force installation near the Kyrgystan/Russia border, coupled with a Chinese base just over their western border with Kyrgystan, and Armageddon may be on the horizon. All Russian jets at this new base just outside of Bishkek are equipped with Sunburn missiles.
Vialls writes:

The gloves are off, and with America and Israel still unable to steal any oil from Iraq because someone keeps blowing the pipelines, Russian and Chinese firepower buildup suddenly slammed the door firmly shut on Caspian oil reserves in the old Soviet republics. For more than a decade American oil multinationals have been conducting "joint ventures" in the former Soviet republics bordering the Caspian Sea, with the stated intent of pumping stolen crude oil out through Turkey, then on to western markets. Now this route has been blocked permanently, and America is in no position to do anything about it, because a large part of the U.S. conventional army is currently bogged down in Iraq, being shot at and killed on a daily basis.

For many who have been watching this region as a confrontation between the United States and Israel versus Russia largely over the control of the biggest gas and oil deposits in the world, a new front has been opened.
As a response to this checkmate, Sharon recently visited Putin on Nov. 3 to meet with him concerning the nuclear issue in Iran. Quickly, Sharon permitted Palestinians to return to their jobs and eased their travel restrictions.
Since the end of the Gorbachev era, the Russian oligarchs, nearly all Jewish by ethnicity (with the noticeable exception of Vladimir Potanin), have controlled nearly all key sectors of the Russian economy. This, of course, includes Russia's major ace-in-the-hole, oil and gas. The giant YUKOS conglomerate is presently one of the largest oil companies in the world, valued at about $40 billion.
YUKOS is the result of a "loans for shares" deal brokered through the semi-coherent Boris Yeltsin in 1995. Here, the liberal Russian government swapped loyalty from the oligarchs in exchange for privatization at prices far below that of the market. This $40 billion giant was bought for about $300 million, thus looting the entire Russian economy for the benefit of a handful of Israeli citizens living in Russia.
When YUKOS's chair, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was arrested at the end of last month, the American capitalist establishment went orbital. Forgetting the 1999 New York Times's expose on massive money laundering and fraud from YUKOS, the conservative establishment began to lionize oligarchy and, specifically, Khodorkovsky.
Recently, The Financial Times weighed in with a giggly piece from Chrystia Freeland, which referred to the oligarch as a "democratic activist." About a paragraph later, the writer said-without irony-that the oligarch's model for economics is the robber baron factories of the early American 20th century. Fox News, on Nov. 3, referred to YUKOS as the most progressive corporation in Russia.
According to a Nov. 3 Agence France-Presse story, Khodorkovsky made a deal with Jacob Rothschild this year that control of the YUKOS giant would pass to Rothschild in the event of Khodorkovsky's arrest. However, the Russian government has frozen all YUKOS assets for the time being.
It is significant that YUKOS's liberal pressure group, the Open Russia Foundation, is completely controlled by Rothschild now that its founder is in jail. As their official mission statement reads, "The motivation for the establishment of the Open Russia Foundation is the wish to foster enhanced openness, understanding and integration between the people of Russia and the rest of the world."
Their board of trustees includes Rothschild and Henry Kissinger. The Washington, D.C. launch of the organization included Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Librarian of Congress James Billington, one of the leading voices against Russian traditionalism in the academic establishment. Significantly, the Open Russia Foundation recently provided Yale University with substantial grants to study the Russian economy as well as providing the Carnegie Foundation with 3 percent of its entire operating budget.
It seems that the drive to control the globe's energy is progressing. The American empire's battles in Serbia, Central Asia, Iraq and Chechnya are one and the same war. Other than fighting Israel's enemies, these adventures are also wars to control Central Asian oil and natural gas (one of the main pipelines from the Caspian Sea went straight through Serbia). The control of this wealth by the United States and Israel necessitates bypassing Russian channels. This means that the Jewish oligarchy in Russia would become the central actor in world politics.
The Israeli/CIA complex was using Khodorkovsky to sell off the assets of YUKOS to Exxon/Mobil (as well as a smaller piece to Texaco), hence bringing Russia's pipelines into the hands of the western powers. The Nov. 5 New York Times also indicated that the Bush family's Carlyle Group was involved.
It was not long after Putin began threatening the YUKOS conglomerate that neo-conservative pundits such as William Kristol and Ariel Cohen began calling Putin a "communist," "another Stalin" and "tyrannical."
The basis of these wild accusations, of course, is the fact that Putin stands in the way of Zionist domination.
From this, the roles of several other variables and players develop clearly. The State Department/Harvard University alliance was meant to "deregulate," or "privatize" much of the Russian economy precisely to keep the Russian state out of the equation. Therefore, pro-Israel oligarchs (that is, Israeli citizens living in Russia) then benefited, placing most of the economy in their hands, and, by extension, Israel's.
Russia's response has been to clamp down on further foreign penetration into defense and other sensitive industries, and specifically, to target those believed to be working for both the CIA and Mossad and attempting to control Central Asian oil.
It needs to be reiterated that where the CIA goes, Mossad goes as well. Israeli and American interests have come together in the dominance of the Central Asian region and therefore, so have liberal ideology, the Beltway set, neo-conservatism, Ivy League eggheads, Christian Zionism, the Rothschilds and the American media. Afghanistan through the Caspian Sea through to Georgia, Azerbaijan and into the Balkans (not to mention pipelines leading to oil-hungry China), have become one single theater of war over trillions of dollars in oil and gas wealth, incorporating every single power center in global politics. The battle against the New World Order is being decided in Moscow.
Therefore, all anti-Russian alliances in the region, from Islamic fundamentalism to Slavic separatism to the George Soros "Open Society" Foundation, are in the interests of the CIA/Exxon/Ivy League/NWO complex.
In Azerbaijan, for example, American elites have pushed for a "democratic" state, that is, a state not under the control of pro-Moscow Heydar Aliev, thus leaving the country open to U.S. oil investment. Aliev, of course, is promoting Russian interests in the region, and thus, has become a "tyrant" in the Beltway mind.
The American response to this situation within this region is to create the GUAAM pact, including, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova.
Cohen gives us a clue as to why this entity was brokered under NATO auspices: "The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline will export up to 1 million barrels per year of high quality Caspian crude oil by 2005." In other words, billions of dollars of oil are slated to be pumped through this region very soon, and the economic/military alliance of GUAAM is the means to ensure American control over it. This connects the Serbian, Afghan and Iraqi wars.
Russia's response to Israel's terror threats against most of the Islamic world is fully understood as both a political and economic question. Further, increasing cooperation between Russia and India, as well as China, are clear markers that Putin, one of the few actually competent leaders in world politics, is building an anti-imperialist and anti-NATO alliance with the aim of countering American/Zionist moves for the world's oil and gas wealth.
The interests, however, go even further than Zionist control over American foreign policy decision-making. Vialls writes on another topic: that the existence of the American/Zionist empire is based on the victory of American forces over the Russian and Islamic. Of course, both in Bosnia and Chechnya, the Mossad/CIA operatives have not hesitated to assist fundamentalists in fighting Slavic nationalism, largely because Slavicism is a greater threat with Putin firmly in the saddle. Islam, divided and leaderless, with a history of centuries of defeat and colonialism behind it, is only a potential force in world politics.

JINSA/PNAC Neocons Push for Clash of Civilizations:

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/huntington.html

This article appears in the October 17, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Cheney Behind New
Mideast War Drive:
Return of `Clean Break'

by Jeffrey Steinberg

With very little fanfare, in September David Wurmser moved over from the State Department office of arms control chief and leading war-party agitator John Bolton, to the Old Executive Office Building, working directly under Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Wurmser's move was highly significant, given that the former American Enterprise Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy neo-conservatives was one of the primary authors of the now-infamous 1996 "A Clean Break" document, which spelled out the current joint Mideast war strategy of the Ariel Sharon government in Israel and the Cheney cabal inside the Bush Administration in the United States.

Just days after Wurmser joined the Vice President's "shadow national security council," the Bush Administration—at Cheney's urging—made an abrupt shift in policy towards Syria, a shift that has now brought the entire Mideast region to the brink of war and chaos—worse, even, than the fiasco of the American occupation of Iraq, which military experts are increasingly describing as "our new Vietnam" (see page 60).

At an American Enterprise Institute event on Oct. 7, Leo Strauss acolyte William Kristol, the publisher and editor of the Weekly Standard, candidly admitted that he was miffed that the United States had not already moved beyond the Iraq war to the "next regime change" of "the next horrible" Middle East Arab "dictator"—Syrian President Bashar Assad.

`A Clean Break' Revisited

Turn the clock back seven years. On July 8, 1996, Richard Perle, currently a member, and formerly the head of the Defense Policy Board in the Don Rumsfeld Pentagon, delivered a document to the new Israeli Prime Minister, Jabotinskyite Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, and a team of American neo-cons, had been tasked by Netanyahu—through the Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS)—to draft a strategy for abrogating the Oslo Accords and overturning the entire concept of "comprehensive land for peace," in favor of a jackboot policy of U.S.-Israeli-Turkish raw military conquest and occupation.

The short policy memo, which Netanyahu, and his successor-Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, totally adopted as the core strategy of their administrations, spelled out a four-pronged attack on the peace process and the entire Arab world. It has become a self-evident truth that, since the Bush "43" and Sharon governments came into power simultaneously in early 2001, "A Clean Break" has been the guiding strategic doctrine of both—particularly following the irregular warfare attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

The Perle-Wurmser policy document demanded: 1) Destroy Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, blaming them for every act of Palestinian terrorism, including the attacks from Hamas, an organization which Sharon had helped launch during his early 1980s tenure as Minister of Defense. 2) Induce the United States to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. 3) Launch war against Syria after Saddam's regime is disposed of, including striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and targets in Syria proper. 4) Parlay the overthrow of the Ba'athist regimes in Baghdad and Damascus into the "democratization" of the entire Arab world, including through further military actions against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and "the ultimate prize," Egypt (see Documentation following for the "Clean Break" report).

On Oct. 5, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against Syria, targetting a purported "Palestinian terrorist camp" inside Syrian territory. The bombing immediately raised fears that Sharon is preparing a nuclear strike, most likely against Iran. A senior Israeli intelligence source told EIR that Sharon's action was clearly backed by the "pro-Sharon" crowd in Washington, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "They continue to be committed to their basic plan: Destroy Iran and Syria, and make Israel the dominant power in the region, and drive the Palestinians across the Jordan River." The source added that there "is obviously an agreement in Washington to do nothing." In a press conference a day after the Israel attack on Syria, President George W. Bush said Sharon had the right to "defend his own people," and then added, "We would be doing the same thing."

'Clean Break' Who's Who

In addition to arch-chicken-hawk Richard Perle, the other participants in the "Clean Break" exercise now constitute the hard core of the neo-con apparatus poisoning the Bush Administration.

The principal author of "Clean Break" and a series of follow-on IASPS strategy papers elaborating the new balance of power schema for the Middle East, was David Wurmser, now in the Office of Vice President Cheney. Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser, another of the "Clean Break" authors, is the head of Middle East policy at the Hudson Institute, a neo-con hotbed, heavily financed by Lord Conrad Black, owner of the Hollinger Corporation and sugar-daddy to Richard Perle, who was installed by Black on the Hudson Institute board as soon as the London-based publisher poured a pile of cash into the think tank at the start of the Bush "43" Presidency. Meyrav Wurmser received her doctorate at George Washington University, by researching the life and works of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism and a self-professed fascist. Before coming to Hudson, she headed the Washington office of the Middle East Research and Investigation Project (MERIP), of Col. Yigal Carmon, a retired Israeli Army Intelligence careerist, who is hard-wired into the U.S.A. neo-con gang.

Meyrav Wurmser has taken the point in promoting the overthrow of the House of Saud and the American military occupation of the Saudi Arabian oil fields, through a string of Hudson Institute policy papers, commentaries, and seminars.

Hudson has also played a pivotal role in the drive for war against Syria and Lebanon, as spelled out in "Clean Break." On March 7, 2003, Hudson sponsored a forum addressed by Gen. Michel Aoun, who was Prime Minister of Lebanon from 1988-1990, and who is pushing a military action against Syria, right out of the pages of "Clean Break."

Other authors of the 1996 war scheme were: Douglas Feith, now Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the overseer of the Office of Special Plans "information warfare" unit, which was instrumental in the black propaganda campaign to sell President Bush and the U.S. Congress on the Iraq war; and Charles Fairbanks, Jr., a longtime friend and disciple of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, dating back to their graduate studies under Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. Fairbanks is now at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

From Words to Warfare

On Sept. 16, just as David Wurmser was going to Cheney's office to replace Eric Edelman, a longtime Wolfowitz protégé now tapped to be the new U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, the Syria war drive was seriously launched. Chief arms control provocateur John Bolton was given the green light to testify before a House International Relations subcommittee hearing on Syria and Lebanon. That testimony had been held up for several months, as the result of a direct intervention by the Central Intelligence Agency, which issued a highly unusual white paper challenging many of Bolton's planned allegations of Syrian current involvement in terrorist operations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

The fact that Bolton was given the go-ahead to Capitol Hill signalled that Cheney had scored a tactical victory over those in the Bush Administration who were promoting a dialogue with Damascus. In fact, Bolton's provocative testimony undercut quiet efforts, then under way, to establish fresh channels of cooperation between the United States and the Assad government.

The day after Bolton's appearance, the same House subcommittee continued the anti-Damascus rant, by hosting General Aoun and rabid chicken-hawk Daniel Pipes, who demanded an immediate confrontation with Syria.

This public display of venom in Washington was all the signal that Ariel Sharon needed. On Oct. 5, Israeli Air Force jets bombed a Palestinian camp deep inside Syrian territory, ostensibly in retaliation for an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing in Haifa the day before. However, the Sharon war cabinet had approved a Syrian bombing six weeks earlier. The Bolton appearance and the promotion of Wurmser into Cheney's inner sanctum just served as the green light.

To make the linkage between the Israeli actions and the Cheney-led Bush Administration tilt even even more transparent, on Oct. 8 the White House announced that it would no longer oppose Congressional passage of the Syrian Accountability and Restoration of Lebanese Sovereignty Act, the equivalent to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which set in motion the drive towards war against Saddam Hussein.

This time, Sharon and Cheney do not intend to wait five years to get their war. Unless they are stopped, their timetable is to have Israel launch war on Syria by November 2003. And heaven help the American GIs in Iraq if Sharon and Cheney get their way. As Lyndon LaRouche has demanded, "Beast-man" Cheney needs to be dumped from power within the next 30 days; and, along with him, the entire neo-con cabal. As Bush "41" and Karl Rove must understand by now, Cheney and his gang of "Clean Break" fanatics are the albatross around George W. Bush's neck, and time is running out.

JINSA Zionist Extremist Bolton After Iran (but Unhappy about this UN Report):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3266927.stm

UN stands by Iran nuclear report

The IAEA sees no sign of a nuclear weapons programme so far

The UN's nuclear watchdog has rejected sharp US criticism over a report that it has found no evidence Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. America's top arms control official, John Bolton, said the International Atomic Energy Agency's widely leaked findings were "impossible to believe". He accused the Islamic Republic of a "massive and covert [nuclear] effort". Iran has warned of serious consequences if the IAEA refers its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. "I hope we do not reach such a stage because then things could very easily get out of control," its envoy to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, told foreign reporters. "There are many things Iran can do. We have a lot of leverage," he added without giving details.
Find out more about key nuclear sites in Iran

In graphics

The board of governors of the IAEA is due to discuss the report on Iran next Thursday. The report, which was circulated to officials on Monday, says that Iran has admitted to producing high-grade plutonium but not weapons. It finds no evidence that Tehran has secretly been developing weapons but nonetheless admonishes the Iranian authorities for being secretive. "We stand by the report but it's classified and will be considered at next week's board meeting," said IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky. 'Impossible' Iran has always claimed its nuclear programme is designed to meet the country's energy needs. Mr Bolton, speaking at a dinner for the US publication American Spectator, launched a fierce attack on Tehran and the IAEA's report. A "massive and covert Iranian effort to acquire sensitive nuclear capabilities", he said, made "sense only as part of a nuclear weapons program". "The report nonetheless concluded that 'no evidence' had been found of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme... The report's assertion is simply impossible to believe," Mr Bolton said. The tone of Mr Bolton's statement, BBC Washington correspondent David Bamford says, indicates that the US is prepared to take on the UN's nuclear body and state contrary conclusions.

US wants ban on protests during Bush visit
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=462900

By Kim Sengupta
12 November 2003
Anti-war protesters claim that US authorities have demanded a rolling "exclusion zone" around President George Bush during his visit, as well as a ban on marches in parts of central London.
The Stop The War Coalition said yesterday that it had been told by the police that it would not be allowed to demonstrate in Parliament Square and Whitehall next Thursday - a ban it said it was determined to resist. The coalition says that it has also been told by British officials that American officials want a distance kept between Mr Bush and protesters, for security reasons and to prevent their appearance in the same television shots.
The Metropolitan Police banned the Parliament Square and Whitehall route by the use of Sessional Orders - which can be enforced for such a purpose when Parliament is in session.
MPs supporting the protests saydemonstrations have been allowed while Parliament was sitting, and, in any case, it was unlikely it will be doing so on the day of the proposed march.
The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said yesterday that Mr Bush should not be shielded from public anger about the Iraq war, and Londoners should not have to pick up the £4m policing bill. He said: "To create a situation in which perhaps 60,000 people remain unseen would require a shutdown of central London which is just not acceptable."
It is reported that Mr Bush's entourage will number around 500 with up to 200 members of the security service. The Americans are also said to be bringing a US Marine Corps Sea King helicopter, a Black Hawk helicopter and 15 sniffer dogs.
Organisers say they expect between 50,000 and 70,000 people for the biggest protest against a visiting head of state. Andrew Burgin, of the Anti-War Coalition, said: "We have refused to sign off the agreement over Parliament Square and Whitehall, and we shall certainly also refuse to do so on this whole idea of an exclusion zone." He said: "If there is no agreement by next week, we have a potentially highly risky situation with so many protesters in the centre of London."
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP, said: "[The police] are under pressure from the Americans, and the losers appear to be people of Britain who want to show their opposition to the Iraq war."
George Galloway, the MP expelled from New Labour over his opposition to the Iraq war, said "What makes the whole matter ludicrous is that on Thursday next week, when the main march takes place, we don't think Bush is even going to be in London. We think he will be in Sedgefield with Tony Blair.
"We are not blaming the police. We have had no problem with them in previous marches. In our biggest march we had up to two million people, and the number of arrests was lower than on an average Saturday. But the Metropolitan Police are having to cope with a hidden hand which stretches from Washington via Downing Street. "A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "The security surrounding the Presidential visit is a matter being discussed between the American authorities, the Foreign office and the Home office."
A police source added: "It is perfectly normal to use Sessional Orders to stop demonstrations in certain areas when Parliament is sitting.
"We don't want to stop the public from exercising their legitimate right to protest. We are trying to find a reasonable agreement on this."