EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME XXX

 

War on Terrorism

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume XXX--War on Terrorism

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume XXX--War on Terrorism

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part NNNN--Babylon and the Beast 

 

      469             Babylon and the Beast                                                                                      6

 

      470             War Means Profits                                                                                            16

 

 

Part OOOO--War on Terrorism 

 

      471             War on Terrorism I                                                                                            26

 

      472             War on Terrorism II                                                                                           36

 

      473             War on Terrorism III                                                                                          43

 

      474             War on Terrorism IV                                                                                         58

 

      475             War on Terrorism V                                                                                          70

 

      476             Buying Allies                                                                                                     76

 

 

Part PPPP--More on 9-11 

 

      477             After 9-11                                                                                                           80

 

      478             The Real Why for 9-11                                                                                    90

 

      479             More Plans for Tyranny                                                                                104

 

 

Part QQQQ--Iraq 

 

      480             Hitler of the Week                                                                                           111

 

      481             The Iraqi War I                                                                                                 117

 

      482             The Iraqi War II                                                                                                120

 

      483             The Iraqi War III                                                                                               127

 

      484             The Iraqi War IV                                                                                              133

 

      485             The Iraqi War V                                                                                               137

 

      486             The Iraqi War VI                                                                                              142

 

      487             The Iraqi War VII                                                                                             151

 

 

Part RRRR--Unplanned Trouble? 

 

      488             What May Happen                                                                                         157

 

      489             Some Views on the Bush War                                                                     165

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume thirty of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

 

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 469--Babylon and the Beast

 

 

The Most Important Scriptural References 

 

The Book has an enormous number of references pertinent to both Babylon and the Beast (in the prophetic sense).  The sheer number of these remarks and the inherent personal limitations of this writer combine to make it extremely difficult to begin to cover these two supposedly separate parties or actors in any responsible and coherent way. 

 

Actually, as will be shortly shown, it is a misnomer to address these two entities in a separate vein.  Because, in fact, they are very close or almost one and the same. 

 

Of course, Babylon, in its historic beginnings, was apparently a geographical reference to an area founded by the beast, rebel Nimrod--just after the flood. 

 

Over the centuries, and despite its many ups and downs, Babylon gained some fame and notoriety in the 6th century BCE when Nebuchadnezzar came to power over the kingdom and began his conquest of the world--to include Palestine where the House of Yehudah was in power in Jerusalem. 

 

After approximately a century of power and influence, Babylon passed off of the stage to be replaced by the Medeo-Persian empire.  The Book seems to describe both the prophetic destruction of Babylon  and the later actual event--at least, in an ante-typical fashion (Isa 47-48; Jer 50-51; Dan 5). 

 

 

The End of Babylon? 

 

Jeremiah 50:39 is especially relevant on this idea because it powerfully declares that Babylon, in her destruction, “shall be no more inhabited for ever.”  For long centuries, Christian scholars and commentators looked upon this text as the historic end of Babylon.  Many felt that Babylon could never be rebuilt. 

 

In the 1930s and 1940s, radio preacher Herbert W. Armstrong (who was no scholar, but a very persuasive advertising man) seized upon Jeremiah 50:39 and some of the prevailing ideas to begin preaching that Babylon could never be rebuilt.  Armstrong even used the concept as a proof of the Scriptures. 

 

Well, the years passed, and sure enough, Armstrong and the many other procrastinators, who looked upon the end of Babylon, were themselves proven wrong when the modern nation of Iraq began to rebuild Babylon (primarily since 1980).  This rebuilding process has intensified in the last several years because the former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, likened himself to the historic ruler Nebuchadnezzar. 

 

Interestingly, Armstrong and his Christian associates and colleagues should never have assumed the end of Babylon around 500 BCE.  After all, there are an abundance of Scriptures describing its presence in the age end (like Rev 17-18).  Assuredly, Babylon will one day end (when YESHUA returns and crushes it totally and completely).  It just hasn’t ended yet (at least, not by early 2003). 

 

 

More Than Just Land Area 

 

Part of the difficulty in assessing Babylon is that Scripturally Babylon is more than just a geographical land area in the Middle East.  True, the modern nation of Iraq occupies some part of the old Babylonian land area.  But there is still more to the question.  As discussed elsewhere herein, Babylon involves a system--a system made up of land, people, politics, commerce, trade, money, sociology, culture, etc. 

 

Take, for instance, the former Babylonian people.  The Scriptural evidence is that about the time of Nimrod, the kingdom was inhabited by Sabeans (or Sabines), who descended from Seba, the son of Cush, or possibly from Sheba, the grandson of Cush (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 829).  The kingdom of Cush evidently started at the Euphrates (where the Cushite Nimrod lived) and extended West to Ethiopia. 

 

With the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, it seems that these Sabines left the area and moved West in the great disruption of kingdoms and movements of people out of the Middle East toward Europe (as discussed earlier herein). 

 

In time, the Sabines settled Central Italy and eventually amalgamated (in the 3rd century CE) with surviving Romans (the Romans were apparently not Hamites, but evidently Shemites, possibly Israelites) and other peoples to become the modern Italians (“Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 740).  But that’s only part of it. 

 

Babylon was to become more than just a land area and people.  Over the years, it evolved to encompass almost all facets of human existence--as found today in the present Western Christian civilization (just as Christianity has evolved, as discussed in former chapters). 

 

In the 6th century BCE, the despot Nebuchadnezzar had almost the entire system put together; but not completely, since he did not totally rule the very minds, thoughts and thinking of people, as is happening in our time (with the new attention being placed on the thought police and thought crimes, as enunciated by Eric Blair in “1984”). 

 

 

The Image 

 

In any case, Nebuchadnezzar had a vision of his system and how it would evolve in the form of the great image of a humanoid character, as depicted in Daniel 2.  This image had a head of gold, breast of silver, belly and thighs of brass and legs of iron and feet of a mix of iron and miry clay.  The image was illustrative of all of the world’s governing kingdoms to persist until YESHUA returns to end man’s misrule of earth. 

 

The head of gold was indicative of the Babylonian monetary system which was built on the use of gold (and silver to a lesser extent).  Clay tablets found by archeologists readily confirm the obvious, as perceived from the Scriptures.  The ancient Babylonian system was a capitalist system (similar in many ways to the modern US).  Muscle and might were supplied by the military (an army of conquest and control). 

 

Importantly, the kingdoms following ancient Babylon kept the essential system in tow and merely added to it or modified it slightly (thus, it has been evolving over the years).  Certainly, the Medes and Persians used their military power to conquer and subdue other nations and to continue what Nebuchadnezzar had begun. 

 

In the 4th century BCE, the Greeks came to power under Alexander the Great.  The Grecian rule saw several new innovations.  First, the ideas and concept of a democracy were introduced to the world (since the ancient Greeks had used this political system), although Alexander and his succeeding generals were imperial dictators who ruled by military might. 

 

Next, though Nebuchadnezzar had successfully changed much of the thinking of the Jews when he conquered Jerusalem in his day (in money, commerce and economics; and in the use of Babylonian names and words to pay homage to the Babylonian gods), he really never accomplished much of anything with the Jews, in terms of their basic religion. 

 

 

The Greek Push 

 

But the Greeks had a new slant on religion with their many polytheistic gods.  With the death of Alexander, his successors began an active campaign to force the conquered territories and peoples to adopt the Grecian language, names, culture, religion, policies, sociology, economics, commerce and trade (global), corporations, monetary practices, etc (in the form of the Western civilization). 

 

While the Jews in Palestine didn’t submit to this Greek push (primarily because of the work of Judas Maccabees and the Hasmonian revolt which laid the groundwork for Hanukkah), the Greeks had much success elsewhere.  Manifestly, the succeeding Roman Empire picked upon much of the thinking of the Greeks. 

 

Rome adopted the role of gold, silver and capitalism (from Babylon) and global commerce and  trade (to include the use of corporations, from the Greeks), culture, and language (from the Greeks).  However, Rome offered a slight twist on the religion question.  Imperial Rome never tried to force a particular religious belief on the empire (this would change with the later Roman Catholic Church). 

 

Imperial Rome seemed to allow some measure of religious freedom--but always, in the vein that whatever religion prevailed, it had to exist on the premise that all of the diversified religions were valid and proper expressions of worship.  It was this Roman system which has become the model now being followed in the religious world of ecumenicalism (as noted earlier and to be further addressed below). 

 

 

The Beast 

 

Importantly, Daniel 7 broaches the subject of the Beast governments and system in some detail.  Daniel 8 follows up with another definition of governmental powers and rulership.  Though Daniel does not directly link his various beasts to the four divisions of the image outlined in Daniel 2, this reality has become manifest with the passage of the years and the ensuing record of human history. 

 

In other words, the various beasts of Daniel can be linked to the image seen and all of them can be identified upon an analysis of world history and the various succeeding world governments. 

 

In looking at these beasts, it must be noted that their heads add up to seven (the lion, bear and indescribable fourth one have one each and the leopard has four).  By tying this seven heads to the stipulated ten horns (Dan 7:7), one has a unique set of definitions which seem to reappear in Revelation 12:3; 13:1; and 17:3. 

 

Not only does the Revelator Yohanan report upon the numbers seven and ten, but he goes further in Revelation 13:2 by linking the beasts of Daniel to the beast coming up from the sea at Revelation 13:1.  Thus, as the “Concordant Commentary of the New Testament” (p. 396) concludes, Yohanan’s beast from the sea is a composite of the beasts of Daniel.  This source also links the sea to the abyss (Rev 9). 

 

The book of Revelation seems to connect the whole system together in chapters 17 and 18 where Yohanan ties Mystery Babylon to a beast--specifically a scarlet colored one (Rev 17:3).  In “The Greek Testament” (v. 4, p. 706), Dr Henry Alford makes the case that the description of this beast in Revelation 17 makes it plain that it is the same one as in Revelation 13:1 which reflects the indescribable fourth beast of Daniel 7. 

 

As pointed out earlier herein, the woman sits over many waters (people) and on the beast.  Revelation 17:5 suggests that the woman is “Mystery Babylon the Great,” although Revelation 18 carries the context forward in the sense that the subject is the historic “Babylon the Great.”  Possibly, the answer here is that the woman is virtually synonymous with “Babylon the Great,” at least as Yohanan saw her in vision. 

 

The point of this seems to be that the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, the beasts of Daniel 7-8, the beast of Revelation 13 and 17 and the harlot woman and her whore daughters of Revelation 17 all tie to Scriptural Babylon as she has been manifested over the years (in Isa, Jer and Rev 18).  Again, Revelation 18 proves that her destiny is still in progress as these lines are being written in 2003. 

 

 

The Role of Religion

 

The importance of this conglomeration is that the miry clay in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar and present with the woman riding the beast in Revelation 17 is religion. 

 

Yes, it is religion which holds the whole system together (as was commented upon in preceding chapters).  The beast is a confederation of activities (political, economic, monetary, social, cultural, etc), but the whole mass is held together by religion. 

 

Manifestly, the old, capitalistic sun cults, persisting in the Babylonian, Medeo-Persian, Grecian and Roman civilizations, have been carried forward into world dominating Christianity for at least the last 1,700 years (if not the last 1,960 years, since her inception by Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana in the first century CE). 

 

With the evolution of this system, all of the wrongs introduced by ancient Babylon, Medeo-Persia, Greece and Rome have been perpetuated by Adamic man.  And now, in the early 21st century CE, the role of thought crimes has been added to top off the multitude of depravity this system promotes.  Yes, this Babylonian system has reached the pinnacle of success in attempting to control the very thoughts of people. 

 

Of course, religion has not been the only ingredient holding the system together.  From the time of Nebuchadnezzar forward to our times, the system has always had military power and muscle to employ on the conquered nations and peoples, if necessary.  Even under the rule of the old Holy Roman Empire, the pope routinely and regularly had the military forces of his subordinates to clamp down on any dissidents. 

 

The extreme importance of religion in this system was brought out by A. E. Knoch in his “Concordant Commentary on the New Testament” (p. 396).  As Knoch wrote, worship, rather than rule, is the dominant note here.  Knoch went on to conclude that these beasts bring a confederation bound by a common religion. 

 

There is no need for expensive standing armies if a governing power has the benefit of a cohesive, powerful, ruling religion.  So religion has been the focus, certainly since the fall of old, pagan Rome and its successors in the vein of the Holy Roman Empire.  Obviously, the system Yohanan beheld in Revelation 17 and 18 will use religion extensively in exercising dictatorial control over the peoples of the world. 

 

 

More on the Evolution of this System 

 

As this system seems to be evolving, there have been some very interesting modifications which need to be recalled here.  As commented upon in the previous chapters on the “The Murderers of YESHUA,” there seems to have been a development of a plutocratic money power even in the old Roman Empire.  The evidence is that it was in Amalekite hands from day one. 

 

When the Holy Roman Empire came on the stage after Constantine, and until its demise during the Protestant Reformation, it’s hard to say to what extent the plutocrats ruled.  The Roman Church may have allowed some of them to be present, but only if they toed the line with Rome (and made many bribes and payoffs to the Catholic Church). 

 

For sure, the Amalekite bankers had a hard road to travel in those days because many European countries either ran the Jews out or they imposed enormous restrictions on Jews.  However, by the time of the Protestant Reformation, things began to loosen up considerably for the Amalekite plutocrats.  Clearly, in the 18th century, the Rothschilds had emerged as a source of great power in Germany. 

 

 

Corporations 

 

While the corporate form of business organization started in ancient, sun worshipping Greece, the world was not totally obsessed in ancient times with huge multi-national and conglomerate corporations (as has happened today). 

 

Again, when the Catholic Church ruled the roost, she wouldn’t tolerate any competition from giant corporations, which might have impeded upon her rule.  If any existed, they had to make large pay-offs to Rome to stay in business. 

 

But ever since the days of Nebuchadnezzar, the world has been plagued with the greed, get and acquire mentality of the capitalist society.  While the question of private ownership of property is clearly a Scriptural teaching, the role of giant, greedy businesses (whether incorporated or however organized) is simply not Scriptural. 

 

Now though, in the 20th and 21st centuries, there has been some modifications in this arrangement.  For instance, the 20th century saw the rise of Fascism and Nazism where capitalism has been allowed to exist, but under strict government control and supervision.  For the super rich plutocrats (who owned the giant corporations and also controlled the governments), this was no problem. 

 

Another ism arising in the late 19th century and early 20th century has been Communism where government takes over everything--business, people, education, etc.  Whether Communism is totally out or not is debatable (this writer suspects it will still have a limited, short-term comeback).  Anyway, it has been important historically. 

 

 

Socialism 

 

Moreover, there has been the surfacing of a number of various socialist parties-- primarily in Europe; but also, de-facto in America and the rest of the White British Commonwealth countries.  This socialist movement seems to be progressing in the context of International Socialism (which may be the ruling political belief in the future). 

 

Through the years, and especially in the US, Fascism has been increasingly added to this International Socialism mix (though few, if any, political scientists would admit it).  Thus, modern Socialism seems to be allowing capitalism to exist (in the form of giant, multi-national corporations), but almost all other activities are being placed into the hands of socialistic, government bureaucrats. 

 

The sociology of the US, White British Commonwealth and much of Europe is plainly in the hands of socialists--in education, schools, entertainment and media institutions, etc.  Even religion is taking a turn toward Socialism in the vein that all religions are equally proper and good (as apparently happened somewhat in the old Roman Empire).

 

Though there are dedicated socialists, super rich plutocrats, misinformed humanists, greedy businesses and corporations, ruthless gangsters and so forth all around and all busy trying to impose the new world order; surely, this coming world government system will not become reality unless and until religion makes it possible.  Religion must and will lead the way--as Revelation 17 suggests. 

 

 

The Religion Dilemma 

 

For at least 1,700 years, the Catholic Christian Church tried to impose a one world religious system on Adam man by the use of sheer strength and force.  Military armies, police and the powers of secular states were available and called upon by Rome to try to make everyone toe the line.  In her greatest act of tyranny, Rome imposed the Catholic Inquisition to torture and murder millions in an effort to keep them in line. 

 

But because of the work of John Huss, Martin Luther and numerous other reformers, whole populations of people in Northwest Europe began to wake up and realize that they were on a wrong ship (in the Roman Catholic Church).  Multitudes were ready and willing to die in order to experience religious freedom. 

 

The Catholic Church lost the battle to keep the people in line and especially as the Scriptures were translated into the vernacular in a number of countries.  But despite this loss, Rome has always been in the background, working and pulling strings, in an effort to bring the daughter churches back to mother Rome.  So far, this effort too has failed, though progress is being made today with the Christian ecumenical motion. 

 

Since all of these systems and activities on-going at all levels are being directed and managed from behind the scenes by Satan and his demonic helpers, it is clear that something different from torture racks and burning people at the stake was needed to bring about a one world state. 

 

Apparently, to deal with the problems, the present motion for world government has turned to the old, pagan Rome model where the state was fairly tolerant of all religions--if they treated each other as equals and paid homage, where necessary, to the state approved gods and deities. 

 

And that’s precisely what is now unfolding on the global religious scene.  All faiths are acceptable and can exist--providing that they toe the line on toleration toward other faiths and acceptance of all of the state approved social gods (which have been defined previously herein in the vein of racial integration and amalgamation, homosexuality, feminism, abortion on demand, etc). 

 

Of course, the difficulty here surfaces for those sects and groups which actually have some measure of faith and belief in their religions.  Essentially, these groups might be classified as the more fundamentalist types.  Thus, we have sincere Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc who take their religions seriously and in the vein that their faith is the only way for morality and an after-life. 

 

 

Yes, Fundamentalism 

 

Manifestly, this type of religious fundamentalism surfaces regularly as news items in newspapers and on TV from time to time.  Here, the focus has been on the Branch Davidians, most of the Sardis types (the Sacred Namers and much of the fall out from the old Church of God, Seventh Day), most of the Christian Identity movement, and even segments of other churches and groups that tend to be fundamentalists. 

 

These fundamentalists believe that their faiths alone have the answers to morality and the afterlife and that other faiths and beliefs are lacking and/or are false.  Also, many of these groups are not going to willingly accept all of the social gods being forced upon the people by the dictatorial state.  Hence, there are problems within Christianity. 

 

The same thing can be said for the Jews in the development of Ultra Orthodox sects and groups which are extremely dedicated and sincere in their faith.  These people are not going to compromise their faith and belief without a fight (as discussed earlier). 

 

Moreover, the same thing is happening among other religions and particularly in the Moslem world.  Islamic fundamentalists are surfacing with regularity (involving people like Osama bin Laden, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the clerics in Iran and Pakistan).  These people, too, seem to be extremely sincere and uncompromising in their faith. 

 

One of the primary features of most of these fundamentalists is their unwillingness to compromise their individual faiths in order to have fellowship and goodwill with the developing ecumenical one world religion and its social gods (now coming together in all of the world’s major religions). 

 

 

Coming Trouble 

 

Many of these fundamentalist groups might could exist for awhile (in the New World Order) if they maintain an extremely low profile and keep their faith secret (if that is possible).  But once the word is out that one of these groups is “different” and refuses to accept all of the New World Order gods and refuses to be acceptable and tolerant of other faiths, they are in trouble. 

 

Previous chapters have mentioned the situation with the Ultra Orthodox, Christian Identity, Branch Davidians and Taliban in Afghanistan.  The thing that has hurt all of these groups is that they have refused to accept the politically correct social gods of the New World Order.  Too, they have not shown a willingness to worship/agree with the mainstream religions. 

 

There is no point now in (re)addressing the Branch Davidians for wanting to own guns, the Ultra Orthodox Jews for refusing to pay homage to the so-called Holocaust, or the Christian Identity sects for being paranoid over the Jews.  The situation with the Taliban in Afghanistan was only briefly cited a few times in terms of some of their beliefs. 

 

These Taliban Muslim fundamentalists got themselves into trouble in several areas.  First, they removed women from power and authority over men and made women wear veils (both of these actions are consistent with the Scriptures).  Next, they expressed their disdain for queers and faggots (which was a very good Scriptural move). 

 

Finally, they tore down some ancient statutes of Buddha (which, by the way, just happens to coincide with a mitzwah in the Torah).  Frankly, this writer has a great love for history and ancient things (artifacts, remains, monuments, etc).  However, there is a mitzwah commanding the destruction of these pagan gods.  So it is difficult to condemn or criticize the Taliban over their religious efforts. 

 

 

Yes, Trouble for the Non-Conformists 

 

As already described heretofore, all of these groups and their allies and cousins in the generic fundamentalist motions have been in trouble with the secular states and the move to impose the New World Order.  More trouble is coming for all religious beliefs which do not toe the line on religious ecumenicalism. 

 

“The Tzemach Letter” (p. 10 for Oct 2001) had an article by Ken Garrison on “America under Attack or War between Principalities?” which focused upon the dilemma facing people who are serious and committed on their religions.  Garrison suggested that the coming beast anticipated in the book of Revelation will be “religious in nature.” 

 

He said that he believed that “it is very likely that such a religious beast will emerge from this present crises.  Religious expression will be acceptable as long as it only deals with questions of moral lifestyle and the afterlife.  Any religious expression which has geographical, political implications will be forbidden.  The immediate application of this will be toward Fundamentalist Islam, however, Fundamentalist Christians and Jews will be close behind...” 

 

Frankly, the writer of this study has some agreement with Garrison.  Possibly, Garrison may not have it all right, but he makes some good points. 

 

His primary problem area probably surfaces in his conclusion that a religion can be acceptable as long as it deals with questions of moral lifestyles.  Actually, the evidence so far seems to suggest that certain fundamentalists are in conflict with the New World Order social gods precisely on morality and lifestyle issues.  And this really gets them into trouble with the New World Order crowd. 

 

Most all of these fundamentalist groups are strongly opposed to homosexuality and perversion, in all of their sordid forms.  Once a group speaks out and condemns the prevalent sin found in the secular society, the New World Order people are then ready to pounce on the group and destroy it. 

 

 

Scriptural Morality Is Under Assault   

 

Scriptural morality, righteousness and human lifestyles are all under enormous assault with the new social gods defined as being politically correct in the various secular states.  Any person or any group which refuses to accept any or all of these definitions are automatically enemies of the state and are marked for destruction. 

 

Of course, most secularized religions (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, most of the Protestants, mainstream Islam, Reform Jews, etc) will gladly compromise their faiths on all of these issues (actually, they have already compromised their faiths with the acceptance of these social gods producing social sin). 

 

Mainstream religions, right and left, are not only accepting the New World Order social gods (racial integration and amalgamation, sexual perversion, feminism, abortions on demand, etc) but they have gone even further by showing a willingness to participate in joint religious worship ceremonies.  Ecumenicalism, toleration and acceptance are the norms for today’s religious people. 

 

Obviously, true fundamentalists of whatever kind are not going to go along with this trash and Satanic evil being forced upon the world.  Many groups will fight first.  And this idea opens the door to the reality that the state will murder and destroy them (with no discrimination, since Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims and so forth will all have to toe the line or face destruction). 

 

Manifestly, the Christian Identity people, many of the Sardis groups, Ultra Orthodox Jews and Muslim fundamentalists all face trouble and trying days over their faiths. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 470--War Means Profits

 

 

The Need for War

 

It goes without saying that enormous pressures have been building up over the years for more and more wars, military conflicts and political intrigues to bring about world government.  Surely, Satan and his demonic assistants have been at this business for quite some time now.  Religious leaders, misinformed humanitarians and super rich plutocrats have all been making their plays to rule the world. 

 

For the dark ages, it was mad Catholic monks and leaders who used military forces to conquer and subdue others in the vein of religion.  With the Protestant Reformation, the plutocrats moved on stage to become the primary agency for conquest and domination.  The Amalekite Jew bankers/masters have risen to the top in the Christian West to exert most of the influence in this arena since WWII. 

 

Marine General Smedley Darlington Butler was quoted earlier when he outlined his personal knowledge of the plutocratic use of the US military in the 20th century, up until WWII.  In his book “War is a Racket” (p. 1-2), he noted that only a small group of people on the inside understand what it is all about. 

 

Butler (p. 8, 12-13) said that war “is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.  Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”  As the general noted, some 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in America in WWI.  While soldiers on the front lines might be making $20 a month, American business men were making vast profits of 20% to 1800%. 

 

 

Profits 

 

With this opportunity to make such huge profits and gains, US businessmen (who own the factories, businesses, etc that will provide the means to conduct the war) are always anxious, per Butler, for another war.  When one war ends, these fat cats begin making plans for the next one.  It is clear why these big shots are so anxious to make patriotic speeches and spur the nation on to war. 

 

Actually, the same motion has been underway since the so-called war to end all wars (was that WWI or WWII?  In truth, both of these wars were fought to supposedly end all future wars). 

 

But since WWII, the role of war has increased dramatically.  And the plutocrats clearly have found since 1945 their greatest ambitions in using the US military to make money and dominate the world.  Naturally, prostitute politicians have gladly went along with this effort to gain political contributions which insure their reelection at the next voting time. 

 

In terms of the US preparation for a war against Iraq, the Jan 6 & 13, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 1) had a story by Ken Nichols O’Keefe on “Anti-War Protesters Risk Lives to Block Bombing of Baghdad” which focused upon O’Keefe and others who said that they would go to Iraq to be human shields against incoming US bombs. 

 

O’Keefe added:  “Those who suffer the most will be the innocent men, women and children in Iraq.  Their crime?  Simply being the powerless citizens of an oil-rich nation with a leader who no longer fulfills the needs of the Western powers that supported and armed him in the past.”  Yes, that’s what it is all about.  The US-Iraqi war development will be covered in future chapters. 

 

Without taking the time to go over the multitudes of past wars, military activities and engagements since WWII (some of these have already been written on at length), one of the more recent US wars (before Iraq) will be highlighted and discussed in the following presentation to demonstrate how things can happen. 

 

 

Reasons for the 1999 US War in the Balkans   

 

Here, Clinton’s US war, on the Serbs, in the Balkans, in the spring of 1999, needs mention.  The US launched her attack on March 24, 1999, and pushed it to the extreme until the plutocrats’ immediate goals and objectives were largely met. 

 

Apparently, several things seem to have come together to precipitate the Clinton decision to commence acts of war against Yugoslavia.  First, Yugoslavia was a small, insignificant country with no means to defend itself against a vastly superior US attack (hence, victory seemed certain--the US plutocrats love such wars against nations which cannot defend themselves). 

 

Another key reason was that the war would help Slick’s legacy and his desire to emulate Franklin Roosevelt and WWII.  Clearly, a Balkans war might could help fuel WWIII as the US pressed the Serbs and their Russian allies. 

 

One more primary reason was the recent revelations of Red China’s penetration of the US defense establishment and the US White House--for campaign contributions to Slick Clinton in 1996. 

 

Slick seemed to use acts of war against others as diversionary actions to take the gullible public’s mind off of him and his scandals and focus them on some external foe, like Saddam Hussein, and then on Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic (who he had labeled as another Hitler). 

 

Too, acts of war benefit the bankers and industrialists in the military industrial complex (each cruise missile fired costs the US $1 million).  As was discussed by Major General Smedley Butler, quoted above and earlier, US wars have traditionally been fought to make money for American businessmen.  Wars can be enormously profitable! 

 

 

More Reasons 

 

Next, Amalekite plutocratic bankers have had their eyes set upon taking over Eastern Europe and exploiting and stealing everything possible there for quite some time now.  Obviously, they have had their eyes set upon Yugoslavia where Yugoslavian President Milosevic had not cooperated in their take-over.  With his consistent refusal to surrender to the Amalekite bankers, he had to go! 

 

After some bombing and killing of people, the bankers can more easily move in and take over and particularly as they accompany NATO peace-keepers (Amalekite parasites and carpetbaggers have been following conquering armies into defeated nations for over 2,500 years--starting with the Babylonian entrance into Jerusalem in 554 BCE, into the American South with Grant’s army in the Civil War, into Germany and Japan after WWII and so forth). 

 

There are a lot of valuable mineral deposits in the Balkans and particularly Kosovo which could be exploited by the fat cats if Milosevic would have been disciplined to accept the plutocrat takeover.  If he wouldn’t agree to the banker take-over, there was always the option of taking him out completely (which is what ultimately happened). 

 

 

Race 

 

There was another important reason for Slick’s war against the Serbs.  Howbeit, it is more subtle than some of the others.  There is a racial dimension in that the attack would benefit the Albanian cousins (from Esau and Eliphaz) of America’s ruling Amalekites. 

 

Edomites from Eliphaz are extremely clannish people and try to stick together.  The racial factor is the reason why Irish Phoenicians (like conservative, radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy) supported Slick’s war against the Serbs. 

 

 

The Media  

 

Since the US Amalekite-controlled media was pro-Albanian, the poor Serbs never had a chance to have their view presented. 

 

Daily, the American people were told how evil the Serbs were and how Yugoslav President Milosevic was another Hitler (when, in fact, Slick has far more in common with Adolf Schicklgruber than anyone else in modern times).  If NATO bombed and murdered dozens of Albanian women and children, the pro-Edomite media would bombard the airways with stories of how the Serbs caused the deaths. 

 

Importantly, the just cited Adolf Schicklgruber discovered years ago that if a lie is told repeatedly to gullible people--soon the people will believe the lie and regardless of how stupid it is. 

 

This happened daily with Slick’s press releases and press statements and how the media told lies, over and over, to make out that Milosevic was a war criminal guilty of gross atrocities (when, in truth, it was really Slick Clinton and Britain’s Tony Blair who were committing the atrocities).  

 

 

Still More Reasons 

 

There is one more profound reason for Clinton’s war on Yugoslavia--although it did not immediately become manifest to the public. 

 

The April 1999 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 4) quoted Dr John Coleman and the Wall Street Journal of September 9, 1985, with remarks on the movement of 25-40% of the US heroin supply from Turkey through the Balkans to Albanian Mafiosi gangsters in New York. 

 

With the prevailing racial factor, it is clear that the Edomite Albanians would be working with Edomite Turks, Edomite Sicilian gangsters and Amalek-Edomite bankers/masters to operate the heroin pipeline.  Reportedly, Milosevic had been trying to clean the drug problem up in Kosovo.  So the drug running Edomite Albanians there had been trying to break free of his control. 

 

As the article noted, the Clinton plan of partial autonomy for the Kosovo Albanians (with their KLA revolutionaries) all but guaranteed that the province “will find itself controlled by the gunmen of an international drug-dealing Mafia masquerading as an idealistic liberation army.”  Apparently, the Milosevic efforts to close this drug pipeline down was motivated by Serbian defense considerations.  

 

The “Washington Times” (Jun 7-13, 1999, p. 22) had an AP story by Jerry Seper on “KLA buys advanced arms with illicit funds, report says.”  This story focused on a NATO report which revealed that the KLA was pushing Middle East heroin on the US and Western European markets in order to raise large sums of drug money to buy advanced weapons for its war against Yugoslavia. 

 

As established in former comments herein, the druggy Slick Clinton had close ties to the US drug trade while Governor of Arkansas and after he was in the White House.  It was entirely logical that he would act militarily to keep the drug flow intact. 

 

 

The Opportunity Was Clear 

 

Since Milosevic was bogged down in a war of nationalism with Edomite, Albanian, Muslim separatists in his Kosovo province, here was the perfect opportunity for the plutocrats to attack Yugoslavia, destroy Milosevic and install a president who would conform to the New World Order.  Several advantages were clear--viz: 

 

First, the plutocrats would be able to move in on Yugoslavia like a bunch of leeches to steal everything that they have had their eyes set upon.  Next, the Albanian Edomite drug traffickers would be able to continue moving Edomite heroin from out of the Middle East to markets in Europe and North America.  Since Milosevic had the gall to try to shut this drug pipeline down, he could be shutdown. 

 

Because the plutocrats are virtually all internationalists and since they have been working overtime to bring in the New World Order, the destruction of Milosevic and his Serbian power base would bring extra benefits.  The Serbs are fierce nationalists and much of the conflict with the Edomite Albanians has been predicated upon Serb nationalism (involving racial, ethnic and religious dimensions). 

 

Manifestly, the plutocrats and their prostitute politician, Bill “Slick” Clinton, must have licked their lips when they saw an opportunity to rush in and kill several birds with one stone.  The destruction of Milosevic and his Serbian power base would fulfill the greatest of ambitions on Wall Street and in London and Switzerland (plus, it would be a shot in the arm for Clinton and his struggles over the Monica Lewinsky affair). 

 

 

Clinton Attacked 

 

The US launched her 1999 air assault against Yugoslavia in an attempt to ostensibly force Yugoslavia to accept US and NATO “peace-keeping” forces in her internal province of Kosovo, to join US “peace-keeping” forces in Bosnia and elsewhere in the Balkans. 

 

The US attack on the Serb military seems to have resembled the situation in 1941 when the Japanese conducted an air assault on the US military at Pearl Harbor.  In typical Christian fashion, Christian Americans began bombing and killing their fellow Christian Serbs. 

 

The Serbs responded by increasing their attacks upon the revolutionary Moslem Albanians in Kosovo, who had been attempting to break off from Yugoslavia.  The Kosovo rebellion was led by the 100,000 man Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which was and is allied with the Arab terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and other Middle East terrorist groups (May 1999 “McAlvany Intelligence Advisor,” p. 3). 

 

The US action placed America in league with her sworn enemy Osama, the accused bomber of the US embassy in Africa and the later assaults on September 11, 2001, on the Pentagon and World Trade Center (which will be discussed in detail in the succeeding chapters). 

 

 

And More 

 

Though Russia has a huge Assyrian population in its White Russian-Germanic segment, she is essentially a Slavic-Orthodox-Cyrillic-Japheth nation.  Thus, she was and is strongly pro-Serb (which is also a Slavic-Orthodox-Cyrillic-Japheth entity) and has been much opposed to the continuing US actions in the Balkans that are anti-Serb. 

 

Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the spring of 1999 warned of a possible global war.  Prime Minister Primakov (who later lost his job on May 12, 1999) canceled a trip to the US and instead went to Yugoslavia. 

 

Soon, Russia began her own deployment of ships to the Adriatic Sea and limited support operations for the Serbs (although she was restrained and held back by the IMF and big banks because of having to re-negotiate much of her international debt in April 1999).  When America is under later attack, will Americans be able to understand why? 

 

Greece and the other Orthodox nations were and are pro-Serb.  Will the Balkans’ problem and the US presence there eventually throw Greece into the Russian sphere of influence?  Will Greece be encouraged to eventually become one of the horns in the Russian led age end alliance against the US? 

 

Will the Balkans’ war also precipitate new conflicts between Greece (from Japheth-Javan) and Turkey (from Esau-Eliphaz), like in Cyprus? 

 

Even many Italians (most modern Italians are racially Hamitic Babylonians, although Sicilians and some Southern Italians seem to be Edomites from Eliphaz) disapproved of the attack.  Will this US-British aggression ultimately bring on a split in NATO and pave the way for NATO to be dissolved (with its European fragments being consolidated into a new United Europe army)? 

 

Anti-US protests and violence soon commenced in Macedonia, Russia, Greece, Italy and other parts of the world.  WWI started in the Balkans in 1914.  Will history repeat itself at some point in time? 

 

 

More Adverse Fall-Out 

 

News reports said that Yugoslavia coordinated her defense tactics against the US attacks with Iraq, which had had much experience over the last several years (discussed on the Rush Limbaugh program).  This means that the Arab Moslems of Iraq had far more in common with the Orthodox Serbs than they did with their Muslim Albanian friends. 

 

In other words, the enemy of Serbia was the enemy of Iraq--which meant that the two nations could be friends against their common enemy.  Since Russia has been the power broker behind both Serbia and Iraq, it is no surprise that these three powers were and are coming together.  No wonder hate against Americans is spreading worldwide. 

 

The US attacks on Kosovo, coupled with the efforts of the Serbs to expel ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, created a condition where hundreds of thousands of Muslim Albanians fled the province for nearby Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, completely flooding those countries with people. 

 

To relieve the burden, the US and some of her European allies agreed to accept thousands of displaced Albanian refugees.  This whole situation appears to be extremely prophetic for the people of the US and White British Commonwealth. 

 

 

 Yes--Prophetic 

 

Per the Tanakh, the days are coming (in Yechezkel’s 32d-33d years) when multitudes of ethnic Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples will be forced from their lands to go into exile (and slavery) throughout the world.  Since President Slick Clinton created the whole dilemma in Kosovo and since the American people sat back and allowed him to cause the crisis, the chickens will soon come home to roost. 

 

American people (those that survive WWIII) will be expelled from their lands similar in some ways to what the Muslims and later the Serbs have experienced in Kosovo.  The primary difference between the expulsions is that the Anglo-Saxon-Celtics will go into another Egyptian servitude and bondage. 

 

Just as American war planes on several occasions attacked and killed Albanian Edomites trying to escape Kosovo, the same thing will apparently happen to Americans trying to escape their doomed land.  They will be attacked and murdered by enemy air strikes. 

 

During the Balkans’ war, on April 15, 1999, the FBI warned the US military and other sensitive federal installations that the Serbs may launch terrorist attacks against them in the US, based upon a memo circulated in the US Serbian Orthodox Church urging Serbian Americans to respond violently to the American attacks in the Balkans (Apr 15, 1999, “Spokesman-Review,” p. A13). 

 

The same possibilities also exist with the Russians and Greeks and especially as the US presence in the Balkans drags on. 

 

 

More US Trouble 

 

On May 8, 1999, the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three and injuring many others.  Chinese citizens retaliated by attacking the American embassy in Beijing for days.  This US attack on the Chinese will not be forgotten.  The Chinese have a long memory span.  Will Americans understand when Chinese missiles start falling on American cities?  There is a cause and effect relationship in matters like this. 

 

The following May 27, 1999, the US and Britain pushed the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague, Netherlands, to indict Yugoslavia President Milosevic and certain other leading Serbs as war criminals (eventually, Milosevic was arrested and shipped off to Holland to stand trail for his alleged war crimes). 

 

While Slick Clinton and Tony Blair murdered far more innocent people in their aggression against Yugoslavia, it is interesting that the Hague decided to indict the Yugoslavians who have done little or nothing comparatively.  Whether many of the Serbs will ever be arrested and tried remains questionable (beyond Milosevic). 

 

As a follow-up, in order to do Milosevic in, the US offered a $5 million dollar reward for him in conjunction with using the CIA to commence student unrest in Belgrade in late June and July of 1999. 

 

In any case, Slick and Tony made a mistake because when the conquering Russians, Chinese, etc arrive in Washington and London, they will arrest American and British politicians, right and left, and try and execute them for war crimes and crimes against so-called humanity.  The chickens will surely come home to roost with both Slick and Tony Blair (and George W. Bush will face these same problems as well). 

 

 

Russia, Boxed In 

 

This strange turn of events made some ask why Russia would effectively abandon her Serb allies to essentially support the last NATO ultimatum on Kosovo (which was considerably changed from its first ultimatum).  The answer seemed to lie in Russian attempts to re-negotiate outstanding IMF and big bank loans which were due in April 1999. 

 

It appears that the Amalekite international financiers held Russia in hostage, preventing her from doing much in open support of the Serbs, and tied the loan re-negotiations into Russia’s role of forcing the Serbs to accept the NATO demands--although denied by US officials and super rich Amalekite bankers (this option was mentioned by Thomas Omestad and Alan Cooperman in their article on “ A minuet with Moscow, then a yes in Belgrade,” in the Jun 14, 1999, “US News & World Report,” p. 33). 

 

But Moscow will not forget her humiliation and being blackmailed by the super rich bankers.  Thus, the whole US role in the Balkans is not helping relations with Russia and the East.  With US troops in Bosnia and now Kosovo, coupled with Russian troops also now in Bosnia and Kosovo, the stage is set for a major power conflict. 

 

Clearly, it seems that the US-British attacks and partisanship in the Balkans will be one of the catalysts to bring on the Russian-Third World destruction of the US and her Anglo-Saxon-Celtic cousins in WWIII. 

 

 

The Cease Fire 

 

Based on Russian and Finnish negotiations with Milosevic on June 8, 1999, and the secret behind the scenes maneuvering of international financier Peter Castenfelt (discussed heretofore), the G-8 nations (the largest and most powerful, including Russia) met in Germany and agreed on a format to end the US led bombing assault upon Yugoslavia if the Serbs would accept an international peace-keeping force (not just NATO, as was originally stipulated) which would move into Kosovo with the departure of the Serbian forces. 

 

On June 9, 1999, Serb and NATO representatives met and signed an agreement for the Serb army to withdraw from Kosovo and for the UN to approve a peacekeeping force to enter Kosovo.  The peace-keeping force turned out to be an international force, including Russian soldiers. 

 

By June 10, 1999, the Serb withdrawal from Kosovo commenced and the NATO bombing was halted. 

 

Since the US had expended many of her cruise missiles and other key armament inventories in attacks upon Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq (reportedly, with only limited new production schedules in the pipeline), what will she do when WWIII strikes and she no longer has a large defense arsenal (and particularly, if the dollar tanks in the coming days)? 

 

Not only did Slick Clinton draw down the US military in his years in office, but also, he steadily used up US defense armaments in his various military excursions around the world without replacements (61 Clinton wars involving US forces occurred by early 1999).  Morale plummeted in the US military and experienced people wanted out.  Too, the Clinton penchant for war has continued with GWB to add to the problem. 

 

 

Another Possibility 

 

The efforts of the US and Britain to enter Kosovo on the ground, and the reality that much of their cruise missile and bomb inventories were used up without replenishment (and especially, in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in 2001-2003), brought up another interesting possibility. 

 

Instead of continuing to surrender, what if some of the Yugoslavians choose to fight the US and British peace-keeping forces as guerrillas and snipers over the coming months?  Actually, the Serb forces have kept a low profile since the US war.  So far, they have not attempted any attacks on US peace-keepers (as of early 2003).  But this option remains on the table in future days (as is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq). 

 

There is also the problem of the KLA which will probably never disarm, nor will NATO require them to do so since the Amalekite bankers/masters are in control of NATO forces and are very much pro-Edomite (for their drug running operations, among other reasons). 

 

In any case, the armed Kosovo Edomites did assuredly begin attacking and killing unarmed Serb people (to force them out of Kosovo) and NATO never stopped it.  What if Russia (with their forces also on the ground in Kosovo) eventually intervenes on the side of the Serbs?  Or what will happen if Russian and US-British forces get into some other confrontation in the Balkans? 

 

 

Coming Judgment 

 

What then will the US and Britain do in later years if and when they face a superior Russian, Chinese and Third World force which clearly has YHWH on their side? 

 

When WWIII comes, guess who the good guys will be and who the bad guys will be?  What a shock it will be to apathetic and indifferent Americans and Britons when they learn that YHWH is against them and has chosen to execute judgment upon them for their sins and wretchedness. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 471--War on Terrorism I

 

 

The Revelation 

 

The Bush War on Terrorism is another recent war needing mention (as suggested in the prior chapters).  It will be addressed at this time. 

 

As will be covered in comments to follow, there were a series of events which preceded the so-called terrorists attacks in Washington and New York on September 11, 2001.  Later, various magazines and newspapers will be quoted on this interplay preceding 9-11.  One of these reports was a May 27, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 27) story on “How the U.S. Missed the Clues” by Michael Elliott. 

 

In an incredible revelation, Elliott says that the CIA prepared a plan before September 11, 2001, to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan with heavy support from the Northern Alliance (the Russian allies).  Actually, as things worked out, this is precisely what happened (for some strange reason--as if the US-Afghan war was scripted in advance). 

 

The word from “Time” magazine is that this plan for war was on the desk of the president on September 10, 2001, awaiting his return from his trip to Florida (where he was when the attacks took place). 

 

It is inconceivable to this writer that the CIA would, on its own initiative and without some direction from the White House, arbitrarily make plans to attack the sovereign nation of Afghanistan.  There is no way to approach this subject other than to automatically assume that the president had ordered this plan and the accompanying attack order to be prepared. 

 

Accordingly, it was made--obviously much earlier than 9-11 (as will be shortly established below in later revelations). 

 

Manifestly, the US White House (which is a puppet agency of America’s ruling plutocrats) began making plans to attack Afghanistan (along with Iraq) quite early in the GWB administration.  The only thing needed to launch this attack was the cause or motivation which would unite the American public against the Taliban. 

 

This very situation could have a close parallel to what the plotting and conniving Franklin Roosevelt faced in 1941 when he was doing everything possible to goad the Japanese into an attack so that America could enter WWII.  Something had to occur to unify the American people and push them forward into war (which many Americans simply opposed in 1941). 

 

Inevitably, one must pause and take note of the situation in America in August of 2001.  Was there a similarity to the situation in America in 1941? 

 

Moreover, there is the reality of the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havanna on Feb 15, 1898, and the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, in the Atlantic (both incidents are discussed elsewhere herein).  These events were used by the war hawks to get the US into war with Spain and later WWI.  Is it possible that the 9-11 incidents were scripted to precipitate the so-called war on terrorism and invasion of Afghanistan? 

 

 

Later Revelations 

 

More revelations were forthcoming in August 2002 which revealed that indeed the US government started making preparations to attack al Qaeda, evidently in Afghanistan, under the Clinton administration in 2000 (per the Aug 16, 2002, “The Week,” p. 5).  The Clinton people decided that the plan should be deferred to the incoming Bush people in January 2001. 

 

The GWB team conducted an eight months review of the plan and George W. Bush approved the plan on Sep 4, 2001.  Evidently, the actual US secret attack order was prepared by the CIA and put on GWB’s desk before Sep 11, 2001, while the president was in Florida.  Presumably, he was to approve it on his return to Washington (as actually happened). 

 

 

Now, the So-called US-Bush War on Terrorism.  

 

Anyway, the US War on Terrorism, as launched by George W. Bush in the fall of 2001, is another war involving months of planning and one which offered an opportunity to accomplish a whole series of objectives to benefit the ruling plutocrats and to help pave the way for the installation of world government. 

 

These two goals are clearly involved in the sense that there are gigantic oil and natural gas deposits in the Caspian Sea area (to include much of Afghanistan).  The Jun 3, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 18) had a story on “War for Profit:  The Awful Truth” which said that there are possibly $35 billion in gas and oil reserves in just the Kazakhstan area (more than even in Saudi Arabia). 

 

Fat cat oil company people have paid the Kazakhstan government some $3 billion to secure those rights and have invested some $35 billion in plant and equipment assets to recover those resources (ibid, p. 18).  Surely, these investments could mean fantastic returns from later oil and gas sales in the hundreds of billions of dollars.  

 

Too, there seems to be large deposits of uranium, gold, silver, lead, zinc and beryllium across Afghanistan, according to geologist and anthropologist Bonita Chamberlin (Dec 17, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

The previously discussed Enron Corporation (with former ties to almost all important American politicians, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the Amalekite Chucky Schumer and on and on) has long had its eyes set upon Afghanistan and the huge oil and gas deposits in the Caspian Sea area (and still has, following the Enron bankruptcy). 

 

The Feb 11, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 10) had a story by C. Parvin Foner on “Global Perfidy of Enron/Anderson Coming to Light” which noted the mineral deposits and Enron’s planning efforts to build a pipeline from Central Asia, across Afghanistan, and on to India, to move natural gas to markets in India.  Whether this effort by Enron will proceed or not is still not clear (although some other firm may do it). 

 

A report by Christopher Bollyn, on “Mainstream Media Avoids Questions of 9-11,” in the Jun 24, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3), quoted investigative journalist Tom Flocco that Enron had 20 active CIA agents on its payroll before its demise.  Apparently, the CIA and Enron were jointly working on global projects of some sort.  Possibly, the situation in Afghanistan was one of those joint efforts. 

 

The Jul 15, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 10-11) had a follow-up on the CIA-Enron links in a related story by Tom Flocco on “Mounting Evidence of Larger Conspiracy Begs More Questions Regarding 9-11 Insider Trading.” 

 

Flocco quoted a Washington insider who said that Enron’s CIA members used “info gleaned from a satellite project called ‘Echelon,’ which intercepted emails, phone calls and faxes with detailed business information,” adding that “pure and simple, (taxpayer-funded) U.S. intelligence agents were involved in corporate espionage.” 

 

 

Great Profit Potentials 

 

For certain, the Western plutocrats have had their eyes set upon the possibility of exploiting the whole area of South Central Asia for profit and gain (just like they have had their eyes set upon Eastern Europe, as noted in the prior chapters).  The primary holdback in Afghanistan had been the ruling Muslim fundamentalists. 

 

As most persons know, the ruling Muslims had been the Taliban fundamentalist sect.  This group had been making the headlines regularly for the past couple of years as they had been placing restrictions on women and queers and on destroying the images and statues of the Buddha god.  None of this stuff set well with liberals and Socialists in Europe and North America. 

 

So all that was needed was the right opportunity and/or excuse to go in and bomb these people to oblivion and to steal their country (by installing a puppet government which would answer to the plutocrats and internationalists busy building the New World Order).  That opportunity came on Sep 11, 2001, when some alleged Muslim terrorists flew some captured airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 

 

Following the destruction of Afghanistan and the Taliban, the Western plutocrats selected Hamid Karzai as the new Afghan leader.  Karzai (with a very obvious Edomite-Hittite nose) once worked for UNOCAL, the huge US oil conglomerate (per BBC, quoted in the Jan 21, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2).  Clearly, the plutocrats’ man is now in dictatorial power in Afghanistan. 

 

With the September 11th attack, US politicians were quick to name Arab fundamentalist Osama bin Laden as the alleged mastermind behind the assaults in New York and Washington.  Though no proof was ever publicly stated of this linkage, the public was expected to believe GWB that it was Osama.  Of course, the public believed it, as they were programmed to do by the secret plutocratic rulers. 

 

 

Moslem Views 

 

Alternatively, Osama repeatedly said that he did not order the 9-11 attacks; although a later alleged Osama video, released by the US, suggested that he either did it or knew about it in advance.  Supposedly, this tape was the smoking gun proving Osama ordered the September 11th attack (but if he only knew about it in advance, does this fact alone make him guilty of ordering the attack?). 

 

Reportedly, the tape was unexpectedly found by the CIA in a vacant house in Jalalabad in Eastern Afghanistan.  Later, when the role of the CIA with the tape became suspicious, the story was changed to read that the United Front (the US Afghan allies) accidentally found the tape. 

 

But this tape easily could have been altered or even fraudulently produced by the CIA, using Hollywood type technology (as will be discussed in later comments herein).  The Dec 28, 2001, “Week” (p. 12) had a report on the possibility or likelihood that the Osama video was a hoax.

 

This story noted that Bin Laden is a multimillionaire who had before used high-quality videos to spread his message to the world.  Why would his personal home movies be of such bad quality that you can barely make out his face?  It is easy to get a good camera from Japan.  And why was the sound suddenly crystal clear whenever the Saudi sheikh speaks, but muffled and obscure whenever Bin Laden speaks? 

 

Quoting a leading Muslim, “The Week” noted that “If this tape is the strongest evidence with Washington, then it is really a problem.” 

 

Another questioning story, entitled “The Bin Laden Video:  Smoking Gun or CIA Production?,” by Christopher Bollyn, appeared in the Dec 31, 2001, “American Free Press” (p. 3).  It quoted Sean Broughton, director of the London-based production company “Smoke and Mirrors,” who said that it would be relatively easy for a professional to fake a video of Bin Laden (this capability was discussed earlier herein). 

 

Bollyn specifically singled out the reality that this apparently CIA video of Osama shows him to be a very different person than what other video tapes show of him that were distributed by him. 

 

For example, Bin Laden is known to be very thin and frail.  He suffers from kidney problems and uses a cane.  Yet, the “CIA” tape seemed to show him to be much heavier and actually a jolly person.   Being of Yemenite parentage, Osama has a long neck and long narrow head.  In the CIA tape, he had a husky body and a smaller head in proportion to his body. 

 

In this “supposedly revealing” video, Bin Laden appeared to be wearing a ring on his right hand.  In previous tapes, he wore no jewelry except a watch.  In this subject tape, Bin Laden was “gesticulating excessively” with his right hand.  In truth, Bin Laden is left-handed and speaks in a slow and deliberate manner.  

 

The February 4, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news report involving Bin Laden’s mother who said that she did not believe that her son was behind the attack on the US.  She said that the alleged video of him was “doctored.”  She added that there were too many gaps and statements made which were not like him. 

 

Osama’s mother denied that he called her before the attack and said something big was about to happen.  She noted that she had not talked to him in six years.  Thus, was this report more CIA lies? 

 

 

A Iraq-Bin Laden Tie? 

 

For months on end, in 2002 and early 2003, the George W. Bush people tried to build a case that there was a link between Bin Laden/al Qaeda and Iraq/Saddam Hussein (to justify a US war against Iraq). 

 

Interestingly, in early Feb 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the UN to offer some so-called proofs on the evils of Saddam.  First, Powell produced some aerial photographs of some trucks--allegedly, of decontamination trucks made recently (supposedly decontaminating chemical, biological or radiological sites). 

 

The problem with this smoke and mirrors production (surely from the CIA) was that the alleged dates and definition (that the trucks were decontamination trucks) were only asserted by Powell and not proven (and even if they were decontamination trucks--so what?  With UN inspectors combing the entire nation looking for any evidence of the remains of chemical, biological/radiological weapons, the Iraqis would surely want to decontaminate all places where any chemicals had been stored--to include aspirins and medicine of all forms, as well as the chemical agents supplied by the US back in the 1980s to use against Iran, to be later assessed). 

 

Many or most nations in the world simply ignored Powell’s charges and placed them in the category of unproved allegations.  The UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, discounted them completely, as noted elsewhere herein. 

 

In his UN appearance, one of the big allegations which Powell made was that there is a tie between al Qaeda/Bin Laden and Iraq/Saddam Hussein.  Powell offered no proof (although Hussein had publicly denied any such linkage for months before).  As always, Powell did just as his boss does.  Both Bush and Powell make charges but never provide any proof (the reason is because their charges are generally lies). 

 

On Feb 11, 2003 (the following week), the US announced that it then, all of a sudden, had obtained an audio tape in which Bin Laden allegedly said that he and al Qaeda were in “partnership” with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  Sometime after Powell said that he had a transcript of this mysterious tape, an Arab radio station produced the tape and played it on the air. 

 

While there was no mention of any alleged partnership, the so-called Osama did speak of the need for Muslims worldwide to come to the aid of Iraq when Bush launched his war in the coming days.  Since al Qaeda and Iraq are both religious Muslims and since both of them are Arabs racially, it makes sense that Osama would be in support of Iraq in her confrontation with the so-called Great Satan. 

 

As a matter of information, the tape charged that Saddam Hussein was an infidel himself (Saddam apparently is not a religious Muslim; or at least, not much of one).  Osama had criticized Saddam in previous remarks; so this remark was not unique.  But certainly, it did not sound like the two men were in any partnership arrangement as alleged by Powell. 

 

The writer of this study cannot be sure of the real source of this tape.  But it clearly could be another production of an outright fraud or smoke and mirrors (which the CIA is notorious for producing).  Or alternatively, it could be genuine from the real Bin Laden. 

 

As discussed elsewhere herein, Bin Laden had been on the US payroll for years.  If he did produce such a tape, he very well could have done so on behalf of his employer and at the opportune time of Powell’s need for some proof.  Or maybe, Osama was simply a dupe or fool who was unconsciously working for the US.  Or alternatively, maybe Osama didn’t make the tape at all, but that it came entirely from the CIA. 

 

About the same time that this tape surfaced, the US announced a pending terrorist attack and put the nation on a “Orange” alert status (which is just below the “Red” condition of an attack).  But the thing missed by almost everyone is that this alleged threat was based on information that was “fabricated” (Feb 15, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A1).  It’s hard to believe anything that Washington says. 

 

 

The Mossad? 

 

For sure, a number of Muslims have stepped forward and claimed that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were engineered by the Israeli Mossad (which, like the CIA, works for the New World Order Amalekite plutocrats). 

 

In fact, as late as March 2002, Gallup opinion polls among 10,000 Muslims in nine Islamic countries show that 61% of the Muslims do not believe that Arabs were responsible for the New York and Washington attacks; 22% of them have a favorable opinion of the US; some 48% of Pakistanis believe that the Jews were responsible; and 5% of the Pakistanis held a favorable opinion of the US (Mar 22, 2002, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 16; May-Jun 2002 “Bible Light International JPM News & Prayer Requests,” p. 3). 

 

Since the favorable opinion levels of Muslims for Americans is quite low, one must assume that most Muslims don’t have a favorable opinion of the US (i.e. 78% of Muslims in general and 95% of Pakistanis).  One must then ask why is it and how is it possible for the US to have Muslim allies in the Middle East?  Those questions will be broached in some detail in the succeeding chapters. 

 

 

An Israeli Production? 

 

In regards to the popular Muslim feeling that the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York were Israeli productions, it is interesting that just after the attack, US authorities arrested five Israelis at a New Jersey airport (as briefly cited earlier).  Importantly, they were illegal immigrants and were found to be carrying box cutters, multiple passports and $4,000 in cash (“Forward,” Nov 23, 2002, p. 5). 

 

Of the more than 1,500 people arrested and detained following September 11th, some 100 of them were Israelis.  Some 60 Israelis are still being held by US authorities (Dec 24, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 1).  In fact, the December 24, 2001, “American Free Press” paper (p. 1, 3, 10-11) went on record to name a host of leading American officials who have implicated the Israelis in the attack. 

 

Importantly, this newspaper, in a lead story on “Israel Knew,” reported that the FBI has compiled information, suggesting that Israel had advance knowledge about the impending September 11th attack on the US and that some of the Arab attackers were actually Mossad agents. 

 

 

More Israeli Ties 

 

The March 18, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 3-4) had two stories by Michael Collins Piper which addressed the Israeli aspects of the September 11th attack.  Along with the work of this paper, a number of media sources had run stories on this subject in early 2002 (including the very pro Israeli “Washington Post”). 

 

In the first story, Piper quoted from some of these reports.  Reportedly, Carl Cameron of Fox News was one of the primary reporters gathering information on the Israeli connection.  Cameron had been on the Fox News channel telling about his findings.  In essence, US authorities did arrest a huge number of Israelis here in America illegally. 

 

Accumulated evidence suggests that some or many of these Israelis are/were a part of a gigantic Israeli spy operation (although one must question this allegation since the Israelis automatically have access to virtually whatever they want in America without the need to operate a spy network--unless the spy network was/is used to supplement data that is given to Israel outright by the US government). 

 

Some of the information shared by Cameron is that there has been a large US investigation into this matter.  Some of it, which supposedly linked the Israelis to the 9/11 attack, is classified. 

 

Otherwise, information has came from the French “Le Monde” paper that one-third of the Israelis (which involve over 100 people) were stationed in Florida.  Some five of them lived in Hollywood, Florida, where the alleged terrorist leader Mohammad Atta and four of his henchmen lived. 

 

 

More From Piper 

 

The second Piper story in the March 18, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 4) was co-authored with Christopher Bollyn.  It was entitled “Odd Coincidence or Conspiracy?” and focused upon one passenger who was on American Airlines Flight 11 which crashed into the World Trade Center. 

 

This man was Daniel C. Lewin, who was born in the US but raised in Israel.  Lewin was a former member of the Israeli Defense Special Forces. 

 

This Piper-Bollyn story quoted the March 2, 2002, “Washington Post” which mentioned that the FAA on Sep 11, 2002, had reported that there was a shooting incident on Flight 11.  Reportedly, a passenger shot the occupant of seat number 9B, who was supposedly Lewin.  Lewin was just a seat away from one of the hijackers. 

 

Later, the FAA repudiated this report on Lewin (although the reference could have been to just a weapon that could include a knife).  Now, it seems that the FBI position is that Lewin was stabbed to death, along with the pilot and co-pilot of the flight (possibly by the Arab hijackers). 

 

Anyway, one of the conclusions from these stories about an Israeli link seems to focus on the possibility that the Israeli spy ring knew about the pending Muslim terrorist attack and chose to not report it to US authorities. 

 

Interestingly, the Jan-Feb 2002 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 6) had an AP report of September 21, 2001, which noted that some 4,000 Israelis worked at the World Trade Center.  Yet, there was only one Israeli victim in the attack that killed some 3,000 persons.  Per the story, there is evidence suggesting that the Israelis were warned in advance of the pending attack. 

 

This reality prompted Black poet Amiri Baraka to write this poem:  “Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed?  Who told 4,000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers to Stay home that day?  Why did Sharon stay away?”  After the poem, the ADL got mad at Baraka and demanded that New Jersey fire him from his job as poet laureate of the state.  The NJ governor joined in on the attack on Baraka. 

 

 

More From the “American Free Press” 

 

In the April 8, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 10-11), Michael Collins Piper followed up with another powerful story on “Confirmed Exclusive:  Mossad Front Companies Operating In, Around City on 9-11.”  The focus of this Piper report was on several Israeli owned “moving companies” which seemed to have had connections to the 9-11 attacks. 

 

Some of the companies were Urban Moving Systems, Moving Systems Incorporated, Advance Moving System, AAA Van Lines, State to State Van Lines, America’s Best Movers and Quality Moving Storage.  Allegedly, some or all of these companies employed young Israeli men who might be connected to the Mossad. 

 

Following the 9-11 attacks, some of the dark skinned Israelis were taken into custody by the FBI.  Some of them were seen compiling information on the Sears Tower in Chicago and others joked on the day of the attacks that Americans would find out what Israelis have had to go through. 

 

One of the most fascinating things that happened in New York on 9-11 was that five dark Middle-Eastern men were seen with video equipment near the World Trade Center.  They were busy videotaping the attacks on that facility. 

 

On David Letterman’s “Late Show” on September 11, 2001, CBS’s anchorman Dan Rather appeared to discuss the attacks.  He said that a cell of America hating Arabs had been spotted videotaping the World Trade Center tragedy and celebrating on the roof of a nearby building.  As it now turns out, Rather had it wrong. 

 

The five celebrants were not Arabs at all; but were Israeli men, apparently working for one of the Israeli moving companies operating in the New York and/or New Jersey areas.  Piper quoted the Mar 15, 2002, “Forward” (the popular New York Jewish newspaper) which confirmed that the men were Israelis. 

 

“Forward” also admitted that after the Israeli government was confronted with these stories that Israel admitted that the Urban Moving Systems operation was a Mossad front. 

 

Apparently, per “Forward,” there were two groups involved in these latest moving company operations.  One was a legitimate Israeli group and the other was possibly a non-Israeli group. 

 

Piper asked if this suggestion (of some Middle Easterners posing as Israelis) raises any questions about the prospect that there have been some Israeli groups in America posing as Arabs or Muslims?  Anyway, “Forward” claimed that the problem arose because the Israelis failed to advise US authorities that they were in the US spying on Arabs and/or Muslims. 

 

 

More on These Movers 

 

The May 27, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on “Suspicious Israeli Activity at Military Base” that demonstrated some of the apparent work of at least one of these Israeli moving companies.  On May 7, 2002, two Israelis were arrested in the middle of the night in a speeding Budget rent-a-truck near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station at Oak Harbour, Washington. 

 

One of the Israelis had an international driver’s license and an expired visa and the other one had no ID at all.  As it turned out, the first one was still here, though his visa had expired, and the second one was an illegal alien. 

 

The two Israelis claimed to be movers who were merely innocent people just doing their job.  Police became suspicious and brought in a bomb sniffing dog which established that the truck had been used to haul TNT and plastic explosives.  The Budget Rental Company said that the truck had not previously been used to haul explosives (suggesting that the Israelis had been using it for that purpose). 

 

The case was turned over to US immigration people.  Thus, the two Israelis will be likely deported and nothing more will be said or done about the incident.  By all means, the controlled media will implement a news blackout on this incident. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 472--War on Terrorism II

 

 

More May 2002 Revelations 

 

Two important stories broke in May 2002 which were most fascinating because they revealed either a deliberate plot at the top levels of the US government to carry these terrorist attacks off, or incredibly gross incompetence at the highest levels of the US government.  At the time of this writing, this writer is unclear of exactly which option represents reality. 

 

A bombshell of sorts came forth on May 14, 2002, when the FBI released a memo written in July of 2001 urging that the FBI conduct an investigation of Middle Eastern men who were in the US enrolling in and attending flight schools.  The memo specifically mentioned Osama bin Laden and said that his followers could use the schools for terrorist activities (May 15, 2002, “Spokesman-Review,” p. 1). 

 

This memo was prepared by an FBI agent in Phoenix, Arizona based upon his discovery of some Middle Easterners involved in flight training in Arizona.  The memo writer said that this training could be a first step to place Islamic militants into the aviation industry around the world as pilots, security guards or aircraft maintenance workers. 

 

On May 15, 2002, news reports said that there was an acknowledgment that President Bush was personally briefed before September 11, 2001, on a possible terrorist attack from Muslims using airplanes.  But the briefing reportedly did not suggest that terrorists would use the airplanes for suicide missions against US buildings. 

 

 

Some Chronology on the Early Information 

 

The May 27, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 26-27) had a story by Michael Elliott on “How the U.S. Missed the Clues” which focused on what America’s leaders knew, and when they knew it.  This story laid out the early warnings which came during the Clinton years in power. 

 

First, in 1993, there was the World Trade Center bombing (involving a US sting operation that went astray, as discussed in a prior chapter).  Even then, the al Qaeda linked perpetrators were known to be planning attacks on New York bridges and tunnels. 

 

In 1995, a plot to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific was foiled.  An accomplice of the ring-leader Ramzi Yousef, a Pakistani named Abdul Hakim Murad, confessed that he had learned to fly at a US flying school and was planning on crashing an airplane into CIA headquarters. 

 

Apparently, the revelations on this 1995 plot came to light because of investigations in the Philippines where the Muslims were in training.  The Jun 3, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on “FBI, CIA Knew of ‘Kamikaze’ Attacks in 1995” which focused upon the Philippines story (called “Project Bojinka”). 

 

Bollyn indicated that some European news agencies had reported on the arrest of the Muslims and had said that the plan was to fly airplanes into the CIA headquarters and the World Trade Center (US media sources acknowledged the CIA headquarters’ plans, but never mentioned the plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center). 

 

It is unclear how far these Muslim plans in the Philippines went in scope. 

 

But interestingly, Bollyn made the point that information surfaced (from Robert I. Friedman, in the Aug 3, 1993, “Village Voice”) suggesting that Yousef had an associate named Ahmad Ajaj who was believed to be a Mossad informer or agent.  If so, the Israeli Mossad knew back in 1993 of the Kamikaze plans. 

 

After the 1998 embassies’ bombings in Africa, authorities learned that participants testified that Osama bin Laden was sending agents to the US to attend flight training and to acquire airplanes. 

 

In 1999, there was the foiling of the “millennium plot” to blow up the Los Angels airport and hotels in Jordan.  The Algerian Ahmed Ressam was arrested when he tried to enter the US and sneak explosives into the country.  He told about the “millennium plot” (to be further discussed shortly below). 

 

The May 27, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 20) had a presentation on what was known in Washington.  A timeline on “ A Web of Hints” outlined the following:  In 1994, Algerian terrorists hijacked a plane with a view of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower in Paris.  In December 2000, US intelligence sources reported a jump in tips about coming terrorist plots. 

 

 

More Recent Chronology--Under Bush  

 

The just quoted May 27, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 20) also followed up in its chronology on events during the George W. Bush presidency. 

 

In June 2001, testimony in the millennium bombing plot revealed al Qaeda threats to attack the US.  On June 22, 2001, the FAA warned airlines that al Qaeda could attempt bomb attacks on airliners.  On June 26, 2001, the State Department issued a “Worldwide Caution” due to increased reports on threats overseas. 

 

On July 2, 2001, the FAA included plans of the millennium plot to blow up an airport terminal.  On July 5, 2001, the above noted memo from an FBI agent in Phoenix was prepared.  On July 6, 2001, the White House suspended nonessential travel of counter-terrorism people because of suspected plots in Turkey and Rome.  In mid-July 2001, reports surfaced about a plot against the G-9 summit. 

 

In late July 2001, the FAA warned that terrorists might be training for hijackings.  On Aug 8, 2001, the CIA briefed Bush that al Qaeda might be planning hijackings or other attacks. 

 

 

More on the Moussaoui Story 

 

The Zacharias Moussaoui case was touched upon in a prior chapter in connection with the efforts of Moussaoui to try to obtain justice in a US court (this case is in a US court in the summer of 2003, as these lines are being written).  But the case is interesting and deserves some further comment. 

 

On Aug 15, 2001, per the controlled US media, Zacharias Moussaoui, a Muslim, was arrested in Minneapolis after he allegedly raised suspicions at a flight school (after he allegedly told instructors that he wanted to learn to fly a huge super-liner but not to land it).  A note from an FBI agent said that Moussaoui might be planning to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. 

 

Though this story on Moussaoui was widely reported in the controlled US national media, there is an interesting follow-up about it.  The Jun 3, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 4) had a front page report by Michael Collins Piper on “Media Lied About 9-11 Conspirator,” which was most revealing. 

 

Piper said that this story about wanting to learn to fly, but not wanting to learn to land a jet, received wide publicity (which it did).  But the truth was that this was not what happened. 

 

The May 22, 2002, “New York Times” said that Moussaoui was described at the school of demonstrating “suspicious behavior” and not the story about not wanting to learn to land a jet.  Actually, according to school officials, he did want to learn to land the jet as well as fly it. 

 

Michael Piper than asked if the “NY Times” report was true, how then did the original story get to the media?  Who in the government released it?  Why is it that Secretary of Transportation Norman Maneta seemed to still lie and support the original story about Moussaoui. 

 

Thus, if this Moussaoui story was a pre-fabricated lie in the first place, one must wonder how many more of the government and/or media stories about the alleged Muslim terrorists are true or how many are false?  If this one story was a lie (as now claimed by the “NY Times”), there might be more lies floating around in the controlled media. 

 

Based upon this story from Piper and the “New York Times,” one must pause and ask if this whole subject concerns a massive disinformation campaign at the highest levels of the US government and/or the national controlled media? 

 

Regardless of how true these various US reports are on the anticipated terrorist attacks, it is fascinating that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has now publicly stated that his intelligence warned the US one week before 9-11 of the pending al Qaeda attacks (Jun 14, 2002, “The Week,” p. 7).  It is unclear how the US people reacted on these Egyptian warnings, but they now claim that they were not received.  

 

 

The NRO 

 

In a bombshell of a report, the Nov 11, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 14) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on “Spy Drill Simulated 9-11-Style Attacks” which focused upon some of the work of the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).  The director of this intelligence agency reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the CIA. 

 

The NRO is in charge of the secret spying satellites in earth orbit that spy upon various countries around the world and on certain global communications. 

 

Bollyn quoted a recent Associated Press story which said that on 9-11 of 2001 (the day of the terrorist attacks), the NRO had an simulation exercise to determine US reactions and emergency response if a large airliner crashed into a US building.  Government officials said that the conduct of this drill versus the actual terrorist attack was merely a “bizarre coincidence.” 

 

 

Yes, Washington Knew 

 

The May 20, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news item that the “Atlanta Journal-Constitution” conducted an on-line poll which showed that half of Americans believe that the government knew of the 9-11 attacks in advance.  With these findings, the paper promptly removed the poll results from its news releases. 

 

Although the details have not been forthcoming, one must be suspicious that Israeli spy agents (operating illegally in the US) may have known about the coming terrorist attacks in some detail. 

 

With the US-Israel ties, it would seem incredible that the Israelis would not have told US authorities something about the pending attacks (maybe they would not reveal everything they knew, but surely something--unless they had a positive reason to not tell the US). 

 

The conclusion here has to be that there were massive pieces of intelligence available suggesting that something big was in the works from Muslim terrorists, and US leaders simply ignored the warning; or alternatively, chose to sit back and do nothing in order to allow the attacks to proceed on schedule. 

 

 

Or Negro Incompetence? 

 

With the heavy Negro presence and leadership in the White House National Security Office and at the US State Department, the idea of simply gross incompetence makes more sense than anything else. 

 

The Bush National Security Advisor is a Black woman, named Condoleezza Rice, previously mentioned herein.  Condoleezza is beloved by the American people and particularly Republicans (the Republicans even have present plans to run her in California for the US Senate; or better yet, for president against Hillary Clinton in 2008--per the Nov 8, 2002, “The Week,” p. 12). 

 

On May 17, 2002, the Bush administration spokesperson Rice declared:  “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center...that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile” (per Dr Stan Monteith, in the Oct 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter, p. 2). 

 

Monteith’s newsletter went on to detail a list of pieces of intelligence which was available to the Bush administration which offered evidence that indeed this very thing would happen.  Many of these clues or threats are outlined above in this presentation.  So the truth is that there were a host of clues and implications available which indicated that the airplane attacks were coming. 

 

Maybe, there were some legitimate reasons to be uncertain of the exact date and even some question over the exact targets.  But there were massive pieces of intelligence suggesting that an attack was coming and coming in 2001.  It’s just that Bush and his Black team didn’t have enough brain power to figure out the possibilities. 

 

 

Bush Took the Blame 

 

Since the controlled media and the gullible American people could not dare criticize the Black people running things for Bush, the criticism has been directed at Bush, himself.  Certainly, Bush is not very swift and deserves some blame. 

 

But in fairness, the president supposedly has a team of experts (like Rice) around him to keep him advised on things exactly like 9-11.  So Bush has taken the flak actually due Rice and the other Negro leaders whom he elevated into leadership rolls over America.  Of course, it is easy to see that the Bush team will have more problems and goof-ups in the future. 

 

 

The Stock Trades 

 

One of the interesting features of the September 11th attack on the US was that some party or parties made vast stacks of money off of these attacks by working the US stock markets regarding the two airline companies involved--American Airlines and United Airlines. 

 

The “American Free Press” has had several stories on the sale of stock or put options that were traded by someone in the know during the period of September 6 to 10, 2001. 

 

The most revealing story was by Christopher Bollyn on “Revealing 9-11 Stock Trades Could Expose The Terrorist Masterminds,” in the May 13, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 3).  As discussed in this article, the stocks of both United and American plummeted on September 11th with the attacks.  Obviously, people who sold these stocks short or who bought put options on selling them made huge profits. 

 

From Sep 6th to Sep 10th, there was a 9,000% jump in United Airlines put/sell options (with a spike of being 285 times higher than average on Sep 10th).  American Airlines saw a 6,000% jump in her sell options during the same period.  There were no other stock trades those days that even began to reflect the activity in those two stocks.  Surely, someone on the inside knew something. 

 

Interestingly, two brokerage houses (Merrill-Lynch and Morgan Stanley) both also experienced large purchases of put options between Sep 7-10.  Both of these firms had offices in the World Trade Center in New York. 

 

In the spring of 2003, it still is unclear who initiated all of this activity in these stocks.  It could have been either Israeli/Mossad or Muslim agents with inside information on what was coming down the pike.  For sure, someone knew something. 

 

 

Tom Flocco, Revisited 

 

The formerly cited Jun 24, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on “Mainstream Media Avoids Questions of 9-11” which mentioned investigative journalist Tom Flocco’s views on some of these trades. 

 

Per Flocco (who was previously quoted herein on CIA links to Enron), an investment bank company formerly headed by Alvin B. “Buzzy” Krongard, the current executive director at the CIA, traded these put options and made big bucks from them.  Thus, did the CIA know in advance that something big was coming down the pike on 9-11? 

 

In a follow-up, the Jul 15, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 10-11) had a story by Flocco on the “Mounting Evidence of Larger Conspiracy Begs More Questions Regarding 9-11 Insider Trading.”  This previously quoted story addressed some of the CIA-Enron links, as broached earlier herein.   

 

Flocco’s article raised the question if some of the CIA agents (who knew what was going to happen from gathered intelligence) were involved themselves in placing some of the stock sales orders; or alternatively, tipping off selected stock traders on what was coming down the pike. 

 

For example, Citigroup is headed by a gang of Amalekites who were former US government leaders--like Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury and close friend of Enron Corporation’s Chairman Kenneth Lay, and John Deutch, former Director of the CIA. 

 

Is it possible that some of the Amalekite crooks working with the CIA and/or Enron tipped off Deutch or Rubin? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 473-War on Terrorism III

 

 

This Writer’s View 

 

The prior chapters discussed much of the background on the 9-11 terrorist attacks and who could have been behind them.  Several possibilities were discussed and especially the Moslem view that the entire operation was a Mossad undertaking. 

 

Frankly, this writer doubts just the single Mossad cause or basis for the attacks (without any involvement of others), but it must be mentioned as a possibility.  After all, the Mossad and CIA have engineered many things singularly or together to help bring on world government (and one or both agencies could now be operating in the background on this thing). 

 

For sure, one has to be suspicious that the Mossad knew in advance about the coming of the attack.  If the Mossad knew, did it notify US authorities?  Logically, the answer is yes--unless some Mossad agents were the people who entered the stock market to reap some fantastic returns on the attacks or had some other reason for silence.  Surely, Arabs and Israelis were involved in some way on this thing. 

 

 

PNAC and NCP, Revisited 

 

A former chapter quoted the work of Christopher Bollyn in uncovering a massive new Amalekite conspiracy to make vast new profits and extend US (correctly Amalekite) influence and control over the Middle East and South-Central Asia in the context of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the New Citizenship Project (NCP), as put together in 1997 by a team of Amalekite Jew bankers/masters (per the Dec 30, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 1, 7). 

 

Without repeating that presentation, a couple of points need to be made here in the vein of 9-11.  Bollyn’s story-title was “America ‘Pearl Harbored.’”  It also carried a sub-title which added:  “Sept 11 Was ‘Catastrophic Event’ Necessary to Transform America.”  While it is perhaps difficult to now claim that PNAC and/or NCP were totally behind 9-11, it must be placed on the table. 

 

Manifestly, 9-11 has paved the way for many of the goals and plans made by the Amalekites in PNAC/NCP to now become a reality (as outlined earlier and to be further covered in later chapters on the planned Iraqi war).  Consequently, one must conclude that there is some very strong evidence that indeed Amalekite Jew bankers/masters were behind the 9-11 attacks in some way. 

 

In a remarkable linkage, the 1999 Phase I Report of “Rebuilding America’s Defense:  Strategy in the 21st Century” said:  “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor” (Feb 2003 “Radio Liberty” newsletter, p. 1).  Here, the question must be asked--was this prediction the cause of 9-11? 

 

In a preceding discussion on PNAC, this document was also addressed by Christopher Bollyn in the Dec 30, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 7).  In this article, the AFP may have uncovered the whole reason for the 9-11 attacks. 

 

In terms of this Pearl Harbor remark, AFP asked Christopher Meletz, current assistant director of PNAC, what the phrase meant.  Meletz said:  “Without some disaster or catastrophic event, neither the politicians or the military would have approved.”  As Bollyn concluded, the 9-11 terror attacks provided the Pearl Harbor needed to put the global plans of PNAC into effect (ibid, p. 7).

 

 

Mossad Arabs/Muslims? 

 

In the vein that the North American and British Amalekites control both the CIA and Mossad, it is highly plausible that both of these agencies carried out the 9-11 attacks.  And if so, why were Muslim Arabs seemingly involved? 

 

Frankly, this writer has long had a gut feeling that the Mossad has infiltrated many of the radical Islamic movements (maybe not all of them, but certainly some, many or most of them--like Hamas and the work of the Sabbatians to motivate and lead the Islamic Marxists and Sufists). 

 

This option received some credible support from filmmaker and investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker, who was interviewed by Tom Valentine in the Jan 6 & 13, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 14-15).  Hopsicker said that the Mossad had a long documented record of infiltrating Arab terrorist organizations with Arabic speaking Jews who pose as Arabs. 

 

Hopsicker went on to say that even many Arabs have had doubts that Ramzi Yousef, previously mentioned herein, was even an Arab (Yousef was supposedly the man who organized the World Trade Center bombing in 1993).  Also, per Daniel, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch has been trying to connect Yousef and Saddam Hussein to the Oklahoma City bombing (as discussed in a former chapter). 

 

Of course, there were a number of reports of John Doe #2, #3 and so forth who were involved in the OC affair.  These John Does were thought to be dark-skinned Middle Easterners.  Rather than being Arabs, this writer must ask instead if they could have been Mossad agents posing as Arabs? 

 

Too, there was the situation with the so-called German named Andreas Strassmeir (who just happens to have ties with Israel and speaks Hebrew).  Strassmeir has been mentioned in prior chapters on his role in the OC bombing.  The Hopsicker interview with Valentine opened the door that maybe Strassmeir was a Mossad agent (or alternatively, a US government agent of some sort). 

 

As cited elsewhere herein, the one single politician (Charles Schumer) and the one single piece of legislation that he was pushing (the anti-terrorism bills) all succeeded because of the so-called terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, the OC bombing and the 9-11 incidents. 

 

Therefore, is it not likely that Mossad agents (like the previously cited Ahmad Ajaj and the above mentioned Ramzi Yousef), posing as Arabs/Muslims, infiltrated the Muslim groups and planned all of these US attacks to benefit the Amalekite point man Charles Schumer (the US Senator from New York who leads the Amalekite work in the Senate for tyranny in the US and establishment of world government)? 

 

 

Gullible Arabs Following Amalekite Bankers/Masters 

 

In opening the door to this possibility, this writer is not naive enough to suggest that the Arabs who died in the suicide attacks were actually Mossad agents.  Surely, these persons were Arabs--but Arabs who had been set up, encouraged and promoted to die because of infiltrated Mossad agents who did all of the planning for the incidents. 

 

It has to be very questionable that the naive and incompetent Muslims could have ever planned and pulled the 9-11 attacks off on their own.  They simply lack the intelligence and expertise and probably even the money for such an operation.  But this condition does not negate the involvement of many Arabs.  The evidence is massive that numbers of Arabs were involved. 

 

However, the problem remains that the Muslims themselves simply lacked the brains, ability and means to lay this thing on and carry it out successfully (actually, the post 9-11 events suggest that indeed the Muslims have not had the ability to carry off any subsequent attacks in the US, though they certainly hate the so-called Great Satan sufficiently and would carry off further attacks if they could.  But they have not had the IQ, ability or means for further terrorist attacks to date; although this condition may change in the future.  In the post 9-11 world, it seems that every time low-level incompetent Muslim agents try to do something on their on own in the US, without Mossad oversight and involvement, they get caught.  All of this points to the Mossad as engineering the 9-11 events). 

 

Since the Muslims have a fanatical belief in dying for Allah and going to paradise to enjoy women, drink and food, it probably was a very easy task for cunning Mossad agents to motivate and push the stupid Arabs into the direction of committing suicide.  Even much of the Muslim leadership, though incompetent, has willingly accepted credit for 9-11 for the most part--either because of pride or some other motivation. 

 

With involvement from the CIA (which has almost unlimited amounts of money to funnel wherever desired; and thus, probably financed the whole operation), and the presence of the internal Nesher group in the US government (to hide and cover-up the truth behind the effort), the Mossad and her coconspirators could easily have carried this work off without a hitch. 

 

It is no wonder that no one in the US government power structure has been interested in finding out the truth about the OC bombing or the 9-11 terrorist attacks--beyond blaming the designated patsies. 

 

Since Amalekite Jews and federal agents (especially the FBI) have infiltrated and exploited much of the Christian right wing effort in the US in various ways over the last several decades (in organizing and creating acts of discontent and violence, as established in prior chapters), why not the same with the radical Muslim movements? 

 

 

Mossad Manipulated Muslims 

 

So while these ignorant and fanatical Muslims may actually think that they are pulling off various operations, the truth well could be that Mossad agents have infiltrated their organizations and are working behind the scenes and in a low profile to encourage, promote, plan and pull off the various events being blamed on the Muslims to further the goals of the American and British Amalekite bankers/masters. 

 

In other words, maybe the planners of these operations (who could be intelligent, tough and professional Mossad agents) may only involve a limited number of people while most of the soldiers carrying out the work involve a huge number of set-up Arabs (this was precisely the situation in the South in the 1960s when a few FBI entrappers set up a larger number of gullible Whites/Ku Klux Klanners to carry out the work and take the blame). 

 

In this instance, perhaps the smart Mossad people even let the Arabs think and believe that they are the ones planning and running the operations (and of course, taking credit for the operations).  If true, maybe Osama bin Laden believes that he is the boss running things; when, in fact, maybe some of his aides or close advisors are actually Mossad agents who do the real planning and directing of events. 

 

In WWII, the stupid Japs thought that they were making plans for war; when, in fact, the Amalekite deceiver Franklin Roosevelt was manipulating them from behind the scenes to do what he and the plutocrats wanted.  The same thing has been true with the Ku Klux Klan and various right wing groups in the US which have thought to bomb Black Churches.  These operations were all inspired and laid on by federal entrappers. 

 

The point is that there is a body of evidence out there which would allow that the Mossad has infiltrated and taken over some part of the Muslim fundamentalist movement.  With the evidence on the stock trades and the plans of the Amalekite led PNAC and NCP efforts in progress, it is highly plausible that the Mossad (probably working in cahoots with the CIA and other American agencies) pulled this scam off. 

 

 

The Hegelian Dialectic 

 

Of course, this whole operation on September 11th could be just one more action (possibly a combined CIA and Mossad conspiracy) involving the Hegelian dialectic (as described in previous chapters). 

 

This option also gained some credible support from a December 2001 Berlin, Germany TV documentary which addressed the 1986 terrorist bombing of a Berlin disco which killed two American service men. 

 

Though the incident was blamed on Arab terrorists, this new TV production furnished some evidence demonstrating a linkage between the terrorists and the Mossad and CIA (Dec 17, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 1, 3). 

 

The 1986 incident was blamed on Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.  Accordingly, US President Ronald Reagan responded by attacking Libya.  The US attack killed 30 people, including an infant child of the Libyan leader (and Americans continue to wonder why the Arabs hate us so much). 

 

In 2001, the big boys calling the shots have wanted a further move to US totalitarianism and they succeeded with this September 11th attack (since it occurred, most Americans quickly forgot about any sense of the Constitution and Constitutional rights). 

 

As noted elsewhere herein, the Moslems have had a capability for terrorist attacks for quite some time now.  Yet, something has restrained them (at least, until September 11, 2001, and afterwards to the fall of 2003). 

 

As some observers noted, that something might have been the ruling plutocrats who simply were not quite ready for a major Islamic terrorist attack in the US.  Perhaps when the plutocrats gave Osama and/or his Muslim colleagues the green light, they proceeded with the September 11th attack. 

 

It’s hard to say what all was going on behind the scenes to promote the 9-11 assault.  But something was happening. 

 

 

Prophecy Club Views 

 

In the Jan/Feb 2002 “Prophecy Club” newsletter (p. 2-7), Stan Johnson offered the Prophecy Club view on why the evidence suggested a possible US operation in the September 11, 2001, attacks.  Johnson gave fifteen compelling reasons--viz: 

 

1.  A news report (possibly Fox television) noted that an anonymous letter was sent to a radio station in the Caribbean which said that before the attack took place, two men discussed a plan to crash an airplane into the World Trade Center.  The letter was turned over to the FBI with no follow-up action. 

 

2.  Before the attack, the Israeli Mossad reported to the CIA that a cell of 200 terrorists (with possible ties to Iraq) were planning a major operation on highly visible targets. 

 

3.  The FBI had prior knowledge that two known terrorists entered the US (al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhamzi, who were on flight 77 that hit the Pentagon).  Yet, the FBI took no action. 

 

4.  Thousands of “Puts” (sell options on American Airlines and United Airlines, as noted previously) were traded on the US stock exchanges just before the 9/11 attacks

 

5.  The Oklahoma City bombing took place on the anniversary of the Waco incident, allegedly because of the work of the FBI and ATF in the murder of the Branch Davidians.  Yet, by some strange quirk, all the FBI and ATF agents were mysteriously absent from their offices on the day of the attack.  Question, who was absent on Sep 11th (reportedly, many Amalekite Jews were missing from their work in the World Trade Center on Sep 11th--thus, did they know something in advance about the coming attack--ed)?  Interestingly, the terrorists circled past the Pentagon and came back to crash into a specific part of the Pentagon (which curiously was under renovation and largely vacant of people, ed). 

 

6.  In 1995, the Philippine police found a laptop computer that belonged to a terrorist.  It contained data indicating a plan to hi-jack commercial airliners and crash them into US structures (including the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the White House and the Transamerica Tower in San Francisco). 

 

7.  The FAA had been pre-warned about the dangers of a terrorist attack.  Concerned pilots had went on record on how easy US airliners could be seized.  Reportedly, some of the terrorists had been under FBI surveillance and the FBI intercepted messages from them saying that “There’s a big thing coming; They’re going to pay the price; and We’re ready to go”  (Oct 1, 2001, “Newsweek”).  Yet, no action was taken. 

 

8.  This same “Newsweek” said that US and Russian agents planned a military action against Afghanistan in June 2001 for oil profits.  The Internet “Indiareacts.com” had a report out on Jun 26, 2001, that India and Iran would “facilitate” US and Russian planes for “limited military action” against the Taliban if new economic sanctions failed to bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist Muslim regime (this report would confirm other such reports and suggest that the US and Russia had been collaborating for months on an attack on Afghanistan--ed). 

 

9.  On Nov 2, 2001, the French daily “Le Figaro” said that Osama bin Laden met with the CIA station chief while he was in the US hospital in Dubai in July 2001 for treatment of his chronic kidney infection (by Dr Terry Callaway).  This secret meeting took place, despite the fact that Osama was allegedly a fugitive for the bombings of two US embassies and the USS Cole.  A French Secret Service report on Sep 7th, given to the CIA, claimed that an attack would come on Afghanistan. 

 

10.  In May 2001, the US gave the Afghans $43 million in a grant (to be described below). 

 

11.  BBC on Sep 18, 2001, and the “Guardian” newspaper of Sep 22, 2001, both reported that Taliban officials held a secret meeting in Berlin with three US officials--Tom Simmons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia).  The Taliban were told (or threatened--ed) that the US planned a military assault against them in Oct 2001 if the Taliban did not agree to demands of the US (as will be further discussed in later comments). 

 

12.  In June 2001, German intelligence (the BND) warned both the US and Israel that Mid East terrorists planned on hi-jacking commercial aircraft and using them as weapons to attack important symbols of the American and Israeli cultures. 

 

13.  In the summer of 2001, a Iranian man notified US authorities of a planned attack on the World Trade Center the week of Sep 9th (Sep 14, 2001, German news agency “online.ie”). 

 

14.  A Sep 13, 2001, report from Reuters said that the FBI arrested an Islamic militant in Boston in Aug 2001 who had been taking flying lessons and was in possession of technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight manuals. 

 

15.  In the summer of 2001, Russian intelligence officials told the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been specifically trained for suicide missions.  Yet, the US did nothing. 

 

 

More From Johnson 

 

In some follow-up reports, Johnson cited several other factors which seem most intriguing.  First, he noted that the World Trade Center was designed as heat resistant and able to withstand crashing airplanes. 

 

Yet, something happened to very quickly collapse both towers.  Was it a bomb or bombs?  There is some belief among Europeans that indeed bombs were used inside the buildings to help collapse them (Jul 8, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 3).  Supposedly some explosions were heard inside the twin towers before or during the airplane crashes. 

 

The Jul 15, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) had a follow-up story by Christopher Bollyn on “Foreign Media Shows Object Heading for WTC” which opened still one more possibility.  Reportedly, some video footage was made showing the World Trade Center on 9-11 at the time of the airplane impacts.  In some of the stills, something is seen streaking toward the building. 

 

European news sources have showed this film and raised questions about what the object could be--like perhaps a missile of some sort? 

 

Christopher Bollyn had one more relevant story on “New York Firefighters’ Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11” in the Aug 19, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1).  This report discussed a recent revelation from a 78 minute audio tape made of the words of the firefighters who were in the building and died in the collapse of the South Tower. 

 

Actually, some of the firefighters reached the 78th floor of the South Tower where the first plane struck.  There were two pockets of fire and nothing suggesting panic or any inkling that the steel girders of the building were in any danger (especially since some engineers argue that fire has never caused a steel constructed building to collapse). 

 

To collapse the girders, it would take temperatures of 1,700-2,000 degrees Fahrenheit which were doubtfully present (per the conversation from the firefighters). 

 

 

Still More From Stan Johnson 

 

Stan Johnson next quoted a BBC report of Sep 21, 2001, that noted in the communications from the passengers of American Airlines flight 11 (which crashed in PA) to Boston air traffic control, the names and seat numbers of four of the terrorists were identified. 

 

Yet, when the FBI released the names of the alleged terrorists, none of the four were cited.  In fact, four other people were named.  BBC raised the question that maybe some of the alleged terrorists were not involved at all (but are still alive in some location). 

 

The Prophecy Club report then delved into the money angle and noted that this war on Afghanistan has been in the planning stages for months.  The goal was oil profits, to include plans for a huge oil pipeline to traverse across or adjacent to Afghanistan to reach Southeast Asia. 

 

Next, Johnson cited James Bamford’s book on “Body of Evidence.”  Per Bamford, there had been a secret plan for US intelligence people to commit acts of terrorism against American targets for US political gain (as happened when the Nazis burned the Reichstag building in 1933 and successfully blamed it on the Communists).   

 

Apparently, this practice started under John F. Kennedy when the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized “Operation Northwood” which was designed to blame Cuba for terrorist acts that would foment US public opinion against Cuba.  Allegedly, Kennedy rejected this operation; which, per Johnson, may have contributed to his assassination. 

 

 

The Oil Link 

 

In some final remarks, Johnson quoted the June 4, 1992, “Houston Chronicle” with stories attempting to follow the Bush oil investment trail only to discover that the Bush family has financial ties to Osama bin Laden, of all people.  Per the story, a CIA operative named James R. Bath guided money from Saudi investors to Bush oil firms in hopes of influencing US policy under George H. W. Bush. 

 

As Johnson wrote-- “So here we are.  Poised to unleash our military might in a war for profits which was planned months before the 9/11 terror.  You and I would have never supported a war on the Taliban before the air attacks. 

 

“But someone knew that.  Someone calculated that in order to get you and me to sign off in the name of American pride and loyalty, and perhaps in the name of revenge and blood lust, it would require an extremely catastrophic and horrific event (as a matter of fact, this precise MO was followed in 1941 by the conniving Franklin Roosevelt to get Japan into a war that she could not win, as discussed earlier, ed). 

 

“Someone calculated that to get Pakistan to risk civil war would require some super compelling event which would justify their aid to the U.S. (and huge payoffs to crooked Pakistani officials, as well, ed).  Someone figured out that to get Iran to remain soft on U.S. actions in their backyard would require such an event, as well. 

 

“What I fear, is that someone figured out what such an event might should best be.  They next figured out how to engineer it, to fund it, and to execute it--in a way that made profits.  Did Osama Bin Laden act alone?  Was he the architect?  Follow the money.  Look who benefits.  Look at whose fingerprints are on the war plans.” 

 

Johnson’s perception received much confirmation from a BBC report which said that George W. Bush made his first $million in oil in a company named “Arbusto Energy” (Jan-Feb 2002 “America’s Promise,” p. 6).  Arbusto was partly owned by Salem bin Laden, half-brother of Osama.  Thus, it would seem that GWB has links both to Mid East oil and the Bin Laden family. 

 

 

Cynthia McKinney 

 

While the plutocrats and their Bush team people seem to have successfully pulled off a perfect scam over at least a cover-up of what happened and why for the September 11, 2001, terrorist activity, there are a few people around who have not willingly accepted the politically correct pitch from the White House and the controlled national media. 

 

Of all people, a Black Congresswoman from Georgia named Cynthia McKinney seemed to be the most important public official who came forward to question the official line being spoon fed the American public by the plutocrats and their owned and/or controlled media powers and prostitute politicians.  

 

In April 2002, McKinney came out with a public proclamation that there were some unanswered questions about the September 11th attack and she wanted a full scale congressional investigation into the matter.  

 

The April 29, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 10) had a story by Sanford Griffith on “Representative’s 9-11 Accusations Earn Irate Attacks from Colleagues” to assess McKinney’s position. 

 

The Congresswoman suggested that President George W. Bush and other persons in high places may have had some advance knowledge of the impending September 11th attacks and allowed them to take place for reasons which had not been made public so far.  She noted that there were numerous warnings of the events to come on 9-11.  So, what did the Bush people know and when did they know it? 

 

Although McKinney did not name the Mossad as a player in the intrigue associated with the attacks, Griffith says that she hinted that she was aware of the allegations surrounding the Mossad and other Israeli intelligence people and their possible involvement or pre-knowledge. 

 

Ms McKinney really got into deep water when she charged that “persons close to this administration are posed to make huge profits off of America’s new war.” 

 

She particularly mentioned GWB’s father George H. W. Bush and his association with the earlier cited Carlyle Group (a $16 billion, Washington elite, investment firm, involving the Amalekite David Rubinstein and the Saudi Arabian Bin Laden family [thus, further tying the Bush family to Osama bin Laden].  Carlyle has widespread investments in the defense and energy industries--ed).  

 

 

McKinney’s Own Words 

 

In an article in the same “American Free Press” (p. 11), and in her own words calling for a congressional investigation, the Black Congresswoman said that “I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11.  A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. 

 

“For example, it is known that President Bush’s father, through the Carlyle Group had--at the time of the attack--joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense-industry holdings, the stocks of which have soared since Sept. 11th. 

 

“On the other hand, what is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited for the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of Sept. 11. 

 

“The Carlyle Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close to this administration.  Secretary Rumsfeld maintained in a hearing before Congress that we can afford the new spending, even though the request for more defense spending is the highest increase in 20 years and the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion. 

 

“All the American people are being asked to make sacrifices.  Our young men and women in the military are being asked to risk their lives in our war against terrorism while our president’s first act was to sign an executive order denying them high deployment overtime pay. 

 

“The American people are being asked to make sacrifices by bearing massive budget cuts in the social welfare of our country, in the areas of health care, Social Security, and civil liberties for our enhanced military and security needs arising from the events of Sept. 11.  It is imperative that they know fully why we make these sacrifices. 

 

“If the secretary of defense tells us that his new military objectives must be to occupy foreign capital cities and overthrow regimes, then the American people must know why.  It should be easy for this administration to explain fully to the American people in a thorough and methodical way why we are being asked to make these sacrifices and if, indeed, these sacrifices will make us more secure. 

 

“We deserve to know what went wrong on Sept. 11 and why.  Why then does the administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorist attack upon our nation? 

 

“If the administration cannot articulate these answers to the American people, then Congress must. 

 

“This is not a time for closed-door meetings and this is not a time for secrecy.  American credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions. 

 

“The world is teetering on the brink of conflicts while the administration’s policies are vague, wavering and unclear. 

 

“Major financial conflicts of interest involving the president, the attorney general, the vice-president and others in the administration have been and continue to be exposed. 

 

“This is a time for leadership and judgment that is not compromised in any fashion.  This is a time for transparency and a thorough investigation.” 

 

In her presentation, McKinney took note of a news report indicating that the United States government broke the communications code of Bin Laden before September 11th.  Therefore, it would seem that the US was privy to the inside communications of the Bin Laden people for some time. 

 

This seems to be a precise repeat of what happened in WWII when the Roosevelt people knew almost everything in advance on what the Japs were planning to do.  While Roosevelt and his helpers knew, the US military people out in the field did not know.  Thus, the December 7, 1941, Japanese attack was carried off without the US doing anything to prevent it. 

 

 

More From Sanford Griffith 

 

While McKinney’s remarks and calls for an investigation evoked contempt from the woman’s fellow congressmen and senators and from the US White House, the controlled media generally refused to even give her words the time of day (although the Apr 12, 2002, “Washington Post” called them “partisan”).  Thus, her calls for an investigation fell on largely deaf ears. 

 

Sanford Griffith’s article in the “American Free Press” (p. 10) went on to outline the reaction in Washington.  Political leaders of both parties tried to make fun of her words.  The White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (an apparent Amalekite) said “all I can tell you is the congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society” (in reference to the JFK murder conspiracy, as mentioned earlier).  

 

The Washington leadership of both parties also made reference to the Grassy Knoll in Dallas.  Some people with the Carlyle Group even tried to laugh at her and tie her remarks into the continuing concern from UFO bluffs over the Roswell situation. 

 

In other words, the ruling plutocrats outlined the politically correct and approved position on the Kennedy assassination and the Roswell incident (both of these subjects have been discussed earlier herein).  When the controlled national media parrots these approved positions to the gullible people, the people are simply expected to immediately believe and accept the official positions without question. 

 

Obviously, if any person tries to go against the approved line (of lies), then the ruling authorities and media pundits will attack that person as being a “nut.” 

 

It would seem that the current way of ridiculing and making fun of opponents who think for themselves is to refer to the Grassy Knoll in Dallas or Roswell (both of which locations have created some interest in people that the US government has deceitfully lied to the American people). 

 

 

More on Cynthia 

 

Actually, this was not the first time that Congresswoman McKinney angered and upset the Amalekite plutocrats ruling America.   She had spoken out before.  She said that Democrat Al Gore’s Negro tolerance has never been too high.  She contended that many people “prefer to have black people seen and not heard” (Apr 26, 2002, “The Week,” p. 10). 

 

She also hits Jews on occasion--which really upsets the US apple-cart.  Naturally, the Anti-Defamation League has labeled her an anti-Semite for daring to question US policy toward Israel and the Arab world (American Amalekites went all out in the summer of 2002 to use vast sums of money to defeat Cynthia in the 2002 primary elections.  So she is now out of the Congress).  

 

As McKinney indicated, the George W. Bush administration had steadfastly opposed any idea of an investigation into what happened on September 11, 2001.  Of course, the ruling plutocrats through their owned and/or controlled national media sources had fought the idea from day one.  Probably, Cynthia’s words were destined to die on the vine and nothing would ever be done. 

 

 

Still More From Cynthia 

 

Just a few days after Ms McKinney made her calls for a genuine investigation into the activities of George W. Bush and the Muslim attacks on 9-11 (and the efforts of the plutocrats, politicians and controlled media to ridicule and demean her for daring to raise a question about the spin of what happened on 9-11), a series of FBI, CIA and other reports began surfacing that showed that the Bush Administration did have advance knowledge of what was coming down the pike (as elaborated upon herein). 

 

The unfolding of these revelations made Congresswoman McKinney repeat her earlier call for a legitimate investigation of the Muslim attacks and the reaction or involvement of the George W. Bush administration. 

 

This renewed calling for an independent and impartial investigation was spelled out in the June 10, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) in a report by McKinney on “McKinney Rebukes 9-11 Cover-Up.” 

 

McKinney charged that in her previous call for a Congressional investigation, she was derided as a conspiracy theorist by the White House, right-wing talk radio hosts (i.e., Rush Limbaugh is a known George W. Bush asset who almost never sees anything wrong coming from the Bush administration), and spokespersons for the military-industrial complex. 

 

Even McKinney’s patriotism was questioned because she dared to call for an investigation into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history.  McKinney’s colleague from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller, called her “dangerous, loony and irresponsible.” 

 

Cynthia went on to charge that the Bush Administration had been engaged in a conspiracy of silence.  If some committed people had not pushed for the present disclosures on US intelligence failures, the new revelations would have continued to be hid from the public’s eyes. 

 

This same “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news report that the “Los Angeles Times” had joined with McKinney and the “American Free Press” in demanding an independent outside investigation over 9-11.  While Congress may do some investigating, the reality seems established that the truth will never be told. 

 

 

An After Report 

 

As an after-math of Cynthia’s efforts to have a Congressional investigation into 9-11, Cynthia was defeated in the Democrat primary in Georgia for re-election to Congress (as noted above).  A more loyal Democrat team player (another Black woman) was chosen by the Negroes in the heavy Democrat district. 

 

With growing pressures over the 9-11 incident, President Bush was eventually forced into doing something.  So he appointed a so-called investigative panel to look into the 9-11 attacks.  GWB chose the Amalekite master crook Henry Kissinger to head up the panel.  One thing for sure, there wouldn’t be any unscripted findings with people like Henry in charge (though Henry resigned before he could pay back GWB). 

 

In Henry’s work and the work of his successor and colleagues, it’s possible that the panel involved may find that a few low-level flunkies in the CIA and/or FBI made some mistakes.  But we can be sure that these people will never find anything wrong with the efforts of Bush and his Black national security team, nor would the panel ever touch upon “why” the attacks took place.  So America will never know the truth. 

 

 

Gore Vidal 

 

The highly successful and well known left wing writer Gore Vidal was quoted by Fred Lingel, in a story on “Author Says Bush Knew” in the Nov 11, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 17).  Lingel’s article in the AFP was prompted by a 7,000-word commentary by Vidal on “The Enemy Within” which claimed a “Bush junta” in using the 9-11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and abuse civil liberties at home. 

 

As late as November 2002, Vidal said that “We still don’t know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose.  But it is fairly plain to many civil libertarians that 9-11 put too much (of a strain) on our fragile Bill of Rights and our envied system of government.” 

 

Thus, per Vidal, the real reason for the war on terrorism was to control the gateway to Eurasia and Central Asia’s energy riches.  In order to accomplish these objectives, both Republican and Democrat administrations were aware that the American public would resist any war in Afghanistan without a widely perceived, massive external threat. 

 

Vidal adds that “Osama (bin Laden) was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the frightening logo for our long-contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan... the administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable, lone, crazed killer who does evil just for the fun of it ‘cause he hates us because we’re rich ‘n ‘free ‘n he’s not.” 

 

In going on, the popular author noted that the actions of Bush on the day of the attack were, in themselves, suspicious.  Bush was in a school classroom in Florida and remained there (and even after being told of the first airplane hit on the World Trade Center) until after the second plane hit the twin towers in New York. 

 

Of course, it is very possible that Vidal is on the right track in his analysis.  Subsequent chapters herein will address the oil question and the after-effects of 9-11 from the standpoint of the numerous new tyrannical laws that were put on the books because of 9-11 and the supposed threat of terrorism. 

 

 

Jon Basil Utley 

 

The above quoted June 10, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had another interesting news report.  This one was on the feelings of Jon Basil Utley, a fellow at the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute and a former correspondent for Knight/Ridder news service.  Utley asks one short question-- “Cui Bono,” or who benefited from 9-11? 

 

In offering an answer, Utley zeroed in on three possibilities--the neoconservative warhawks, the military-industrial complex and the Israeli lobby. 

 

 

Robert Baer 

 

In the Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 1), Dr Stan Monteith quoted author Robert Baer, as follows:  “The other day a reporter friend told me that one of the highest ranking CIA officials had said to him, off the record, that when the dust finally clears, Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure.” 

 

It is strange that Baer would quote a CIA official with those words--unless the CIA official knew some things about the Sep 11, 2001, terrorist attacks which were not commonly known by the public? 

 

If the attacks were actually a success and not a failure, is it possible that they were planned and schemed in advance to accomplish some hidden agenda of America’s rulers? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 474--War on Terrorism IV

 

 

Some History 

 

To further appreciate why the Muslims may have accomplished the attack on September 11th, it is imperative to review some history. 

 

Significantly, the US has steadfastly supported the state of Israel since 1948 and during the continuous Muslim-Jewish conflict in the Middle East.  The merits of this support have been argued from time to time by different factions. 

 

But the Amalekite controlled media has successfully spun it as a necessary thing--right or wrong!  Frankly, this writer supports much of that support (for my part, it would have been well to send US troops to Jerusalem to insure the safety of religious Jews and particularly to help them if it would bring on the new Third Temple). 

 

This US-Israeli linkage has made virtually the entire Muslim world hate Americans (as noted previously with the US attack on Libya).  The US has become “the Great Satan” in Moslem eyes.  As discussed in a preceding chapter, a March 2002 Gallup Poll found that most Muslims don’t like America (contrary to what the controlled media tells the gullible American voters). 

 

 

Prominent Americans 

 

Former Congressman Pete McClosky of California has charged that Israel no longer deserves its special relationship with the United States, and that Israel is making a deliberate effort to make her enemies the enemies of America (Jun 3, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 11). 

 

Former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan blames the 9-11 attacks on “compulsive intervention” by the United States.  He adds that “We finally got bit...we must stop stepping on rattlesnakes” (ibid, p. 11). 

 

 

Bin Laden’s View 

 

The Dec 16 & 23, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 22) had a story on the “U.S. Media Suppression of News is Criminal” which broached an alleged Nov 2002 letter from Bin Laden (as reported in Arabic on the Internet) on why he and his colleagues are fighting and opposing the US and what are they calling on America to do (or what do they want from America). 

 

Osama’s answer to the first question was simple-- Because America attacked them first and continues to attack them. 

 

The second question was more complex.  But Bin Laden offered several reasons--like:  America must stop its oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery.  America must be a people of manners, principles, honor and purity.  America must reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest. 

 

America should not permit usury (interest), as a result of which “the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense.” 

 

America is a nation that “permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants.”  America is a nation that “permits acts of immorality.”  Noteworthy is the behavior of President Clinton whom “you did not bring to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake,’ after which everything passed with no punishment.” 

 

America is a nation that permits “gambling in all its forms.”  Companies practice this in making investments, enabling “criminals to become rich.”  America trades in sex and exploits women “like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them,” and then allegedly supports the “liberation of women.” 

 

America has used its “forces to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits.  You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war.” 

 

And America has a “duality in both manners and values” and “hypocrisy in manners and in principles.  All manners, principles and values have two scales; one for you and one for the others.” 

 

Bin Laden also states that the US, while claiming to be the vanguard of human rights, has taken thousands of Muslims and Arabs into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosure of their names (this practice will be more fully discussed in a later chapter). 

 

 

The Real World 

 

Since most of the political states in the Muslim Middle East are under dictatorships, some of the dictators have pretended to be US friends in the interest of collecting money from America. 

 

On behalf of the ruling plutocrats, US politicians have gladly shelled out huge sums of the American taxpayer’s money to these dictators.  Many of the governments there have been on the US payroll for years (like Egypt and Jordan, and even the Palestine Liberation Authority, under Yasser Arafat). 

 

As is true with US paid dictators around the world, the dictators get to steal much of the money and sock it away in Swiss banks.  After all, most of these dictators fully understand that their future power positions are limited, and one day they will have to flee for their lives.  When fleeing, it will be good to have a secret Swiss bank account stashed away. 

 

The realities of this simple truth goes on to explain why and how so many of the Middle Eastern countries linked in as allies with the US in the Gulf War as promoted by George H. W. Bush in the 1990s.  As noted in an earlier chapter, each one of these allies has been or will be handsomely paid off in vast US, European or IMF moneys to get them to at least publicly give support to the plutocratic objectives. 

 

Although many of these dictators pretend to be friends and allies of Washington, the truth is that they and their peoples all collectively hate the US.  For sure, if a true democracy was installed in any of these nations, the dictators would be immediately kicked out and the new rulers would break all ties to the US. 

 

 

The Plutocrats 

 

Besides the Israeli support, there is another pressing issue which also has contributed to this Muslim hate of the US.  As cited above, and in previous chapters, US plutocrats have successfully used US politicians, dollars, military, assassinations, student unrest (as fomented by the CIA), etc to impose their wills around the world in order to make more profit and gain. 

 

The ruling plutocrats have been extremely busy in the oil rich Middle East.  For a long time now, the plutocrats and US government officials have worked closely with the Saudi Arabian royal family (which just happens to be Edomites, instead of Arabs, as previously discussed) and tin horn dictators (like the Emir of Kuwait) to get their share of this oil money. 

 

 

A Very Specific Example 

 

Some years ago, the US government and ruling plutocrats tied in with the Shah of Iran to exploit Iranian oil and minerals.  Things went well for some time and particularly with the Shah’s use of his secret police (the Slavak, as briefly mentioned earlier) to brutally torture, murder and suppress the people. 

 

While it is unclear how much of a role the CIA played in establishing the Shah’s secret police powers, one can be sure that the agency was ever in the background assisting, helping and advising the Shah and his colleagues on how to brutally rule the people.  Thus, in time, the people came to hate the Americans and their ties to their hated dictator. 

 

The opportunity for action came in 1979 when the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Muslim fundamentalist allies seized power.  One of the first steps of the militants was the seizure of American hostages which were held for some time before finally being freed during Ronald Reagan’s administration (in Jan 1981). 

 

The 1980s then saw a war of sorts develop between Iran and Iraq.  The US quickly rushed in to supply aid and assistance to Iraq since its leader, Saddam Hussein, had apparently been marching to the tune of the US plutocrats (also, as discussed earlier).  This war ended in a stalemate. 

 

 

Another Example 

 

Then, in the early 1990s, Saddam turned his attention to the plutocrat’s ally--the Emir of Kuwait (allegedly because Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil from Iraq, as cited in a prior chapter).  Reportedly, Saddam thoughtfully checked in with his US advisors to see if it would be all right for him to proceed with an invasion and conquest of Kuwait (as briefly commented upon in a preceding chapter). 

 

The story is that the US Ambassador (April Glaspie) gave him the green light (as mentioned in the former chapter).  So he proceeded.  To his surprise, the plutocrats designated him enemy number one for trying to steal the Kuwaiti oil wells. 

 

 

General Butler, Revisited 

 

This double crossing and changing of allies (as illustrated in the Middle East) was mentioned by the previously cited General Smedley Butler, in his book “War is a Racket” (p. 7-8). 

 

Butler noted that when the Russian-Japanese war erupted in 1904, the US kicked out her Russian allies and sided with Japan.  Why?  Because US international bankers were financing Japan and America had to side with the banker’s friends (yet, within 35 years, the US changed allies once more--by defining Japan as an enemy). 

 

In terms of WWI, Butler (ibid, p. 46-48) gave this assessment:  “Woodrow Wilson was reelected president in 1916 on a platform that he had ‘kept us out of war’ and on the implied promise that he would ‘keep us out of war.’  Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.” 

 

On this change of strategy, the question must be asked as to why?  The general then answered the why with one word-- “money.”  For the background on this reality, Butler outlined the results of an allied commission which called on the President just before he made his war declaration.  This group told Wilson: 

 

“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer.  The cause of the allies is lost.  We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars. 

 

“If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won’t.”  Obviously, Wilson responded the right way.  He called for war. 

 

Incidentally, most people in the know realize and understand that the average American only has a memory span of three months. 

 

When Woodrow Wilson called for war some five months after he had won the previous election as the peace candidate, he fully understood that the American people had already forgotten his pledges in the campaign.  He was free to go ahead with the plutocratic calls for war. 

 

George H. W. Bush’s Gulf War has been discussed above and in a previous chapter (where some of the same intrigue took place).  There is no need to rehash that presentation.  Suffice to say, Muslim hatred toward America has steadily gone up over the years since the Gulf War. 

 

 

The Focus on Afghanistan  

 

Also, as commented upon in previous remarks, the US turned her attention to the situation in Afghanistan (per orders/direction of the US plutocratic rulers).  There, the Soviets were allied with the ruling government.  But again, there was a Muslim fundamentalist motion underway to bring down the government.  The US rushed in on the side on the dissidents--the Mujahedin (who the Soviets called terrorists). 

 

The story is told that the CIA tried to get a Saudi prince to come to Afghanistan and provide some leadership to the rebel army.  The Saudi royal family members were not interested, but they suggested Osama bin Laden.  Evidently, Osama agreed, became a paid asset of the CIA, moved to Afghanistan, and eventually became linked to the Taliban in the Mujahedin rebel group. 

 

Besides being linked in with the CIA, the Jan 7-14, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 17) had a story that Osama was also closely connected to the FBI.  As early as the spring of 1986, Bin Laden and an associate came to the US and had a meeting with CIA people and a former top FBI official on the role of the US in Afghanistan.  Osama was reportedly traveling under the alias “Tim Osman.” 

 

This meeting took place at the Hilton Hotel on Ventura Blvd in Sherman Oaks, California.

 

People present included former FBI official Ted Gunderson, a scientist named Michael Riconosciuto, businessman Ralph Olberg (who worked the State Department’s Afghan desk), newsman Orlin Grabbe, two representatives of the Afghan rebels, Tim Osman and possibly others (Feb 11, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 13). 

 

Apparently, after returning to Afghanistan, the US (on behalf of her ruling plutocrats) began supplying money, aid, arms and assistance to the Mujahedin and other rebel groups (including the Taliban) fighting the established government and the Soviets.  CIA agent Osama was on the US payroll for years.  His family, back in Saudi Arabia, continued to get huge US construction contracts and pay offs. 

 

In his Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 3), Dr Stan Monteith tells how the US tied in with the Saudis and Pakistanis to fund and promote the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Stan quoted author John Cooley, who wrote:  “...two Islamic powers, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, allied with the ‘world’s only remaining superpower,’ the United States, had by 1994 hatched a monster of Islamist extremism, the Taliban movement.” 

 

 

More 

 

As late as May 2001, US Secretary of State Colin Powell met with the Taliban and doled out a US grant of $43 million (per the May 22, 2001, “Los Angeles Times”) to ostensibly help Afghanistan farmers (who mainly grow opium for export to the West--meaning that the grant was probably made on behalf of the Amalekite Mafia to keep the drug flow coming, ed). 

 

As a matter of information, one of the fall-outs of the US war against so-called terrorism in Afghanistan was that the drug flow was back on line in the fall of 2002. 

 

As cited earlier, a news item in the Nov 8, 2002, “The Week” (p. 16) said that Afghanistan was once again the world’s largest opium producer--production would reach 3,400 tons in 2002, up from the 185 tons produced under the Taliban regime (evidently, the 185 tons was the maximum or total produced before the Taliban successfully eliminated the production). 

 

A later news report in the Mar 28, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A4) put the actual 2002 opium production in Afghanistan at 3,750 tons and noted that it was totally wiped out under the Taliban.  Obviously, opium production has exploded up under the US control over the nation in 2002.  Now, it becomes more clear on why this war had to be fought and why the Taliban had to be removed from power. 

 

In another side issue here, the earlier quoted Jan/Feb 2002 “Prophecy Club” newsletter (p. 6) had a report from the Center for Public Integrity that drug money was used in the successes of Halliburton during the five years that Dick Cheney was in charge there.  The Brown & Root subsidiary (cited earlier) of Halliburton and Dick Cheney, himself, connect to the international drug trade on more than one occasion. 

 

In any case, the US financed and supported rebels in Afghanistan succeeded in running the Soviets out.  After a brief power play under the Mujahedin, the Taliban rebels eventually took over and Osama was given a place of refuge by the Taliban.  This was very logical and made sense because both he and they were Muslim fundamentalists.  They enjoyed much common ground on the religious question. 

 

 

The Balkans, Revisited 

 

It was just after the rise to power of the Taliban and her ally Osama bin Laden that the US called upon this same crowd to help her in the Clinton declared war on Milosevic and the Yugoslavians (as noted in the prior chapters). 

 

Of course, CIA agent Osama and his Muslim fundamentalists were anxious to join in with the Albanian Edomites and their US allies in their efforts to keep the drug trade intact.  Hence, more US money went to Osama and the Taliban. 

 

Too, there was another profoundly important factor at work in the Balkans which has proved to be most fantastic. 

 

Along with the drug flow in Kosovo, another development surfaced in May 2002 when three former Muslim security officials in Bosnia (a part of old Yugoslavia) were arrested for working with Iranians on setting up terrorist training camps in Bosnia in 1995 (May 24, 2002, “The Week,” p. 6).  The three men were top officials of the Party of Democratic Action. 

 

If the Muslims in Bosnia were involved in training local Muslims in terrorist activities (in the sense that Bosnia was a terrorist training area, much like the one allegedly in Afghanistan), is it not highly certain that the same type of terrorist training was going on in Kosovo?  Of course, Osama bin Laden would have been anxious to keep this effort going.  So he had another reason to support the Muslims there. 

 

The peculiar fall out of this training is that it would appear that the United States (under Slick Clinton) joined in with Osama bin Laden in not only keeping the drug flow flowing, but in keeping terrorist training camps in operation in the Balkans.  Certainly, this happened in Bosnia and probably nearby Kosovo as well. 

 

Yet, in 2001-2002, George W. Bush came along and declared a war of sorts against the Muslims in Afghanistan for allegedly allowing terrorist training camps to exist in her territory.  Was this being hypocritical or not? 

 

 

A Lover’s Quarrel? 

 

However, sometime after the Taliban take-over and Clinton’s war in the Balkans, Osama and his CIA handlers possibly got mad at each other and had a falling out.  Or at least, this is the impression that has been conveyed in the past few years with America’s war of words about him and his evils (as well as the US missile attacks by Clinton against Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, to supposedly take Osama out). 

 

 

Smoke and Mirrors? 

 

There was still another event in 1998 which provided some more powerful evidence that Osama and the plutocratic money power in America (possibly through its agents in the CIA or the White House) had a falling out. 

 

A May 2002 money appeal letter from B’nai B’rith, signed by International Director Daniel S. Mariaschin (p. 1), quoted Bin Laden as saying in 1998 that “We--with God’s help--call upon every (one) who believes in God and wants to be rewarded...to comply with God’s order to kill Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.”  

 

Of course, this reported quote could be merely some window dressing or smoke and mirrors that was engineered by the CIA to make people believe that Osama was truly an enemy of the US (when, in fact, maybe he was still on the US payroll).  Thus, this quote may not be the indictment that the public was led to believe. 

 

To this day, the reason for this supposed US and Osama fall-out (if it actually occurred) has never been made public.  Though this writer is uncertain as to what happened between the two bed partners, something supposedly happened and they allegedly became enemies (just as Manuel Noriega and the US broke their long friendship after a fall-out/lover’s quarrel). 

 

Possibly, Osama wanted more money and payoffs from America or perhaps he rebelled in some way and refused to take US plutocrat orders or perform some ordered function. 

 

 

More on Osama 

 

In any case, the two allies possibly became enemies in the late 1990s and Osama was soon designated a terrorist and accused of various terrorist attacks.  However, a question must be asked here--did the former two bed partners become real enemies?  Or is it possible that Osama is still on the CIA payroll and still works for and serves the ruling US plutocrats? 

 

The Sep 16, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 14) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on some reports from France (fueled by a writer named Thierry Meyssan) which indicated the possibility that a military faction in the US government used remote control to guide two aircraft into the twin towers and that a US cruise missile smashed into the Pentagon (the remote control view was shared by the previously quoted Hutton Gibson, parent of the famous screen star Mel Gibson, in Hutton’s perception that anybody can put up a passenger list [of Arabs, to supposedly prove their involvement]--May-Jun 2003 “America’s Promise Newsletter,” p. 7). 

 

This Bollyn story noted that the US government had in its possession some pictures from a Pentagon TV camera which seemed to show evidence of a missile streaking toward the Pentagon on 9-11.  This film was given a high security classification and was hidden from the public.  Apparently, in the summer of 2002, CNN obtained a copy of this film and actually showed it. 

 

If this 9-11 operation was a set-up (for whatever reason--like maybe to provide an incident to allow the US to attack and demolish the Taliban in Afghanistan, as was being planned), then the case can easily be made that Osama is indeed still on the US payroll.  It is always fascinating that Osama and most of his chief aides were never killed or captured in the US war against Afghanistan, to be discussed below. 

 

Thus, one can build the case that the two colleagues (the US and Osama) never had a falling out at all.  In fact, Osama might still be on the US payroll, as just allowed.  Thus, it is very conceivable that the US used Osama as a lackey, stooge or inside entrapper to set the Taliban Muslim fundamentalists up for liquidation (since they are/were clearly opponents of the plutocrats and the coming New World Order). 

 

 

US Spies in Al Qaeda? 

 

Besides the possibility that Osama has been on the CIA payroll all along, another most fascinating news items surfaced in the Jun 3, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2).  Per the report, the CIA had an Afghan person in the al Qaeda camp on its payroll for two years.  This Afghan spy was paid nearly $50,000 for his services (per the “Los Angeles Times”). 

 

A later follow-up news report in the May 26, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 2), quoting “USA Today,” noted that US intelligence had “agents,” in the plural, inside al Qaeda and reportedly heard something about a coming terror operation against the US. 

 

Regardless of how many CIA spies were on the US payroll inside the al Qaeda network (both in or out of Afghanistan), the official US position is that the Muslim terrorist attack plot for September 11, 2001, in Washington and New York, was not discovered in advance.  Apparently, the spies accomplished nothing of value (and if so, why were they on the payroll?). 

 

In support of the possible CIA involvement, the Dec 24, 2001, “American Free Press” paper (p. 2) had a news report quoting Wayne Madsen, Washington correspondent for “Elsevier Science.” 

 

Apparently, some evidence has even surfaced suggesting that American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh might even conceivably have been a CIA agent, informer or colleague in some manner at some point in time.  If Lindh was not on the US payroll, there is always the possibility that the CIA did try to recruit him for undercover work among the Muslims. 

 

While it appears that the US did proceed with prosecuting Walker for his involvement (and the judge gave him a twenty years sentence), one must be careful about concluding what the true status of Lindh might have been in reality. 

 

Besides Lindh, the Jun 10, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 17) had a story by David E. Kaplan on “Made in the U.S.A.” which suggested that “hundreds” of Americans have fled to Middle Eastern countries to join the Muslims in fighting their jihad against the West.  Hundreds of young Americans means something greater than 199 of them. 

 

As a minimum, it clearly demonstrates that something is fundamentally wrong in America to cause this flight of young Americans to abandon their country and roots and go to a foreign land to fight against Americans and/or American ideals.  Of course, many of the these people could be secret CIA agents.  So it might not be as shocking as it first sounds. 

 

 

Objectives Met? 

 

It might well be significant that the plutocratic objectives were met on 9-11.  After all, one must be curious that the entire Taliban operation was bombed into oblivion in Afghanistan. 

 

Yet, Osama bin Laden and his alleged terrorist network (al Qaeda) were largely undamaged and continue to function.  The May 10, 2002, “The Week” (p. 7) had a news report that both Osama and his top lieutenant and deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been seen recently in Pakistan and still are uncaptured.  Reportedly, Laden looks healthy and is sporting a shorter beard. 

 

Even the former Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, was never captured--at least, not by the late spring of 2002 (May 27, 2002, “Time,” p. 34)--nor by even the late fall of 2003, as subsequent history unfolded. 

 

The Nov 25, 2002, “Time” magazine had a picture of Bin Laden on its cover with the words-- “Why Can’t We Catch Him.”  An inside story on “Why Can’t We Find Bin Laden?” outlined the dilemma the US has faced in trying to “supposedly” find Bin Laden (ibid, p. 29-35).  Although not mentioned by “Time,” maybe the US doesn’t want to find him--if he is still on the US payroll as before times. 

 

The June 17, 2002, “Time” (p. 28) had an al Qaeda update which reported on the status of the al Qaeda leadership.  The report named Osama, his top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and some of the other supposed top people--like Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Saif Al-Adil, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

 

Mohammed Atef was allegedly killed in the US bombing in Afghanistan (although this remains unproven).  The Pakistanis captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (who was an ethnic Pakistani, but a Kuwait by birth) in March 2003. 

 

The Mar 17, 2003, “Time” (p. 52) noted that besides Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri many of the other al Qaeda leaders were also still at large--like Saif al-Adel, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Riduan Isamuddin, Sheikh Said, Twafiq bin Atash, and Abu Mohammed al-Masri. 

 

Aside from the work of the Pakistanis in Pakistan and some allegations, there have been no US successes in her war against terrorism/al Qaeda anyplace and certainly not in Afghanistan (this might be expected since none of the alleged terrorists came from Afghanistan--they all came from Saudi Arabia or Egypt). 

 

But otherwise, all of the rest of the al Qaeda leadership is still “at large” (whomever they are, since their identities may not be known).  The March 10, 2003, “Time” magazine (p. 24) suggested that both Osama and his top deputy Ayman are assumed to be still alive. 

 

In other words, the massive expenditure of US money and the killing of numbers of innocent people in Afghanistan has accomplished virtually nothing in terms of dealing with the so-called al Qaeda terrorist organization.  Al Qaeda has been largely unaffected by the war. 

 

So no one suffered, but some of the little people, as is generally the case in most wars.  Some very poor, poverty ridden people on the streets of Afghanistan (essentially old men, women and children) were bombed into oblivion.  Yet, the alleged leaders or masterminds behind the September 11th attack completely got off the hook. 

 

 

Dr Stan Monteith 

 

In his video on “9-11 Contrived,” Dr Stan Monteith made the point that some of the local Afghanistanian people said that after the US invasion was launched, some black helicopters flew into the Afghanistan mountains one night and picked up the Al Qaeda leaders and whisked them out of the country. 

 

US authorities acknowledged the black helicopters but claimed that the flights were dropping off US military people and not picking up Muslim terrorists. 

 

While there remains some question marks about these strange US helicopter flights into Afghanistan, it is absolutely fascinating that local Afghanistanians (who probably know more about the local reality than the controlled US media) believed that the flights were made to rescue the al Qaeda leadership and move it to safety.  If Osama was on the US payroll, it makes sense that America would act to protect him. 

 

In a Nov 2002 letter (p. 2) to his readers, James Lloyd, editor of the “Christian Media,” wrote:  “The Al Qaeda Islamic militia worked for the CIA in the 1980s--and they still do.”  Of course, there are multitudes of reasons to believe that Lloyd is correct.  Maybe Osama and his al Qaeda people are all still on the US payroll. 

 

 

Al Qaeda is Still in Business 

 

In a follow-up action, the Oct 19, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A2) had a story from Washington on “CIA issues more warnings at hearing” which told about comments made by CIA Director George Tenet at a congressional hearing. 

 

Tenet effectively implied that al Qaeda is still basically intact in that the entity is poised to attack the United States again--either internally or overseas.  Particular vulnerabilities were pointed out--to include key transportation arteries, ports, bridges, and tunnels and border crossings between the US and Canada. 

 

The Nov 15, 2002, “The Week” (p. 6) had an in-depth report on “Al Qaeda:  Has the war on terror just begun?” which quoted various sources to predict that al Qaeda is not finished with the US.  Today, in November 2002, al Qaeda is reportedly a far-flung collection of tiny groups.  US intelligence officials expect them to “come at us” in small numbers to focus on soft targets (like the disco in Bali in Oct 2002). 

 

The Nov 18, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 56-59) had a story by Tim McGirk and Michael Ware on “Losing Ground” which said that “The U.S. concedes it has lost momentum in Afghanistan.”  This story also asked-- “Is Afghanistan slipping out of America’s control?” 

 

Actually, other than the central area around Kabul (under the US military), Afghanistan is still largely controlled by war lords.  So the US dictatorship does not run things in much of Afghanistan.   

 

Thus, the evidence seems to be building that the US has entirely lost the so-called war in Afghanistan (although a lot of innocent women and children were bombed into oblivion and the plutocrats’ chosen man is allegedly in power in Afghanistan, at least for awhile)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 475--War on Terrorism V

 

 

Larry Chin 

 

An analyst named Larry Chin had an article on “Did the Bush Administration Have Advance Knowledge of 9-11 and Allow it to Happen?” in the Sep 9, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 10-11) which focused upon the results (failures) of the Bush war on Afghanistan, one year later. 

 

Chin said:  “Despite the success of restarting the UNOCAL pipeline, Afghanistan remains a hotbed of warlordism and anti-U.S. hostility that U.S.-installed Hamid Karzai is having difficulty controlling.  Osama bin Laden has not been found.  Al Qaeda has not been dismantled. 

 

“Recent talks between the United States, Russia, Iran and former Soviet republics to forge a multilateral agreement regarding oil and gas in the Caspian Sea region have collapsed, leaving the western oil companies in a precarious position. 

 

“Islamic outrage over U.S. atrocities is worsening.  The threat of oil embargo by OPEC nations and boycotts of U.S. goods are real.  Bush has failed to maintain multinational ‘coalitions’ --the key to continued U.S. military and neoliberal economic primacy. 

 

“It’s been a year since Sept. 11--the defining moment of recent history--and neither the Bush administration, nor its surrogates and allies, have produced evidence supporting the official explanation of what happened on that day. 

 

“The so-called ‘evidence’ has amounted to the weakest conspiracy theory and, in the case of the ‘notorious bin Laden video’ that is trotted out at the first sign of controversy, televised conspiracy fantasy.

 

“Meanwhile, in the past year, independent researchers, journalists and scholars have done what neither Congress nor the White House have done:  Investigate.  Their substantial body of evidence is being strengthened and enhanced by new evidence coming to light in the mushrooming scandal. 

 

“Given the voluminous evidence (from reliable open sources) now amassed against the Bush administration, this much is clear:  Bush cannot claim that he did not know.”  

 

 

More Possibilities 

 

Consequently, the whole mess in New York, Washington and now Afghanistan and Iraq could well be the result of plutocratic planning and engineering (possibly involving the CIA, Mossad and/or other intelligence operatives--along with the Muslims and whomever). 

 

As pointed out in previous remarks, the Bush administration (obviously based upon directions from the ruling plutocrats) had a war plan on George’s desk which included an alliance with the Northern Alliance (the Russian allies) and a war in Afghanistan--exactly as things worked out following September 11, 2001. 

 

The Nov 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 2-3) quoted author Jean-Charles Brisard who noted that the Pakistani Foreign Minister Naiz Naik met with US officials in early July 2001 in Berlin with representatives of the Taliban (as briefly noted in former comments).  Brisard adds: 

 

“...the American delegation mentioned using a ‘military’ option’ against the Taliban if they did not agree to change their position, especially concerning Osama bin Laden.  Naik recounted that a U.S. official had threatened ‘Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs...’  Lee Coldren, a member of the U.S. delegation, confirmed the broad outline of the American position at the Berlin gathering:  ‘I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.’” 

 

 

The Taliban Problem 

 

First of all, it must be pointed out that of the alleged 19 or 20 hi-jackers, as identified and discussed by the US, none of them were from Afghanistan or the Taliban.  As noted earlier, they were all Arabs from Saudi Arabia or Egypt. 

 

Beyond the above, it is utterly fascinating that the Taliban twice went out of its way to immediately accommodate the US without war in the fall of 2001, following the 9-11 incident.  At once, the Taliban government agreed to accede to the US if Bush would simply show some of its proof that Osama was indeed guilty of the 9-11 attacks. 

 

Specifically, the Taliban leaders offered to arrest Osama and turn him over to America if the US would just show them some evidence that Osama was involved.  Bush refused to show them any evidence. 

 

GWB demanded that Osama be turned over because he demanded it (interestingly, even when one state tries to extradite an accused person from another state, the request has to be made with some evidence of the wrongdoing of the accused and not simply a request or an allegation.  Most civilized states would not honor an extradition request without some evidence of wrongdoing in support of it). 

 

Next, in order to avert the US plans and steps toward war, the Taliban offered to expel Osama and turn him over to a neutral, third country for trial.  Again, the US said “no.” 

 

Thus, in both cases, the US refused the Taliban offers.  Bush said that he had the evidence but that he would not show it to anyone (although he did allow Britain to see some of it--allegedly) and he was in no mood for Osama to be turned over to any other party. 

 

 

Andreas von Bulow 

 

The Jan 28, 2002, “American Free Press” paper (p. 1, 3) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on “Former Top German Spy Says U.S. Wrong About September 11.”  The essence of Bollyn’s work was a focus upon the current thinking of Andreas von Bulow, the former head of the parliamentary commission that oversaw the German secret services. 

 

Von Bulow was interviewed in December 2001 about the September 11, 2001, attacks by the “American Free Press.” 

 

He said:  “The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement--to hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers.  This is unthinkable without years of support from state intelligence services.” 

 

Accordingly, the question came up on whether Von Bulow was a conspiracy theorist.  The German said:  “Yeah, yeah.  That’s the ridicule from those who prefer to follow the official, politically correct line.  Even investigative journalists are fed propaganda and disinformation.  Anyone who doubts the official line is called crazy.” 

 

Von Bulow added that since Sep 11th, “public opinion is being forced into a direction that I consider wrong.  I wonder why so many questions have not been asked.  Normally, with such a terrible event, various leads and trails appear and are discussed by the investigators, the media and the government.  Is there something here or not?  Are the explanations plausible?  In this case, that is not happening at all.” 

 

He noted that “Before a government goes to war, it must first establish who the enemy is.  It has a duty to provide evidence.  According to its own admission, it has not been able to present any evidence that would hold up in court.” 

 

 

More from Von Bulow 

 

In terms of the Bin Laden videos, Von Bulow said that “When one is dealing with intelligence services, one can imagine manipulations of the highest quality.  Hollywood could provide these techniques.  I consider the videos inappropriate as evidence.” 

 

He then noted that “There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30 billion, which were not able to prevent the attacks.  Officially, there is nothing.  They say that they didn’t have any idea that this would happen.”  With four hijacked airplanes in the air, authorities, per the German, “kept the fighter planes on the ground.” 

 

Going on, he added that “48 hours later (after the attack), the FBI presented a list of suicide attackers.  Within ten days, it emerged that seven of them were still alive.  Why has the director of the FBI not taken a position regarding these contradictions.  Where did the list come from, why was it false?” 

 

He than asked “What about the obscure stock transactions?  In the week prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stock in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200 percent.  It was for a value of $15 billion.  Some people must have known something.  Who?” 

 

Von Bulow noted the strategic minerals and pipeline routes that are now at the disposal of the US and Britain.  He added that the facts of Sep 11th “fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex.” 

 

He then focused upon the alleged leader of the incident, Mohammed Atta, who reportedly left Portland, Oregon on the morning of the attack and arrived in Boston just a short time before boarding the plane to hijack.  Had Atta’s Portland connection been a few minutes late, the leader of the attack would have been completely left out of the operation.  Von Bulow asked why a sophisticated terrorist would do this. 

 

In a comparison with the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the German noted that that incident involved a former Egyptian officer who had pulled together some terrorists for the attack.  They were sneaked into the US by the CIA, despite a State Department ban on their entry.  At the same time, the leader of the band was an FBI informant. 

 

Supposedly, at the last minute, the bomb materials to be used were to be replaced with a harmless powder.  Instead, the FBI did not stick to the deal.  The bomb exploded with the knowledge of the FBI.  On the September 11th attack, Von Bulow concluded that the Mossad was behind it. 

 

 

Faking Photos or Videos 

 

In support of the feasibility of faking photographs and videos, as mentioned above by Andreas von Bulow, the Dec 2, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 20) had a news item from the “Washington Post” which said that technology now exists to fake anyone’s voice as may be desired (along with faking pictures if necessary)--thus, paying the way to completely fake a video or film of a person speaking. 

 

The impact of this option is that the CIA could easily fake a video of an alleged Osama bin Laden and distribute it to the controlled media which would gladly show it all over the world. 

 

 

The Passports 

 

Though not mentioned by Von Bulow, there was another curious little fallout over this alleged terrorist attack.  In at least two of the attacks, a passport of one each of the alleged hijackers mysteriously floated to the ground or survived the plane crash (one in New York and one in Pennsylvania)--despite the obliteration of the airplanes which was so gross that even the planes’ black boxes were not recovered. 

 

Per Dr Stan Monteith (in his video on “9/11 Contrived”), one of the hijackers’ passports fell out of the sky to the ground near the plane going down in Pennsylvania; and another passport survived the World Trade Center crash.  This is absolutely astounding (either that or the gullible American public is awful stupid) that the FBI could just find these passports on the ground after all of the destruction. 

 

Possibly, these mysterious surviving passports are part of the reason that American investigators had a complete list of all of the alleged hijackers within 48 hours after the attacks--although they knew about none of them just before the attacks took place. 

 

 

Kristen Breitweiser 

 

Per the Nov 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 2), Kristen Breitweiser testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Sep 18, 2002.  She said: 

 

“On September 12, 2001, The New York Times reported, ‘on Tuesday a few hours after the attacks, FBI agents descended on flight schools, neighborhoods, and restaurants in pursuit of leads.  The FBI arrived at Huffman Aviation at about 2:30 a.m., Wednesday morning.  They walked out with all the school’s records, including photocopies of the men’s passports.’  The New York Times also reported that students at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University said that within hours of the attacks FBI investigators were seen at their school. 

 

“How did the FBI know exactly where to go only a ‘few hours’ after the attacks?  How did they know which neighborhoods, which flight schools, and which restaurants to investigate so soon into the case?”  Manifestly, there are some mysterious hidden facts about these attacks, as allowed by the above comments from Andreas von Bulow. 

 

 

Some Benefits of 9-11 

 

Succeeding chapters will broach the after effects of the War on Terrorism from the standpoint of the surfacing of far more draconian, security measures in the United States which further impede upon the US Constitution from the standpoint of the Bill of Rights.  Police state powers have went up dramatically since 9-11. 

 

The Prologue of this study noted the installation of George W. Bush as US president and wondered about how and why the plutocrats allowed him into power.  This so-called War on Terrorism and the installation of vast new restrictions on the freedoms of the American people could have been in the planning stages with the very election of GWB.

 

In the early 1970s, as briefly cited earlier, the plutocrats wanted to open up China (so that they could make some profits from US-Chinese trade and simultaneously open the door for China to become a part of the New World Order). 

 

The alleged conservative and anti-Communist Richard Nixon was the very person chosen to go to China for these goals.  If any left wing Democrat would have made this effort, the American people would have been in an uproar. 

 

But since the so-called anti-Communist Nixon went, the American right wing could not say a word.  Because the issue of establishing Chinese and American relations was not opposed by the American liberals and leftists, the American right wing was the only political faction that had to be dealt with.  Nixon nullified any complaints from the US right wing. 

 

It appears that the election of the so-called conservative George W. Bush and his clamp down on US freedoms was one of the primary plutocratic objectives which would have been hard to meet with Bill Clinton or Al Gore.  The alleged conservative Bush has eliminated constitutional freedoms faster and easier than any Democrat could have ever done. 

 

Besides the likelihood that Bush was elected to take the fall for coming economic and monetary problems, this whole 9-11 terrorist operation could have been laid on in advance by America’s secret rulers precisely so that the American public could be moved one more step closer to world government (with more restrictions in support of the installation of a US police state). 

 

Unquestionably, the so-called War on Terrorism and the bombing of the Afghanistanians into oblivion have produced some huge benefits to the ruling plutocrats who are pushing the New World Order. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 476--Buying Allies

 

 

Lining Up US Allies   

 

Despite the adverse Muslim feelings for America and the history of the US meddling in the Middle East and buying and paying off dictators, George W. Bush and his team were able to ostensibly line up a number of Muslim countries on the side of the US in her attacks on Afghanistan for the conduct of the Bush War on Terrorism in 2001-2003. 

 

Of course, the question must be asked as to why and how this was possible since the average Muslim on the street does not have a favorable opinion of America (actually, the average Muslim hates America). 

 

The solution is really quite simple in view of the preceding commentary on how things work.  America’s so-called Muslim allies in this undertaking are all dictatorships where the dictator does not do the will of his people; but rather, does the best thing for his own personal pocket book. 

 

Thus, America doles out multiplied millions/billions of dollars to these ten horn dictators to get them to agree to become US allies.  The average Muslim on the street hates America and doesn’t want his nation to be a US ally.  But since this average Muslim lives in a dictatorship, he has little or nothing to say about what his ruler will do.  The dictator therefore does whatever he chooses. 

 

Inevitably, when America’s political leaders come calling and waving a bag full of dollars to bribe and pay off the dictator, the dictator decides that he will become a US ally.  Once this money is given to him (ostensibly and publicly, the official position is that it will be given to his nation), he is able to steal most or all of it.  Of course, his motive for being a US ally is always the money which he can personally steal. 

 

In terms of the fall 2002 push by George W. Bush and the ruling Amalekites to force America into a war with Iraq, the Oct 21, 2002, “American Fee Press” (p. 2) had a news report on how money changes everything. 

 

Quoting a story from the “Washington Times,” it was estimated that some $150 billion would be needed to pay off and bribe Turkey to support the US for a new 2003 war against Iraq (some $100 billion was given to Turkey in the early 1990s for the Gulf War).  This $150 billion estimate was evidently toned down by Turkey as the figure ultimately requested was $92 billion (Mar 3 & 10, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 20). 

 

The Jan 20, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a follow-up news item on the Turkish demands for US support.  Quoting the “Washington Post,” the US offered Turkey $14 billion in long-term, low-interest loans (backed by the US taxpayers) and perhaps another $2 to $4 billion in upgrading Turkish military bases. 

 

The Jan 28, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A5) quoted a US official as saying that the US “aid package (for Turkey) was designed to offset losses international investors say could range from $4 billion to $15 billion” (does this mean that the US would pick up the tab for losses that Turkish investors might incur?). 

 

Actually, as things worked out, the US offered $36 billion, but it was not enough as the Turkish parliament initially said no (later the parliament back tracked and approved some of the US requests).  It is unclear whether the $36 billion was enough or whether Turkey received more (or less) before she finally gave in to some of the US demands.  For sure, Turkey did receive at least $1 billion in US cash plus some loan guarantees. 

 

 

Pakistani President Musharraf 

 

For another good sample, take Pakistan.  Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf is a dictator who seized power illegally over his nation.  He knows that he will stay in power only until another coup arrives and a new dictator takes over. 

 

Then Musharraf will have flee for his life.  All the money that he has stolen will become quite valuable when Musharraf has to flee for his life.  Musharraf is not exactly stupid.  Like his countrymen hate America, he, too, hates the US.  But the money bribes and pay offs are a great temptation which the typical dictator will never refuse. 

 

Manifestly, the huge money pay offs made to Musharraf have been socked away in a safe place--like perhaps a secret Swiss bank account.  He will have access to this money when he later needs it! 

 

All during the US wars of words and bombs upon Afghanistan and Iraq, Musharraf never uttered a word in defense of his co-religionists.  The Mar 7, 2003, “The Week” (p. 15) quoted Ayaz Amir in the “Karachi Dawn” paper.  Amir asked-- “Is Pakistan completely spineless?” in view of the fact that almost all Pakistanis hate America and have been for Afghanistan and Iraq. 

 

Well, the answer to Amir’s question is quite simple.  Musharraf has been socking away stacks of US money.  And he is not about to give this gravy train up as long as he can continue to milk it for more and more in bribes and pay offs. 

 

By the way, Musharraf’s support of Bush paid off in early 2003 when the Bush people further awarded him with another bribe of $1 billion (Bush canceled some $1 billion in Pakistani debts).  This debt cancellation allowed Musharraf to go to the big banks and the IMF to get more billions of dollars in pay offs. 

 

 

Russia 

 

For sure, the way things are turning out the Russians are definitely going to come out on top as the primary winner in this War on Terrorism (who knows, they could also conceivably get a bag of US or IMF money in the deal and a clear hand to operate however they choose in Chechen as well if they are careful in their dealings with the US plutocrats). 

 

It is no wonder that Russian Prime Minister Putin was so friendly to Washington and agreed to be a US ally in the US war against Afghanistan (although Russia later abandoned Bush in the Bush war on Iraq).  Ultimately, Russia’s allies and colleagues in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, were and are being financed and supported by America.  They seem to be the primary military power taking over in Afghanistan. 

 

 

The Pay Off to Bush and the Plutocrats 

 

If the so-called War on Terrorism means a vast expenditure of American money and little or nothing in the way of rewards for the American people, one must pause and wonder about why this war was launched by George W. Bush.  What really has been behind this motion? 

 

The probable answer to this enigma was touched upon in the May 31, 2002, “The Week” (p. 12) in a story on “How they see us:  America’s transparent imperialism.”  The essence of this report was some comments from writer Andrew Murray in the “London Guardian.” 

 

Per Murray’s perception, it isn’t about “just after al Qaeda.”  In this man’s view, it is about expanding the list of mortal enemies with each passing week.  In other words, the name of the game goes far beyond al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden (whatever happens to him), Afghanistan and so forth.  It reaches out to Iraq (which was attacked by Bush on March 20, 2003), Syria, Libya, Iran, and now Cuba and North Korea. 

 

“The Week” quoted German writer Ernst Tugendhat that George W. Bush is fighting for the values of the civilized world.  The problem here is that the term civilized is vague and which values are to be attacked?  Per this man, the present effort is an extension of the Monroe doctrine--which is now going beyond Latin America to reach out to other parts of the world. 

 

 

More on the Bush Plans for Iraq 

 

In 2002, when it became time for George W. Bush to prepare to attack Iraq, the same procedures followed earlier by US presidents prevailed.  The US went around the world with bags of money to pay off and bribe various dictators for their support--either in allowing the US military to use their lands or to have them publicly offer words of support for America. 

 

Of course, almost without exception, the virtual totality of the people in many lands (especially in Muslim lands) totally and completely hated the US and were in favor of the nations that the US was preparing to attack and bomb into oblivion. 

 

In the Bush war against Iraq, Turkey offered a classic case of this paradox in that 95% of the Turks were against the US war.  Yet, the Turkish leaders forced their parliament to eventually approve some part of the US plans to use Turkey in the Bush war in exchange for a pay off. 

 

But Turkey was not alone, the Bush people went all over the world in trying to line up supporters with pay offs and bribes in stacks of US money.  Subsequent chapters herein will further discuss this bribery and throwing around of billions of US dollars by Bush to try to have a cause to attack Iraq and to line up supporters in the world arena. 

 

Even after the US war commenced in Baghdad, the US sent CIA agents into Iraq with bags full of money to try to buy off the various Muslim tribal chiefs.  These chiefs were offered US money if they would oppose the Saddam Hussein regime and instead support the US invaders (Apr 14, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

 

The Lying Ari Fleischer 

 

One of the big problems which George W. Bush ran into in 2003 was that the fifteen members of the UN Security Council did not approve of the Bush plans for war against Iraq.  Because of the desire by British Prime Minister Tony Blair for a new UN resolution authorizing war, Bush was forced to go the UN to obtain that declaration. 

 

But whereas in former years, the US was the bully of the block and was able to demand that the UN obey the US wishes, things turned sour in early 2003 when GWB tried the historic bully of the block approach to demand that the UN deliver what the US wanted.  Literally, Bush ran into a brick wall from much of the UN. 

 

Hence, Bush had to move fast to take bags of money all over the world to try to pay off and bribe the various UN Security Council people to support the US/British motion.  Spain was bought off early in the game (though most Spaniards opposed the US war) and soon Bulgaria was bought with a bag of money and US promises.  Otherwise, Bush tried his best to buy the rest of the security council. 

 

When all of this buying and negotiating was going on, the Bush press secretary, Ari Fleischer, made his usual appearances and spread the usual Bush lies and deceptions to the controlled media.  The Mar 17, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 2) told what happened at one Fleischer press conference the week of March 9, 2003. 

 

Reporters tried to press Fleischer about the US practice of trying to buy votes at the UN.  Fleischer responded by saying “You’re saying the leaders of other nations are buyable.  That’s not an acceptable proposition.”  Suddenly, the usually sober-minded Washington press corps erupted in laughter--so much so that Fleischer quickly and unceremoniously left the podium and terminated the press conference. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 477--After 9-11

 

 

More Laws 

 

To appreciate what all is going on in the vein of the so-called war on terrorism, it would be good to take note of the words of former President James Madison (1751-1836).  He said:  “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” (Vol 3, 2003, “Scriptures for America,” p. 7). 

 

The 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks were described in previous chapters.  The first immediate reaction following those alleged Muslim attacks was the move by the George W. Bush people to impose far more draconian dictatorial measures upon all Americans--all in the name of security and national defense. 

 

Congress went wild to pass new laws granting huge money pay-offs to all kinds of vested interest groups and imposing vast new police powers in the US police state (which includes an authorization for Big Brother to monitor and listen in on the private conversations of accused people and their lawyers.  This move is unprecedented in American history). 

 

Some part of the Posse Comitatus law was amended/rescinded so that the US military can now be more easily used against US citizens (actually, the illegal use of the US military has occurred previously--like when former President Bill Clinton used the army against the Branch Davidians, as discussed in a prior chapter). 

 

 

Running Wild 

 

Following 9-11 and a favorable court ruling opening the doors to all types of government spying, the FBI has broken into homes, offices, hotel rooms and automobiles; copied private computer files; installed hidden cameras; used microphones for over a year to listen to the talk of one couple while they were in bed; rummaged through luggage; and eavesdropped on telephone conversations (Dec 6, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

The report said that the average American has no idea that the FBI engages in these operations and whether or not they might be caught up in an FBI investigation. 

 

 

The 2001 USA Patriot Act 

 

Many of the harsh new dictatorial laws surfaced as a result of congressional legislation called the “USA Patriot Act.”  It more fully was labeled:  “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” 

 

The Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 5) gave these shortcomings of the act: 

 

“1.  Expands the list of crimes classified as ‘terrorist acts.’  The definition of terrorism is so vague that almost any criminal activity can be considered ‘terrorism.’ 

“2.  Allows secret searches of homes and businesses without the knowledge or consent of owners; they are called ‘sneak and peek searches.’  Items can be taken from your home without your knowledge or consent and used as evidence against you at a later time. 

“3.  Allows the CIA to access files on law-abiding citizens. 

“4.  Provides nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants so federal agents can monitor telephone calls, e-mails, faxes, and Internet messages.  There is no requirement the surveillance involve ‘terrorism.’” 

 

This same newsletter went on to spell out the provision of the “Model State Emergency Health Powers Act,” which allows public health officials to: 

 

“1.  Carry out mandatory vaccination. 

“2.  Evacuate populations. 

“3.  Quarantine, isolate, and incarcerate people. 

“4.  Draft health care personnel; control all forms of medical delivery. 

“5.  Seize private property.” 

 

 

US Rebellion? 

 

In the Jan 6 & 13, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 20), Fred Lingel’s article on “Patriot Rebellion” took note of the just noted USA Patriot Act. 

 

Lingel wrote:  “Federal snoops can now monitor your church, political and social activities, demand of a librarian the titles of books you check out, eavesdrop on privileged conversations between attorney and client--all without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, in the name of fighting terrorism.” 

 

Because of these far reaching and unconstitutional powers, Lingel notes that some 60 US localities (cities, towns or counties) have rejected part or all of the Patriot Act.  Effectively, they have said that they will not enforce it and will ignore it. 

 

Denver was particularly noted with a resolution that some of the provisions of the act are unconstitutional, that every person has a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, that arrests may not be made without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, etc. 

 

It is unclear how far this rebellion will go.  Most of the gullible Americans have been so mesmerized and zombiized that they simply don’t understand what has happened to themselves or is happening to themselves.  So maybe, there won’t be much of a backlash. 

 

 

Homeland Security 

 

Another huge fall-out of 9/11 was the passage of the Homeland Security Act and its approval by President Bush in late November 2002.  The main features of this law seem to be a consolidation of the huge network of federal police powers.  The new cabinet level agency will have increased new powers to spy upon and oppress the American people--in the name of security. 

 

Perhaps one of the most intriguing facts about the passage of this 484-page bill was that it was prepared by Bush and his colleagues and given to Congress to pass without even time for the people in Congress to read it, much less time to hold hearings and consider its impact. 

 

The Dec 2, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 6) had a story on “Homeland Bill Sets Up Police State” which focused upon comments from Senator Robert Byrd on the Senate floor. 

 

Byrd said that the bill was delivered to the Congress with less than 48 hours to look at it and no time for hearings, witnesses, etc.  The Senator added that in his fifty years in Congress, he had never seen such a monstrous piece of legislation.  Yet, the Congress was expected to pass it immediately without any reasonable amount of time to read and digest it.  Accordingly, Byrd voted against the bill. 

 

The AFP story quoted the “New York Times” which reported that this bill provides for the accumulation of information on Americans--as follows:  Every credit card purchase made, every magazine subscription entered, every medical prescription filled, every web site visited on the Internet, a transcript of every e-mail sent or received, every academic grade received (in school), every bank deposit made, every (travel) trip booked, and every event attended (while hosts of events will be required to turn data over to the feds, it is also true that Big Brother has or will install cameras to take pictures of people present which can be digitized for identification and fed into computer files). 

 

 

The Total Information Awareness Program 

 

Perhaps one of the most important fall-outs of the USA Patriot and the Homeland Security Acts is the new Total Information Awareness Program, in the vein of US spying and surveillance operations on all American citizens and non-citizens (as outlined above). 

 

The extent of government tyranny came forth in a story on “Surveillance:  Creating 300 million dossiers” in the Nov 29, 2002, “The Week” (p. 17).  Per “The Week,” the US government has an effort in place called the just mentioned Total Information Awareness Program.  It is being maintained in a computer digitized format which is readily accessible to and readable by government authorities. 

 

The program is being run out of the Pentagon, evidently under the auspices of the Department of Defense (although it is a government wide program and not just a Department of Defense effort).  The project manager in the Pentagon is Retired Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan. 

 

Total Awareness is collecting and computerizing data on all Americans and evidently as many foreigners as possible--certainly all foreigners who are residents of the US and are known to government authorities. 

 

In total, the project is projected to consist of dossiers on at least 300 million people, as a fall-out of the Homeland Security Act, discussed above (maybe, in time, it can reach out to all foreigners overseas and grow into the billions--ed). 

 

The data includes--credit card purchases, speeding tickets, drug prescriptions, marriage and divorce records, trips through electronic plazas, library books read, videos rented, every Web site visited on the Internet, the complete text of all e-mail messages, etc. 

 

 

More 

 

Though the article did not mention telephone calls, fax messages and all types of messages sent electronically, the truth is that this type of information is also being collected in a 100% profile in the form of tape recordings (as described in preceding chapters herein on the Carnivore and Echelon programs).  Too, the Post Office also participates in this scheme by monitoring and recording data on mail received or sent. 

 

Obviously, these files will include all information about a person as ascertainable from any record in government hands or in the hands of many or most businesses (as discussed in previous chapters, the government is enlisting the help of businesses in the compilation of information on American people). 

 

Large corporations in particular are very willing to cooperate with government authorities in this vast spying operation (on the premise of national defense and security). 

 

Yes, it means that a person is monitored in terms of purchasing products at local food, gas and merchandise markets (when using a check, credit card or discount card--like the Safeway card used for discounts); compiling data from spying under the TIPS spy program (as mentioned in former chapters); collecting data from employee evaluation reports and records as maintained by businesses upon employees (also cited earlier); and as noted above, obtaining information on library activities and video rentals. 

 

Such a compilation and merger of data can include driver’s license data--including all traffic violations; medical data (once in force)--including all medical history; school records--plus all educational activities; employment records (including a history of all employment); and credit and financial records (to include IRS and bank records, etc). 

 

 

John Markoff 

 

The Nov 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 1) quoted John Markoff from the Nov 9, 2002, “New York Times.”  Markoff wrote:  “The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as a part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe--including the United States... It will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant. 

 

“Historically, military and intelligence agencies have not been permitted to spy on Americans without extraordinary legal authorizations.  But Admiral Poindexter...has argued that the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of minute details of electronic life in the United States. 

 

“Admiral Poindexter...has said that the government needs to ‘break down the stovepipes’ that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers...

 

“The possibility that the system might be deployed domestically to let intelligence officials look into commercial transactions worries civil liberties proponents... ‘This could be the perfect storm for civil liberties in America,’ said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington.  ‘The vehicle is the Homeland Security Act, the technology is Darpa, and the agency is the FBI.  The outcome is a system of national surveillance of the American public.’” 

 

 

Some Cartoons 

 

Though the Total Information Awareness program is not funny, some cartoonists were able to draw cartoons which did evoke a laugh. 

 

The Dec 2, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A20) had a cartoon which showed a gloomy, depressed Saddam Hussein at his desk in his Iraq headquarters and surrounded by a host of UN inspectors with magnifying glasses, lights, books, etc while going through everything in the office (under the carpets, behind a picture on the wall, emptying trash cans, etc). 

 

One of Saddam’s aides, standing nearby, tells the Iraqi leader-- “It could be worse, you could be a U.S. citizen under John Ashcroft.”  

 

Another “Spokesman-Review” cartoon (p. B6, Dec 6, 2002) showed a large US transport plane on the run-way, discharging a huge flow of children in Iraq.  The kids are running in all directions.  An Iraqi military man is watching the outflow.  And in a radio communication with Saddam, he says:  “Bad news, Saddam.  Bush just sent more inspectors who have a lot of experience at finding things when playing hide and seek!” 

 

A third cartoon comes from the Dec 6, 2002, “The Week” (p. 18).  It showed Ashcroft and Poindexter sitting at computer terminals, evidently in the Pentagon, and viewing everything you have ever done.  Two nearby policemen are dragging a man out of the room.  The man said “I just asked to see all the information they’d compiled on me.”  The policemen replied “They said you were violating their right to privacy.” 

 

Last, the Dec 13, 2002, “The Week” (p. 19) had a cartoon with a picture on the wall at the White House of former President Richard Nixon--with Nixon thinking:  “Oh... What I could have done with a department of Homeland Security.”  While speculating about Richard Nixon is bad enough, can the reader imagine what would happen with this program under a Bill Clinton? 

 

 

Vast 

 

This new Total Information Awareness system will allow the government to completely monitor all aspects of a person’s life--from birth to death.  Anytime that some planner or schemer in the Big Brother system chooses to check upon a given target, the personal background file can be consulted by the simple use of a keystroke on a government computer (Nov 29, 2002, “The Week,” p. 17). 

 

If a person’s attitude or beliefs (in religion, philosophy, work, social matters, etc) do not measure up to the politically correct positions, then that individual’s whole life can be more carefully scrutinized, monitored, checked and regulated. 

 

Perhaps the stage will be reached that particular people can be arrested, tried and jailed or perhaps executed for thought crimes--in the context of the presently envisioned hate crime scenario which was actively pushed by President Slick and other liberal leaders. 

 

Manifestly, this undertaking will be gigantic in scope.  William Safire in the “New York Times” says that this program is not some Orweillian scenario.  It is an active Pentagon program which is costing $200 million, evidently in 2002 (ibid, p. 17). 

 

In the “Chicago Tribune,” Clarence Page wrote:  “It’s our own fault we’ve come this far.  We let Congress and President Bush ram though the USA Patriot Act, which loosened more than a dozen privacy laws and made Total Information Awareness possible. 

 

“A little surveillance, we figured, would make us feel safer.  It’s easy to understand why the government would use wartime to justify taking away our essential rights and liberties.  It is less easy to understand why the rest of us would surrender them without an argument” (ibid, p. 17). 

 

As the Dec 16 & 23, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 9) pointed out-- “Your Name May Already Be on ‘Enemies List.’”  For sure, this effort will pale into insignificance anything that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton has done heretofore. 

 

 

No Child Left Behind Act 

 

In the guise of helping the education of American children, Bush pushed for and Congress adopted the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.  While the ostensible purpose of this legislation was focused upon education, one of the strange little by-products was a provision that all US schools (or at least, all high schools) must turn information about their students over to the Department of Defense (DOD). 

 

Specifically, schools must supply DOD with a list of student names, addresses and phone numbers.  Per a story by Ron Hutcheson on “Military gets high school data,” the Nov 29, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A1, A10) said that military recruiters use this information to come onto campuses and recruit young people for the military (the act also authorizes this access to school campuses). 

 

While there is no doubt that this information gathering program on American students is used by DOD to recruit people for the military services, it should not take too many brains to figure out that this data can also be used for all types of things once it is in federal computers.  For sure, this information will be or is being fed into the Total Information Awareness Program. 

 

Manifestly, if a person was in the process of establishing a master computer file of dossiers on the American population, a listing of students’ names, addresses and phone numbers from all American schools (or at least, high schools) would be a bonanza.  The gullible American public can sit back and relax, knowing full well that this supplied information receives much attention in Washington. 

 

 

More Bush Actions 

 

Next, GWB, himself, began implementing further actions which not only were unthinkable in US history, but were things that even Slick Clinton would have had a hard time imposing upon the American people. 

 

Over 1,500 persons were rounded up, jailed and held for months incommunicado (over a year later, at the time of the writing of this study, many of these jailed people are still being held in confinement and incommunicado).  So far, they have never been formally charged, nor have they had an appearance in court before a judge. 

 

The constitutional provisions of habeas-corpus and quick and speedy trials have been completely ignored in respect to these jailed people.  This action by the Bush administration against people is unprecedented in American history (other than some of the illegal, oppressive measures implemented by former President Abraham Lincoln in the American Civil War). 

 

The word is that US authorities have been using torture tactics on these imprisoned people for their long confinements to ostensibly “make them talk” (as discussed earlier). 

 

The Nov 22, 2002, “The Week” (p. 5) quoted the “New York Times” that the US Justice Department (under Bush) says that the US Constitution does not apply in terrorism cases.  In other words, the government now has a green light to do however it pleases--ostensibly, in terrorism cases (but with this open door, the green light will apply to any and all other cases, however the government chooses to act). 

 

 

Military Tribunals 

 

As outlined in a former chapter, President George W. Bush signed an executive order which grants the US military power to seize and try “terrorist suspects” whenever desired and wherever desired in secret trials and using secret evidence and secret witnesses and to impose the death penalty at will. 

 

Under this Bush order, a military tribunal can execute a so-called “suspect” without the accused even having any recourse at all to civilian authorities or oversight (all of this has been done in clear contradiction of the US Constitution, which does at least grant people in the US some rights and a measure of justice since the Constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike in its use of the word persons). 

 

In the conduct of the Bush “War on Terrorism,” the US led forces in Afghanistan and Iraq captured hundreds of Muslim fighters.  Many of these captured prisoners have been turned over to US authorities (this list includes vast numbers of Taliban fighters and of course, some alleged al Qaeda people).  Instead of calling them captured prisoners of war, the US has labeled them detainees and terrorists (as noted earlier). 

 

On Dec 26, 2001, the US Defense Department announced that it was preparing the US Naval Base at Guantanamo, Cuba to imprison many of these Muslim “detainees” secured in the Middle East (some of the detainees were also held in Afghanistan and Iraq).  Evidently, the Bush Administration plans on trying these “detainees” by the newly authorized military tribunals in 2004-2006. 

 

In early Jun 2003, news reports surfaced indicating that the US military has drawn up plans to build an execution chamber at Guantanamo to begin executing prisoners or detainees later; based upon the orders of the tribunals or commissions, as they will be called (Jun 6, 2003, Idaho “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  In Jun 2003, some 680 prisoners from Afghanistan were still being held. 

 

With the announced plans on trying these people by secret military tribunals and using secret evidence and executing them at will, there has been an outcry from some few American leaders over the pending injustice.  But the Bush administration simply responded that the “detainees” were not American citizens and therefore had no rights. 

 

 

But US Citizens Were Involved 

 

But this Bush position quickly came apart because revelation surfaced that there were some American citizens being held.  The case of John Walker Lindh was discussed in a former chapter.  The latest was an American citizen named Yaser Esam Handi--born in Louisiana, but raised in Saudi Arabia.  He was captured in Afghanistan and held for some time in Cuba before being transferred to a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia. 

 

Yaser has been held for over a year incommunicado, without being charged with a crime and without the benefit of seeing a lawyer.  Someone in the US filed a motion in federal court over this action.  The case went to the US 4th Circuit of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia which held that Yaser could be held as an enemy combatant without charging him with a crime or allowing him to see a lawyer. 

 

Attorney General Ashcroft said that the decision lends strength to the president’s hand to fight terrorism in this country and abroad.  Other people claim that the decision comes at the expense of civil liberties.  For sure, the Bush actions are far removed from the US Constitution. 

 

On these reports, this writer would make two comments.  Some of these pressure or torture tactics have been used in the United States for years upon persons sent to federal prisons (like with G. Gordon Liddy, as discussed earlier). 

 

And second, the groundwork is being laid for huge numbers of American leaders to one day be prosecuted for war crimes.  The day of reckoning is coming--not whether, but only one of when. 

 

 

One Year Later, With David Kravets 

 

As quoted in the Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 4-5), a David Kravets article from the Associated Press on Sep 11, 2002, described the after effect of 9-11 as:  “The government has imposed many new limits on Americans’ legal rights as it rights a war on terror, fundamentally altering the nation’s delicate balance between liberty and security. 

 

“The changes--including the authority in terror cases to imprison Americans indefinitely without charges or defense lawyers--substantially expand the government’s ability to investigate, arrest, try and detain. 

 

“They grant law enforcement easier access to Americans’ personal lives while keeping many government operations secret.  And the idea that law-abiding citizens can freely associate with other law-abiding citizens without the threat of government surveillance no longer holds. 

 

“The Bush administration will not abuse these far-reaching powers, said Viet Dinh, an assistant U.S. attorney general:  ‘I think security exists for liberty to flourish and liberty cannot exist without order and security,’ Dinh said.” 

 

 

Temporary or Permanent? 

 

The periodic and regular passage of far more draconian laws which take away the basic constitutional rights of American citizens have been falling into place ever since the end of WWII and the commencement of the cold war days.  Usually, most of these measures are painted in a picture as being necessary steps which will only be temporary in duration, until things settle down. 

 

Actually, this is all bunk because oppressive governments never rescind these evil measures (just like they typically never rescind tax laws, once they are on the books).  Governments always try to push the image of such tyrannical laws as being limited and temporary measures arising from “necessity.” 

 

 

The Thinking of Schicklgruber 

 

The previously quoted Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 1) also had some remarks uttered by Adolf Schicklgruber on March 23, 1933, after he, too, pushed a number of new dictatorial powers into play in Germany (following the burning of the Reichstag, which Adolf and his colleagues allegedly did and blamed on the Communists). 

 

Adolf said:  “The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures... The separate existence of the federal states will not be done away... The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.” 

 

Of course, this is precisely what has been happening in America for the past 70 years.  Dictatorial laws keep coming and the populace is regularly told lies and deceptions about why on the laws. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 478--The Real Why for 9-11

 

 

Another Fall-Out of the Problem 

 

It seems like a strange paradox of sorts that most Americans totally missed the essence of “why” the Arab terrorists were able to allegedly carry out the Sep 11th attack, and “why” US authorities have reacted as they have with a whole array of new laws and actions designed to impede upon the US Constitution and take away freedoms and liberties of innocent Americans who had nothing to do with the attacks.  

 

The reason why the Muslim terrorists could come into the US and literally high-jack airplanes and fly over US territory is because the United States has chosen for 40 years to ignore her own borders with foreign nations. Some three to five-million illegals cross the US borders each year (Mar 17, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 2).  Tragically, the US borders are some of the most open in the world. 

 

Thus, any Tom, Dick and Harry can enter US territory.  For 40 years (since the establishment of the US welfare state), illegal immigrants have been flooding into the US every day.  No one in authority in Washington seems to care one way or the other.  So the flood keeps coming.  And every few years, Congress passes a bill to legalize all the illegals present from the prior infiltrations. 

 

The border with Mexico in particular is a disgrace.  Nothing can be done about it because fat cat employers want this “cheap” Mexican labor (for profit and gain reasons).  Too, the US move to racial amalgamation has motivated national leaders to want more and more Colored peoples here.  Of course, the Democrat party has benefited the most from this inflow since the aliens normally vote Democrat. 

 

So while mixed blooded Arabs and Edomites from the Middle East could come illegally into America, via her open border with Mexico, they have not even had to go that far (by becoming chickens [as the illegals are called] to be taken across the border by Mexican coyotes [the criminal traffickers]).

 

There is still another method of illegal entry into the US.  The US Immigration and Naturalization Service completed a study which showed that between 2.95 and 5.45 million illegal aliens enter the US annually through the regular 300 ports of entry.  They come with bogus documents or they are simply not adequately screened (ibid, p. 2).  

 

 

Liberal Visas 

 

Too, it is very easy for foreigners (especially those with money) to enter the US legally, under almost any pretext--like going to school, visiting relatives or going sight seeing, etc.  Once here (from these very liberal visa grants), the aliens can simply stay--if they want to.  Thus, they then become illegals.  Since there is no checking system on these people, they have great latitude to stay here if they wish. 

 

Hence, the stupid US immigration policies have allowed tens of thousands of Arab and Edomite aliens into the US.  A May 2002 promotional letter (p. 4) from Don McAlvany, editor of the “McAlvany Intelligence Advisor,” puts some 150,000 radical Moslem fundamentalists now in the United States.  McAlvany adds that Islam is now the world’s fastest growing religion.  So the numbers are going up. 

 

In his Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 3), Dr Stan Monteith noted the fall-out of the repeal of the McCarran Immigration Act in 1965 which opened America’s borders to multitudes of aliens, including vast numbers of Muslims.  Before repeal of the McCarran act, there were 50,000 Muslims and 20 mosques in the US.  Today, there are seven million Muslims and over 1,000 mosques. 

 

In this same newsletter, Monteith goes on to report that when the CIA linked in with Osama bin Laden in 1988, the US allowed his mentor Sheikh Abdullah Yussuf Azzam to enter the US and begin a program of organizing the radical Islamic movement in America (which today is well oiled, financed and established). 

 

Most or many of the immigrant foreigners flowing into America since 1965 (and particularly the Muslims) absolutely hate America and Americans for the reasons cited earlier (support of Israel and the US support and assistance of the global plutocrats in their constant meddling and interference into the internal affairs of foreign nations around the world). 

 

 

The INS 

 

Once these aliens are here in America (whether legal or illegal), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) seems totally incapable of monitoring them.  A former chapter mentioned the problem with a Mexican serial killer who was in the US illegally.  He was caught by the INS and deported back to Mexico all the while that his name was on a wanted for murder list. 

 

Also, as pointed out in previous chapters, America was in a turmoil in October 2002 when sniper attacks in the Washington, DC area killed a dozen people or so.  Americans generally, and particularly those in the Washington area, were afraid to even go outside or walk down a street for fear of being shot. 

 

In time, the killers were caught, but not until they had completely terrorized some part of the US East Coast.  Later, information surfaced showing that the two killers had not only shot and killed people in the DC, MD and VA areas, but had also killed several other persons in other states (in WA, AL, LA, and possibly other states). 

 

One of the killers was an American born Black man named John Allen Williams who had converted to Islam (the Black Muslim sect) in 1985 and had changed his name to John Muhammad.  His companion was a 17-year-old Jamaican named Lee Boyd Malvo (Nov 4, 2002, “Time,” p. 37).  Malvo may have went under several different aliases, as he was also known as John Malvo. 

 

In the Nov 2002 “End Time News” (p. 1), editor Colin Deal implied that his name was Jose Padilla, that he was likewise a convert to Islam, and that he had adopted the name Abdullah al Muhajir (but Deal’s remarks were not clear and may have confused Malvo with Padilla who also was arrested in 2002 in the US in the Bush war on terrorism). 

 

Anyway, this pair of Black killers were homosexual faggots which the controlled media would almost never mention.  However, there was still one more significant facet of the operations of this pair of Black faggots.  Young Lee was an illegal immigrant. 

 

Lee Malvo (or whatever for his name) and his mother had entered the US illegally in June 2001 when they came into Florida (just South of Miami) illegally as stowaways on a cargo ship (ibid, p. 1).  Once in America, they stayed.  On Dec 19, 2001, they were involved in a domestic dispute (in Washington state) and came into custody of the INS (ibid, p. 1). 

 

Instead of deporting Lee and his mother for being illegal aliens, the incompetent INS simply released them and allowed them to stay here. 

 

Actually, the story of Lee Malvo is not unusual at all.  On the contrary, the INS is so inefficient that huge numbers of illegal aliens are either never caught, or if caught, they are simply not deported.  Even the deported illegals often come back since the INS is so inefficient and there is no punishment (beyond deportation). 

 

 

More INS Incompetence 

 

In early 2002, quite some time after the September 11, 2001, Muslim terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the INS sent approvals for four Muslim Arabs to take flying lessons at a Florida flying school.  As it turned out, these four named persons were all on the hijack team that commandeered the US aircraft for the 9-11 attacks (May 2002 “American Sentinel,” p. 7). 

 

All four of these hijackers were already dead in 2001.  Yet, the INS approved their visas and flying lessons in 2002. 

 

 

And More 

 

The Nov 18, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news report which said-- “Failure of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to identify and process criminal immigrants will result in the release of more than 10,000 illegal alien felons, according to a government report. 

 

“Some will commit more felonies, including child molestation.  Examples:  Jose Sandoval, Jorge Galinda and Erik Vela killed five people in a Nebraska bank holdup, according to the California Coalition for Immigration Reform.  Arthur Martinez stabbed a Greyhound bus driver and two people died in the ensuing bus accident.  Maximilano Esparza raped a nun and strangled her to death with her rosary beads.” 

 

In another bombshell, an AP report on “300,000 illegal immigrants sought by INS are still at large” tells the tale of how grossly inefficient the INS is (per the Jan 10, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A3).  Interestingly, these 300,000 have been ordered deported but the INS cannot find them (this 300,000 is out of an estimated seven million illegals in the US; so it is only the tip of the iceberg). 

 

Something not discussed in the AP story was how the INS was able to obtain the names and data on these 300,000.  Since they were illegals and here illegally, how did the INS find about them (were they previously identified and released without being deported as happened with Lee Malvo)?  Well anyway, the INS presumably now knows about them, but is unable to find and deport them. 

 

Of course, these stories seem incredible.  But they are the real world out there, in terms of modern America. 

 

 

The Five Arabs 

 

In late December 2002, the news media was ablaze with reports that five Arabs had illegally entered the US from Canada (Dec 30, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A3).  Names, photographs and descriptions were widely distributed.  The American public was asked to help in locating the men.  It was unclear where and how the feds found out about the men. 

 

Certainly, if America’s borders were secure, such illegal entries should not take place.  So one must wonder if any efforts are made to keep illegals out. 

 

As it turned out, a man in Pakistan (a jeweler named Mohammed Asghar in Lahore, Pakistan) a few days later said that his picture was in the group.  He added that he had never left Pakistan and had never been in the US.  Manifestly, there were questions about the accuracy of the federal reports (although the feds did admit that some of the identities of the men could be fraudulent). 

 

The latest development in this FBI snafu was that the “FBI calls off terrorist manhunt” (Jan 8, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  Per this report, the FBI stopped the search for the five on the premise that the agency had doubts about the veracity of its tipster, an illegal immigrant named Michael John Hamdani, who is facing federal counterfeiting charges. 

 

It seems strange that though the FBI only had a bad tip on these five Arabs that the agency came up with names, pictures and complete descriptions and profiles.  Could all of this bad information have come from one lone tipster who was facing criminal charges in the US? 

 

 

More US Mentality 

 

Consequently, the stupidity and failures of America’s national leaders have opened the door to tens of thousands of terrorists or potential terrorists who hate this nation passionately.  Clearly, there is a cause and effect relationship in process in terms of what has happened here in 2001. 

 

Therefore, the US has a huge national problem with enemy peoples here who will destroy this nation, if given a chance.  So the solution is to pass very severe, draconian laws and restrictions on the whole citizenship of the United States, ostensibly to get at and control these enemy aliens present in US borders. 

 

The stupid US population has went along with this seizure of dictatorial power over all Americans on the pretext that it is necessary for security and national defense.  It seem that no one has spoken out and cared one iota about the disgraceful and treasonous actions of national leaders for fifty years to cause this mess. 

 

 

More American Stupidity 

 

For the last several years, the US population has went totally insane over the ideas of affirmative action and special privileges and benefits for her Colored minorities.  The people who do not have any special rights in today’s America are the White Anglo Saxon Protestants (the WASP) males.  Everybody else have special interest groups who work overtime to see that special benefits are extended to their personal groups. 

 

This stupidity has moved to even more heights of being ridiculous in the present attention on so-called racial profiling in the collective society.  This particular cry arises usually in connection with police operations which logically must always be cognizant of the role of Black Africans in the pursuit of crime. 

 

Simply stated, most crime is done by Blacks and other dark peoples with Negro genes (like Italians and Hispanics).  This is the real world out there.  Accordingly, many police officers have had enough brains to be very suspicious of Blacks and especially young Black males (most of whom have been involved in criminal activities at one time or another). 

 

Therefore, if a police patrol car is patrolling a suburban White area at three AM one morning and the police spot an unusual car with a young Black male in it as it cruises around suspiciously, the police are not able to stop the car to find out why the Negro is driving around a White residential area at 3 AM in the morning.  If the police should stop him, he can charge discrimination and sue the police and city. 

 

When police maintain statistics on Colored crime and when police use their heads in being watchful of Blacks (and Hispanics to a lesser extent), this has come to be called racial profiling.  Obviously, the loving, liberal, humanistic society cries and whines to the high heavens over alleged discrimination from this profiling. 

 

 

Now, the Latest  

 

Following the Sep 11th attack, it was obvious to anyone above the moron level that dark, swarthy Mid-Easterners could be a potential source of problems.  Accordingly, police became very suspicious of such people who were involved in public traveling (mainly by airplanes). 

 

Following the attack, a dark, swarthy, Muslim Arab (with a very Arab name) tried to get onto an American Airlines flight.  He was armed with a gun and filled out some papers to carry it on board.  But his papers were not consistent and were suspicious (especially when he left the plane and came back on board later). 

 

Allegedly, he was a Secret Service agent who would be allowed to carry his gun on board a commercial airliner.  The plane’s captain didn’t like the situation.  So he accordingly refused to fly the plane with the man on board.  The man was ordered off the airplane. 

 

Thereafter, he filed a discrimination lawsuit in court, claiming that he was targeted for removal because of his race and religion.  Naturally, GWB came out in support of the Arab traveler.  This motion created a real problem for the airlines--in that they could not take any reasonable action to insure the safety of passengers by carefully checking dark, swarthy, Middle Easterners. 

 

This Arab Secret Service agent employed a Washington, DC law firm which just happened to be the law firm that handled a lawsuit for some Blacks a few years ago which sued Denny’s Restaurant on the premise that they were discriminated against when they were not promptly waited upon at Denny’s.  The Blacks and their lawyers won $53 million from Denny’s. 

 

 

Mike Gallagher 

 

The disgraceful and pathetic state of affairs in modern America prompted Mike Gallagher on the Mike Gallagher radio talk show to note the above lawsuit on his program on Jan 2, 2002.  Gallagher indicated that over the holidays, he passed through an airport where he observed a most fascinating event that took place. 

 

He was in line to enter the boarding area at a local airport.  There was a line of people in front of him.  Since airline and security people can no longer target possible terrorists on the basis of their race, religion, ethnic origin, etc, they have commenced programs of making detailed checks on people on a random number basis. 

 

In other words, they can and are now making detailed checks of persons on the basis of a random number--like every tenth person in line or some other sequence of checking. 

 

In Gallagher’s case, there was a very dark, swarthy, Middle East appearing man in line.  Directly behind this apparent Middle Easterner, there was an 83-year old, crippled, White woman using a walker.  Per the random selection criterion, guess which person was singled out for a detailed check, including a body search. 

 

Yes, the supposedly intelligent (but actually stupid) authorities could not check the Mid Easterner.  But rather, they had to limit their check to a crippled, elderly, old woman--struggling with a walker.  They whisked her out of line and gave her a total going-over (including using a woman security worker to partially undress, frisk and feel out her entire body and go through her clothing with an iron-toothed comb). 

 

Incidentally, in fairness to the airlines, they really had no choice.  If they would have looked over their passengers and selected a dark, swarthy, young, Middle Eastern male for a detailed check, he could have sued them and won $50 million for alleged discrimination (because of alleged racial profiling). 

 

Is this insanity?  And if not, what is it?  Maybe, this stupidity pacifies the typical ignorant American liberal.  But it would not make intelligent travelers happy who do use the airlines.  Truly, the warped Christian sun worship culture and civilization in the US has reached the point of being totally ridiculous.  It is no wonder that YHWH’s judgment is soon coming on this nation. 

 

 

The People Problem 

 

As discussed in some detail in previous presentations, the Bush administration definitely has a competence problem in terms of its national defense and security issues.  As noted, there has been a movement for years of placing incompetent Blacks in charge of US government offices.  Inevitably, problems will result when Negroes are placed in charge of anything. 

 

In the case of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the one single person guilty more so than all others for dropping the ball was the national security coordinator in the White House--Condoleezza Rice.  This Black woman is assuredly incompetent and has made and will continue to make gross blunders which dramatically affect America (along with the Black Colin Powell, who also is quite incompetent). 

 

Rice, for her part, has been quick to blame others.  In the May 27, 2002, “Time” magazine story (p. 28) on “How the U.S. Missed the Clues,” by Michael Elliott, Rice acknowledged that she has been running the counterterror program for Bush.  But she quickly added that she was left in the dark by the FBI (in terms of 9-11).  Thus, this woman is blaming the FBI for the 9-11 attacks. 

 

There is no doubt that the FBI was and is incompetent.  Under the apparent Amalekite FBI Director Louis Freeh (who was appointed by former president Slick Clinton) and his numerous Black and Hispanic agents, the FBI was assuredly incompetent and oppressive (as happened at Waco, OC, New York, etc). 

 

Truly, the Amalekites and their Colored helpers did make a mess out of things in the FBI and other US offices as well.  In any case, Rice is making the FBI the scapegoat.  And of course, the controlled national media and the Democrats are in the process of making George W. Bush the fall guy (as noted earlier). 

 

True, all of these people were guilty.  Even in the follow-up, George W. Bush has never fired or disciplined any of the people running things on counter-terrorism.  This is interesting.  Assuredly, if he fired any of the incompetent Blacks, he would be taken to task immediately by the controlled media.  So nothing will be done--other than blaming George. 

 

Because George W. Bush already had a war plan on his desk on September 10, 2001 (involving a linkage with the Northern Alliance and a war on the Taliban in Afghanistan), this whole subject could have far reaching ramifications.  Maybe, it was all planned, prepared and laid on in advance by powerful people calling the shots in America. 

 

 

The FBI Impact 

 

Since Condoleezza Rice has been pointing the finger at the FBI, the new FBI Director (who took over a few days before 9-11), Robert Mueller, has undertaken the task of completely revamping the apparently incompetent agency.  Under the legislation following the 9-11 incident, the FBI has vast new powers to really go to work to suppress American freedoms and take oppressive actions against US citizens. 

 

In terms of 9-11, probably everybody concerned (Bush, Rice, Mueller, etc) would be happy to blame the former FBI Director Louis Freeh (the evident Amalekite) for the debacle.  So, for the time being, the FBI will come under intense heat.  One thing for sure, no one will ever accuse the incompetent Blacks who were the most guilty parties of all. 

 

 

The “New” FBI 

 

In a press statement on May 29, 2002, Mueller said that he was adding almost one thousand new agents and would reorganize the terrorism intelligence units at FBI headquarters.  Mueller added that the FBI would commence investigating, spying upon and wiretapping anybody in America who could have a tie to terrorism. 

 

Another supposedly new innovation was revealed in the Jun 10, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 24) which mentioned that besides monitoring communications of American people, the FBI will now search commercial data bases (this means that the FBI will commence pouring through millions of files maintained by private people or groups). 

 

All of these new powers will be used to “track political and religious organizations” that might have a possible tie to terrorism.  Of course, this means that the FBI will spy on all of them since any one of them could be classified as a terrorist person or group (since the federal government has the authority to define terrorists and terrorism--like the Branch Davidians in Waco, the Christian Identity Churches, anti-abortion people, etc). 

 

In the past, the FBI allegedly only investigated people who had committed a definable federal crime and the agency only wiretapped persons with court orders (as discussed in previous chapters on the US police state).  Mueller says that from now on the FBI will investigate and wiretap anyone anywhere or anyplace--regardless of the presence of a crime or court order. 

 

Actually, Mueller’s words were not anything new because the FBI has been investigating and spying on people for years in the absence of a crime and wiretapping people at random (like traffic cops, the agency has great latitude to do about whatever it chooses, as described in former chapters).  This very reality is the reason why the FBI has files on almost everyone in the American public.  

 

As cited earlier, the FBI investigation files on Gerald L. K. Smith and Frank Sinatra were in the thousands of pages.  Neither of these persons were guilty of committing a federal crime.  Smith was a Christian preacher who supposedly never smoked, drank, cussed or cheated on his wife.  He was a real prude.  But his FBI file was over 10,000 pages long. 

 

The Black activist and trouble maker Martin Luther King Jr violated many state and local laws.  But it is questionable to what extent that King violated federal laws (unless it be treason, as was possible in his case).  Yet, the FBI spied on and investigated him for ages. 

 

The reason Slick Clinton was able to get FBI files on over 900 of his political enemies (as described in former chapters) was because the FBI maintains files on everyone possible in America. 

 

So it is utterly ridiculous for Mueller to come out and speak about investigating and wiretapping everybody or anybody in society.  The FBI has been following this practice for years, as was described in some detail in prior chapters herein.  The only thing that has changed on this theme is that now the FBI is publicly admitting that it investigates and spies upon any and every person in America. 

 

Along with the wiretapping and spying, plans are also afoot to infiltrate FBI agents and informers into “churches, mosques; and of course, political groups” (Jun 14, 2002, “The Week,” p. 4).  While it is good that the FBI has publicly announced its plans for spying on (and assuredly entrapping) people, the truth is that the FBI has been doing this for ages.  So it is nothing new (other than it probably will accelerate). 

 

In any case, if there was any question about the presence of so-called Constitutional freedoms of free speech and free religion, and rights to privacy, those questions are now dead issues.  Those freedoms no longer exist in the new look at things. 

 

 

Michael Savage, Revisited 

 

The Michael Savage radio talk show program on May 30, 2002, addressed Robert Mueller’s press conference and announcement that the FBI will begin investigating and wiretapping anyone it chooses and regardless of the presence of a crime and/or the need for court orders. 

 

Savage was upset (as he should have been) and took calls from his listeners on their reactions.  Some callers had brains enough to be indignant and angry about the new arbitrary FBI powers (commenced without legislative action from the US Congress). 

 

Surprisingly, some gullible persons called in to support the FBI seizures of new powers over Americans in defiance of the Constitution (as always, these gullible persons were more concerned with terrorism than they were over the US Constitution and Constitutional freedoms). 

 

Savage tried to make the point that the basic problem is not with the generic American citizens.  But it is with the vast presence of thousands of Muslim aliens (mostly illegal aliens) in America.  The US immigration service allows almost anyone in and exercises no control over them after they get here.  Add this condition to the thousands of illegal aliens pouring across the border and the US has a problem. 

 

Rather than deal with the immigration problem and the clear racial issues of who the terrorists are (dark, swarthy, Middle Easterners), the FBI is responding with an assault upon Americans, in league with plans to eliminate many of the US Constitutional freedoms.  It was incredible, but many of the stupid listeners on the Savage program could never put two and two together to get the big picture. 

 

Anyway, as pointed out in the above comments, the whole discussion was all really academic because most of these usurpations of FBI powers have been going on for decades (since FDR became president back in the 1930s). 

 

 

The Reasons, A Recap 

 

The January 2002 “American Sentinel” (p. 1-3) described six reasons why the Sep 11th attacks successfully took place.  The “American Sentinel” has pushed for a congressional investigation to explore these reasons in the context of treason.  Of course, nothing will be done, so it is all hype and talk (smoke and mirrors).  Anyway, the Sentinel gave its view--viz: 

 

(1).  US law enforcement authorities were powerless to take action against hostile foreign visitors due to inexplicable liberal polices that effectively extended the Bill of Rights to non-citizens (i.e., alarmed airplane fight instructors in Minnesota and Oklahoma tipped off the FBI about some strange foreign Arab students.  But the FBI did nothing, evidently because of the liberal policies). 

 

(2).  Anti-defense Democrats blinded lawmakers to the activities of hostile foreigners operating on US soil (in that congressional Democrats had completely dismantled the US internal security system to include the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Senate Internal Security Committee and the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department). 

 

(3).  Anti-defense Democrats neutered the CIA’s ability to infiltrate and disrupt the activities of hostile foreigners operating abroad (supposedly, the Democrats shifted the CIA focus from human intelligence to sophisticated satellites and advanced technology). 

 

(4).  Motor-voter laws allowed hostile illegal aliens to blend into America’s open society with ease (thus, they could get drivers’ licenses, open bank accounts, enter flight schools, etc.  Many illegals could even vote in the US elections). 

 

(5).  Environmentalists had blocked the World Trade Center Towers from being equipped with fire-resistant support structures (which might have helped to keep the towers from collapsing). 

 

(6).  The US State Department has jammed open a floodgate of foreign visitors from terrorist backed areas of the Middle East (the liberal policy of granting visas was discussed above at some length). 

 

In mentioning this list of problems from the “American Sentinel,” this writer does not necessarily endorse all of the items cited.  Certainly, the flood of visas and the practice of granting privileges and benefits to illegal aliens have merit. 

 

 

Dr Stanley Monteith 

 

The Oct 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 7) offered Dr Stan Monteith’s list of the fall-out of the 9-11 attacks: 

 

Enact laws to restrict our freedom,

Justify the attack on Afghanistan,

Justify the coming war with Iraq,

Lead America into World War III,

Establish a New World Order, and 

Divert public attention from our economic problems. 

 

While Monteith did not state the above remarks in the vein of the reasons for 9-11, surely, it is easy to understand that all of these after-effects could be and probably were the reasons for the attacks in the first place.  Maybe, the whole exercise was planned and laid on, in advance, for the desired reasons. 

 

 

But the Real Reason 

 

But all of these reasons and the results of the after-effects fail to really focus upon perhaps the most powerful and urgent reason of all for the attacks.  While Monteith and others may have hinted about it or skirted around it, it does come out with a little thought and analysis. 

 

Although not discussed by any so-called responsible person in the media or the US government, there could be a profound reason (as cited earlier from the May 27, 2002, “Time” magazine [p. 27], in that the plans for war were all ready drawn up by the Bush administration and its plutocratic bosses in advance.  All that was lacking was an incident or cause--like the situation with the Japs at Pearl Harbor in 1941). 

 

If this whole thing was laid on in advance by some party or parties (like perhaps PNAC/NCP, as discussed in prior chapters), it could involve a vast conspiracy.  Who knows--maybe Israeli, Muslim and US agents all had a role to play. 

 

Hindsight now suggests that the Oklahoma City bombing (discussed in previous chapters) was possibly planned and prepared along the same line.  In the OC bombing, the patsy and scapegoat was Timothy McVeigh (who may have been subjected to mind alteration techniques while he was in the US Army). 

 

So far, with the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the Muslims in al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan have become the guilty parties.  The whole 9-11 incident gave the Bush administration (under the direction of the Amalekite plutocrats) a reason to implement the prepared plans for war against the Taliban and an alliance with Russia’s allies, the Northern Alliance (as has happened). 

 

 

Isn’t That Strange? 

 

A Nov-Dec 2002 letter from James W. Bruggeman to his Christian Identity supporters quoted an item from the Internet entitled “Isn’t That Strange?”  It needs a mention at this point herein. 

 

“As late as 1998, the U.S. was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan.  Isn’t that strange?  There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.  Isn’t that strange?  Unocal, a giant American oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1,000-mile long pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.  Isn’t that strange? 

 

“Unocal spent tons of money on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support in allowing the construction to begin.  Isn’t that strange?  All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with Unocal in 1998.  Isn’t that strange?  In 1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw Unocal out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina.  Isn’t that strange? 

 

“John Maresea, VP of Unocal, testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established.  Isn’t that strange?  1999-2000:  the Taliban became the most evil people in the world.  Isn’t that strange?  Senior American officials in mid-July 2001, told Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.  Isn’t that strange? 

 

“9/11 WTC disaster... Bush goes to war against Afghanistan, even though none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan.  Isn’t that strange?  Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof, saying it’s a ‘secret.’  Isn’t that strange?  Bush said:  ‘This is not about nation building.  It’s about getting the terrorists.’  Isn’t that strange?  We have a new government in Afghanistan.  Isn’t that strange? 

 

“The leader of that new government formerly worked for Unocal.  Isn’t that strange?  Bush appointed a special envoy to represent the U.S. to deal with that new government, who formerly was the ‘chief consultant to Unocal.’  Isn’t that strange?  The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil.  Isn’t that strange?  Bush’s Secretary of Interior was the president of an oil company before going to Washington.  Isn’t that strange?  George Bush Sr. is a partner in the ‘Carlyle group’ specializing in huge oil investments around the world.  Isn’t that strange? 

 

“Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before going to Washington.  Isn’t that strange?  Chevron named one of its newest ‘supertankers’ after Condoleezza.  Isn’t that strange?  Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Halliburton before becoming VP.  Isn’t that strange?  Halliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000 as a farewell gift when he left Halliburton.  Isn’t that strange?  Halliburton is in the pipeline construction business.  Isn’t that strange?  There is $6 trillion worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.  Isn’t that strange? 

 

“The U.S. government quietly announces January 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.  Isn’t that strange?  President Musharref (Pakistan) and Karzai (Afghanistan...ex-Unocal) announced agreement to build the proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan.  Isn’t that strange?” 

 

Bruggeman’s letter ended by saying:  “Truth is stranger than fiction...” 

 

 

The Bottom Line

 

But there is still one more giant reason for the whole Afghanistanian thing and the Bush war.  It has to do with the religious question, which has been broached earlier.  Clearly, the coming Babylonian Beast power will have a profound religious orientation.  In that sense, everybody in the world will be forced to accept and pay homage to the imposed religious system. 

 

The sad thing about this coming conglomerate is that it will be allowed on stage and be accepted by the world’s masses precisely because it will deceptively hold itself out as offering religious liberty and pluralism.  But the truth is that the New World Order will be a religious dictatorship.  There will be no freedom of religion in this coming New World Order. 

 

The world’s people will be allowed to have this supposed religious freedom--providing that they march to the tune being piped.  People of all religious groups will have to respect and appreciate each other and each other’s methods of approaching religion.  Everybody must be tolerant and show acceptance of all other faiths. 

 

And by all means, the social gods of the New World Order (feminism; open sodomy and sexual perversion; racial integration, amalgamation and miscegenation; open abortions; and so forth must be accepted by all faiths).  Anyone speaking out against any of the gods of the New World Order will be subject to arrest, imprisonment and murder. 

 

For sure, religious fundamentalism (whether Moslem, Ultra Orthodox Jewish or right wing Christian) is in trouble in the coming New World Order.  The destruction of Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan, the murder of the Christian Davidians at Waco and the oppression against Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel are all proofs of the intolerance of the New World Order crowd for religious fundamentalism. 

 

The religious Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan had to go! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 479--More Plans for Tyranny

 

 

A Revisit to the Tribunals 

 

At some point in time, it is entirely logical that Muslim people throughout the world will become incensed toward America for any number of reasons (more so than presently because they already are angry and mad at the US for the reasons cited previously herein). 

 

As a minimum, will the formerly mentioned US actions to classify Muslim prisoners of war as detainees and to torture and try them with military tribunals be more nails to be driven into the US coffin when the Muslims eventually help conquer America and her White British Commonwealth allies? 

 

The Dec 31, 2001, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 12) had a story by Christopher Bollyn on “British Chief of Staff Critical of America’s War on Terrorism.”  Per the report, British Chief of Staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce said that America’s determination to use military might in a wider war was certain to “radicalize” friendly (Muslim) states.  Boyce did not mention the US war tribunals, but they surely will be a part of it. 

 

Incidentally, following WWII, the allied victors did set up “War Crimes Commissions” to try certain Nazi and Japanese civilian and military people for alleged crimes against so-called humanity, including extermination, enslavement, deportation and other so-called inhumane acts (“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 905). 

 

As bad as these trials were, they were at least formally established with rules of evidence, civilian judicial officials, some oversight and defense attorneys. 

 

Although the US and other allied powers were just as guilty as the Germans and Japanese of many of the same charges (and still continue to be guilty of the same charges on a recurring and continuing basis), the trials took place (like the famous Nuremberg war trials). 

 

Surely, this action and the recent Bush decision for military tribunals to try alleged “terrorists” will all come home to haunt US military and civilian officials when YHWH’s justice is ultimately done. 

 

What will Americans do when conquering Russians, Chinese, Muslims, Hispanics and other Third Worlders come here in WWIII and begin trying US officials for war crimes and crimes against so-called humanity?  The chickens will then come home to roost! 

 

By the way, the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials was Samuel L. Jackson, a later US Supreme Court Justice. 

 

Jackson said at the trials “We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.  And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war.  It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy” (May 26, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

In view of this official US position in 1945, when trying German leaders for war crimes, one must apply the same analogy to the various US leaders who have launched wars of aggression against any number of foreign nations in the last fifty years.  Will Jackson’s words come home to haunt Slick Clinton and the two Bushes? 

 

 

More Than Muslim Terrorists 

 

As soon as all of the Big Brother measures had taken hold (as described in the prior chapters), the US government made it clear that she will define what persons and what actions constitute terrorists and terrorism.  Already, numerous US leaders have made it clear that the word “terrorism” will go beyond Muslim terrorists (as was highlighted in the previously quoted “Radio Liberty” comments). 

 

A number of leading Amalekites have come out in the controlled media to establish that the new moves against terrorists must and will include right wingers, patriots, Christian Identity types and so forth.  Part of the justification for this linkage is now being laid in the controlled media by alleging that the US right wing is tied in with the Muslim fundamentalists. 

 

The earlier quoted “Forward” paper of Nov 23, 2001, had a front page story by Rachel Donadio on “Radical Islam, Neo-Nazis Are Seen Sharing Hate Rhetoric” which is providing impetus to these stories on linkage. 

 

Donadio wrote that US White supremacists and Islamic extremists are finding common cause since Sep 11th in anti-Jewish activities.  Work of the Southern Poverty Law Center to monitor and spy upon various White groups was cited.  This article even went so far to claim that there has been “coordination” between the Muslims and the so-called White supremacists. 

 

 

More Bush Plans 

 

The previously quoted “American Free Press” (p. 2) of Dec 2, 2002, had a short news item which quoted the “Washington Post” as saying that Bush’s top national security people have been holding meetings on the establishment of still one more new spy agency.  This one will be on top of the FBI and CIA.  It will focus upon counter-terrorism, spying and analysis of data compiled by the FBI and evidently the CIA. 

 

The panel in this study includes--Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor; Andrew Card, chief of staff; Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense; George Tenet, CIA director; and John Ashcroft, attorney general.  The report did not reflect whether this new spy agency will be in the Department of Homeland Security or elsewhere on a government organizational chart. 

 

 

And More Bush Plans 

 

The previously cited Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 6) went on to lay out present Bush administration plans which are now in process of implementation or will be implemented at the first opportunity.  This list includes: 

 

“Americans to carry ID card. 

“To restrict the Constitutional rights of American citizens (now being done--ed). 

“Government employees to reject Freedom of Information requests, and restrict access to government information (now being done with security classifications). 

“To withhold ‘whistle blower’ protection from government employees. 

“To establish military tribunals (now done, as cited above--ed). 

“To (completely) repeal the Posse Comitatus law. 

“To repeal laws dealing with medical and financial privacy. 

“To allow the FBI to monitor churches and library use (now being done--ed). 

“To establish relocation camps for American citizens (now in process--ed). 

“To establish the TIPS program, the Terrorism Information and Prevention System” (now in process--ed). 

 

 

The 2003 Plans 

 

Not content with the oppressive and unconstitutional measures taking away basic human rights and freedoms (freedoms which are manifestly granted Americans under the US Constitution), the Bush people have formulated a new shopping list of things which the Republican controlled Congress will be asked (or made?) to pass in 2003-2004. 

 

Attorney General John Ashcroft wants the Congress to pass a “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003” which will empower the federal government to wiretap without a judge’s order (as they are largely doing now), conduct secret arrests, and strip Americans of their citizenship based upon the sole authority and decision of the US Justice Department (Mar 7, 2003, “The Week,” p. 4). 

 

This issue of “The Week” quoted ACLU attorney Rajeev Goyle of the “Baltimore Sun.”  Goyle said that Ashcroft is going over the line.  He added that “What about the innocent people who, because of law enforcement’s mistakes, incompetence, or prejudice, end up as ‘suspected terrorists?’” 

 

This writer will answer Goyle’s concern by saying that it will be just tough for any person charged under this anticipated new law.  There is never any review or recourse to follow-up action when federal bureaucrats and murderers kill and terrorize innocent people (as happened at Ruby Ridge with the Randy Weaver family and at Waco with the Davidians).  Big Brother is above the law. 

 

Many Americans used to read about and agonize over the brutal Third World dictators who made secret arrests (often in the middle of the night) and proceeded to torture, intimidate and threaten and eventually murder the so-called enemies of the state.  Tragically, this whole scenario is now upon the American people. 

 

If this new bill gets passed (which will probably happen), an innocent person can be arrested secretly in the middle of the night and never be heard of again by any one (and there will be no way that relatives or friends can ever ascertain the status of such a missing person). 

 

He can be tortured, stripped of his citizenship and held indefinitely (without trial, being charged, appearing before a judge or having habeas corpus); and/or he may be deported or murdered without a whimper of concern from anyone in authority in the US government. 

 

He may never be allowed to see an attorney or a friendly face as he faces great trial, torture and finally death at the hands of a mad, wild, irresponsible, dictatorial, criminal government that operates totally and completely contrary to the US Constitution (this can be thought of as a great tribulation). 

 

 

But Currently 

 

Actually, under the current Bush operations, this 2003 planned bill is not even needed because US authorities can right now secretly arrest anyone in America (to include any US citizen) and whisk them off to a federal detention facility where they will never be heard of again by even their closet relatives or friends (they simply vanish into thin air). 

 

Once arrested, they never have to have a lawyer, appear in court, be granted habeas corpus or have contact with anyone.  They can be tortured and even murdered without any oversight or review by any US judicial court or trial by jury.  Their guilt never has to be established in a court of law.  There is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in any of these US seizures. 

 

Already, some American citizens have been so arrested under the provision that they were enemy combatants (the US government unilaterally makes this determination and it is not subject to review or judicial oversight.  Thus, it is a completely arbitrary decision by the US Attorney General). 

 

For years, the Seventh day Adventists have maintained that the two horned beast of Revelation 13:11-18 is the United States.  Of course, this interpretation is all wrong because manifestly the pope seems to fit this description.  But this erroneous thinking of the Adventists may make many of them believe that indeed the United States does seem to fit the bill for the two horned beast. 

 

 

Continuity of Government 

 

During the Irangate hearings with Oliver North in the 1980s, there was a question about the US plans for continuity of government in the event of a major disaster.  The committee chairman would not let the question be pursued or answered. 

 

But the essence of the idea is that the White House for some years has had a continuity of government plan in place if something bad happens--like nuclear war, an economic collapse or something else. 

 

Effectively, the plan is that the presidential administration will suspend the Constitution and impose marital law over the US.  These plans are still on the books in terms of GWB.  As described in former chapters herein, each presidential administration since John F. Kennedy has issued a whole series of Executive Orders which will allow this take-over of the US government immediately with no delays. 

 

However, something new has surfaced as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks which could be even more sinister and immediate.  The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has organized a “Continuity of Government Commission” which will address the government reaction to a disaster that could take out leaders and numbers of people in the administration and in Congress. 

 

An Internet web site (www.continuityofgovernment.org/about/about.html) gives the plans for this organization (as reported in the Nov 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter, p. 2)--viz: 

 

“The commission will focus its attention on preserving Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court.  The central issue that the commission will address is how Congress could function if a large number of members were killed or incapacitated.  The problem is most acute in the House of Representatives because the Constitution requires that all vacancies be filled by special election, and it takes four months on average to fill these seats. 

 

“If there were mass vacancies, the House might not even be able to meet its quorum requirements, or it might operate with a small and unrepresentative number.  A second problem is that of incapacity.  Because there is no precedent for filling temporary vacancies, both houses of Congress would be severely diminished, or unable to operate at all, if a large number of members were incapacitated.  The events of September 11 led to several ongoing efforts to preserve the continuity of Congress...” 

 

This commission is now in place.  It is serious business by the plutocrats ruling America because its honorary chairmen include former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. 

 

 

Some Analysis 

 

“Radio Liberty” asked what is the objective of this CFR continuity of government organization?  And the answer from informed observers is that it has been formed to recommend a Constitutional Amendment or a Constitutional Convention to restructure government to facilitate the “war on terrorism.” 

 

The plans for a Constitutional Convention have been in place for the last fifty years.  Most of the states have now signed off on this scheme and it will only require a few more to become reality.  With a Constitutional Convention, who knows what might happen.  For sure, the old Constitution will be out as the planners and schemers write a new one. 

 

While the CFR will easily sell this scheme to the gullible American public, there is something about it which is most intriguing.  Since the truth is that the president already has plans and powers in place to take over the United States with martial law and suspend the Constitution (in a so-called emergency), why is there any further need for a provision to maintain Congress? 

 

Under present plans, all persons in Congress can go home whenever the president declares his emergency.  Any attempt to find a way to reconstitute an immediate Congress (when one is not needed and certainly not needed immediately--thereby allowing much time for special elections and a new crop of Congressmen) is a waste of time to even address. 

 

Because Congress would be eliminated in an emergency (until at least time passes to allow special elections, if a president ever chooses to give up power once a national emergency is declared), there is manifestly no reason for a new constitution to address the reconstitution of Congress.  In other words, the present Constitution and the existing executive orders are more than enough to deal with any emergency. 

 

So really, what is behind this scheme from the Council on Foreign Relations (which is one of the clandestine organizations pulling the strings over much of America, as outlined in previous chapters herein)?  The writer of this study thinks that it is a plan to obtain a new constitution over America which would fulfill the goals of the plutocrats.  This national emergency excuse could be the vehicle for a new constitution. 

 

One or more new constitutions are already on the drawing boards.  All that is needed is a Constitutional Convention to put one of them into place.  Maybe, the CFR is now leading the way on this thing in the vein of protecting against terrorism. 

 

 

The American People

 

The point is that the US move against the Muslims (as discussed above and in previous chapters), with the enactment of police state tactics, means that the groundwork is now laid for the US government to use the same tactics and practice tyranny against US people in any of the right wing groups which are not marching to the tune piped by the New World Order crowd (like on race, as described by Rachel Donadio in the above comments). 

 

By tying politically incorrect right-wingers to the Muslim fundamentalists, the US police state can easily move against her major enemies on all fronts.  Soon, Christian Identity, Aryan Nations, Ku Klux Klan, militia and similar groups will be subject to arrest and trial by a military tribunal. 

 

As already noted in previous chapters, this will be a horrible time for many people on the right, who are a little more serious on their religion than the case with the rest of pagan, sun worship Christianity.  However, in the long run, the motion will work for good as the US law enforcement people murder some of these right-wing leaders who have been leading their sheep astray. 

 

With the leaders gone, the people will be free to turn to YESHUA.  It is a shame that some of the sincere people in many of these groups will have to face the terrifying future of a police state in order to begin to take YHWH’s Word seriously.  But evidently, that seems to be the case. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 480--Hitler of the Week

 

 

Hitler of the Week 

 

The plutocrats and their controlled media and government allies have a habit of defining any person as another Hitler if he doesn’t toe the line with them.  Ever since WWII, the world has been faced with a barrage of these Hitlers.  It seems that every week, there is a new Hitler of the week to draw the attention of the gullible people (as a radio talk show caller pointed out one day in a call-in to one of the programs). 

 

For years, it was various Communist leaders in China and the USSR, then the focus turned to others--like Salvador Allende (of Chile), Manuel Noriega, the perennial Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and routinely many Muslims (i.e. Yasser Arafat, Muammar Qaddafi, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, and more recently Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar). 

 

There is a never ending parade of these Hitlers, who are regularly denigrated and hated by political leaders and the controlled national media. 

 

Often the Amalekite Western plutocrats have their way and these so-called Hitlers just die off or otherwise are eliminated.  This was the case with Iran’s Ruhollah Khomeini, Chile’s Salvador Allende, Panama’s strong man Manuel Noriega and more recently Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic (as discussed in the preceding chapters).  In other cases, the Hitler of the week just seems to vanish from the public’s eyes. 

 

Since Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar were never captured or killed (as commented upon previously), these two Hitlers have slowly vanished from the media’s focus and thus, the public’s attention.  Since the gullible, Western, Christian masses must have a Hitler to hate and talk about, the controlled media and politicians seemed to be a quandary of sorts in early 2002. 

 

 

The Plan 

 

The Feb 22, 2002, “The Week” (p. 4) spelled out the solution that the plutocrats apparently decided upon for their subjects.  At that stage of the game, in early 2002, it appeared that plans were then in place to resurrect Saddam Hussein as the revived Hitler of the week (although the case can be made that the controlled media never let Saddam completely fade away after the 1990s Gulf War). 

 

In any case, the Bush administration (obviously under prodding or direction of the Amalekite plutocrats) decided that it would next concentrate upon Iraq and Saddam.  The article in “The Week” started off by saying “Iraq:  Does the U.S. have the right to take out Saddam?” 

 

Anyway, the process was underway to revive Saddam as the Hitler of the week; thus, one of the most evil people in all of history.  “The Week” quoted Sheryl McCarthy of “Newsday” who said that because we lost track of Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, “Hussein has become the personification of evil in the public relations war.” 

 

So seemingly, the plan in early 2002 was for the US to focus upon Iraq and Saddam.  After all, the loving, Christian public must have a Hitler to hate.  Hence, Saddam was revived from his temporary absence from or downplay in the controlled media. 

 

 

Stephanie Reich 

 

There was much support for the idea of reviving Saddam as the Hitler of the Week (certainly, in mid 2002).  That prospect was carefully alluded to in an article by Stephanie Reich on “Evolution of ‘Get Saddam’:  A Twisted Tale of Oil Profits, Weapons Sales, Provocations,” in the June 10, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 10-11). 

 

Ms Reich said that right now (in June 2002) the Bush Administration was making preparations for an all out attack on Saddam and Iraq (which will be addressed below and in the following chapters). 

 

This reasoning was brought out in a speech in January 2002 by Bush on the “Axis of Evil,” in which GWB accused Iraq of having plotted to “develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons” and “fulminating against...a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors...a regime that has something to hide...” 

 

Bush said these words in January 2002 just after the former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said in January 2001 that “Saddam Hussein’s forces were in a state where he cannot pose a threat to his neighbors.”  Obviously, both of these statements could not be true (hindsight in 2003 has proven that Cohen was right). 

 

Anyway, Reich said that Bush had been planning a new war against Iraq--for several reasons.  Firstly, US oil companies would get new contracts to help various parties exploit the Iraqi oil fields.  Secondly, attacking Iraq would divert international attention away from the Palestinian Intifada in the Middle East, which showed no signs of abating (nor the Israeli retaliation efforts). 

 

Thirdly (quoting writer Noam Chomsky), the US was not hostile toward Saddam personally; but rather, would like to see the Iraqi population significantly reduced to a sparsely populated labor force (whose only purpose is to pump oil).  This option should not be ruled out in the vein of the goals of the New World Order on population reduction (as discussed earlier). 

 

 

A Question? 

 

In any case, once Bin Laden was defined as the new Hitler of the week back in the 1990s, the US military (under Bill Clinton) responded with a cruise missile attack upon Afghanistan on August 20, 1998, as cited in previous comments (to allegedly try to kill Osama). 

 

Since Osama and his terrorist network continued to support the US in Kosovo (during Clinton’s war on the Serbs in 1999), one must wonder if the US really did try to kill Bin Laden with the August 1998 missile attack (although Clinton continued to publicly claim that the US attack was made explicitly to kill Bin Laden). 

 

Alternatively, one might make the case that even enemies can join together to work against a common foe.  Milosevic and the Serbs were the common enemies of both the drug peddling Clinton people and the drug running Muslims. 

 

If the US was involved in overt missile attacks on Osama, as may have happened, it is also a good possibility that the CIA may have been trying to assassinate him earlier (and certainly later) in some secret operation (as has been the US MO for years in assassinating and murdering world leaders who do not toe the line properly with the ruling US plutocrats). 

 

This takes the student of truth up to the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.  Were these actions ordered by Osama in retaliation for US attacks on Afghanistan and alleged US efforts to murder him or was Osama working for the CIA or Mossad in ordering the 9/11 attacks? 

 

In Dec 2002, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said:  “I’m telling (Bin Laden) directly not to hide behind the Palestinians’ cause.  Bin Laden never helped us, he was working in another completely different area and against our interests” (Jan 13, 2003, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 53).  Is it possible that Arafat believed that Bin Laden worked for either the CIA or the Mossad? 

 

 

Muslim Involvement? 

 

The May 20, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 4) offered a powerful story on the continuing after-effects of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in an article by Michael Collins Piper on “FBI Admits:  No Evidence Links ‘Hijackers’ to 9-11.” 

 

Piper wrote:  “After seven months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen that there exists solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller has now admitted quite the opposite. 

 

“That 19 Muslim men who have apparently disappeared have been named as the hijackers is not in doubt.  What is in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.”  This conclusion was effectively stated by Mueller in a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on April 19, 2002, when Mueller acknowledged that the hijackers “left no paper trail.” 

 

Mueller said that “In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper--either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere--that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.” 

 

The FBI Director explained the absence of evidence by saying that the hijackers used “meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their plans.  Piper called these words an “disingenuous assertion.”

 

A “Washington Post” article of April 30, 2002, from the LA Times said that “Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks--all legal except for a few speeding tickets--they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.” 

 

Piper’s article noted that following the attacks, the American people were told that there was firm evidence that the 19 men were members of Bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.  Right after the attack, government officials and the media alleged that there were letters and documents in the luggage and personal effects of the Muslims which proved that they were on a “mission for Allah,” etc. 

 

Then, in April 2002, the FBI seemed to have contradicted everything it had said earlier.  Of course, this option opened the door that maybe the alleged 19 Muslim men were not involved; or alternatively, that someone else stole their identities and carried the attacks out. 

 

The previous discussion on the involvement of the Mossad makes one wonder if it was the actual agency involved in the attacks, using forged Muslim identities or of having infiltrated the Muslim leadership to lead the terrorist attacks and then blame the resulting terrorism on the Muslims? 

 

While it may have not been the Mossad singularly, the case can easily be made that the attacks were handled by a conspiracy of people in the Mossad, the CIA and the Nesher conspiratorial group operating in the US government.  The Mossad would have had the connections to pull this thing off; the CIA would have had the money; and the Nesher group would have had the ability to cover it up in the US government. 

 

Such a group of conspirators could have easily programmed some brainwashed Muslims to participate and especially if the Muslims were promised an immediate translation to the Moslem heaven to enjoy pork, wine and beautiful women.  Such brainwashed Muslims would have been the perfect patsies. 

 

 

Why? 

 

And why would this group of three evil parties work together to promote so-called Arab terrorist attacks upon the US?  With or without the concurrence and involvement of Clinton, Bush or people in their administrations, there were a multitude of reasons justifying the conspirators to put over the alleged Muslim attacks on America. 

 

Of course, the hawks in the state of Israel all would be happy if the US would have a reason to hate Muslims and commence wars of liberation against their Muslim enemies--like those in al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran (Syria and Iran are also on the US drawing boards for later attacks). 

 

By the way, this reasoning was likely the case in 1967 with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (as discussed in a prior chapter herein).  The attack on the Liberty involved a great act of deception designed to create strife between America and the Arabs (strife which could lead to war between the US and the Muslims). 

 

Too, there would be many opportunities for the plutocrats, and particularly the Amalekite plutocrats in North America and Britain, to come into those Middle Eastern countries and steal everything possible.  The American oil interests (which includes the Bush and Gore families) would be happy to share in the plundering and looting of those Muslim countries. 

 

But all of these reasons are probably secondary to the big issue--like the need for the imposition of a tyrannical and dictatorial state upon the American public (as pushed by the Amalekite master Charles Schumer, as noted elsewhere herein).  Every time that one of these tyrannical laws is passed it moves America closer and closer to the implementation of the New World Order. 

 

While the plutocrats in North America and Britain may not be overly concerned with the state of Israel (though “some” Mossad and Nesher agents will be), the fat cats in charge are interested in doing anything and everything possible to bring on world government.  These acts of so-called terrorism and the resulting dictatorial laws all help pave the way for the national loss of US sovereignty. 

 

 

We May Never Know 

 

Frankly, we may never know the truth on any of these questions since all the records and actions of the US and Mossad participants have been classified TOP SECRET. 

 

We only have GWB’s word that Osama was guilty and that the US was innocent with pure, white hands.  Frankly, this writer does not have the foggiest notion of exactly what all was involved in the Sep 11th attack or the motivation for GWB to accuse Osama as the new Hitler of the week and launch his “War on Terrorism” (although it’s not hard to put two and two together and generally understand what happened). 

 

However, the fall-outs of those events are crystal clear to anyone, except the most dense and stupid of gullible idiots (which includes most American citizens, who have almost all been totally mesmerized and zombiized by the controlled media).  Truly, many Americans will never get the picture.  But some will. 

 

 

Back to Saddam 

 

Anyway, since Americans need a Hitler of the Week to continuously hate and be concerned over, Saddam Hussein was moved back into the spotlight in late 2002 as GWB announced his plans to have a new Iraqi war. 

 

On this, Dr Stan Monteith (in his video on “9/11 Contrived”) quoted Plato’s “Republic” which said that “When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader.” 

 

Yes, that is one of the primary reasons why there has to be a Hitler of the week and why the US must constantly be either having a conflict with some other nation or be going to war with some other state.  The people need a leader to follow.  And the leader needs a conflict with an enemy in order to have a following. 

 

At the Nuremberg war trials, the infamous Nazi leader Hermann Goering (1893-1946) said-- “Naturally the common people don’t want war:  Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.  That is understood.  But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 

 

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same in any country.”  Goering had it right.  It has always been that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 481--The Iraqi War I

 

 

Colonel Edward Mandell House, Revisited 

 

The very mention of the man Colonel Edward Mandell House (an Amalekite Jew) allows a question mark to come into the minds of most Americans who are simply uninformed about this man and his work in the early 20th century.  Dr Stan Monteith is quoted several times herein.  Dr Monteith says (in his video on “9-11 Contrived”) that Colonel House was perhaps the most important man in the 20th century. 

 

Edward Mandell House was supposedly an assistant or aide to President Woodrow Wilson, who occupied the US White House in the years 1913 to 1921 (when America went into WWI in the war that was supposed to end all wars).  But the Colonel was not just an “assistant or aide.”  He was far more important than that.  He was Wilson’s alter-ego; and he was the man who really ran things in the Wilson administration. 

 

Being the brains and boss behind the presidential throne, all important pieces of correspondence and major decisions were reportedly ran through him personally.  He was the guy who called the shots from behind the scenes while Wilson was the politician working out front in the public’s eyes. 

 

In the Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 2), Dr Monteith quotes an article by Colonel House from the June 1923 “Foreign Affairs” magazine, the publication arm of the notorious Council on Foreign Relations (mentioned in a previous chapter on Internationalism and the New World Order). 

 

House wrote:  “If war had not come in 1914 in fierce and exaggerated form, the idea of an association of nations would probably have remained dormant, for great reforms seldom materialize except during great upheavals...”  As happened, WWI created the first major international push for world government in centuries with the organization of the League of Nations. 

 

While the efforts of people like Wilson, House and others worked hard to force the US into the League of Nations, the effort fell through the crack.  Of course, another major war was needed to take another stab at this process.  It came in 1939 with WWII.  By 1945, the United Nations was a reality--and with America as a member and chief financier. 

 

Yet, the UN still has not achieved its role of really governing the world as some or many of its advocates have planned and worked for.  Since war changes things, is it possible that a new war (WWIII) is now in the offerings in order to bring on real world government? 

 

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski 

 

The after effect of the repeal of the McCarran Immigration Act in 1965 has been cited in a former chapter.  With this legislation, a flood of Third World Colored immigrants began flowing into the United States to forever change her demographics, mentality and thinking.  America has become a vastly different nation, in terms of its people, since 1965 (actually, the transition started in WWII and only intensified since 1965). 

 

The problem of how to deal with this host of diversity was addressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.  Brzezinski’s words were quoted by Dr Stan Monteith in the Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 3), as follows: 

 

“...as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat... In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies that cannot be directly related to central beliefs and widely shared cultural-ethnic sympathies...” 

 

Possibly, Brzezinski’s advice is behind the steady stream of “Adolf Hitlers” that Americans face almost every week (as noted in the prior chapter).  Americans need a weekly Adolf Hitler to hold things together in this multi-racial and multi-cultural nation. 

 

 

David Rockefeller 

 

To apparently set the stage for the present US war against Iraq, it is also imperative to take a look at the wisdom of David Rockefeller (one of the super rich fat cats calling the shots all over the world).  In David Wegener’s video on “The Conspiracy of 911,” Wagener quotes Rockefeller from Sep 14, 1994. 

 

Rockefeller said:  “We are on the verge of global transformation.  All we need is the right major crisis and the nation (the United States, ed) will accept the New World Order.” 

 

Here, the question must be on what type of a major crisis will be needed to bring on world government?  The obvious answer must focus upon either a major war or a major economic catastrophe.  Frankly, both eventualities seem to be falling into place by early 2003. 

 

Interestingly, the Illuminati (as discussed in a previous chapter) has had a plan of three world wars on the drawing board for over 200 years--the purpose of which is to install a one-world government under Illuminati control.  There has been much anticipation among some students of truth for years now on the certainty of the coming of this planned third world war. 

 

For some time, this writer was suspicious that the planned WWIII was supposed to involve the West and Communism.  But at some point in time, the plutocrats and world leaders must have changed this idea slightly.  In any case, the time for the WWIII event may now be close at hand.  Probably, the related major economic collapse will precede this war, accompany this war or soon follow this war. 

 

 

The Bush Doctrine 

 

In connection with US plans to wage war in the Middle East, the Bush White House outlined several new concepts in the conduct of geopolitical and war subjects.  Evidently, for the first time since WWII, the US now takes the position that she will use nuclear weapons in any conflict and may use them in a first strike situation. 

 

To more strongly spell out the new Bush doctrine, the White House in Sep 2002 completely redefined America’s relationship with the rest of the world in a 33-page policy statement (Oct 4, 2002, “The Week,” p. 6).  Per Bush, the US now has the right to launch a pre-emptive strike anywhere and anytime against any alleged enemy.  As Secretary of State Colin Powell said--Iraq is due for a “regime change.” 

 

There was now concern among some foreign writers that the US was reaching far beyond the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. 

 

 

Stephanie Reich, Revisited 

 

The former chapter quoted Stephanie Reich on the revival of Saddam Hussein as the Hitler of the Week (now that the obsession over Osama bin Laden had diminished).  Ms Reich carefully laid out the several reasons why this shift came about in the spring of 2002. 

 

Of course, Stephanie saw the primary need in the vein of oil profits (which is ultimately the most important reason of all).  The United States has had a long history of fighting wars to make money for the plutocrats calling the shots (in the US, the Rockefeller family in particular has profited enormously from US wars).  Nothing has changed in the reign of George W. Bush.  The game is still the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 482--The Iraqi War II

 

 

This Writer’s View 

 

Interestingly, the writer of this study at hand agrees with Ms Stephanie Reich, as outlined in the former chapter, but would summarize the options slightly different. 

 

Actually, Bush was surrounded by a host of people who did want a war with Iraq, which they anticipated would be successful just as the US “supposedly” has had success in Afghanistan (other than putting a lot of money into the pockets of the oil lobby and other plutocrats, the Afghanistan operation was a total failure, as noted elsewhere herein). 

 

On the surface, this writer can perceive several different groups of people who pushed the US into a showdown with Saddam and Iraq.  The first big push came from the Israelis and the pro-Israel, Jewish lobby in America which is quite powerful and persuasive and especially in America’s leftist politics. 

 

The Amalekite master Richard Perle, who chaired the Pentagon’s advisory panel, the Defense Policy Board (Perle was forced to resign as chairman but he remains on the Board, as cited earlier), had already went on record that he wanted a regime change in both Germany and Iraq (as also postulated by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell). 

 

Interestingly, Perle was the chief architect and driving force of the Bush plans for war against Iraq in 2002-2003 (Oct 14, 2002, “American Free Press” p. 5). 

 

As was discussed in a former chapter, Perle is a part of a conspiratorial group of Amalekite Jew bankers/masters (along with Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and others) who are busy trying to make profits and extend their power over the world in the vein of the Bush administration and the so-called neo-conservatives behind the Bush administration (to be further described in comments to follow). 

 

Perle (known as the Prince of Darkness) is also now mad at the present German government as well (headed by Gerhard Schroeder) for not supporting the US plans for war (ibid, p. 5).  Normally, the US occupied Germans readily agree to whatever the US wants.  So it is indeed strange that the present German government would try to side with Russia, China and France in not agreeing to the US war plans. 

 

This factor in America alone was sufficient to have a war in Iraq.  But this time around, all of the American leftists were not on the band wagon for a war with Iraq.  There was and continues to be a dove faction among the US liberals which has not been overly concerned with the state of Israel and the threat that Saddam posed to that nation.  It also is evident that European plutocrats were not committed to such a war. 

 

 

But Some Reluctance 

 

While many of the American and British plutocrats obviously wanted an Iraqi war for profits, to protect Israel and to bring on world government, some of them also liked having Saddam in control in Iraq in order to maintain the balance of power reality in the Middle East and to also have a continuous whipping boy to talk about and attack and bomb with some regularity. 

 

There was also the situation with the great push for peace coming from many of the major plutocrats trying to install world government.  Hence, there was a powerful faction of European plutocrats who simply were not on board on the alleged need for war with Iraq (this condition was noted in a prior presentation on the Bilderbergers). 

 

The Nov 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 4) mentioned a couple of facts about Saddam not commonly known.  In 1995, the US State Department refused to support the bid of some of the Iraqi military to depose Saddam Hussein (in other words, the US sided with and protected Saddam--all the while that American leaders were regularly bombing Iraq and linking Saddam with Adolf Hitler). 

 

Perhaps because of this reason or something else, many Iraqi people believed that Saddam worked for the CIA (in fact, US support in the 1980s to Iraq would suggest that indeed Saddam was at least then an employee of the United States).  Too, in the Gulf War, George H. W. Bush did intervene to stop the US military from totally destroying Saddam.  So something could be afoot on this thinking. 

 

This thing on the effort of Iraqis to depose Saddam is interesting in view of the fact that the US government sponsored an effort in December 2002 to bring all of the Iraqi opponents of Saddam together to form an organization dedicated to his destruction. 

 

This group of anti-Saddam, Iraqi people (330 in total) met in London in mid Dec 2002 to organize and develop plans to get rid of Saddam (Dec 15, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A 2).  It is strange that America would sponsor and organize such a meeting if indeed Saddam was still on the US payroll. 

 

Probably, the better view is that Saddam was on the US payroll in the 1980s, but was later kicked off when it became time for the Gulf War of the 1990s.  With all of the US skullduggery going on all over the world, one can never be sure of exactly who is on the US payroll and who is not.  Anyway, this option must be placed on the table for discussion. 

 

 

Some Related Facts

 

While Bush has severely condemned Iraq for having alleged weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear), it is utterly fascinating that it has been the US which has been the leading country in developing and using these very weapons over the years (like in Vietnam and at Waco, Texas). 

 

Not only has America been the pioneer on this subject, but the US has been the primary country that exported this technology around the world. 

 

For example, the Jan 6 & 13, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 2) quoted “The London Times” which had a story that in 1983 Donald Rumsfeld (now the media hogging Secretary of Defense who constantly talked about the evils of Saddam) met privately with Saddam Hussein to help his country obtain biological and chemical weapons and components--including anthrax and bubonic plague cultures. 

 

The meeting was captured on a 90 minute video (which apparently is now in the hands of “The London Times”).  This meeting was the beginning of the US effort under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush to supply Iraq with weapons to use against Iran.  The Apr 14, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 3) had a Dec 1983 photo of this Rumsfeld meeting in Baghdad with Saddam. 

 

In those days, private citizen Rumsfeld was in Iraq for a secret meeting with Saddam on behalf of Reagon and the US plutocrats.  Even then, Iraq was on a list of terrorist states and Rumsfeld admitted this fact to BBC.  But in those days, the dictator and alleged terrorist Saddam was a US ally--so the Rumsfeld meeting was a good thing! 

 

An AP report in Nov 2002 said that all of Iraq’s germ warfare capabilities came from the US in the late 1980s--including anthrax, botulinum toxin bacteria, gas gangrene germs and West Nile Virus (Jan-Feb 2003 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 24). 

 

Not only did America first supply some or all of these very weapons of mass destruction to Saddam in the 1980s, during the Iraq-Iran war, but the US has been for years one of the primary supplier of arms, in general, to Iraq and many other countries around the world. 

 

The Dec 18, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A3) had a fascinating article from the “Los Angeles Times” which reported that “Germany, U.S. sold most technology to Iraq.”  Per this story, the Germans were first and the US was second in furnishing military technology and hardware to Iraq. 

 

Yes, American corporations and bankers built up Adolf Schicklgruber in the early 1930s; and now, they had done the same thing with Iraq.  This then brings up the US Military-Industrial Complex (as mentioned years ago by former President Dwight David Eisenhower) which will now be addressed. 

 

 

Military-Industrial Complex 

 

Thus, there is the question of military people and war hawks, like Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.  While the typical grunt in the foxhole isn’t always so interested in war, some of the generals in the Pentagon do like the idea occasionally--for personal pride and vanity reasons (because wars offer more medals and promotions). 

 

Surely, this was the case presently in that some generals and civilian defense officials did want a war with Iraq.  But also, it was very likely that this voice was divided and that a significant number of people at the Pentagon would have liked to see the cries for war defused.  Of course, it is almost academic to talk about this option because the Pentagon brass would ultimately do whatever the president decided. 

 

Beyond the US military, there was the rest of the US military-industrial complex.  Manifestly, every time the US military fires a weapon, the bullet, shell, missile, bomb or whatever has to be supplied by some large industrial corporation.  For sure, these people love war and clearly wanted one more war in the Middle East. 

 

In order to support the military-industrial combine, the US has been regularly and often bombing Iraq almost into the stone age at every opportunity (from March 2000 to September 2002, the US bombed Iraq at least 100 times--Oct 4, 2002, “The Week,” p. 16).  Per the Associated Press, US war planes bombed Iraq some 47 times from Jan I, 2002, to mid Oct 2002 (Oct 21, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

In a way, these periodic bombing runs should have been sufficient for the US military--but maybe not! 

 

Each one of these bombing runs costs the taxpayers a barrel of money--plus, they were technically illegal since the original UN resolution (678, dated Nov 29, 1990) only authorized member states (like the US) to use “all necessary means” to compel Iraq to leave Kuwait (Nov 25, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 14). 

 

Manifestly, Iraq has been out of Kuwait for over a decade.  Thus, UN resolution 678 seems to have long expired (yet, the US was continuing to use it for its regular flights and bombing runs over the so-called no-fly zones). 

 

The just quoted Oct 21, 2002, AFP also reported that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a new war with Iraq would cost the US some $93 billion.  Of course, big corporations will get much of that money.  As General Butler noted years ago, war is a very profitable business. 

 

Anyway, Bush definitely had war on his mind.  Accordingly, his administration made plans to call up some 265,000 reservists and national guardsmen (Oct 28, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  This mobilization pleased the war hawks and helped the US unemployment statistics which have been going up under the Bush presidency (by placing unemployed people into the military). 

 

The Dec 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 6) quoted the “Wall Street Journal” -- “With a weak economy, temporary war spending would be welcome.  In fact, the dirty truth is that war, if it goes as planned, is a great stimulus package.  It would pump needed money into the economy and remove the uncertainty that has been holding down business investment.  If lower oil prices emerge at war’s end, that’ll be icing on the cake.” 

 

 

The Crux 

 

However, the comments of Ms Reich (cited above and earlier) really laid out the crux of the matter.  There were questions of oil profits which obviously whetted the appetite of the ruling plutocrats in the US.  If these people could wipe Saddam out, the way would be paved for the US oil plutocrat fat cats to come into Iraq and completely steal the Iraqi oil fields.  A number of observers have mentioned this option. 

 

As late as Oct 28, 2002, the “American Free Press” (p. 4) had an article by Christopher Bollyn on “Oil Lust, Chickenhawks Fuel War” which noted that the present US war plans included a scheme whereby US military forces would occupy Iraq indefinitely, with a US military commander in charge (ostensibly, while American soldiers were searching for weapons and getting the Iraqi oil fields back into operation). 

 

A follow-up story, by Fred Lingel, on “Chicken Hawks Circle Oilfields; Wait to Strike,” in the Jan 6 & 13, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 18), noted that Chicken Hawk Elliot Abrams (one of the Amalekite Jews working for Bush) had already prepared a plan that the US would exercise de facto control over Iraqi oil fields even after Saddam was gone.  So this option was on the table as the US planned the coming war. 

 

Even if the Western plutocrats could not steal the oil fields directly, there was always the option that they would install a subservient lackey (as happened in Afghanistan with the US appointment of Hamid Karzai as President, per a discussion in a preceding chapter.  Karzai had close ties with UNOCAL, which had been trying to build a pipeline for years in Afghanistan.  With Karzai, this project is now proceeding). 

 

So, if the plutocrats do not steal the Iraqi oil directly, there was always the option of installing a dictator who would be amicable for a secret payoff/relationship with the plutocrats.  Too, there remained the possibility that American plutocrats would be able to rebuild or reconstitute the Iraqi oil fields, if they were destroyed or damaged in war (as happened in the former George H. W. Bush’s Gulf War against Iraq). 

 

On this option, the Sep 30, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a story from London on how much money Vice President Dick Cheney and his former company Halliburton socked away from the Iraqis, after the Gulf War of the 1990s. 

 

Per the story, the UN reduced sanctions in 1998 which allowed Iraq to buy needed parts and equipment to rebuild the oil fields.  Saddam bought $24 million worth of parts from Halliburton which was then managed by Cheney.  Yet today, Cheney calls Saddam a “murderous dictator” and “the world’s worst leader.”  Surely, Dick has had his eyes set on more profits from Iraq (through hook or crook). 

 

Too, the George H. W. Bush family has historically been involved in the oil business (along with the US plutocratic Rockefeller family).  There is no question about it, young GWB would be glad to see his family’s oil profits and oil position enhanced. 

 

 

PNAC and NCP Revisited 

 

Comments above and in prior chapters have outlined the presence of two powerful inter-locked Amalekite conspiratorial organizations which seemed to be providing much or all of the impetus for the US to have a war with Iraq.  These were the Project for the New American Century and the New Citizenship Project (as revealed by Christopher Bollyn, in his article in the Dec 30, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 1, 7). 

 

Without repeating the previous presentations on these two conspiratorial groups, the point can be made that long before 9/11, the Amalekite plutocrats and some of their janissary lackeys made it clear that they wanted to establish an American empire to rule the world as a part of the New World Order (obviously, under Amalekite Jew supervision and control as laid out in various revealing documents, as cited earlier). 

 

The essence of this report is that the Amalekite organized and directed PNAC/NCP efforts are managing US politicians like Bush to use the 9-11 attacks (which they likely arranged and directed) as a catalyst to increase defense spending (to please the military-industrial complex) and to impose US hegemony over the Gulf states (which will allow the Amalekite bankers/masters to steal the oil and make much money; and simultaneously appease the Israelis over their concern over their Muslim enemies). 

 

The Jan 13, 2003, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 32) had a story on “The Democracy Season” by Isabel Kershner which concluded that Bush plans a “transformation of the Middle East.”  This article quoted American Enterprise scholar Joshua Muravchik who said that Bush thinks that he is a “second coming” of Woodrow Wilson who had a crusade to make the world “safe for democracy” (but which produced WWI). 

 

 

Atrocity Stories 

 

There is still one more set of people (that are motivated by reasons purposely manufactured by Bush and his helpers to promote war) which also seemed to be propelling Bush into war.  George W. and his political advisors all are aware of the fact that the American people love war and particularly if they can be motivated and influenced in this direction by atrocity stories from the controlled media. 

 

The use of these atrocity stories has been a favorite part of the US methodology of going to war.  At least, the US has used these reports extensively to promote prior wars.  The Amalekite owned Hollywood was particularly effective during WWII in promoting the image of the vile and evil Germans and Japs by using atrocity stories. 

 

While the Nips were extremely cruel and brutal (as is true with Mongolians in general, as discussed earlier herein), it is even questionable that they were as evil and vicious as Hollywood painted them.  Of course, this is not to take away from the fact that indeed they were far more brutal than the typical Western mind can perceive. 

 

However, the Germans were in a different lot.  These people were much like the Western Christians in America and Britain.  The German military was perhaps one of the best disciplined military forces in modern history.  German officers were almost always men of honor, character and integrity.  They would have never allowed the brutality and evil from their soldiers that Hollywood painted. 

 

 

Bush Perception 

 

Understanding perfectly the value of atrocity stories, George H. W. Bush followed this methodology precisely in 1990-1991 to help create his need for war against Saddam.  As noted elsewhere herein, the Iraqis were not saints.  With their heavy behemah genes, it is true that a man like Saddam could be very cruel. 

 

Still, GHWB and the controlled media went out of their way to paint a picture that Saddam was even more evil than he really was.  The Bush Senior administration was regularly floating stories about the evils of Saddam.  We were told about Saddam using poison gas against the Kurds and that Saddam ordered the hands and ears cut off of his own soldiers (who were released after capture by the Iranians in the 1980s). 

 

A Kuwaiti girl told about Iraqi soldiers taking infants off of respirators to allow them to die.  This story quickly was transformed into a tale that the Iraqis pulled babies out of incubators and scattered them like firewood across the floor (Dec 23, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A3).  The only trouble with this story and most of the others floating around is that they were false and had been purposely told to create the war. 

 

The girl from Kuwait who told the above tale turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States.  Her tale was proven to be totally false.  Undoubtedly, it was told on behalf of her father who had a powerful motivation to get the US to go to war with Iraq and expel the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. 

 

While the US supplied Iraq with poison gas and biological agents back in the 1980s (because Iraq was a US lackey and on the US payroll), the Iraqi use of gas was undoubtedly exaggerated.  As noted elsewhere herein, it has historically been America which has used weapons of mass destruction.  The US invented most of them (like nuclear bombs and shells made from radioactive uranium) and used them first. 

 

Yes, it was America which bombed the Japs with nuclear bombs (after Japan had tried five times to beg for peace in the prior six months--per Dr Stan Monteith in his video on “9/11 Contrived”); and it was America which used poison gas in Vietnam and even against her own people in Waco, Texas--to murder innocent women and babies. 

 

Yes, it was America in the early 1990s which bombed the once advanced nation of Iraq into “a preindustrial age,” including the killing of five thousand civilians (Jan 17, 2003, “The Week,” p. 2).  As always in bomb attacks, it is usually only innocent women, children and old people who die and suffer.  Elite rulers (like Hitler, Saddam, Osama bin Laden, Clinton, Bush, etc) are almost always hiding out in secured bunkers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 483--The Iraqi War III

 

 

George W. Bush Learned 

 

Quite naturally, young George W. Bush learned from his dad.  Just as dad, granddad and other Bush family members all belonged to the society of death at Yale (the Skull and Bone secret group), GWB had the same training.  Therefore, human life has meant no more to George W. Bush than it did to his dad.  Young George then turned to atrocity stories. 

 

So, in early 2002, GWB and the controlled media started laying the groundwork on how evil Saddam was and how many innocent women and small babies Saddam had slaughtered in his quest to rule over Iraq.  George Junior and his controlled media allies dug up all the old stories (that George Senior had used over a decade ago) and added some new ones. 

 

Like in previous scenarios, most or all of these media-based atrocity stories were nothing but lies.  But the American public is so gullible and mesmerized that it cannot distinguish between lies and truth. 

 

Dr Stan Monteith in his Prophecy Club video tapes and his “Radio Liberty” newsletter (quoted from elsewhere herein) makes note of the value of atrocity stories to get the US into war.  Once the governing administration makes these charges of atrocities against someone and the controlled media floods the airways with the stories, war is inevitable. 

 

 

But False 

 

But just like other atrocity stories proved to be false (in WWI, in WWII, in the Balkans, etc), many or most of the stories that Bush and the media had been feeding the American people about the evils of Saddam were also proving to be false. 

 

The Oct 21, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) reported that the Bush/media stories about Hussein gassing his own people (the Kurds) are now known to be false (per a recent CIA report). 

 

The above cited Dec 23, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A1, A3) zeroed in on these stores in an article on “U.S. case for Iraq war short on evidence so far,” by Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press.  Calvin gave the background on the previously mentioned Kuwaiti girl and her lies which had no basis whatsoever (about the alleged Iraqi murder of babies in Kuwait). 

 

Per Mr Woodward, the stories used by the Bush clan about Saddam ordering the cutting off of hands and ears of soldiers released from Iranian captivity were all also false.  A 1994 investigation by the UN Human Rights Commission could find no evidence in support of these allegations (although Iraq did cut an ear off of an Iraqi deserter to the US in the 1991 GHWB war against Iraq). 

 

Calvin’s AP report also took note of another recent Bush/media story about Saddam planning a scorched earth scenario for Iraq if the US invades.  Per this report, Iraq was going to destroy its own food supplies and oil fields and blame the destruction on the US.  The only trouble on this allegation was that there was nothing to support it.  It seemed to be entirely an invention of Bush which was fed to the controlled media. 

 

In his January 2003 state of the union message to Congress, GWB offered a report that Saddam had to be stopped because he was buying uranium in Africa which could be used to build nuclear bombs.  As it turned out, this story was a total lie which Bush told Congress to support his plans for war against Iraq. 

 

The US tried for months to build a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq.  For awhile, the Bush team floated a tale that Iraq had supplied nerve gas to al Qaeda.  But as Woodward notes, there was no credible evidence in support of these allegations. 

 

 

Some Clarification 

 

In offering this assessment on the validity of the atrocity stories being spread about the evils of Saddam, some further qualifications and commentary are needed. 

 

In the Colored Third World, most or all the leaders are very evil people (actually, leaders of all countries are evil men, but they are just more evil and corrupt in the Colored world as opposed to the Christian West).  Generally, without exception, there is much oppression and tyranny imposed by the various Colored dictators upon the common man in their regimes. 

 

It’s almost the same situation with what happens to women who marry or become concubines to Colored men in the non-Adamic Colored world (as outlined in comments before times).  Many Colored men in the Third World (and even in the Christian West significantly) are extremely hard and abusive on their women (and especially almost all of them with heavy behemah genes). 

 

Black men traditionally beat and mistreat their women grossly.  While Mongoloids may not be as bad as Blacks, they too abuse their women.  In fact, Mongoloids are known for their cruelty (as noted earlier). 

 

Hispanics also abuse their women because they too can be very cruel and evil people (a Mexican acquaintance once told me that Mexican teenagers/young men in San Antonio, Texas would often fix razor blades in their shoes with the sharp edges out; then they would go into crowds and use their feet to strike stupid and hated gringos on their feet, ankles or legs with a sharp hit from the emplaced razor blade.  In the crowd, the attackers would almost never be caught, though their victims would be left severely cut and bleeding). 

 

 

More From Prime Minister Lee 

 

As Malaysian Prime Minister Lee said long ago, the Third World leadership is notoriously corrupt and incompetent.  Along with the corruption and incompetence, it must be noted that this leadership is also extremely cruel, harsh and oppressive against its own people. 

 

For sure, Saddam Hussein (with his heavy Black genes) fits precisely into this mold (as described above).  But so do virtually all of the other leaders in the Colored Third World.  It’s just a fact of life there.  Take, for instance, the situation in Iran.  The former Shah was a very cruel and evil man.  Certainly, he was oppressive.  But his Islamic successors have been and are just as oppressive and evil as was the Shah. 

 

It doesn’t matter what system (capitalism, Communism, Socialism, or what system) or what ruler rules in the Colored Third World, nothing changes because it is a genetic problem of the people.  So, when the US rushes in to remove or knock out one dictator, another dictator (equally as bad) is installed.  It doesn’t matter how much aid, bribery or pay-offs are made to the new dictator, the status quo continues. 

 

Also, in fairness, it must be said that White leaders in the Christian West can likewise be awfully evil people.  Thus, persons like Clinton, GHWB, GWB, FDR, Richard Nixon, Tony Blair and so forth have all been extremely wicked.  It’s just that their wickedness is generally not as oppressive and cruel and brutal as what one finds among Colored peoples.  Yes, all human devised governments have shortcomings! 

 

Truly, all of the worldly leaders have been and are evil.  But some in the Colored World are more noteworthy for cruelty and brutality.  Too, the US people have had a measure of protection from their evil leaders because of the existence of the US Bill of Rights to the Constitution.  But as these rights are being eliminated, it is opening the door for gross oppression against the common American citizen (as proven earlier). 

 

 

Nothing Changes 

 

The point of this is that nothing will change as evil men are removed from power in the Colored Third World.  Another evil man simply takes over and everything continues as it was before times.  While Adam is utterly incapable of ruling the world, the behemah and chaiyah humanoids are even more incapable of rulership. 

 

So the push for local rule has not brought any improvements in the lives of the Third World peoples.  Yes, in the old Colonial days when Britain, France, Germany, etc ruled much of the Colored World, things were bad.  But as these largely White governments pulled out and turned the local governments over to the indigenous local people, the quality of government went down substantially further. 

 

So, even if Saddam was removed from power, nothing would change in Iraq in terms of the local people.  It would just mean that some plutocratic fat cats on Wall Street (and maybe, in the Bush White House) may find themselves in a barrel of new profits and gain from the oil wealth in the region. 

 

Instead of the old rulers stealing all of this money, the new local rulers (and the plutocratic bankers/masters in the US) would get to steal it.  In either case, the local people will lose. 

 

 

A Related Effort in Iraq 

 

Since the atrocity stories, lies, deception, disinformation and propaganda have worked and do work so incredibly well upon the gullible and ignorant American public, Bush and his predecessor Clinton appear to have had work in progress to try to feed some bad information to the Iraqi people.  This reality was brought out in a Nov 25, 2002, news report in the “American Free Press” (p. 2). 

 

Per the AFP story, the US began a US psychological operation to discredit Saddam Hussein in Iraq six years ago (which would have been in 1996 and it is now in progress as well in the latest GWB war against Iraq).  The implications of this subterfuge surfaced in a peculiar way when a former employee of the US based Rendon group resigned over his company’s work in Iraq. 

 

Per the report, the Rendon group is a well financed Washington, DC PR firm which strangely enough had been broadcasting information by radio to the Iraqi people in Arabic.  The story did not reveal who in the US government was doing the financing (paying the bills), but speculation had it that it was the CIA, policy makers on the Hill or actually Iraqi resistance people. 

 

Anyway, the voice over Iraqi radio turned out to be a Harvard graduate who worked for Rendon.  Allegedly, the program was designed to discredit Saddam.  It was unclear from the report how or by which radio station the report was carried to Iraqi listeners.  It’s hard to fathom that an Iraqi station would allow broadcasts which were critical of Saddam (so possibly, the program was carried over a boot-leg operation). 

 

 

Operation Northwood and Similar Efforts 

 

As Dr Stan Monteith discusses in his video on “9-11 Contrived,” the US has not only used atrocity stories to get the public worked up into a pitch to call for war, but authorities have been known to script or stage incidents to cause an outcry for war from the public. 

 

Monteith mentioned the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havanna (which was laid on the Spanish--but a recent examination of the ship disclosed that the sinking was due to a blast in the ship’s coal bunker, as evidently self inflicted or caused accidentally) and the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 to bring the US into WWI--the Lusitania was a British ship carrying armaments (a ship of war) and some US passengers. 

 

Monteith adds that during the cold war, the US tried a whole host of schemes designed to provide an incident which could be laid upon Castro and thereby motivate the American public to call for war.  Some of these incidents were involved in a Top Secret undertaking called “Operation Northwood” (as mentioned earlier) 

 

The Dec 6, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 6) quoted researcher James Bamford that US officials planned phony terrorist attacks and other provocations which could be attributed to Cuba (as a part of Operation Northwood); to thereby cause the US to launch a war with Castro. 

 

Per Dr Monteith, one of the plans was to blow up the American rocket that was to carry John Glenn into space and blame Castro over it.  This would provoke a war. 

 

So, along with the atrocity stories, the Bush people conceivably could actually create a terrorist incident or other provocation to grant her the basis to launch her wars against her various enemies in the Middle East (which would, of course, allow the US plutocrats to steal much of the oil wealth in the Middle East). 

 

 

Implementation? 

 

In this context, one could make the case that the 9-11 incident was entirely set up to promote the war against Afghanistan and Iraq because George W. Bush continued to say that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda.  Thus, this Bush charge made Iraq guilty of 9-11, along with Afghanistan and any other nation in the Middle East that the US plutocrats want to take out. 

 

Too, the US consistently charged that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction (though Iraq said she had no such weapons and UN inspectors could not find any evidence of any such weapons). 

 

Next, it turned out that Iraq had a missile which would slightly exceed the allowable range limits.  Bush could not make a big deal over this missile since it was declared in the Iraqi declaration. 

 

The last thing provoking a war was the fact that the UN inspectors found a drone airplane in Iraq.  Bush immediately charged that this drone aircraft could deliver weapons of mass destruction (so could any piper cub or crop duster airplane).  Anyway, the presence of this aircraft made Bush declare that Iraq was in a material breach of UN resolutions. 

 

Almost anything in the way of deception was and is possible to provoke the American people into accepting the need for war.  The American people basically love war so it would not take much to edge them into a war.  So the Bush people poured forth all kinds of made-up, false and ridiculous charges to justify a war against Iraq. 

 

 

“The Week” 

 

The Mar 14, 2003, “The Week” (p. 6) offered an analysis on “Iraq:  Is war the only option left?” in comments from Anna Quindlen of “Newsweek.”  Per “The Week,” “All the preparations for war are in place... All that’s missing is ‘the real argument, the irrefutable argument, the Aha argument for invading Iraq.” 

 

Anna added that throughout US history, Americans have gone to war to fight for freedom and to repulse invaders.  Now, President Bush was pushing us toward war to punish Saddam Hussein for being “evil” and for playing “hide and seek” with UN weapons inspectors.  But does Saddam pose a real threat to America? 

 

Or alternatively, are we about to unleash our nation’s awesome military might simply because Bush is “a man who take slights seriously and responds pugnaciously?  Is war inevitable because, for our cowboy in chief, anything less than combat would be backing down”? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 484--The Iraqi War IV

 

 

The US Political Fall-Out 

 

With an obvious desire to have George W. Bush’s approval ratings go up in the political opinion polls and help the Republicans in the coming elections, GWB and his political advisors all looked favorably upon the benefits to be derived out of a war with Iraq (surely, it was this prospect of war which helped the Republicans in the November 2002 elections). 

 

A preceding chapter quoted Plato’s Republic on the decision of government leaders to raise up some body to have a conflict with so that the people will need a leader (as quoted by Dr Stan Monteith). 

 

In his Sep 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (2), the just cited Dr Monteith followed up with a quote from British Lord Esher, as made in his diary on Aug 3, 1917, viz:  “No American is likely to be killed before November.  This is unfortunate, as Wilson may require to be steadied before then and only the death of young Americans can ensure him stability.” 

 

Dr Monteith offered another relevant quote in his Sep 2002 newsletter (p. 2-3). 

 

This one was by author Joan Veon, who wrote:  “Government decision-makers tend to choose peace over war whenever a real option exists, because it usually appears to be the ‘safer’ choice.  Under most immediate circumstances, they are likely to be right.  But in terms of long-range social stability, the opposite is true.  At our present state of knowledge and reasonable inference, it is the war system that must be identified with stability, the peace system with social speculations...” 

 

Yes, evil leaders want wars and deaths to grant them political stability.  Of course, American presidents for generations have been quite aware of the reaction of people to gather behind a leader when there is an ostensible enemy.  Slick Clinton tried this for eight years and now GWB has picked up on the same ideology. 

 

That’s why the American people are constantly told regularly about some Hitler of the week and his many evils.  For sure, these Hitlers have helped the president’s approval ratings go up. 

 

 

More on the Chickenhawks 

 

Of course, one can easily perceive how quickly the various national leaders and spokesmen get behind their “leader” when he carts the nation off to war.  The previously cited Oct 21, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) quoted the liberal “New Hampshire Gazette” with its story about the “Chickenhawks” (the idea of the Chickenhawks was mentioned in another quotation from the AFP in a prior chapter). 

 

Besides Bush, this Chickenhawk list included Dick Cheney, Fox News commentator Brit Hume, Defense Department advisor Richard Perle (an Amalekite, on the Defense Policy Board), Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (another Amalekite leader), and popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (the AFP said that Limbaugh was a Republican tool who avoided combat in Vietnam because he had a cyst in a very uncomfortable place). 

 

Putting all of this together, the Bush administration started laying the groundwork for an Iraqi invasion and occupation in the spring of 2002.  As of the time of this writing, in early 2003, the motion is proceeding full blast as Bush has made his invasion of Iraq and is now in the supposed occupation stage. 

 

 

The Planning of Saddam 

 

With US military preparations being made to attack Iraq (originally, the plan was for a summer 2002 attack, but the time needed for preparations pushed the anticipated D-Day into a later mode), Saddam offered some of his thinking in a July 2002 meeting with his inter-circle that was leaked to an Arabic newspaper. 

 

James P. Tucker Jr picked upon the news item and prepared a story on “Saddam Will Attack If U.S. Strikes First,” which was published in the Jul 29, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 13).  In view of a recent decision by President G. W. Bush to give the CIA the green light to arrest or assassinate Saddam, the Iraqi leader said that the US “has left Iraq no room to be tolerant.” 

 

Saddam told his inter-circle of leaders that Iraq should not strike the first blow, but should wait and allow America to strike first.  Thereupon, Iraq would respond by commencing suicide bombings, and chemical and biological attacks on Americans in America.  Tucker also went on to note the possibility of nuclear terrorist attacks from Iraq as well. 

 

The point of Tucker’s article was that if America proceeded with her plans to attack and invade Iraq (using 250,000 ground personnel), Iraq could respond with internal terrorist attacks inside the US.  This whole thing could accelerate if Bush was not careful. 

 

The Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A3) had a “Washington Post” article on “Poll:  Nuke Iraq if it poisons U.S. troops.”  The essence of this story was that if Iraq should use chemical or biological agents against invading American military forces, the US should nuke Iraq.  Since some 60% of Americans favor the use of nukes, this option cannot be ruled out in any Bush war. 

 

While this “Washington Post” poll did not address the question of what would happen if Iraq used those agents in the US, this issue must be put on the table.  Saddam had very limited options on reacting to an American war and invasion.  Perhaps the primary thing Iraq could do was to initiate some terrorist attacks in the US. 

 

If Iraq should respond this way (even during the US occupation), what would the US do?  War hawks have wanted to totally destroy Iraq.  Thus, is it possible that Bush will try to then totally destroy Iraq? 

 

In the meantime, Iraq in September 2002 told the UN that US arms inspectors were welcomed and that Iraq had nothing to hide.  While this reach-out to the UN helped Saddam’s position with the fat cats in Russia and Europe, it did not pacify Bush and the American plutocrats who continued to call for war. 

 

In a follow-up, the Oct 28, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 10-11) had a story from George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament, who recently interviewed Saddam in Iraq. 

 

Saddam told him:  “If they (the Americans) come, we are ready.  We will fight them on the streets, from the rooftops, from house to house.  We will never surrender.  That is what Churchill promised the invaders threatening England.  And that is what we can promise the Crusaders if they come here.”  Based on this interview, it appears that Iraq would use some different tactics than those followed in the earlier Gulf War. 

 

 

Congress and the Democrats 

 

While many of the leftist Democrats in Congress hated Iraq and Saddam passionately and wanted to see them destroyed totally and completely, some of the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) did not get on the war wagon like GWB demanded. 

 

Though there were probably some legitimate reasons for the delay on Bush getting Congressional action for war, the better option seems to have been that the Democrats did not want Bush and the Republicans getting credit for the destruction of Iraq (this option was partially substantiated in comments in the Oct 25, 2002, “The Week,” p. 6, which said that many liberal Democrats oppose an Iraqi war because a hawkish Republican was in the White House). 

 

In any case, the collective Congress finally responded by Oct 11, 2002, and voted out a broad resolution in support of Bush’s plans for a war against Iraq (after the failures of some liberal Democrats to tone the war resolution down somewhat). 

 

 

The Antagonists 

 

By the time of Sukkot 2002, the definition of the various antagonists began to take shape.  Along with America, things fell into place quickly for Tony Blair and the British to join forces with the new anti-Iraq coalition (Britain’s status opened the door for the other White British Commonwealth states to come on board--like Australia, Canada [partially, by some Canadians--somewhat], and New Zealand). 

 

Quite naturally, the state of Israel (which, of course, has long wanted Iraq wiped out) joined on board.  This combine of the so-called allies or coalition is interesting because it involves a grouping of the House of Yisrael nations and the modern state of Israel.  This interesting configuration is mentioned several times throughout this publication. 

 

Much of Europe and the various other Muslim states tried their best to stay out of the confrontation.  However, France, Russia and China all made it clear that they were more interested in maintaining relations with Iraq and the Muslim world.  The Nov 15, 2002, “The Week” (p. 16) spelled out the fact that France has had long standing relations with Iraq. 

 

With Iran and the other Muslim states on the side of Iraq, it clearly communicated proof that the four horn powers were coming together (Zech 1:18-21, as covered in prior chapters and to be further discussed in comments to follow below). 

 

 

The Israelis 

 

To add fuel to the Moslem fire, the Israelis made it clear that they would not be happy to sit on the sidelines in the next Iraqi war. 

 

In fact, the Oct 14, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1) quoted a recent AP report which said that “Israeli special forces are already operating reconnaissance patrols in western Iraq.  These operations are carried out secretly by Israel’s best-trained commandos, the ‘Sayeret Matkal.’  Their mission:  to find and identify places used by, or likely to be used by, Iraqi Scud missile-launchers.” 

 

Of course, there was the reality that Saddam could undoubtedly strike the Israelis in some manner once war commenced.  The Israelis would certainly respond at that time, if they were not already involved.  As it worked out, this option did not materialize. 

 

Actually, the signs in Sep 2002 were already in place that the Israelis were somewhat involved and evidently from step one (at least, with the commando teams inside Iraq).  The Sep 30, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 15) had a story by Mike Blair on “Will Israelis Strike Iraq?” which suggested that Israel already had made plans to participate in this war in some way. 

 

According to Blair, the Pentagon was concerned that Israel would kick off her attack on Iraq at the same time that the US began her assault.  It would then be a coordinated effort.  The American concern was that Israeli participation would inflame the other Arab states and make the US-Britain-Israel attack a confrontation between the Muslims and Israel. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 485--The Iraqi War V

 

 

The Four Horns, Revisited 

 

In the developing conflict of the US led coalition (involving the state of Israel and the White British Commonwealth), the major opponents began to fall into place quite early (as described in former chapters). 

 

As mentioned in previous comments, Zechariah 1:18-21 seems to describe four horn powers in the age end which will be the primary opponents of Yisrael and Yehudah (along with possibly the King of the South and/or the pale/Green horse of the Moslems). 

 

This writer has long maintained that the four horns may involve Iraq, Iran, Russia and possibly Syria or Greece, at least in an ante-typical configuration.  Manifestly, these powers have been taking shape for much of the 1990s and the early 21st century.  With the threat of WWIII in the Iraqi conflict, the four horns have attained even more prominence and recognition. 

 

The Sep-Oct 2002 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 35) had a July 23, 2002, report from Joseph Farrah of World Net Daily on the Internet.  In discussing this coming US war with Iraq, Farrah said that it “will not just involve Iraq and the United States.  Iran will be involved.  Syria will be involved.  Other Muslim states are likely to be involved.  International terrorists will be unleashed from all corners of the earth.” 

 

It is absolutely astounding that Farrah would define these adversaries in a way which seems to precisely link with the Scriptural definitions. 

 

The previously quoted “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 6) also took note of the alignment of various Muslim states against the US.  “Radio Liberty” said that the coming conflict may involve Syria, Iran, and other Islamic countries (besides Iraq).  If this happens, surely there will be civil unrest and violence in US cities (per “Radio Liberty”). 

 

In any case, the four horn powers are coming together in a confrontation with the Yisrael nations.  Surely, Zekharyah’s words are almost ready for fulfillment. 

 

 

The Latest UN Development 

 

In order to prosecute America’s plans for war, the US and Britain went to the UN in September 2002 and demanded that the UN Security Council issue some very hard ultimatums to Iraq (ultimatums which Iraq could not or would not comply with; thus, opening the door for a US attack, hopefully with UN approval, help or participation). 

 

During Sukkot of 2002, the US prepared a recommended UN resolution that would give Iraq seven days to declare and define its weapons of mass destruction and thirty days to dismantle them under UN supervision.  Iraq at once rejected this plan.  With the completion of Sukkot, Russia, China and France (which are permanent UN Security Council members) all also rejected the US and British demands. 

 

The US and Britain came back with another proposed resolution which kept the basic ideas outlined in the first proposal; but gave the Iraqis more time to comply with UN demands, and toned the rhetoric down somewhat.  But again, several members of the council balked. 

 

The Oct 24, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A3) noted that the “Bush administration wanted a tough resolution that would be difficult for Iraq to fulfill and give the United States legal grounds for an invasion if Iraq thwarts weapons inspections.”  And this was the essence of the Bush demands.  Bush wanted a resolution which would be impossible for Iraq to comply with. 

 

With any non-compliance, the stage would be set for a US led war and invasion of Iraq.  This scenario has happened before where an alleged enemy state is set up with impossible demands to precipitate a war (like with Japan in 1941, when FDR made impossible demands on Japan that prompted her to strike first--per Dr Stan Monteith, in his video on “9/11 Contrived”). 

 

As things began developing in the fall of 2002, it became clear that Bush would not get an immediate UN Security Council ultimatum for Iraq.  Instead, whatever the UN would choose to do would throw the whole operation into a later time-frame than as desired by Bush and the plutocratic war hawks. 

 

For sure, any UN resolutions to be adopted meant that the spring/summer of 2003 would be the absolute earliest before Bush and the plutocratic war hawks could have any UN support when they launched their war against Iraq.  Such a late date did not set well with the US military because it would cause the US invasion to correspond with Iraq’s extremely hot weather and sandstorms (Nov 1, 2002, “The Week,” p. 5). 

 

 

The North Korean Development 

 

In order to add confusion and/or hypocrisy to the US proposal, Kim Jong II, the North Korean Communist leader in Pyongyang, announced in October 2002 that his nation is now building a nuclear capability (apparently, in defiance of earlier statements made that North Korea would not build mass destruction weapons). 

 

All of the UN inspectors in North Korea were soon kicked out of the nation (Dec 28, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. 1).  Within days, North Korea added more fuel to the fire by resuming the testing of missiles (possibly some of which can now reach Alaska--Jan 13, 2003, “Time,” p. 25). 

 

While Bush continued to beat war drums and shake sabers against Iraq, the North Korean announcement made him declare that North Korea could be dealt with diplomatically--whatever that means (Oct 19, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A1).  As noted earlier, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the North Korea situation was a non-crisis.  So it was not of concern to the Bush people. 

 

These announcements from North Korea put the Bush administration in a difficult, catch-22 position.  For months, Bush had threatened Iraq because of simple “suspicions” of building mass destruction weapons; and now, North Korea came out in the open and effectively admitted that she was building such weapons.  As discussed earlier, is this a question of hypocrisy or not? 

 

Since both North Korea and Iraq are on the list of “axis of evil” nations catalogued by Bush, one must wonder about why Iraq was being singled out.  Actually, it is not a difficult process to wonder or speculate about the differences between North Korea (and the Bush plan to use “diplomacy” against her) and Iraq (and the Bush plan to declare war on her). 

 

Iraq has vast oil fields and wealth (to steal) which North Korea simply lacks.  Too, North Korea is awful close to China (both geographically and politically) and bullies of the block never want to take on anyone (like China) who can and will fight back.  Too, North Korea has the world’s fifth largest army.  Bullies of the block always like to have fights with small kids who cannot defend themselves. 

 

In any case, the way this thing worked out over North Korea caused a delay in the response time of getting a UN resolution against Iraq and raised real questions about US hypocrisy.  Even as various persons tried to raise questions over the very obvious American hypocrisy, the Bush administration tried to downplay the North Korean question and pretended that it could easily be handled by diplomacy. 

 

 

A Difference? 

 

Not only did various nations of the world wonder about the differences between Iraq and North Korea, but even some part of the American people began to express some concern (although the Americans are so mesmerized and zombiized by the Amalekite controlled media [which wanted war with Iraq] that the issue was moot and useless for discussion). 

 

The Dec 31, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. B6) had a cartoon which showed a giant black bull (named North Korea) with two outstretched horns.  There was a string attached which ran across the horns and had two small characters tied to the string and dangling in the air below the bull’s outstretched horns. 

 

Off of the left horn was a small confused bull named Iraq.  Across from this small bull and dangling from the other horn was a small George W. Bush (with a cowboy hat on which said “W”).  W was saying:  “Got ya!” 

 

Another cartoon, in the Jan 17, 2003, “The Week” (p. 20), showed Saddam and one of his generals talking as the sky above them was filled with incoming US missiles and bombs.  The general asked Saddam-- “Is it too late to claim we’re North Korean??” 

 

An NPR news report on Jan 4, 2003, said that South Korea was trying to broker a deal to defuse the North Korea problem.  North Korea (which now reportedly has at least two nuclear weapons and more in process) said that she will not stop her work without a non-aggression pact from the US and financial aid (in other words, the US can make giant pay offs and bribes and she will stop her work). 

 

One of the things which South Korea pushed was a dialogue between North Korea and the US to resolve their differences.  But consistently, the Bush team said that it would not negotiate with North Korea.  Nevertheless, the Jan 8, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A2) had a story by William Douglas on “U.S. willing to talk to N. Korea on nukes” (later, in Aviv 2003, the US did enter into negotiations). 

 

This was interesting in view of the fact that the US regularity said that she would not negotiate with North Korea.  Anyway, the US is now willing to “talk.”  Joseph Nye, dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,” said:  “So it does sound like they have eased off slightly.  The administration has found they have no other choice but to talk to North Korea” (ibid, p. A2). 

 

The North Korean response was to say that the US “is working hard to bring on a holocaust or a nuclear war in the Korean nation (Jan 9, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  North Korea went on to accuse Washington of derailing inter-Korean cooperation and to charge Japan for “unwarranted meddling.” 

 

 

A Money Payoff 

 

In any case, the US Assistant Secretary of State, James Kelly, was in the Far East during the week of Jan 12, 2002, to hold talks about the North Korean situation.  In a statement he made, as reported by NPR, he said that the US was willing to talk about “aid” to North Korea--from private investors, the US or some other country.  This means that the US was willing to meet North Korean demands and pay them off. 

 

Actually, the US (under Clinton) started supplying fuel aid to North Korea back in 1994.  It was Bush actions to stop this aid that precipitated the present North Korean crisis.  Now, Bush is back on track in providing even more aid (pay offs, bribes, etc).  This time the US will provide aid for fuel, food and economic development as well as providing some type of a defense pact. 

 

By late February 2003, the US announced that she would resume food aid to North Korea to help the Communist country feed her people (Feb 22, 2003, Idaho “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  America took this step despite the continuous barrage of words from North Korea over the evils of the United States. 

 

Obviously, the George W. Bush people didn’t make this move because of any humanitarianism or the Bush love of people.  After all, the Bush team had been making energetic plans to bomb and kill people right and left in Iraq.  So the love of people or even of North Koreans was not on the minds or agenda of the US rulers. 

 

Instead, the truth seems plain enough.  The Bush team hoped to give some food and ultimately money to North Korea in a payoff or bribe to make them tone down their words and gestures.  Such a move would pacify the gullible American people so that the Bush team could concentrate on a war with Iraq and bombing the Iraqi people into oblivion (to make new profits and gain for the US plutocrats). 

 

By the way, Bush hypocrisy surfaced in the summer of 2003 over the civil war raging in Liberia (which was founded in Africa by former slaves of the US).  There was some international pressure on the US to send peace keeping forces into Liberia.  But all along, Bush showed little interest in such an adventure.  And why would GWB be so anxious to invade Iraq when he wasn’t interested in Liberia? 

 

Well, the reason is simple enough.  Just like North Korea had no oil wells which the Bushes, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and other plutocrats could plunder and steal, Liberia simply lacked this wealth.  Therefore, George Junior showed little interest in what happened there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 486--The Iraqi War VI

 

 

The UN Resolution 

 

Historically, the United States was a primary leader in the founding of the United Nations.  And historically, America has been the primary financial supporter of the UN and UN operations.  Perhaps it has been this precise situation which has spelled out the fact that the US often has its way in the UN.  The US makes a demand and the UN caves in and agrees to it. 

 

In this sense, one could make the argument that many of the UN operations have been a result of the fact that the UN has often been a puppet of the American plutocrats.  This is not to say that the UN has not done some things which Washington disapproved of.  The UN has occasionally acted contrary to American desires.  But by the same token, the US also gets its way frequently in the UN. 

 

With this backdrop, George W. Bush thought that he would march into UN headquarters and demand a resolution against Iraq to provide him with an excuse to go to war there.  But some of this UN independence surfaced in the context of how France, Russia, Germany and China did not immediately capitulate and surrender to GWB. 

 

So Bush found it necessary to go back and forth to the UN and almost beg the security council to vote out a resolution.  After many US attempts to get a hard resolution, the security council did act on Nov 8, 2002, and approved a very watered down resolution. 

 

The new resolution did provide some firm days for Iraqi responses.  First, the Iraqis were given a quick deadline to ether accept or reject the UN plan.  As it turned out, the Iraqi Parliament unanimously rejected it.  But Saddam, as president and supreme ruler, accepted the plan on Nov 14, 2002. 

 

Other deadlines were established for Iraq to dismantle its weapons and for the UN inspection team to go to work.  However, on the dismantling question, Iraq maintained that she had no such weapons--so one must wonder what there was to dismantle. 

 

In terms of dates, the resolution ordered inspections to begin in 45 days and gave its inspection team two months to report back to the security council on its work (Nov 22, 2002, “The Week,” p. 4).  Later, Hans Blix, the UN inspection team leader announced that the team would start its work in Iraq in late November 2002. 

 

Finally, the last significant feature of the UN resolution was a stipulation that Iraq would pay for the inspections (Nov 25, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 14).  Since Iraq accepted the resolution, it would appear that she agreed to pay the expenses of the inspection process (which must have surely upset Saddam and many of the Iraqis). 

 

 

But Iraqi Concern 

 

After accepting the resolution, Iraq came back a few days later and complained that the fine print in the resolution could give the US a pretext to militarily attack Iraq (Nov 25, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  This concern was expressed in a letter from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. 

 

The basis for the Iraqi concern was language in the resolution which can turn any “inaccurate statements” made by Iraq (in the thousands of pages of reports and data that Iraq had to supply the inspection team) into a justification for a US attack.  Iraq claimed that the difficulty arose because many chemicals produced for peaceful purposes could also theoretically be used for hostile purposes. 

 

 

More on the US Flights 

 

One of the key issues not directly covered in the resolution was the matter of the status of the US air operations in the so-called no-fly zones, as described earlier, in the vein of UN resolution 678. 

 

The inspection team leader wrote a letter to Iraq outlining his interpretation of how the inspections would be conducted.  In his letter, Hans Blix called for Iraq to take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such air operations in the no-fly zones (ibid, p. 14). 

 

Apparently, quoting Dan Hetlage at the US Pentagon, AFP learned that the US Defense Department did take the stand that Iraqi actions in the no-fly zones would “not be an automatic trigger.” 

 

How this thing would play out was somewhat confusing.  With passage of this latest resolution, Iraq had indeed increased its air defense operations in the so-called no-fly zones (by moving in some air defense equipment and/or by firing missiles at US airplanes). 

 

The American planes responded by attacking the Iraqi air defense means and almost anything else the US desired to attack (and there was little Iraq could do in the vein of defending herself).  So this thing could have accelerated to give GWB a so-called perfect excuse to launch his war. 

 

In fact, the Dec 13, 2002, “The Week” (p. 4) had an article on the Iraqi situation which reported that the Iraqi cooperation with the UN inspectors had prompted Bush and the US to respond by stepping up the bombing of Iraqi targets in the so-called no-fly zone.  Per the Qatari daily, “Al-Sharq,” the US plan seemed to be to goad Baghdad into a fight. 

 

So, instead of the Iraqis firing on American warplanes (though reports in Dec 2002 did say that Iraq shot down an unarmed spy “Predator” plane), the truth could well have been that the US was attacking targets without cause or provocation in an attempt to create a further incident to allow the US invasion and war against Iraq to proceed (the find of a drone airplane seems to have been one of the reasons, as discussed elsewhere herein). 

 

 

The US Goal 

 

One of the things which the US wanted was the right to march into Iraq in a war under almost any provocation or pretext.  As it turned out, the approved UN resolution did not grant this power automatically to America.  Instead, any problems on inspections would have had to be referred to the security council for a determination of what response to take. 

 

This provision opened the door to a veto from either France, Russia or China, if there were problems.  In other words, it’s highly doubtful that the UN Security Council would have ever authorized any UN sanctioned action against Iraq and regardless of what happened on the inspections. 

 

But irrespective of whether the UN did or did not authorize action, Bush made it clear that he intended to attack Iraq at the first opportunity (all that Bush wanted was an excuse or justification for his attack). 

 

The Pentagon’s chief “Chickenhawk” (the previously cited Amalekite Richard Perle) told the British parliament that the US would attack Iraq even if the UN inspectors found nothing (Dec 6, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 3).  As it turned out, the Amalekite Perle hit the nail on the head. 

 

Israel’s Ariel Sharon said almost the same thing in late December 2002.  Sharon even added that the invasion would start in Western Iraq.  Though not mentioned by Sharon, the attack might include Israeli forces.  So the Bush war was coming! 

 

To be sure that he had a green light to launch this attack, Bush made a number of impossible demands on Iraq.  The primary one was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction--though she denied the claim and UN inspectors could not find the alleged weapons.  Thus, she had to destroy weapons which she said she did have in Iraq. 

 

In the Bush view, Iraq was guilty based simply on the US allegation--unless she could satisfactorily prove that she was not guilty.  So, how could Iraq prove her innocence (apart from the UN inspections)?  In any case, the inspection team was back in business. 

 

There only remained a question of how much cooperation Iraq either could give the team or how much opposition the US and Britain could impose on the system to bring down the inspections and give Bush an excuse to proceed with his war unilaterally and independently of the UN (the Bush war plan was always on the drawing broads once an excuse arose for it). 

 

Remarks on “A growing rift between the U.S. and the U.N.,” in the above cited Dec 13, 2002, “The Week” (p. 4), said that President Bush was “not encouraged” by the first work of the UN inspectors (possibly because they didn’t find anything and Iraq had cooperated).  Thus, per “The Week,” the US may not abide by the findings of the UN inspection team (which she didn’t). 

 

Actually, inspection team reports came in late Jan, on Feb 14th and Mar 7th in 2003.  All three reported nothing of significance.  The Feb and Mar reports were very favorable to Iraq in terms of Iraqi cooperation. 

 

This suggested that some type of incident or justification would have to be manufactured by the US to justify a war (as noted elsewhere herein).  With these reports, the UN Security Council rejected US cries for war and opted for more time and inspections. 

 

 

Controlling the Iraqi Response 

 

A BBC report on Dec 10, 2002, said that the US had taken possession of the sole copy of the Iraq report to the UN and would “edit” and “copy” it for distribution to the other members of the UN Security Council (which is what happened). 

 

The Dec 10, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review (p. A3) said that this move was because “Washington had the best photocopying capabilities” (this allegation would mean that the UN lacked a Xerox or other copy machine in New York or elsewhere around the world that could make copies of this report to the UN). 

 

The US, in time, made full copies for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, but only provided edited and altered versions of the copies furnished to the ten non-permanent members of the council.  Syria and Norway (who were non-permanent members at that time) were both upset over this move and protested. 

 

As it turned out, the US chose to “edit” the 12,000-page Iraqi letter by deleting some 9,000 pages (Jan 27, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 1).  Reportedly, the US deleted at least all references to the surge of various chemical, biological and nuclear materials which the US sold or otherwise provided Iraq over the years (ibid, p. 1, 12). 

 

To what other extent the US has deceptively and fraudulently altered and changed the 12,000-page response from Iraq is unclear at this time.  Maybe there were other remakes which Bush wanted hid from others.  For Iraq’s benefit, she hopefully retained a suitable copy of her work to use if and when the US would begin a process of pointing out alleged problems and questions over the Iraqi report to the UN. 

 

This whole editing and altering process seems too incredible to be true.  One might expect this reaction in a second grade classroom of young children.  But surely, persons with “some” ethics and maturity would never try anything as gross as this action.  But then it happened with Bush and Powell. 

 

 

The Follow-Up on the US Action 

 

The initial Iraqi response to the US action in taking control of the sole copy of the Iraqi report to the UN was to charge that Washington’s effort was to alter the document and create a pretext for war (Dec 11, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2). 

 

Since Saddam claimed in the report that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, US Secretary of State Colin Powell counter-acted by charging that Saddam “is a liar.  We’ll see now whether he decides that the cost of lying is too great.  The cost of lying now might result in his regime being destroyed by the armed forces of the international community” (ibid, p. A2). 

 

 

More US Preparations for War 

 

On Dec 19, 2002, the US unilaterally declared that the 12,000 page declaration from Iraq (saying that she had no weapons of mass destruction) was full of omissions, evasions and lies and was in material breach of the UN resolution (Dec 21, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  This position from Bush would be sufficient for him to proceed with his war. 

 

Interestingly, in his comments about Iraq, Bush said that the Iraqi response “was a disappointing day for those who long for peace” (since Bush and his people have been consistently the persons screaming for war, one must wonder who GWB had in mind when he referred to people wanting peace?).  The US President also said:  “We expected him (Saddam) to show that he would disarm.  It’s a long way from there.” 

 

Since Saddam had consistently denied having these weapons and since over 100 UN inspectors were combing though Iraq in Dec 2002 looking for something (which they had not found any evidence of by the end of 2002), one must wonder how Iraq could prove that she didn’t have such weapons. 

 

Bush had long maintained that the burden of proof was on Iraq (in other words, she was guilty unless she could prove her innocence).  So, how could she prove her innocence--beyond allowing a massive number of UN inspectors to pour over the country checking everything possible.  Was this an impossible demand? 

 

A Jan 19, 2003, story in the “Idaho Spokesman-Review” (p. A1) was from comments made by Robin Wright in the “Los Angeles Times.”  Wright took note of Bush plans for a strategy if the weapons inspectors did not find any mass destruction weapons.  The strategy was one on how to justify war.  Wright noted that the new strategy centered on a simple premise--nothing is something. 

 

A cartoon in the Jan 18, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. B6) showed a man asking Bush about the US economy.  Bush said that he’s off to Baghdad. 

 

The man said that no one wants a war--so what if the inspectors find nothing?  Bush replied that that merely would prove that Saddam was hiding something.  There was some more dialogue over the economy and approval ratings.  Bush responded-- “OK Saddam this is it--I’m sick and tired of games and deception.” 

 

In a related matter, on Dec 22, 2002, Saddam invited the US to send CIA agents into Iraq to accompany the UN inspectors to show the inspectors where the weapons were located (since America claimed that the weapons were there).  The White House immediately branded the Iraqi offer as a “stunt” and rejected it completely out of hand (per various news reports).  So, what was Iraq to do? 

 

 

Sandy Tolan 

 

Per the above quoted Dec 13, 2002, “The Week” (p. 4), toppling Saddam was just the first step in the grand US plans for the Middle East (quoting Middle East expert Sandy Tolan of the “Los Angeles Times”).  In this effort, America would “uncork” Iraq’s vast oil supplies to give the West a ready supply of cheap oil” (correctly, to give the US plutocrats vast new oil profits--ed). 

 

Tolan said that hard-liners in the Bush administration wanted to next “destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state:  namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran.”  Thus, the real US goal is an “ambitious remapping of the Middle East on a scale not seen since Britain and France craved up the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago.” 

 

 

More on France 

 

Assuredly, France was on the side of Iraq as much as possible in this confrontation in the UN.  As noted above, France had long standing relations with Saddam.  The Jacques Chirac government in Paris had sold weapons to Iraq.  According to the above cited Nov 15, 2002, “The Week” (p. 16), France simply didn’t want an Iraq war (nor did the French people). 

 

The article in “The Week” went on to say that the French plan was to delay completing the inspections until the summer of 2003.  If there were any developing problems with the inspections, the French could further delay any action until the next winter.  As the 2004 US elections approached, it was anticipated that the Bush plans for war might simmer down and fade into the background. 

 

“The Week” went on to say that the French plan was for Saddam to appoint a Prime Minister who was less belligerent.  Maybe the Kurds and other opposition groups could be given more of a say in things in Baghdad.  To all of this, “The Week” asked-- “Will Washington stand back and watch?” 

 

When the French delegation to the UN Security Council expressed its concern for more time for the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, the watching audience at the UN clapped their hands with the French statement.  It seems to be a rare event that there is any applause in meetings in the security council.  So this has to be significant. 

 

 

More on Russia 

 

In the maneuverings of the giant powers, attention must be placed on Russia--not only because she is one of the important four horns, but Russia has several profoundly significant political and economic considerations at stake in South-Central Asia. 

 

For years, Iraq and Russia have had very close ties.  In the political sense, one must wonder if Russia indeed would be willing to sit back and allow the US and Britain to destroy her ally?  For many years, Russia (and the old Soviet Union) lacked the means to successfully oppose the US. 

 

However, those times have been changing.  Russia continues to build up her military forces while the US military has been disintegrating into chaos, confusion and worthlessness (because of the moves of integration with the behemah, women and queers).  Of course, the stage is being set whereby that when the balloon of war goes up (at least with Russia and China), no one (from America) goes out to fight. 

 

Russia also has enormous economic interests in South-Central Asia--and especially since the oil and mineral deposits in the Caspian Sea area are so vast.  Through Russian control or influence over this area (and particularly with the new nations there which were once part of the old Soviet Union), Russia hopes to benefit economically from primarily the oil and gas wealth there. 

 

Actually, the whole US and British maneuverings seemed to be designed by the Western plutocrats to steal all of this wealth right out from under the nose of Russia.  Obviously, this scheme did not set well with the planners in the Kremlin.  Too, Russian President Vladimir Putin is not exactly stupid.  Therefore, the time will come when Russia and China will oppose the US in war.   

 

A BBC report on Jan 14, 2003, said that Russia would not agree to any US unilateral war against Iraq.  The story said that Russia wanted the inspections to continue and any resulting questions to be referred to the UN Security Council. 

 

 

More at the UN 

 

The UN inspectors made an important report to the UN Security Council on Feb 14, 2003, and another one on Mar 7, 2003.  Bush hoped that one or both of these reports would be critical and allow him to get a new resolution calling for war.  Actually, the UN inspectors’ reports were favorable for Iraq. 

 

This put the Bush people in a quandary on what they could do (actually, it didn’t matter because Bush and his team did prepare a new resolution and demanded that the UN adopt it.  But France, Russia, China and Germany all opposed it). 

 

Bush and his agents of evil worked hard behind the scenes to apparently make bribes, pay offs and threats against the various non-permanent members of the UN Security Council--like Mexico, Chile, Bulgaria, Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Pakistan, Spain, Syria, and Germany--to try to make them surrender to US demands (Feb. 28, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A7). 

 

The US efforts and skullduggery became so intense that the US police state bugged the offices and communication sources of many of the UN Security Council members--like Germany, France, and the African states.  When this thing became public knowledge, there were some complaints and media coverage. 

 

Of course, Spain had already come out in support of the US (and needed no further bribes or pay offs beyond those already pledged), but Germany and Syria were categorically opposed to the US plan. 

 

In any case, Bush, Britain and their Spanish lackey pushed hard in the UN for a new resolution making war more inevitable. 

 

To defuse things, the UN inspectors demanded that by Mar 1, 2003, Iraq start destroying her 100 or so al Samoud 2 missiles which have a range slightly above the UN allowance set in previous years for Iraq.  Iraq agreed (Feb 28, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A1 and A7).  The weekend of Mar 1-2, 2003, saw the Iraqis begin destroying these missiles. 

 

 

The Fall Out at the UN 

 

In a quote from “The Washington Post,” the Mar 7, 2003, “The Week” (p. 4) noted the perception of former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who said that the US request for a second resolution on Iraq only played into the hands of France which was against the US war.

 

Holbrooke added that a French veto (even if the US could muster the nine votes needed for a new resolution) would be “humiliating,” and would give the world--and the American people--the impression that military action “is in violation of the Security Council’s will, rather than being derived logically from the long trail of Iraqi defiance.” 

 

By March 16, 2003, and the Bush meeting with his British and Spanish allies on the Azores, it became crystal clear that the Bush team could not get a new resolution for the UN which would authorize a war on Iraq.  Accordingly, Bush decided to abandon his plans for another UN resolution and proceed with his war. 

 

The Bush failure to bulldoze the UN prompted him to proclaim that the UN would become irrelevant (Mar 21, 2003, “The Week,” p. 11)--obviously, if the UN would not immediately capitulate and surrender to his demands.  This comment was simply some more wisdom from the bully of the block.  

 

On the evening of Mar 17, 2003, Bush addressed the US people on TV and announced his plans for war.  He gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq and ordered the Iraqis to offer no resistance to invading US forces (in other words, Iraq had to surrender and regardless of what Saddam did or did not do). 

 

Obviously, this was an impossible demand for Iraq to meet. 

 

The next day, Saddam said that he would not leave but would stay and fight.  Bush then proceeded to launch his attack, conquest and occupation of Iraq (in the spring of 2003). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 487--The Iraqi War VII

 

 

Growing Opposition 

 

With the unexpected huge delay in getting the first UN resolution and the utter failure to get a second resolution on Iraq, more unforeseen problems began to develop for the war hungry Bush people.  Across the globe, opposition groups and parties began to surface which were more on the side of Iraq and Saddam than they were on the side of Bush and the United States. 

 

A news commentary on National Public Radio on Nov 2, 2002, had an executive of the Council of Foreign Relations on, along with a prominent US business man from Amman, Jordan, to discuss the international situation and the American war plans for Iraq.  In this analysis, mention was made of a recent poll of Muslims, across the Muslim world. 

 

Some 60-70% of Muslims across the board have a favorable opinion of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden while holding an unfavorable opinion of Bush and the US.  Although the word hate was not used in describing the position of most Muslims towards America, this is assuredly the real world out there.  It is clear that the primary American friends in the Muslim world are the dictators being paid off in bribes. 

 

Though the puppet government in Kuwait is allowing US forces to continue operating on its soil (actually, ever since the Gulf War of the early 1990s), it is interesting that the Kuwait press may well be on the side of Iraq because the press there called the latest UN resolution a “declaration of war” against Iraq (Nov 25, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 14). 

 

Numbers of Kuwait people have been shooting American soldiers since the adoption of the resolution.  Obviously, many of the individual Kuwaiti people are not on the side of the Americans in this conflict. 

 

 

Active Protests 

 

The Nov 4, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) had a report from James P. Tucker Jr which read:  “Iraq War Resolve Weakens as Protests Grow.”  According to Tucker, thousands of protesters were going to be active on the weekend of Oct 26, 2002, in Washington, San Francisco, London, Paris, Tokyo and elsewhere to protest the US war plans for the Middle East. 

 

A news report in the Nov 1, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. 2) said that huge anti-American protests were held in Athens, Greece, over the planned US war against Iraq.  This outpouring of people against the US has to be relevant and particularly in the vein that Greece could join the final alliance against the United States and other House of Yisrael nations. 

 

In the US, 100,000 people marched on Washington and 42,000 showed up in San Francisco to protest the war plans (Nov 8, 2002, “The Week,” p. 7).  Tens of thousands more poured out to protest in Rome, London, Tokyo and other cities (ibid, p. 7). 

 

While these figures from “The Week” might be correct, other estimates of the number of protesters were larger.  The Nov 11, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) had a report that the number of protesters in Washington were 250,000 while 100,000 showed up in San Francisco.  In either case, the number of protesters were noticeably large and would have to worry the war hungry plutocrats. 

 

Again, on Dec 10, 2002, war protesters in 37 states poured out to protest the Bush plans for war against Iraq (Dec 11, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2).  More than 100 protesters were arrested.  One protester, 84-year old Ray Kaepplinger in Chicago, said that as far as he was concerned, George W. Bush was as bad as Saddam Hussein. 

 

Quite naturally, there have been huge protests against the US war plans in almost all Arab nations.  For example, protesters hit the streets in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Sudan and Bahrain in late Jan 2003.  Tens of thousands of protesters appeared and burned American flags in America’s alleged ally Yemen (Jan 28, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A5). 

 

Following the favorable report from the UN inspection team on Feb 14, 2003, and the decision of the UN Security Council to decide against war, some eight million anti-war protesters poured out on the streets in cities around the world on the weekend of Feb 15-16, 2003.  This huge anti-war stance hurt the US war plans and helped the French, Germans, Russians and others opposed to war. 

 

Already, the old anti-war movement in opposition to the US Vietnam war of the 1960s and 1970s has been retooled and getting positioned to cause problems for Bush and the plutocrats in their continuing efforts for more and more war.  If this opposition gets kicked off with the right leadership, it could eventually cause enormous problems for Bush and especially in his approval ratings. 

 

In late Jan 2003, some 40 US Nobel laureates signed a statement opposing war which said that a unilateral US attack would undermine US security and standing in the world (ibid, p. A5). 

 

Moreover, Christian Church leaders in the US came out against the Bush plans for war--including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, and others (ibid, p A5).  Because of the pope’s strong efforts to speak out against the Bush plans for war, the US Catholic leadership likewise strongly opposed the Bush efforts. 

 

 

A Lack of Support? 

 

A “Los Angeles Times” poll in Dec 2002 found that 90% of Americans do not doubt that Iraq is developing mass destruction weapons, but that 72% of Americans (including 60% of Republicans) did not believe that Bush had provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq (Dec 17, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” p. 3). 

 

A later Jan 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that seven out of ten Americans would give the UN weapons inspectors more time before proceeding with war (Jan 22, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p., A3).  Manifestly, a hard core of 70% of Americans were not anxious for the Bush plans for war.  With time, this huge disapproval level will undoubtedly help fuel any anti-Bush protests underway. 

 

In the preceding presentation, an article from the AP by Calvin Woodward on “U.S. case for Iraq war short on evidence so far” was cited in connection with the use of false atrocity stories to build up a demand for war from the American people (as quoted in the Dec 23, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A1).  The title of Woodward’s story drove home the point of a lack of evidence for war. 

 

As Calvin said-- “But not all the statements coming from the Bush administration have been supported by evidence, and some that haven’t are central to the question of whether America should go to war.”  Thus, the claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction has yet to be backed with proof shared with the public.  This story coming from the controlled media has to be recognized as pivotal to the issue of war. 

 

The Mar 7, 2003, “The Week” (p. 4) quoted Charles Freeman Jr of the “New York Times” who said that even the US allies in Bush’s “coalition of the willing” don’t believe Saddam, “detestable as he is, poses an imminent threat.”  Freeman adds that “This war will be fought by the United States, backed by a deeply divided Britain and a Coalition of the Sullenly Acquiescent.”  So even the US allies didn’t believe in the war. 

 

Too, the huge number of dissidents and the effort of some journalists to raise questions spell out more trouble from increasing opposition and more active protests for GWB as he proceeded with war (and the occupation of Iraq).  It would appear that every passing day before GWB launched his war meant that more and more people were beginning to be suspicious of the reasons for the war. 

 

 

Jimmy Carter 

 

Former US President Jimmy Carter won the 2002 Nobel peace prize.  He was in Oslo, Norway on Dec 10, 2002, to accept the award (ibid, p. A2).  In accepting the award, Carter spoke out against war to resolve conflicts. 

 

In a possible reference to the Bush plans for an Iraqi war, Carter said:  “For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventative war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences.”  Carter repeatedly urged the Bush administration to work within the framework of the UN and the UN resolutions on Iraq and avoid unilateral military actions. 

 

 

Some Bush Changes? 

 

In the above cited Nov 11, 2002, story from the “American Free Press,” by James P. Tucker Jr, the point was made that this growing opposition influenced Bush and the war hawk crowd to tone down the rhetoric for awhile (though it did not stop the coming war in 2003). 

 

Whereas the US for days had been hollering for a regime change in Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said on Oct 20, 2002, that the Bush administration no longer had a goal of a regime change.  Instead, the concern now was over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. 

 

Per the AFP story by Tucker, the “Washington Post” had a story on Oct 22, 2002, which quoted Bush, himself, as saying that if Saddam became a “good boy,” that condition would amount to a “regime change.”  Hence, when Bush ran into problems in getting his UN resolution against Iraq, he toned the rhetoric down somewhat. 

 

Despite these temporary conciliatory statements (to get the UN resolution), the rhetoric picked up again in Dec 2002 and continued on into 2003 (once the first UN resolution was passed).  All references to Saddam as being a good boy were dropped.  The old pitch for the removal of Saddam reappeared. 

 

The Mar 1, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A1) had a front page story which said that “Saddam must go, not just disarm, White House says.”  Thus, Bush finally demanded that Iraq must totally disarm (since Iraq did have some conventional armaments, the demand meant getting rid of all defense weapons) and Saddam must step down and flee.  Apparently, the Bush position became intransigent on both points. 

 

 

More From Bush 

 

Even when the hypocrisy over North Korea became manifest in December 2002 (as there were continuing revelations of the North Korean work on nuclear products and reports that North Korean already has two nuclear weapons), Bush never let upon the evils of Saddam and Iraq.  The Bush state of the union address on Jan 28, 2003, was very hostile with an array of threats and intimidations against Saddam and Iraq.

 

An NPR news report on January 4, 2003, said that Bush had declared that in his coming war on Iraq that if any Iraqi general uses chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (like nuclear weapons) or harms civilian people, he will be tried as a war criminal (in effect, if the Iraqi leaders try to defend themselves they will be captured and tried as war criminals). 

 

This threat probably was intended to reach out to cover any situation that may surface if Iraq should attack Israel or should use any type of terrorists attacks in the US.  The whole thing is interesting because every item broached by GWB could be charged to the US.  Importantly, there has been even talk of charging GWB as a war criminal. 

 

 

Hypocrisy? 

 

It has been the US which has developed most all of these weapons (in fact, it was the US which shipped chemical and biological weapons to Iraq in the 1980s).  It has been the US which used nuclear bombs in WWII and has been regularly using uranium bombs against hard targets in all of her recent wars in the Middle East and in the Balkans, as described earlier herein. 

 

It has been the US which categorically used chemical agents in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam war.  Importantly, the only known record of a government using chemical weapons against its own people occurred in Waco, Texas in 1993 when the US government gassed her own civilian population (to murder 86 civilians, including a number of innocent women and 24 small children). 

 

And no, the allegations against Germany gassing people pretending to be Jews in WWII do not fit into this category.  These charges are still unproven allegations, and the supposed Jews involved (largely Khazar Amalekites) were essentially from Eastern Europe and not really from Germany in any number. 

 

Likewise, the charges which the former George H. W. Bush administration and the present George W. Bush administration have floated about Iraq gassing Kurds in Northern Iraq in 1991 were all lies as was proven by a UN human rights delegation that looked into this question after the 1991 Gulf War. 

 

Knowing full well that the US charges were lies, young George revived them in 2002-2003 to use against Saddam and Iraq in the streams of rhetoric coming out of the Bush White House. 

 

Incidentally, the Bush charges that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction did not pan out after the US invaded and supposedly conquered the nation.  As of the publication date of this study, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. 

 

The Jun 13, 2003, “The Week” (p. 6, 15) had a front cover headline which read “Were we tricked?  Iraq’s missing weapons and the rational for war,” and two inside stories which said-- “Iraq’s missing weapons:  Was the threat an illusion?” and “How they see us:  The Iraq war was built on a lie.” 

 

Yes, this Bush war and the lack of weapons of mass destruction did not help the US image abroad.  Interestingly, most American people were so gullible and mesmerized that they didn’t care one way or the other.  In other words, the reason for the Iraqi invasion and conquest mattered not at all to the average Joe Blow on the street. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

If Saddam had any chemical or biological agents, the best bet was that he stored them in Syria or Iran, or that he had already removed them to the US to be used against America later. 

 

There is also the possibility that as Bush proceeds with his occupation of Iraq and theft of the Iraqi oilfields that some other nations may decide to eventually launch their wars (as will be discussed at some length in the following chapter).  Of course, Bush could easily set off a major war or other global crisis (and it may still happen during the US occupation of Iraq and/or if Bush decides to go against Iran or Syria). 

 

It goes without saying that in every US war of aggression against any power the war has routinely involved the death, wounding and mayhem directed at huge numbers of innocent civilians.  Regularly, civilians are hit by US bombs--either intentionally, or accidentally.  In the Balkans’ war, US airplanes attacked columns of civilian people trying to flee the war zones.  Some of these attacks brought up to one hundred deaths. 

 

As George W. Bush said in mid-March 2003, in preparing to announce his war decision, if there were any innocent civilians killed in Iraq, it would not be the fault of the US or Bush.  Rather the Iraqi people can blame Saddam Hussein for the deaths (since Saddam would not willingly surrender to US demands).  Thus, per Bush, the 20,000 or so Iraqis killed in his attack died at the hands of Saddam. 

 

Too, there have been the threats of trying Iraqis for war crimes.  The fact that GWB has now charged Iraqi people with the threat of war crimes may have a serious consequence one day when America’s enemies defeat the US and arrest and capture various US leaders and try them for war crimes and crimes against so-called humanity.  The chickens will at last come home to roost. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 488--What May Happen

 

 

Hatred of US All Over the World 

 

Whether by design, by accident or through sheer incompetence, George W. Bush has surpassed all previous efforts at making people out in the world hate America and Americans.  His blundering efforts have even exceeded the work of the diabolical and depraved Bill “Slick” Clinton.  Slick made many, many enemies abroad.  But little George has even went far beyond Slick. 

 

Actually, this process of creating enemies of America probably started in the 1950s.  Since then, it has only accelerated.  Today, there can be no denying that Bush has made virtually all peoples and all nations in the world hate the US. 

 

If there are any exceptions, it only exists with the state of Israel, Britain and the White British Commonwealth (like Australia, Canada and New Zealand).  Otherwise, America really has no friends.  Admittedly, many worldly nations are on the US payroll (with bribes and payoffs), but the people in those nations basically hate Bush and the US and their support is lip service only to get the money.   

 

For sure, Saddam Hussein had far more people on his side than Bush or the United States (while many of the Iraqis hated Saddam, they have hated the US and Bush even more).  Because of this condition, the House of Yisrael and the Jews will have no friends as the age end unfolds. 

 

 

The Bush Mess 

 

All of this hatred and opposition to Bush and the US has only spelled trouble in America’s foreign policy.  With the Bush push for an Iraqi war, Bush created a division in the European Union, in the UN, in the various Muslim countries, and now in virtually all nations throughout the world. 

 

And why?  Simply because Bush would not let go of the possibility of his family and oil colleagues making a barrel of money with a new conquest of Iraq (and of course, to appease the Israelis and the American Jews). 

 

Bush has had on his team the state of Israel, the above mentioned White British Commonwealth nations (less Canada), and several other states (mostly ruled by tin horn dictators) which are on the US payroll and receive huge sums of US money in bribes and payoffs--so much so that it is monetarily beneficial for them to publicly express support for the United States (though they hate the US in their hearts). 

 

Opposing the Bush combine, one finds most of the rest of the world where Bush, America and the American people are generally hated.  This extreme hatred for America will spell serious problems in the coming days.  Apparently, Bush is too stupid to understand the mess that he and his team of incompetents have created.  But that reality will eventually surface with the war and occupation decisions. 

 

 

Tony Blair 

 

One of America’s stanches allies has been Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.  Blair has been such a blind follower of George W. that many people in Britain have come to speak of him as a lap dog for Bush.  Thousands of Britons have poured out to the streets to protest Blair’s lap dog style of leadership. 

 

One of Blair’s problems has been that the basic British people were fundamentally opposed to the George W. Bush war against Iraq (of course, Britain’s Jews supported it and there might be some fall out to British bankers and plutocrats when GWB and his oil colleagues steal the Iraqi oilfields.  But the primary British population opposed the Bush war). 

 

The Feb 28, 2003, “The Week” had a news story on “Britain:  It’s Blair against the people” that assessed the trouble that poor Blair was in because of his blind support of Bush and war.  Any number of newspapers came out and spoke against the Bush war and Tony Blair for supporting it.  Richard Williams in the British “Guardian” said that Blair’s political career was in jeopardy. 

 

In the ensuing mess for Blair, much of the British population was asking: “How can the world be a safer place when the U.S. is perceived to be--and indeed is--a power untrammeled by international law, world opinion, or global institutions?” 

 

The growing British opposition to Blair’s partnership with the US prompted the gullible Blair to go to Parliament and ask for a motion of support on his policies.  The Feb 27, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A12) had a “Los Angeles Times” story on “Blair wins vote, but splits party.” 

 

With much help from the opposition Tories, Blair won 434 votes out of 626.  But this came after part of his own Labor party revolted and tried to pass an anti-war vote (this action received 199 votes).  A perceptive Conservative leader pointed out that an Iraqi invasion would lead to more terrorism, rather than reducing terrorism. 

 

So, with all of the problems and troubles coming upon George W. Bush for his pursuit of war, it becomes manifestly clear that as Bush goes down the tubes and creates a mess all over the world, he will assuredly take the gullible and stupid Tony Blair down with him. 

 

 

The White British Commonwealth Nations 

 

Besides the state of Israel, about the only real US allies in America’s war against Iraq has been Britain and the White British Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand and maybe or partially Canada; although Poland did give some support).  Even the once White South Africa (now in Black hands) was fundamentally opposed to the Bush war against Iraq. 

 

There were strong protest actions of the people in Australia against their government and their government’s support of Bush.  So while Bush counted upon Australia for support, her people were much opposed to the Bush war (just as was true in Britain). 

 

In response to the Bush demand for a regime change in Iraq, the Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chreien, said that “If you start changing regimes, where do you stop?” (Mar 1, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A7).   Obviously, this comment was not in favor of George W. Bush. 

 

 

A Disruption in NATO and EU 

 

The Bush bumbling at the UN and his insistence on a war of aggression against Iraq has created enormous problems for US allies in Europe. 

 

NATO has existed for over fifty years in a measure of common respect and with common goals and purposes by the different countries in the alliance.  Now, George W. Bush has created a division in it which may ultimately spell out an eventual dissolution of the alliance and its end.  If that happens, a final break between America and Europe will become a reality. 

 

Per the famous globalist Henry Kissinger:  “...You cannot say that we have a NATO alliance when two key allies (France and Germany) not only vote against us but work against us all over the world” (Jun 2003 “NewsMax.com/Internet Vortex,” p. 62). 

 

Asked if NATO is obsolete, Kissinger replied:  “It’s not functioning now.  And one shouldn’t pretend that one can just go back to the way it was and say we do a little more consultation.  There has been a fundamental breach, and I would be open-minded to try to restore it, but it has to be put into a new framework” (ibid, p. 62). 

 

Britain, under the lap dog Blair, is tied to the US and is breaking her ties to continental Europe.  A news report on NPR on Apr 6, 2003, noted that many Britons believe that British links to the US is creating a situation where Britain is burning her bridges with continental Europe.  As this study demonstrates elsewhere herein, it is entirely logical that NATO ends, and that Britain leaves the EU--perhaps thanks to Bush. 

 

 

Turkey, Revisited 

 

Turkey has been a long time US ally and friend of the Christian West (despite its basic Muslim population).  In the 1991 George H. W. Bush war of aggression against Iraq, Turkey sided with the US.  She was promised vast pay offs and bribes.  The US made many of these payoffs, but allegedly reneged on some of them.  This history made the Turks more cautious in addressing the demands of young GWB. 

 

In any case, for the GWB war against Iraq, the Turks demanded a bribe of some $92 billion or more and the US placed some $36 billion on the table (as noted in former chapters).  The Turkish leadership approved of this payoff in exchange to allow the US to use the Turkish military bases as a staging area to attack Northern Iraq.  But the final say had to come from the Turkish parliament. 

 

As it turned out, some 95% of the Turkish people were opposed to letting the US military use Turkey to attack Iraq.  In some fluke, the Turkish parliament voted against the plan of the Turkish government (which was a total surprise since the parliament normally rubber stamps whatever its government leaders demand). 

 

Apparently, the US began working behind the scenes to make more bribes and payoffs (and/or threats) to convince the Turkish lawmakers to surrender and give in to the demands from Washington (later, some part of the US demands were met). 

 

The total fall out of this event matters not at this point.  What does matter is a recognition that the George W. Bush people have completely made a mess in Turkey and among the Turkey politicians.  For sure, the US actually lost a friend of sorts in this matter.  And as another fall out, the Bush plans to attack Iraq from the North had to be reviewed and altered. 

 

 

Trouble in Asia?

 

Preceding chapters herein have assessed the dilemma that the Bush people have found themselves in, in respect to North Korea.  Everything that Bush accused Iraq of has proven to be true with North Korea.  And tragically for South Korea and everyone else concerned, the North Koreans may decide to launch another invasion of South Korea at some point in time. 

 

The Feb 28, 2003, “The Week” (p. 7) had a report on “New threats from North Korea” which noted that the Communist state threatened the past week to abandon the 50-year-old armistice that ended the Korean war as a possible step for war.  This article suggested that the situation on the Korean peninsula is getting extremely serious. 

 

In the meantime, North Korea continues to build up and develop long range missiles and apparently build nuclear bombs.  News reports around February 25, 2003, indicated that North Korea has been mobilizing its giant army for some ostensible reason (reportedly, North Korea has the world’s fifth largest army so its buildup is not to be ignored). 

 

So everything was falling into place in late February 2003 for North Korea to take some positive military actions. 

 

In looking at this situation and in view of the unstable world conditions that surfaced with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the case can be made that this timing would be perfect for North Korea to invade South Korea.  In which case, the US would be so committed in Iraq that she simply could not respond to any action on the Korean peninsula. 

 

Too, China has long had plans to conquer Taiwan and reunite the Chinese there with the mainland.  Historically, there has been only one deterrent to this maneuver.  It has been the US pledge to defend Taiwan.  But the Chinese Communists have not ignored their plans and hopes to take over the Chinese Nationalists on Taiwan. 

 

If there has ever been a prime time for such a take-over move by the Chinese Reds, that time could be at hand with the US in an unpopular war and occupation in Iraq.  The Red Chinese are not exactly stupid.  They, like the North Koreans, know that the US is totally incapable of addressing a threat in the Far East when she is bogged down in the Middle East. 

 

Another very plausible flash point has to be the Pakistani desires to take Kashmir away from India.  While the US has been a big supporter of India, America has nudged up to Pakistan in order to get her support in the various Bush wars being fought in Asia against the Moslem states. 

 

Actually, Red China has been a long-time ally to Pakistan against India.  In the sense that India could be a threat to an invading Pakistani army, there is always the possibility that Red China will join hands with Pakistan in her moves to take over Kashmir--at some point in time. 

 

Therefore, it is very plausible that Red China might decide to get rid of the Taiwan and the Kashmir problems in one single motion.  Again, with Bush bogged down in the Middle East, there is some question that the United States would oppose anything Red China does in the Far East. 

 

 

The Fall of Muslim Dictators 

 

Most of the Muslim states are under dictatorships. 

 

Some are monarchical (like Saudi Arabia) and others have presidents for life (like Libya), religious leaders (like Iran) or military rulers (like Pakistan).  Many of these dictatorships are lackeys and puppets of the US administrations in Washington--like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan (where the US dictator was installed in 2002, after the US War on Afghanistan), etc. 

 

Many of the US dictatorial allies in the Muslim states are hated by their people.  They only exist because of the jack boot strength of their own military or the US military.  It would not take much provocation for the Muslim people to rise up and get rid of some of these dictators.  The US war on Iraq may provide such a provocation.  Many of the dictators could easily fall like dominoes (which would really upset the Middle East). 

 

While the causes and realties about what all has been happening is often clouded, it is interesting that starting in May 2003 a number of suicide bombers started attacking targets in Muslim states friendly to the US--like in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. 

 

One of the fall outs of these attacks is that the Saudi government has been distancing itself from the Americans.  There is now a strong “Yankee go home” attitude in Saudi Arabia which has forced the US to pull out of the Saudi military bases and may prompt a total US withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula (May 19, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

 

More Muslim Fundamentalism?   

 

As a minimum, the US wars of aggression in the Middle East and the attempts of the Bush team to impose hegemony over that area may have another unexpected fall out.  There is already a growing presence of Muslim fundamentalism in that whole area.  With the Bush wars and occupations, it may accelerate. 

 

Certainly, the majority population in Iraq are Shiite Muslims, closely linked to the fundamentalists in Iran.  If they get a chance, they will impose a Shiite fundamentalist state in Iraq just like the one in Iran.  Muslim fundamentalist states are also possible in some of the other Persian Gulf states.  This whole motion could be a total catastrophe to US and Israeli plans and hopes. 

 

 

Collapsing the US Economy and Dollar  

 

The Prologue of this study stated the belief of this writer that the primary reason or one of the primary reasons for the decision of the Amalekite plutocrats to elect George W. Bush has to be because of the pending economic and monetary collapse of the United States.  Simply stated, the big boys would like to blame this crisis on a so-called conservative like Bush and on a so-called conservative Republican party. 

 

Previous chapters have already mentioned the reality of the flood of dollars worldwide to bribe and payoff various national leaders around the world to allow the US plutocrats to exploit their nations, and the reality that the United States has become a consuming nation, consuming vast quantities of foreign produced goods.  Accordingly, the US has flooded with the world with worthless dollar bills (IOUs). 

 

This condition plus all the other economic, monetary, social, political, religious and government problems spell out a gigantic collapse of the dollar and the US national economy.  There won’t be much left when this future occurs. 

 

Subsequent chapters will further address this prospect in the vein of the end of the dollar.  The intent here is not to try to go into all the reasons on why it will collapse.  The only point of these remarks is to say that when this trouble does strike, the fall out will be to blame George W. Bush and the gullible set-up Republicans.  Will the leftist Amalekite bankers/masters succeed in this deception?  Why yes, of course. 

 

 

Terrorist Attacks in the US 

 

Back in the 1980s, the US sold or transferred a huge quantity of chemical and biological agents (including anthrax) to Iraq for use against the Iranians.  Some of this stuff remains unaccounted for.  Ostensibly, the weapons inspectors searching in Iraq were trying to find these agents from the United States.  Saddam consistently argued that these agents were all destroyed in former years. 

 

But the question of what happened to them remains on the table for discussion.  Thus, they could have been destroyed; they could still be hidden somewhere in Iraq (which seems out of the question); they could have been transferred to Syria or Iran (both of which were Iraqi allies of sorts); or they could have been removed to the US for use in future opposition against the US. 

 

If they are in the US and if Muslim agents have access to them, there is some chance that the Bush meddling in the Mid-East will motivate a Muslim counterattack in the US using these agents (or nuclear bombs which Muslim terrorists also have possession of).  Truly, the Bush war made America extremely vulnerable (although by the fall of 2003, the Bush war had not created any further Muslim attacks in the US). 

 

The Mar 2003 Maoz Israel newsletter (p. 4) had some commentary on the US-Iraq confrontation from the editors, Ari and Shira Sorko-Ram. 

 

This letter said:  “Not since the American Civil War a century and a half ago has America’s civil population been in grave danger.”  And this statement tells the tale in terms of what the US is now facing.  Of course, there are two threats--one from within (in the vein of terrorists) and one from without (in the vein of a conquering foreign army). 

 

Yes, the Bush war and occupation of Iraq may eventually kick off all kinds of problems for America and the American people. 

 

 

Reviving the Cold War 

 

The Apr 14, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 16) had a story by M. Raphael Johnson on “U.S. Action in Mideast Heats up Cold War” which said that the Bush war in Iraq was heating up the former cold war involving the US and Russia.  Alexander Panarin, professor of political science at Moscow State University, said:  “I can’t remember seeing such sharp anti-American moods (in Russia) since the 1960s.” 

 

Johnson also took note of a strongly worded US condemnation from the Russian legislature.  Truly, this may prove to be one of the huge fall outs of the Bush wars. 

 

 

The Four Horns 

 

Just like the Jews and the House of Yisrael nations are coming together in one combine (as described above), Yisrael’s primary enemies are also coming together in the context of the four horns of Zechariah 1:19-21.  These four horns historically were Babylon, Medeo-Persia, Greece and Rome. 

 

As described elsewhere herein, these four horns could exist in a geographical grouping of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Russia.  If so, they manifestly are coming together in 2003 to oppose Bush and the US.  Even a supposed Bush victory over the Iraqis will not spell out the end of this alliance. 

 

 

WWIII May Erupt 

 

In the sense of trying to save the US economic and monetary systems as they go down the tubes (which the Amalekite plutocrats realize is coming), the case can be made that a victorious US in a WWIII may delay or defer such an event. 

 

And whether this thing is scripted or not, the fact remains that the Bush meddling in the internal affairs of the various nations around the world (in order to make profits and gain and appease the American Jews and the Israelis), and the general worldly hatred of the US can combine to generate a WWIII. 

 

While the writer of this study fully anticipates a coming WWIII, involving the Jews and the House of Yisrael nations against Russia, China and much of the Third World, there may be reasons to speculate that it will come at the end of a 390-day mark off/siege upon the United States (which should logically come after 2003). 

 

Thus, this writer presently anticipates the eruption of this war in about Yechezkel’s 33d year.  Yet, one must be prudent and allow that it could come almost any time and especially in connection with the stupid George W. Bush meddling in the Middle East. 

 

 

The End of the US? 

 

While all of the above stated possibilities may not become reality immediately in the 2003 Bush war and occupation of Iraq, one can be sure that all of those eventualities are on the drawing board at some point in time.  For sure, the US will one day meet her Waterloo.  The US lies, deception, hypocrisy and evil will one day end! 

 

If there is any worthwhile conclusion on the above remarks, it has to be that America is skating on very thin ice.  There are any number of things which can go wrong and which could spell out an absolute crisis of unequaled proportion for the US as George W. Bush proceeds with his wars and occupations in the Middle East.  Maybe, the dominoes are falling into place for the end of the national United States.  Time will tell! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 489--Some Views on the Bush War

 

 

Ron Paul 

 

In response to a question about the Bush war against Iraq, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas said:  “I think this will be a gift for Osama bin Laden.  He will be the beneficiary of it.  He hates Saddam Hussein.  He has a better chance of getting one of his men (in power) after we cause a lot of disruption over there.  And besides, his recruiting operation is going to get a real boost.  We are going to prove to many Muslims around the world exactly what he has been telling them all along, that we are over there to dominate, to control and to get the oil” (Apr 14, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

 

Robert Byrd, Revisited 

 

On the floor of the US Senate on Feb 13, 2003, during a debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a US judge, the previously cited Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia said:  “Madam President, to contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.  On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war...yet this Chamber is, for the most part, ominously, dreadfully silent. 

 

“You can hear a pin drop.  Listen.  You can hear a pin drop.  There is no debate.  There is no discussion.  There is no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war.  There is nothing... We stand passively mute in the Senate today, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.  Only on the editorial pages of some of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion concerning the prudence or the imprudence of engaging in this particular war...

 

“Today we hear nothing, almost nothing, by way of debate.  This is no small conflagration that we contemplate.  It is not going to be a video game.  It may last a day or six days.   It may last six weeks.  It could last longer.  This is no simple attempt to defang a villain.  For sure, this coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in US foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. 

 

“This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way, at an unfortunate time--the doctrine of preemption, no small matter--the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but which may be threatening in the future. 

 

“The idea that the United States may attack a sovereign government because of a dislike for a particular regime is a radical, new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense.  It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.  And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our hit list, or some other nation’s hit list. 

 

“High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack on Iraq.  What could be more destabilizing?  What could be more world shattering?  What could be more future shattering?  What could be more unwise than this kind of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of so many nations so closely together? 

 

“There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances.  One wonders what is going to happen and about what is happening in the United Nations...formed 54 years ago.  And we say:  If you are not with us, you are against us.  That is a pretty hard rule to lay down to the United Nations... If you don’t see it our way, take the highway...

 

“US intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.  Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11, 2001. 

 

“Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks, with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.  Family members are being called to active duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay...or what horrors they may have to face... Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection, while we are being told that a terrorist attack may be imminent... This administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders to the north and to the south, and to the east and to the west, where the great oceans form the borders. 

 

“In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.  In fact, yesterday we heard from him again, marshaling his forces and urging them to kill, kill, kill.  This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling for all time international order, crippling entities such as the United Nations and NATO.  This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as being a well-intentioned peacemaking, peace loving, peacekeeping nation... 

 

“This administration has turned...the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders and which will have consequences for years to come, calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil--as though we are not evil, as though there is no country that is not evil--denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant. 

 

“These types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.  We may have massive military might.. (but) we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone.  We need the cooperation and the friendship of our time-honored allies, as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.  Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages this economy. 

 

“Our military manpower is already stretched thin, and they are taking them from our States every day...on whom will we depend when these men and women are gone to foreign lands to fight a war if a war faces us here at home, a different kind of war.  Our awesome military forces are already being stretched thin, and we will need the augmenting support of those nations that can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. 

 

“The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far... But there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region.  We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. 

 

“Pakistan, as well, is at risk of destabilizing force.  This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan.  Is our attention span that short?  Have we not learned that after winning the war, one must also secure the peace? 

 

“Yet we hear little, precious little, about the aftermath of war in Iraq.  In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife.  Will we seize Iraq’s oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future?  There are some who think so. 

 

“To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power in Iraq after Saddam Hussein?  Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in devastating attacks on Israel?  Will Israel retaliate with its own very potent nuclear arsenal?  What are we about to unleash here?  The genie is getting out of the bottle.  Can it ever be put back? 

 

“Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?  Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a worldwide recession?  Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callus disregard for the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and make proliferation a never more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? 

 

“In only the space of two short years, this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated polices which may reap disastrous consequences for years...

 

“Over 50 percent of the population in Iraq is under age 15.  What is said about that?... I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is in the highest moral traditions of our country.  This war is not necessary at this time...” (ibid, p. 2-5). 

 

The Jun 2, 2003, “Time” magazine (p. 33) took note of Byrd’s above speech and quoted him recently as saying that Bush had lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and would get caught.  Byrd added:  “Eventually, the truth will emerge.  And when it does, this house of cards, built on deceit, will fall.” 

 

 

The Bush Wars 

 

Though there was never a legitimate congressional declaration of war and though there was absolutely no issue over the defense of the US, President Bush launched his war against Iraq on March 20, 2003.  With the Bush conquest of Iraq (and the theft of the Iraqi oil wealth by the Bush family and other plutocrats), Bush is ready to turn to other wars in the area (and especially since the US has a new staging area in Iraq). 

 

On or about Mar 1, 2003, a visiting group of US Congressmen were told by Ariel Sharon that the US should go after Iran, Syria, and Libya after the military is finished with Iraq (Mar 3 & 10, 2003, “American Free Press,” p. 2).  Thus, Bush could next focus upon Syria or Iran to appease Sharon, to gain more hegemony over the Middle East and to further reap personal profits and gain. 

 

 

General William Tecumseh Sherman 

 

In an address to the Michigan Military Academy, General William Tecumseh Sherman said:  “War is at best barbarism... Its glory is all moonshine.  It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.  War is hell” (ibid, p. 6).