|
Chapter 10
Empire: Global Pax-Americana
The False Left-Right Paradigm
The war on Iraq is just the first stage in a long-term agenda to
firmly entrench New World Order controlled governments in key
geo-strategic areas of the world and eliminate irritant regimes, be
they good or bad. Control of natural resources is vital to the Globalists but not because it makes them money. The prime reason for
imposing a monopoly on commodities such as oil, diamond and precious
metals is to prevent other people from amassing capital.
This is
important to emphasize because the elite largely call themselves
capitalists, thereby giving the system of capitalism a bad
reputation, when in fact they are monopoly hoarders. Free-market
capitalism is the fairest and most successful form of government
ever invented and if we were really living under this system then
our society would be prosperous and happy.
In reality we are living under a system where our governments are
in staggering amounts of debt to private, run for profit banks. Both
the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England create money out of
nothing and then charge interest on it. They are owned by private
individuals most of whom are from Illuminati bloodlines. They are
corporations and are subject to no government oversight because they
bankroll the government. This fake money system enables banks to
loan out ten times the amount of money it holds at any one time by
simply typing it into a computer screen out of thin air.
Therefore,
when the private owners of the Federal Reserve or the Bank of
England want to create an economic crash, they simply call all the
loans in that they created out of nothing. During an economic crash,
the wealth does not just ‘disappear’ – it is collected by the
bankers. Collected too is your home and business when you go
bankrupt. You took out a loan that was created from nothing and yet
you have to pay it back with your physical assets. This is the scam
that we live under and yet the vast majority slide their credit card
in the convenient little slot day-to-day blissfully unaware of how
they have sold their life into slavery.
This book is not about the financial axis of the New World Order
command system but I urge you to educate yourself on this matter if
you have not already done so.
Because we are told that the elite are capitalists, many
well-intentioned people think that communism will defeat the New
World Order. The elite then fund the communist movement and the
media tell everyone that big business capitalism (monopoly hoarding)
is the only system available to us apart from communism. Communism
and big business capitalism, or corporate fascism, are essentially
the same system. They both serve to concentrate wealth in the hands
of a tiny elite that owns and controls both government and business.
Again, It is not the scope of this book to take on such a mammoth
subject, but it has been proven by authors such as Anthony Sutton
that the Bolshevik revolution and other major movements and events
in the history of communism, were funded by so-called capitalist
bankers and industrialists from New York and Washington. I suggest
you read his book, which is available for free online, for more
information.1
1
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution – Anthony C. Sutton
The New World Order system is a fusion of both
communism and fascism, since both are essentially the same.
The
communist system under Stalin was defined as a secret police, brutal
murder and incarceration of political dissidents and other
undesirables, and centralized control. The fascist system under
Hitler was defined as a secret police, brutal murder and
incarceration of political dissidents and other undesirables, and
centralized control. Communism was called ‘leftwing’ and fascism was
called ‘right-wing’ and yet the two are the exact mirror of each
other.
I n the climate of the modern world the politics of society are
being increasingly liberalized, no matter which party is in power.
Liberals call for big government and this has helped the emergence
of both the United Nations and the European Union as bodies of
global government. Many leftists are deluded in thinking that, for
example, the United Nations acts as a barrier against imperial U.S.
aggression when it sanctions every U.S. war because it is controlled
by the same people that control the U.S. government, in this case
the Council on Foreign Relations.
Similarly, the European Union is
subservient to
the Bilderberg group. When you try to educate someone
about
the New World Order, they immediately think that you must
either belong to the extreme left or right wing simply because you
are well-versed in what is actually going on in the world. They
assume, because they have been conditioned to do so, that you must
have your own political agenda. The truth is, we just want to be
left alone by the Globalists. We want to live our lives in a free
country where government is once again accountable.
It’s not a lot
to ask. But the media have systematically erected the perception
whereby, if you talk about a New World Order, you must be a
rightwing racist extremist. Or if you talk about out of control U.S.
imperialism you must be a card carrying communist. These perceptions
have been introduced by the Globalists to protect their identity -
that much is obvious.
FIG 10.1
[CAPTION: One of our hardest tasks is to educate
people into understanding that there is no difference
between the
political left and right – they both follow the same command and
control policies.]
The
left-right paradigm is used to frame debates and eliminate the
possibility of restoring our society to one that is powerful and
free. It is a psychological prison and has been artificially
manufactured to limit people’s conceptual horizons and distract
their attention.
Choose Your Poison
World government is the centralization of power into fewer and fewer
hands. Tyrants have always sought to do this but now the process is
being implemented on a global stage. In years past, people who
discussed a New World Order agenda were considered to be nutcase
conspiracy freaks because that is how the media stereotyped it.
However, as the New World Order developed and expanded it inevitably
had to become more visible and so the media began to admit that a
New World Order existed but they then put the spin on it that it was
good. Now anyone that talked negatively about the New World Order
was stereotyped as an extremist, a reactionary and a racist. The New
World Order is for global harmony they say. Isn’t world government a
natural progression into 21st century new age oneness? You’re not
for the terrorists are you?
Now that the New World Order was admitted, the media and its
controllers had to
frame the debate. And so the debate became not whether we should
have a
world government or not, but whether we should have a left-wing
world
government or a right-wing world government. Again the left/right
paradigm was introduced to make us think we had freedom of choice, thus creating
the
perception that world government was a natural political
development. The buildup
to the proposed war on Iraq was part of a process of empowering the
United
Nations as the global authority, the left-wing world government.
It
was played off
against the USA-British-Israeli axis, the right-wing world
government. The New
York Times encapsulated this paradigm management when it reported on
a
European Union meeting concerning the possibility of war in Iraq,
In fact, the entire emergency conference of European leaders, held
to hammer out a common
position on Iraq, was saturated with a commitment to what may be
viewed as a form of world
government, the supervision of countries by an international civil
service bureaucracy whose
headquarters is the United Nations. This is a notion that has long
been viewed with suspicion and
sometimes outright hostility by the United States.2
I
would like to emphasize the importance of this article. No more is
the concept of an agenda to create a system of global government
viewed as a conspiracy theory. The New York Times will tell you
there is such an agenda. What they won’t tell you is that this
agenda pays for its advancement with human blood. The new
pre-emptive doctrine dictates that whomever the elite define as a
‘rogue nation’ will be attacked directly, possibly with nuclear
weapons.
2 ‘Nations Seek World Order Centered
on U.N., Not U.S.’ - Richard Bernstein – New York Times – February
19 2003 –available at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_021903_worldgov.html
This new approach was outlined in The
National Security Strategy of the United States, which
details the measures to be taken to ensure the United States’
superpower status is never threatened again. I’m supportive of the
old principles of freedom being encouraged around the world but the
new ‘freedom’ is defined as bombing countries into submission until
they accept ‘democracy’ (mob rule). The age of sensible foreign
policy as outlined by the founding fathers whereby the United States
secured its borders and didn’t become entangled in continental wars
is well and truly over.
It is constantly reinforced that to counter the crusades of the
Anglo-American establishment, we need to hand over all power to the
UN and the EU. They have taken a worm and cut it into two pieces.
Both sections seem to be wriggling away independent of each other
yet are made of the same substance.
Tony Blair is a key figure because he is the linkman between the
European ‘leftwing’
bloc and the American ‘right-wing’ bloc of the Globalists. In late
April 2003
Blair publicly called for ‘one polar power’ to be forged between
Europe and the
United States to ‘prevent another cold war’ – again using the threat
of chaos to
push global centralization of power.
Former MP Lord Tebbit went
public to say of
Blair,
“Never before have we had in office a Government and most
particularly a Prime Minister who detests our history, our
constitution, our institutions and indeed the very nation we are and
whose intention is to subjugate us to foreign rule. The more
vainglorious passages spoke of alliances to solve the wider world’s
problems, wars in the Congo, global poverty and famine and, of
course, the installation of a Government in Afghanistan acceptable
to a world opinion - that is, acceptable to the international
jurists favoured by Mr Blair. The outrages in Yugoslavia and those
of September 11 in New York have confirmed in the mind of Mr Blair
the need not merely to submerge the UK into a Euro-state but to
create a wider world authority. Whether his allies in Washington and
Brussels fully share his ambition is another matter.”3
The trick is
that they do share his ambition and the only squabbling occurs when
disagreements arise as to how best hoodwink the masses in to
accepting global government. At this point some of you may be
thinking that it is impossible to coordinate such a large-scale
agenda without someone finding out about it. Well we have found out
about it and we’ve been trying to tell you for years but you didn’t
listen!
We also have to remember that the vast majority of those in
fairly high positions of power merely ape the attitude of the elite
without understanding the overall agenda because they just wish to
maintain their status level. Anyone who wants to pursue a career in
politics knows that they will have to embrace the vaunted ideology
of globalism to climb the ladder. This means the elite have an army
of unwitting water carriers.
The new American empire, like the British empire of the last
century, is just a new mask on the Illuminati Empire. The British
Empire never ‘died’ it merely passed on the baton. Yet the turf war
between the liberals and conservatives is a childish scrap over
whether the new empire will be controlled by the (imagined) left or
right.
3 ‘Blair
is out to destroy UK’ – Ananova – November 27 2002 -
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_716409.html
This
is encapsulated in the following passage from an article that
appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald,
Today a liberal dissenter
such as Gore Vidal, who called his most recent collection of essays
on the US The Last Empire, finds an ally in the likes of
conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who earlier this year
told The New York Times, “People are coming out of the closet on the
word ‘empire’.”
He argued that Americans should admit the truth and
face up to their responsibilities as the undisputed masters of the
world. And it wasn’t any old empire he had in mind. “The fact is, no
country has been as dominant culturally, economically,
technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the
Roman empire.” 4
Again, the fact that we’re seeing the birth of a
new empire is conceded but the real string-pullers behind the
curtain are never mentioned.
A telling example of how the left are manipulated to view United
Nations run world government (socialist dictatorship) as the
solution to American military aggression are the following comments
by Australian journalist Margo Kingston, There will be a world
government, but not one even pretending to be comprised of
representatives of its nation states through the United Nations. The
United States will rule, and not according to painstakingly
developed international law and norms, but by what is in its
interests.
Australia’s choice is to become a non-enfranchised
satellite state of the United States - and thus responsible for its
aggression and a legitimate target for those fighting to win back
countries the Americans take by force, or to fight like hell to save
the United Nation’s dream of world government by negotiation.5
Notice the writer condemns a United States run world government but
then says it can be countered by a liberal United Nations run world
government.
The writer doesn’t understand that the UN and the U.S.
are controlled by the same elite. We don’t want a world government,
period!
Getting the message through to liberals that the only
bulwark against the New World Order is national sovereignty is one
of our major tasks. The lefties still wish to believe that
the
United Nations is a force for good even though it has killed
millions in places like Rwanda through brutal ‘peacekeeping’
missions. The United Nations also runs the international sex slave
networks. This again sounds bizarre and I haven’t got time to detail
it in this chapter.
There is an entire archive of mainstream
articles confirming this at the Prison Planet website.6 There can no
longer be any doubt. A New World Order has arrived. The media are
tacitly admitting it by mislabeling it ‘the new Roman Empire’. Both
the left and right wings of this global government are controlled.
They merely represent the two arms of the monster.
This New World
Order can be blamed for almost all examples of human suffering and
repression in the world today and over the last 75 years at least.
It only escapes detection by hiding behind the false perception that
it is just American imperial expansion.
4
‘Hail Bush: A new Roman empire’ – Sydney Morning Herald – September
20 2002 -
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/19/1032054915705.html
5
‘Manifesto for world dictatorship’ – Margo Kingston – Sydney Morning
Herald – September 22 2002 -
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/22/1032055033082.html
6 UN
Sex Slave Rings archive -
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_un_prostitution.html
This is an international agenda.
We most awake both sides of the political spectrum in order to
successfully fight it. The New World Order sustains itself by
keeping people asleep and manipulated. We must look these murderers
in the eye and face up to the fact that we have a cancer destroying
our planet.
War on Iraq
Saddam Hussein may well have had small stocks of chemical and
biological weapons in his arsenal because we know from confirmed
Senate reports that Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched as Ronald
Reagan’s envoy in 1983 to sell them to him. I have already covered
how the U.S. government provided Saddam with the weapons they then
used as a reason for wanting rid of him. My argument is not centered
on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because the war on
Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction and this is admitted
by the government itself in its own policy documents.
In the spring of 2002 many experts concluded that the war on Iraq
would take place in the summer or at the latest the autumn of that
year. Myself and others disputed this in stating that the war had
been delayed until at least early 2003. How did we know?
There is an internal fissure within the New World Order between what
is known as the Anglo-American establishment and the European bloc.
It is a contrast in ideology but not purpose – the ultimate agenda
is exactly the same. The European power bloc which is dominated by
France and Germany holds that a global government system can only be
established without popular uprising in a piecemeal fashion.
Policies and manufactured crises need to be broken down into
bite-sized chunks over a long period of time so as to gently
acclimatize and lull people into accepting the New World Order. This
is best represented by the European Union, which began as ‘just a
free trade zone’ and over the course of time has slowly evolved into
a giant centralized and un-elected federal super-state.
On the other hand you have the Anglo-American establishment
dominated by Britain and America that seeks to forcefully impose the
agenda swiftly and with an iron fist. They prefer to blow things up
and immediately propose openly fascistic legislation crushing basic
rights and liberties. The Europeans dislike this approach because
they see it as rash and being more likely to stir up an awakening
and a resistance to the agenda.
The Europeans favor Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World approach to
conquering humanity, namely by conditioning the program into them.
The Anglo-Americans favor the George Orwell 1984 approach, fear and
terror to brutalize humanity into compliance. Both methods have been
successful at different points in history and judging at what time
to play which particular card is a constant headache to the Globalists. This is why there is often bitter infighting between the
two factions and this inevitably spills out into the public arena.
But that infighting is then spun by the media - leading people to
believe the ‘accidental’ view of history over the ‘conspiratorial’
view of history.
The point to stress is that, despite there being two different
strategy formats, the final goal is essentially the same. In the
case of Iraq we had the Germans and the French supposedly ‘opposing’
the invasion of Iraq and standing in the way of an American led
attack. And yet if you took the time to read what the Germans and
French were proposing, it was essentially the same as what the
Americans and British were ultimately proposing, namely full scale
United Nations occupation of the country. The Americans and British
wanted make a huge profit from sales of military hardware and
equipment via Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney’s Haliburton and of course they wanted full control of the oil fields.
The Bush administration is awash with oilmen.
This split within the New World Order was evident at the May/June
2002 Bilderberg meeting. Veteran correspondent Jim Tucker of the
American Free Press, utilized his informants within Bilderberg to
ascertain that the war on Iraq had been postponed because it was
considered to be too much of an impulsive maneuver, The issue of
America going to war in Iraq has been delayed, with the White House
agreeing to wait at least until next year, instead of late summer or
early fall, but many issues simmer at this year’s secret Bilderberg
meeting.7
Bear in mind, this was at a time when the media were
beating the war drums for a summer invasion. The amount of times
these ‘conspiracy theories’ turn out to be accurate geopolitical
forecasts is simply amazing!
FIG 10.2
[CAPTION: Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan
arrives at the 2002 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia.]
Tucker added further details about the role of Donald Rumsfeld in a
subsequent report, Rumsfeld is known to have been summoned to
reassure the Europeans there would be “no immediate” U.S. invasion
of Iraq as had been planned by the White House. He was pressed, but
refused to say, that the United States had no plans for future
wars.8 And so the timetable was set for a February/March 2003 war,
which is precisely the time American and British forces were
stationed and ready for a war.
7 ‘Bilderberg Meets’ – Jim Tucker –
American Free Press – June 1 2002 -http://www.americanfreepress.net/06_01_02/BILDERBERG_MEETS/bilderberg_meets.html
8 ‘Bilderberg Batters Bush; But Unity remains on NWO’ – Jim Tucker –
American Free Press – June 9 2002 -
http://www.americanfreepress.net/06_09_02/Bilderberg_Batters_Bush/bilderberg_batters_bush.html
I
repeated time and time again on my website that the war had been
delayed while the media reported that the invasion was imminent. Low
and behold, the war was delayed until mid-March 2003.
The decision to attack Iraq for the second time was made in
September 2000; even before the Bush administration came to power.
This decision emerged from a report by the Project For a New
American Century. The PNAC describes itself as,
“a non-profit
educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental
propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and
for the world; that such leadership requires military strength,
diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too
few political leaders today are making the case for global
leadership.”
After reading its proposals, I think they should carry
a subtitle of, ‘we have no more enemies so to justify massively
increased defense spending let’s invent some’. The organization and
its goals are a precise example of the thinking behind the
Anglo-American establishment bloc.
The document is entitled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy,
Forces and Resources For a New Century’ and was written for Dick
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The participants of the
project include Harvard University, John Hopkins University, the
RAND Corporation and the Carnegie Corporation along with several
military figures from the U.S. Naval War College.
According to British Labour MP Tim Dalyell,
“This is a blueprint for US world domination—a new world order of
their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans
who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour
Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this
moral standing.”9
The report reads like a laundry list of imperial
conquest. It calls for conquest of Iran, conquest of Syria, conquest
of Libya, conquest of North Korea, militarization of space, ‘regime
change in China’, development of biological weapons to be used in
war and a host of other colonial adventures which are summed up in
their jargon as being ‘simultaneous major theatre wars’.
FIG 10.3
[CAPTION: Dick Cheney – when he’s not hiding in an
underground bunker he’s scripting future wars with fellow PNAC luminaries.]
The most interesting section of the report relates to Iraq. The
report states,
The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent
role in Gulf regional
security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein.10
9 ‘Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President’ –
Neil MacKay – Sunday Herald – September 15 2002 -http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
This is solid proof that the Bush administration’s real
intention behind invading Iraq was to impose its own geopolitical
primacy and had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or
the moral removal of Saddam Hussein. The report was picked up by the
Sunday Herald and a handful of other news outlets but for some
strange reason has received no attention in the mainstream American
press apart from one watered down ABC News report...
Issues of geopolitical primacy and the occupation of Iraq go hand
in hand with American oil interests in the region. Leftists have
used the phrase “it’s all about the oil” so many times that they
have worn it out. They rarely present much evidence to verify this
claim and this is why the phrase has become a cliché in the media. I
do have the evidence to make this claim without it being just an
empty maxim..
The era of cheap and abundant oil is coming to a close. Many experts
predict that demand will outrun supply in 10 years time. Therefore
it is inevitable that world oil prices will dramatically rise. The
benefit of controlling the world’s biggest oil supplies will be
greater than it has ever been. Iraq contains the second largest oil
supply on earth, at least 112 billion barrels of proven reserves,
one tenth of the world’s supply, with some even suggesting it is
even more plentiful than number one in the world, Saudi Arabia.
The
script is set for America to turn on its ally in a matter of years
because the Saudis have threatened to raise their oil prices and so
an extra source of oil is a necessity for America to retain its
superpower status. A puppet regime in Iraq would pump three times
the amount of oil than current levels, as reported by Newsweek.11
The fall in supply from Venezuela has also hit hard, which is why
the CIA have attempted on more than one occasion to overthrow
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
I n April 2001, a report by the Baker Institute for Public Policy
revealed the Bush administration’s desperate urge to remove Saddam
Hussein from the scene to protect their oil interests. The report
was commissioned by U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney.
It read,
The
United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains
a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international
markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a
willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own
export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should
conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military,
energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.
The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with
key allies in Europe and Asia,
and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with
respect to Iraqi policy and to
restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.12
10 ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources
for a New Century - The Project for a New American
Century - September 2000 – available at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
11 ‘Iraq: It’s the Oil, Stupid’ - Temma Ehrenfeld – Newsweek –
September 30 2002 – available at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_093002_oil.html
12 ‘Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis’ – Neil McKay –
Sunday Herald – June 10 2002 -http://www.sundayherald.com/28285
The Baker Institute was set up by former secretary of state under
daddy Bush, James Baker, another key man in the arming of Iraq and
numerous other criminal activities. The advisors for the report
included Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron,
and a host of top oil company executives. The Council on Foreign
Relations was also involved in the proposals.
The document presents a strategy to deploy United Nations weapons
inspectors
to disarm Iraq of any remaining arms and then to move in and take
control of the
oil within three to five years. This is the exact course of events
we saw unfold in
late 2002 and into 2003. Remember, the dossier was released in April
2001 and
so this clearly indicates that September 11 and the much repeated
‘it’s a more
dangerous world so we must take out Saddam’ mantra is an outright
lie. The
Sunday Herald commented that the document,
“fundamentally questions
the
motives behind the Bush administration’s desire to take out Saddam
Hussein and
go to war with Iraq.”13
The Sydney Morning Herald of Australia made a similar conclusion,
While the US now presses for “regime change” in Iraq, more than 18
months ago the report repeatedly emphasized its importance as an oil
producer and the need to expand Iraqi production as soon as possible
to meet projected oil shortages - shortages it said could be avoided
only through increased production or conservation in the
near-term.14
The Baker report is a smoking gun and tells us that the
agenda to commandeer the Iraqi oil fields was decided upon two or
more years before the proposed invasion itself. However, the White
House still insisted it had not even considered what the
consequences in the oil market would be from a war even as they were
massing troops.
Mainstream Indian analysts also went public to point out the oil
agenda of the
invasion of Iraq in September 2002,
Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow
American firms to manipulate global
market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out
countries like India, which is
engaged in developing oil fields in that country.15
Even as people like Tony Blair were calling the ‘alleged’ oil agenda
a conspiracy
theory, the biggest newspapers in the world were reporting,
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a
bonanza for American oil
companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between
Baghdad and Russia, France and
other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according
to industry officials and
leaders of the Iraqi opposition.16
13 ‘The West’s battle for oil’ – Neil McKay – Sunday Herald – June
10 2002 - http://www.sundayherald.com/28224
14 ‘Oil has always been top of Bush’s foreign-policy agenda’ – Ritt
Goldstein – Sydney Morning Herald – July 10 2002 -http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848021.html
15 ‘U.S. plans war to control Iraq’s oil wealth: experts’ - P.
Jayaram – Indo-Asian News Service – September 23 2002 –available at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_092302_oil.html
16 ‘In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue’ – Dan Morgan –
Washington Post– September 15 2002 -http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14¬Found=true
Former CIA director James R. Woolsey went on the record as saying
that the oil
windfall would be divvied up fairly between the nations that agreed
to support the
war. And so it was no surprise that the first priority after the
invasion of Iraq was
to secure the oil fields. Talks on this began in secret because,
according to the
London Guardian,
The companies are reluctant to mention oil in public, fearing it
will feed Arab suspicion that it is
the main factor in the confrontation with Iraq
According to the officials, Mr Cheney’s staff held a meeting in
October with Exxon Mobil
Corporation, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConcocoPhilips, Halliburton,
but both the US
administration and the companies deny it.17
Of course when the plan became public the media put out the blatantly
ridiculous spin that control of the Iraqi oil fields was for the
benefit of the Iraqi people. Just like the U.N. oil for food program
has been to the benefit of the Iraqi people too, killing 500,000 of
them. Colin Powell was the main proponent of this supposition and
yet when asked if U.S. oil companies would get the contracts for the
operation of the oilfields he said, “I don’t have an answer to that
question.”18 At the conclusion of the war the Bush administration
blocked anyone else from bidding other than oil companies friendly
to them. Most of the contracts were handed out to Dick Cheney’s Haliburton. Subsequently, all the establishment talk show hosts
began saying, ‘well what if it was about oil? Who cares?’
On the eve of the war the U.S. cited fabricated and unreliable
evidence to try and justify a war in the face of mounting anti-war
demonstrations.
Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N. on February 5 2003 was described
as a watershed because it firmly divided the world into pro and
anti-war camps. At this point blatantly demonization-driven stories
were emerging suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s spies were running
and organizing anti-war protests across the world. Hussein could
barely control his small region of dominance and so how his agents
were able to leave the country and infiltrate the anti-war movement
is baffling.
Powell’s ‘evidence’ consisted of satellite photographs which arrows
drawn on
pointing to objects that could have been anything, if the satellite
photos were
even genuine at all. The Secretary of State also outlined that the
Islamic terrorist
group Ansar al-Islam, which he linked to Hussein, were operating a
chemical and poisons factory in north-eastern Iraq.
17 ‘US begins secret talks to secure Iraq’s oilfields’ – Nick Paton
– London Guardian – January 23 2003 -http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html
18 Ibid
When journalists
from several different countries visited this location they found
out that it was in fact a bakery, It emerged that the terrorist
factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of
concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind
the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts,
are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign
of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and
vegetable ghee used for cooking.19 The London Observer concluded
that Powell’s charge was ‘cheap hyperbole’.
During his presentation, Powell also held up a British intelligence
dossier that
claimed to detail Iraq’s links to terrorist organizations. Powell
stated,
“I would call my colleagues’ attention to the fine paper that the
United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail
Iraqi deception activities.”20
The dossier, entitled ‘Iraq - its
infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation’ was
revealed just a day after Powell’s speech as a compilation of
6-year-old magazine articles and a graduate student thesis which
cited information that was 12-years-old. Four of the report’s
nineteen pages were copied verbatim from an Internet version of an
article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey
in California. Downing Street copied the text without even removing
the spelling mistakes. The only changes that were made were detailed
by U.K. Channel 4 News, In several places Downing Street edits the
originals to make more sinister reading. Number 10 says the
Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is “spying on foreign
embassies in Iraq”.
The original reads:
“monitoring foreign
embassies in Iraq.” And the provocative role of “supporting
terrorist organizations in hostile regimes” has a weaker, political
context in the original: “aiding opposition groups in hostile
regimes.”21
FIG 10.4
[CAPTION: The British intelligence
dossier cited by Colin Powell
as proof of Iraqi deception – was in
fact written by a California graduate student.]
19 ‘Revealed: truth behind US ‘poison factory’ claim’ –
Luke Harding – London Observer – February 10 2003 -
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,892045,00.html
20 ‘UK war dossier a sham, say experts’ – Michael White – London
Guardian – February 7 2003 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html
21
‘Downing St dossier plagiarised’ – Channel 4 News – February 6 2003
-
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html
The British government made itself look even more foolish by
refusing to apologize and actually defending the material as
accurate. They couldn’t see the harm in passing off a student essay
as high-level MI6 intelligence.
Former Labour MP Glenda Jackson
commented,
“If that was presented to Parliament and the country as being
up-to-date intelligence, albeit collected from a variety of sources
but by British intelligence agents..... it is another example of how
the government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament
on the issue of a possible war with Iraq. And of course to mislead
is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying.”22
Tim Dalyell, the longest
serving member of the House of Commons, was actually ejected from
the House by presiding officer Michael Martin after stating,
“To
plagiarize an out of date Ph.D. thesis and to present it as an
official report of the latest British intelligence information,
surely it reveals a lack of awareness of the disastrous consequences
of such a deception. This is not a trivial leak. It is a document on
which is the basis of whether or not this country goes to war and
whether or not young servicemen and servicewomen are to put their
own lives at risk and indeed thousands, tens of thousands of
innocent civilians.”23
The fraud deepened when it was established
that the group who actually put the dossier together were not
affiliated with MI6 but were a selection of junior aides from the
office of Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s propagandist and spin
master. Immediately after this story began to circulate and build
in intensity, the U.S. upped the terror alert level to orange and
Tony Blair stationed troops and tanks at Heathrow airport. The
government again terrorized the people into becoming distracted by
fear and the story of the fraudulent Iraq dossier never resurfaced
again. Compare this to the case of ‘Cheriegate’ where Blair’s wife
was revealed to have some second hand links to a conman. This was
nothing compared to the dossier story and yet it dragged on for
weeks and months.
There were also numerous attempts to link Osama bin Laden to Saddam
Hussein. There is a link between the two and that link is that both
of these monsters were initially funded, armed and empowered by the
CIA. Apart from that, the two are arch enemies. Hussein is a
womanizing hedonist Socialist while bin Laden is a devout
fundamentalist. Why would Hussein want to give weapons of mass
destruction to terrorist groups that would use them against him?
Like other Middle Eastern rulers, Saddam Hussein has long recognized
that Al Qaeda and likeminded
Islamists represent a threat to his regime. Consequently, he has
shown no interest in
working with them against their common enemy, the United States.
This was the understanding
of American intelligence in the 1990’s. In 1998, the National
Security Council assigned staff to
determine whether that conclusion was justified. After reviewing all
the available intelligence that
could have pointed to a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the
group found no evidence of a
noteworthy relationship.24
And yet we were subjected again and again to people like Tony Blair,
George
Bush and Jack Straw telling us there were clear links between
Al-Qaeda and
Hussein but, unsurprisingly, they ‘couldn’t tell us the nature of
those links’ because of national security concerns.
22 ‘UK defends ‘copied’ Iraq dossier’ – BBC – February 7 2003 -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm
23 ‘Veteran Labor lawmakers walks out of Commons after accusing
government of misleading public with Iraq dossier’ –
Ed Johnson – Associated Press – February 10 2003 -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030210/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_britain_iraq_dossier_3
24 ‘Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda Are Not Allies’ – Daniel Benjamin –
New York Times – September 30 2002 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/opinion/30BENJ.html
Polls were then released showing that
over 50% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
were the same person. People have been brainwashed by the media and
Hollywood to only think in black and white, to think that there are
just good guys and bad guys.
Rohan Gunaratna is an expert on international terrorism at St.
Andrews
University. He stated,
“I have examined many thousands of documents from Afghanistan I could
not find any links whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. If
there are links, they should prove it. They have an enormous
intelligence budget, they have interviewed more than 1,000 al-Qaeda
suspects, they have examined thousands of documents, and they have
found nothing.”25
Amid empty accusations of a link between Hussein
and bin Laden, angry British intelligence officials leaked a
top-secret report saying that there were no links. There was,
according to the BBC, growing disquiet at the way their work was
being politicized to support the case for war on Iraq.26
25 ‘Experts scorn Saddam link to al-Qaeda’ – Gethin Chamberlain –
The Scotsman – February 6 2003 -http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=147782003
26 ‘Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link’ – BBC – February 5
2003 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm
Powell’s
dossier of ‘evidence’, the student essay ‘intelligence report’, the
phantom links, the whole façade was an endless stream of bullshit
intended to convince people who never look behind the curtain that
war was justified. The contention that the biggest military power in
the world bombarding a small country to ashes for the second time in
twelve years and killing thousands more innocent people was
‘justified’ beggars belief. North Korea has nuclear bombs that can
hit America and has publicly threatened to use them. North Korea has
a dictator ten times worse than Hussein who has starved a million of
his people.
North Korea has a network of concentration camps that
hold 200,000 people in horrific conditions. Where is the invasion of
North Korea? There isn’t one. There isn’t one because the war on
Iraq was nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It was
about advancing the New World Order agenda via the muscle of the
United States.
There are 60 plus countries on the PNAC hit list. When the talking
heads announce that ‘we’ are going to war just remember that it is
not ‘we’ who will be slaughtering children. It is not ‘we’ who will
be using depleted uranium ensuring another generation of deformed
babies. It is not even ‘we’ who will profit from the takeover of the
oil supply.
It is
the global elite, notching up another sovereign
country on the road to constructing their dark empire of world
government.
Back to Contents
|