Title:
HAS GOVERNMENT BEEN "BUSTED" IN LYING ABOUT MISSILE STING OPERATION?
Title:
HAS GOVERNMENT BEEN "BUSTED" IN LYING ABOUT MISSILE STING OPERATION?
|
Resources to aid your Understanding
|
|
|
Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!
Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.
YOU ARE NOW ON
THE CUTTING EDGE
NEWS BRIEF: "Less Than Meets the Eye? U.S. Government Sting Operation Criticized as Setup", ABCNEWS, By Brian Ors, August 13, 2003.
"Aug. 13— Administration officials are leaving out key facts and exaggerating the significance of the alleged plot to smuggle a shoulder-launched missile into the United States, law enforcement officials told ABCNEWS. They say there's a lot less than meets the eye. The accused ringleader, British national Hemant Lakhani, appeared today in federal court in Newark, N.J., and was ordered held without bond on charges of attempting to provide material support and material resources to terrorists and acting as an arms broker without a license.
"Outside the courtroom, U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie called Lakhani an ally of terrorists who want to kill Americans ... But what he did not say was just how much of the alleged missile plot was a government setup from start to finish."
Let us stop right here to digest what we have just been told. The government left out "key facts" in this case and exaggerated the significance of other data, just to make their case? One of the more prominent times the government engaged in this type of behavior was in the O.J. Simpson fiasco, where his lawyers convinced a largely-black jury that the government had planted evidence against O.J. and had lied under oath about other "evidence", activities with which the blacks on the jury had lived for years! If you have left out "key facts" and "exaggerated" other "facts", you have just lied!!
Purely and simply lied.
At a time when President Bush and Attorney-General Ashcroft wanted to revive the fear of domestic terrorism generally and airliner terrorism specifically, this lying "sting operation" could not have come at a "better" time. Americans have concluded that the danger of such terrorism is not as strong as the government has been warning for the past two years, a fact borne out by the announcement by United Airlines that their latest booking were running at a historically high point. If the government felt that they needed a return to the fears of terrorism at this moment in time, this fake government sting operation could not have come at a more propitious time -- for the government, that is.
Now, let us return to our feature article to learn of specifics about this apparently fake sting operation that make no sense:
1. "For example, Lakhani had no contacts in Russia to buy the missiles before the sting and had no known criminal record for arms dealing, officials told ABCNEWS. 'Here we have a sting operation on some kind of small operator … who's bought one weapon when actually, on the gray and black market, hundreds of such weapons change hands,' said military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer." [Ibid.]
Therefore, this "small operator" buys one weapon -- supposedly -- and is charged with trying to infiltrate up to 50 anti-aircraft missiles.
2. "Court documents show much of the case is based on the government's key cooperating witness, an informant seeking lenient treatment on federal drug charges, officials told ABCNEWS. He was the first person who led the government to Lakhani." [Ibid'
Now the news gets interesting: the government's main witness is a person who would benefit greatly by leading the government to a great breakthrough story as this one; of course, the suspicion is instantly raised that, if this person would benefit so greatly, would such a person invent the facts to give to the government. Further, the discerning person would wonder if such a person might just cooperate with his government pursuers to fill the role of actor while the government supplies the resources to make the whole story believable? Now, we just may be getting close to the truth of the matter!
Under the heading ‘Something They Created’ ABC News then lists some details deliberately created:
3. "The missile shipped into the New York area last month was not a real missile — just a mockup — also arranged entirely by the government." [Ibid]
4. "The government also arranged the meetings at a New Jersey hotel and elsewhere, where Lakhani allegedly told undercover agents posing as al Qaeda terrorists about his support of bin Laden. '"One would have to ask yourself, would this have occurred at all without the government?" said Gerald Lefcourt, a criminal defense attorney." [Ibid.]
The defense attorney then hits the nail right on the head: " 'I would have hoped the United States is thwarting real terrorism and not something manufactured because here all they're doing is stopping something they created,' said Lefcourt." [Ibid.]
HISTORIC INSTANCES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CREATED THE CRISIS
By Dr. Dennis Cuddy
Concerning all of the subjects mentioned in this book ("Cover-Up"), one of the most important elements in considering any of them is to what extent can the government be believed.
Gulf War I
In that regard, Scott Peterson, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, in the article, "In war, some facts less factual" (September 6, 2002), revealed that "shortly before U.S. strikes began in the [1991] Gulf War, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. 'That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist,' Ms. [Jean] Heller [St. Petersburg Times] says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney [now vice president] for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis - offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: 'Trust us.' To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified…. John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine and author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, says that considering the number of senior officials shared by both Bush administrations, the American public should bear in mind the lessons of Gulf War propaganda. 'These are all the same people who were running it more than 10 years ago,' Mr. MacArthur says. 'They'll make up just about anything… to get their way.' …In the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah. In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book Second Front and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies 'on the cold floor to die.' Seven U.S. Senators later referred to this story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such 'ghastly atrocities' were like 'Hitler revisited.' …Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwaiti hospital. She had been coached - along with a handful of others who would 'corroborate' the story - by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war."
Gulf War II
Another question concerning the American government's credibility is its recent assertion that Saddam Hussein had not accounted for very large amounts of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The BBC News story, "Blix: 'U.S. undermined inspectors'," (April 22, 2003) begins with the words: "American officials tried to discredit the work of inspectors in Iraq to further their own case for war, the chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has charged…. He also reiterated his disquiet at how documents the International Atomic Energy Agency 'had no great difficulty finding out were fake' managed to get through U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysis. Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification."
If WMD are eventually found, the question then is why didn't Saddam use them, since coalition forces were trying to kill him and he had nothing to lose by using WMD? And if he didn't have WMD, isn't the government's justification for attacking Iraq lost? On the NBC evening news for April 15, 2003, Jim Miklaszewski reported that "there's growing concern here [at the Pentagon] they won't find the massive quantities of [WMD] that were the major justification for the war."
It may be that some WMD are found, but it is important as to whether they are currently functional. Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD. The question is whether he had destroyed them, or whether they were in a currently useable form against our attacking soldiers or to give to terrorists in the future. Judith Miller in the April 21, 2003 New York Times reported what the American military was describing as a major discovery. She indicated they had information from an Iraqi scientist as to where chemical weapons precursors, documents, and research materials were buried. However, if they do not find currently useable WMD, so what? All they will have found is material that could have been made into WMD, but wasn't for whatever reason, or material that was destroyed and buried, which was the goal!
All of this raises the question of whether WMD were the real reason for attacking Iraq.
On ABC's World News Tonight (April 12, 2003), Terry Moran asked Richard Clarke (National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism of the National Security Council under President Clinton, and Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security under President Bush) about the lack of discovery of WMD in Iraq, and Clarke replied that it didn't make any difference if we didn't discover any because we got rid of Saddam Hussein. However, there are a number of problems with this attitude that it's unimportant whether we find WMD.
First, if the U.S. says in the future there's a problem requiring immediate action, will people believe us?
Secondly, could a future president be tempted to say some action was taken because of a perceived threat, expecting the American public to forget about it if the threat later turns out not to have been real?
Thirdly, if the principle upon which our attack was based is really that military action is justified to remove dictators, are we not now obligated to remove other dictators or be accused of hypocrisy or a selectivity that creates uncertainty among other nations?
Lastly, should it be the policy of the U.S. to attack another nation if it is not posing a threat (WMD) to our country? On ABC's Nightline (April 16, 2003), Joseph Cirincione (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate and director of its Non-proliferation Project) commented: "The American public came to believe two things that the administration made as central points: (1) that there were large stockpiles of WMD, and (2) that Saddam Hussein had operational links to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and that he might transfer some of these weapons. If the President is unable to demonstrate that these are true, first the rest of the world and then eventually the American public are going to feel that this war was unjustified. We all can be glad that we've removed this repressive regime, helped liberate the Iraqi people. But that was not the main point of the war. It will seriously damage the President's credibility and United States credibility abroad if we can't prove that the reason we went to war was a valid and true reason." [Emphasis added]
On April 22, some Bush administration officials began to be more candid. On ABC's Nightline, reporter John Cochran said that when he asked administration officials what if they don't find WMD, they replied: "It would be unfortunate, but this was not the primary reason we went to war. We emphasized the dangers of Saddam's weapons in order to gain legal justification for war from the United Nations and to emphasize the danger here at home to our own people." Cochran then reported: "We were not lying," said one official, who added, "It was just a matter of emphasis."
Concerning the war with Iraq, Americans have received a very sanitized view of it.
For example, how many have read about "the bridge of death"? Probably very few. Writing from Nasiriya, Mark Franchetti of The [London] Sunday Times wrote "U.S. Marines Turn Fire on Civilians at the Bridge of Death" (March 30, 2003), saying: "I counted 12 dead civilians, lying on the road or in nearby ditches…. Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American Marines with orders to shoot anything that moved. One man's body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound…. Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing." Franchetti then relates that a Lieutenant Matt Martin was distressed by what he saw, but "Martin's distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of his fellow Marines as they surveyed the scene. 'The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy,' said Corporal Ryan Dupre. 'I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No, I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him.'"
Did you see this reported by any of the major U.S. media?
At this point, you may be saying that while this killing of civilians at Nasiriya was tragic, it was an isolated incident.
Guess again! According to Micelle Green in "I Saw Marines Kill Civilians" (allemande, April 12, 2003), Laurent Van der Stockt was a photographer under contract for The New York Times Magazine, accompanying that magazine's editor Peter Maas with a Marines regiment on the outskirts of Baghdad on April 6. They were at a strategic bridge, and "American snipers got the order to kill anything coming in their direction. That night a teenager who was crossing the bridge was killed…. [Later] a small blue van was moving toward the convoy…. The Marines opened fire…. Two men and a woman had just been riddled with bullets…. A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too [see photo in LeMonde]. As with the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank lobbed a terse shot into it…. These hardened troops… were shooting on local inhabitants who understood absolutely nothing of what was going on. With my own eyes I [Van der Stockt] saw about fifteen civilians killed in two days. I've gone through enough wars to know that it's always dirty, that civilians are always the first victims. But the way it as happening here, it was insane…. I drove away a girl who had had her humerus pierced by a bullet…. In the rear, the girl's father was protecting his young son, wounded in the torso and losing consciousness. The man spoke in gestures to the doctor at the back of the lines, pleading: 'I don't understand, I was walking and holding my child's hands. Why didn't you shoot in the air? Or at least shoot me?'"
What do you think the odds are that any of the soldiers responsible for this slaughter will ever be held accountable?
American Hypocrisy
We also need to end our hypocrisy. Americans watching television were troubled at the sight of American prisoners being questioned by Iraqis, and the Bush administration found it objectionable as well. However, neither the Bush administration nor the American people have seemed overly concerned about Afghan prisoners being kept by the American military at Guantanamo Bay while the prisoners have had their hands and legs shackled, their eyes are blinded by opaque goggles, their ears are covered by earphones preventing them from hearing anything at all, and they have been shown forced to kneel.
A second element of our hypocrisy is our concern for Iraqi civilian casualties. If an American pilot drops a bomb on an Iraqi military target and accidentally kills civilians who happened to have been there, that's one thing. However, several weeks into the war against Iraq, several large bombs were dropped on a bunker where coalition forces suspected Saddam Hussein to be. The bunker was attached to the rear of a restaurant where there was reason to believe Iraqi civilians might be. The restaurant was greatly damaged, and soon recovered were the bodies of a man, woman and child (a teddy bear was shown in the rubble). Saddam was not found there, but American leaders apparently using an "ends justify means" morality, justified the attack.
The problem is that this type of morality is not Biblical, as Romans 3:8 states: "…Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just."
Regarding the war with Iraq, it is important to look at who was pushing for it. In Ben Wattenberg's "More feck, less hoc" (Jewish World Review, April 16, 2001), he asked: "So what might be the basis of an American foreign policy?" He then described a 1992 Department of Defense "Defense Planning Guidance" classified document written by then department Undersecretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby advocating a policy "that at its core was to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. Such regional vigilance, they believed, would prevent the rise of a hostile global superpower." This article was written almost 5 months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Cutting Edge Note: On September 13, 2001 -- just 48 short hours after the 9/11 attacks -- Paul Wolfowitz stated that America was going to start "ending states" who sponsor terrorism. Read all the details in NEWS1542, for this is a restatement of the American justification for attacking Iraq.
Now, let us return to Dr. Dennis Cuddy:
Paul Wolfowitz is now Deputy Defense Secretary, and on February 1, 2003, The New York Times published "The Brains Behind Bush's War Policy" by Todd Purdum describing "a group that history may remember for the concept of the pre-emptive attack." The article begins with these words: "Any history of the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq will have to take account of long years of determined advocacy by a circle of defense policy intellectuals whose view that Saddam Hussein can no longer be tolerated or contained is now ascendant…. At the center of this group are longtime Iraq hawks, Republicans like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; Richard Pearle, a former Reagan administration defense official who now heads the Defense Policy Board, the Pentagon's advisory panel; and William Kristol, who was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and now edits the conservative Weekly Standard." The article later refers to "Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, [as] the co-author of a December 1, 1997 editorial with Mr. Kristol in The Weekly Standard, to which Mr. Wolfowitz contributed an article. The cover headline: 'Saddam Must Go.'" On pages 176-177 of my book, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed, I show how the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace set the stage for our military action in Kosovo. You may recall that in the 1950s (after Alger Hiss was head of the Carnegie Endowment), Congressional investigator Norman Dodd revealed that the Carnegie Endowment had also set the stage for American involvement in World War I.
Todd Purdum in his article also referred to Mr. Kristol's Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was begun in 1997. The next year, PNAC wrote a letter on January 26, 1998 to President Clinton urging him "to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts." The letter was signed by future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, as well as others who would hold senior positions in the upcoming Bush administration. It was also signed by CFR members Richard Perle, James Woolsey (Rhodes Scholar and former CIA director) and Zalmay Khalilzad (former Taliban lobbyist, UNOCAL adviser, and current Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan and Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein), among many others. In addition to stating that President Clinton's strategy "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power," it also indicated that "if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction,… the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard."
The Project for the New American Century is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, with William Kristol as chairman, and CFR members Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson, and John R. Bolton as directors, and Paul Wolfowitz among the Project participants. Robert Kagan is the author of the new book, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. In September 2000, the Project issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," co-chaired by Donald Kagan (CFR member) and Gary Schmitt. And in the report one reads that "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…. 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…. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself." Would not a war with Iraq afford the U.S. "a more permanent role in Gulf regional security" even after the "regime of Saddam Hussein" is gone? And wasn't the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 "a catastrophic and catalyzing event" compared by many to "Pearl Harbor"? And did not President George W. Bush begin calling North Korea, Iran and Iraq "the axis of evil" and saying that we need "homeland security"? [Emphasis added]
Shortly after September 11, 2001, the Project for the New American Century wrote a letter to President Bush dated September 20. The letter was signed by, among others, CFR member Jeane Kirkpatrick (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.), Martin Peretz (Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic), and Midge Dector (a former vice-president of the League for Industrial Democracy, formerly called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society). It stated that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
And in case anyone thought that action against Iraq would be all there was, the letter went on to say that "we believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism."
This September 20, 2001, letter was followed by one to President Bush dated April 3, 2002 and signed by, among others, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan and James Woolsey. Concerning Israel, it stated that "only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally…. No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an 'Axis of Evil.' …Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel…. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors…. Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel's victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism."
Cutting Edge Note: At this point, we need to reiterate the deeper truth, i.e., that the decision was made to attack Iraq at least as far back as 1952 {Former Satanist Bill Schnoebelen) and perhaps as far back as the 1933, where H.G. Wells wrote:
".. the plan for the 'Modern World-State' would succeed in its third attempt (Third World War) and would come out of something that would occur in Basra, Iraq." ["The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed", by Dr. Dennis Cuddy, p. 50. Original book by H.G. Wells is, "The Shape of Things To Come"]
Do not assume that the plan to invade Iraq is just a few years old. These organizations Dr. Cuddy quotes, above, are just front organizations designed to make people think this war is just about American hegemony and/or imperialism, or to think the war is just about oil. In reality, this war is about staging the World War III that will produce Antichrist! Never forget that.
Now, back to Dr. Cuddy:
On January 23, 2003, the Project for the New American Century again wrote a letter to President Bush, signed by, among others, CFR member Frank Carlucci (former Secretary of Defense, now with the Carlyle Group, a private global investment firm with defense contracts, global communications, etc.), CFR member Max Boot (Editorial Features Editor of The Wall Street Journal), and Gary Bauer (former head of the Family Research Council). The letter professed that "American strength is key to building the new world you have envisioned." The phrase "the new world" sounds very close to the term "new world order" used by the previous President Bush, and it is useful here to remember that on September 14, 2001, at a CFR meeting in Washington, D.C., former U.S. Senator Gary Hart (co-chairman of the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century) announced: "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out… a phrase his father used,… and that is a new world order."
Finally, regarding the Project for the New American Century, on ABC's Nightline (March 5, 2003), Ted Koppel, referring to the Project, began the program: "Tonight. 'The Plan,' how one group and its blueprint have brought us to the brink of war…. They were pushing for the elimination of Saddam Hussein, and proposing the establishment of a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, linked to a willingness to use force to protect vital American interests in the Gulf. All of that might be of purely academic interest were it not for the fact that among the men behind that campaign were such names as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz." Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania later on the program made the following startling statement: "Before 9/11, this group [Project for the New American Century] was in the position it is in but could not win over the President to the extravagant image of what foreign policy required. After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the President. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House."
Cutting Edge note: Again, this statement is disinformation in that it places the beginning of the Iraq war concept just a few years ago, and that Bush had to be manipulated into setting this particular course of action following 9/11. Every US president since Franklin Roosevelt has been fully on board the Illuminati plan and knew his role in it; President Clinton would have invaded Iraq had he been given the orders to do so. The timing was not right until 2003, which is why the invasion fell to President G.W. Bush.
Now, let us go back to Dr. Cuddy:
A second group setting the stage for a war against Iraq has been the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century (including CFR president Leslie Gelb and CO-chaired by CFR member and former U.S. Senator Warren Rudman), which on September 15, 1999 issued a report titled "New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century." In this report, one reads that "disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers…. Global forces, especially economic ones, will continue to batter the concept of national sovereignty. The state, as we know it, will also face challenges to its sovereignty under the mandate of evolving international law and by disaffected groups, including terrorists and criminals."
Then on April 15, 2000, the same Commission issued another report, "Seeking a National Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and Promoting Freedom," in which one reads about terrorists and those possessing weapons of mass destruction that "the magnitude of the danger posed by weapons of mass destruction compels this nation to consider carefully the means and circumstances of preemption…. The United States must be willing to lead in assembling ad hoc coalitions outside of U.N. auspices if necessary…. The United States has a continuing critical interest in keeping the Persian Gulf secure, and… it must be a high priority to prevent either Iraq or Iran from deploying deliverable weapons of mass destruction."
Didn't a large number of Americans die on American soil due to terrorist attacks? Hasn't the economic impact of the World Trade Organization battered the concept of national sovereignty? And didn't President George W. Bush talk about taking pre-emptive action against Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction?
A third group setting the stage for a war against Iraq was an independent task force sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In addition to Enron chairman Kenneth Lay, the task force included many oil executives such as John Manzoni (British Petroleum), Steven Miller (Shell Oil), David O'Reilly (ChevronTexaco), and Jefferson Seabright (Texaco). Thomas McLarty of Kissinger McLarty Associates was also a member, and Stephen Oxman (Rhodes Scholar) who was an Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was an observer. CFR president Leslie Gelb thanked the task force for 3 "complicated video conferences and teleconferences" (almost a year before the attacks of September 11, 2001), which resulted in the report, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century." Relevant to the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the report indicated that "the exports from some oil discoveries in the Caspian Basin could be hastened if a secure, economical export route could be identified swiftly…. The option exists to downplay diplomatic activities that dictate certain geopolitical goals for specific transportation routes for Caspian oil in favor of immediate commercial solutions that may be sought by individual oil companies for short-term exports of 'early' oil, including exports through Iran."
And relevant to the war with Iraq, the task force report stated: "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and 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 program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a 'Pan Arab' leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States 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 re-state the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. …Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade…." For a look at oil as a factor in making war, see Michael Klare's Resource Wars (2003).
Cutting Edge Note: Once again, we are confronted with a sophisticated disinformation campaign. These groups, and the meetings they held, were all designed to give a false image as to why we were going to war against Iraq. It is better for people to believe America is trying to gain cheap access to a lot of oil rather than to have them realize the truth, i.e., that we are precipitating the war that will produce Antichrist. We have written an article we have quoted many times that debunks the myth that our Middle East policy is driven by oil concerns; we realize the goal of Antichrist is to literally and completely shut down this Industrial Civilization, thus negating any real concerns about oil. The only concern the Illuminati has about the oil supply is that the Industrial Civilization is consuming too much of it, damaging Mother Gaia -- Mother Earth -- in the process. [Read NEWS1658]
Now, let us return to Dr. Cuddy:
That President Bush is pursuing a New World Order just as his father was is verified by the PBS Frontline program "Blair's War" (April 3, 2003), in which the announcer remarked: "Nine months after September 11 the President went to West Point to reveal his vision for a New World Order." The policy would no longer be containment, but rather pre-emptive military strikes against perceived threats such as Saddam Hussein.
The dialectic is the means by which the power elite is pursuing the New World Order. Relevant to Iraq, the thesis is that the U.N. should be the deciding authority. The antithesis is that the Anglo-American alliance (envisioned by Cecil Rhodes to "take the government of the whole world") should decide what action to take. And the dialectical synthesis is that the Anglo-American alliance plus other members of the "coalition of the willing" (about 50 members, but far less than a majority of members of the U.N.) should decide what action to take. This synthesis, of course, is what transpired.
On a global scale, the synthesis will be western capitalism synthesized with eastern communism to form a world socialist government. Percy Corbett (a follower of Cecil Rhodes) in Post-War Worlds (1942) explained how the world government would be achieved by bringing together regional arrangements. Relevant to Iraq today, the U.S. has repeatedly said that it wants to bring "democracy" to that nation, and the hope is that it will spread to other nations in the region. It is not coincidental that a Rhodes Scholar, Clarence Streit, over 60 years ago formed Association to Unite the Democracies (to which Henry Kissinger has contributed). According to the plan, once the nations of the Mideast region have become "democracies," then this region can be united with other regions to form the ultimate goal, a synthesized world socialist government. For this all to happen, any criticism of Bush administration policies will have to be kept to a minimum (criticism of the war against Iraq has been branded as unpatriotic and harming our troops). This same tactic regarding President Franklin Roosevelt and the Second World War was described in Harry Elmer Barnes' Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (1953). Interestingly, Bush administration officials have indicated the war on terrorism could be for an indefinitely long period (perpetual), with the goal of eventually accomplishing perpetual world peace. In Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace (1795), he described a process to achieve a federated "world republic" with "world citizenship." And the Bush administration goal in Iraq is to have a federated republican form of government, which will then spread to other nations in the Mideast region.
War In Iraq Staged?
In my book, Cover-up: Government Spin or Truth?, I mentioned that if certain logical things didn't happen in a war with Iraq, then the reader should seriously consider whether the war was "staged."
1. It was logical that Saddam would flood southeastern Iraq with oil and set the desert ablaze, but he didn't (only about 9 of 500 oil fields were torched).
2. It was logical that Saddam would have destroyed the critically important H-2 and H-3 large air bases in western Iraq so U.S. forces couldn't use them, but he didn't.
3. It was logical that Saddam would destroy the Safwan Highway leading from Kuwait to Baghdad, but he didn't.
4. It was logical that Saddam would clog the Euphrates River to hamper the advance of coalition forces, but he didn't.
5. It was logical that Saddam would destroy the many critical bridges over waterways from Kuwait to Baghdad, but he didn't.
6. It was logical that Saddam would try to hit Israel with scud or Al-Samoud missiles, but he didn't.
7. Since the coalition's Patriot missile system cannot detect low-flying silkworm missiles, it is logical that Saddam would use a lot of them, but he only used one late at night against an empty mall in Kuwait.
8. And it is logical that some Iraqi agent or sympathetic terrorist in the U.S. would have committed some belligerent act, but they haven't.
There are many more examples of things one would logically expect Saddam to have done, but that haven't occurred. Even Rush Limbaugh on his April 1, 2003 national radio talk-show, referred to Saddam's call for terrorists to join him in Iraq to fight coalition forces by saying: "He's now, or whoever is doing this, inadvertently arranging it so that as many terrorists as he can arrange are going to get into Iraq and be in our crosshairs. What a way this is playing out. You have to love this. Somebody's going to eventually begin to wonder if we haven't infiltrated the Iraqi government and are, in effect, in charge of their so-called military operations." Though Rush was joking, he did nevertheless say what he said.
Could it be that Shakespeare was right in As You Like It when he said "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players"?
And do not forget New World Order author, Peter Lemesurier, when he compared current world politics leading up to Antichrist as a "staged event" being played out according to a well-written, detailed script? Listen:
"Their script is now written, subject only to last-minute editing and stage directions. The stage itself, albeit as yet in darkness, is almost ready. Down in the pit, the subterranean orchestra is already tuning up. The last minute, walk-on parts are even now being filled. Most of the main actors, one suspects, have already taken up their roles. Soon it will be time for them to come on stage, ready for the curtain to arise. The time for action will have come." ["The Armageddon Script" p. 252, published in 1981]
Stage, Actors, controlled by the Evil One himself!!
And could it be that President Franklin Roosevelt was right when he said, "Nothing just happens in politics. If something happens, you can be sure it was planned that way"?
Remember, if Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are found in Iraq, Saddam Hussein could have used them against coalition forces - but he deliberately did not! Interestingly, UPI Intelligence Correspondent Richard Sale on April 10, 2003 wrote "Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot," in which it was learned that Saddam Hussein's first contacts with U.S. officials "date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim…. [Later] while Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said." The article went on to reveal that the CIA later provided Saddam's Baath Party with a list of communists in Iraq, who were killed outright in large numbers, and that Saddam presided over the mass killings. Then Sale wrote that "the CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980."
On April 15, 2003, the American government brought together leaders from various parts of Iraqi society to begin the formation of an interim government. But NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reporting on the meeting that day said "a man many think the U.S. wants to see step in as new leader of Iraq [is] Ahmad Chalabi, head of Iraqi National Congress. The U.S. airlifted him with 600 of his aides during the war." What kind of message does this send, when it is widely known that Chalabi is a fugitive from Jordanian justice since he was convicted there of fraud and embezzlement? Think about it. The U.S. invaded Panama and seized its ruler, Manuel Noriega, because he had violated American domestic law. But now, we provide a military escort for convicted criminal, Ahmad Chalabi, to contest for a leadership position in Iraq, when he is a fugitive from Jordanian domestic law!
We should pray for the safety of our American and other coalition soldiers and representatives in Iraq for some time to come. And we should also pray that God will comfort the families of those who have lost their lives during this conflict. [Dr. Dennis Cuddy, used with permission]
CONCLUSION
To many Americans, these revelations that our own government could regularly lie to us, and regularly plan far in advance for an agenda they know would never be approved by a majority of American citizens, are shocking revelations! But, since the beginning of World War I -- the first planned world war designed to produce Antichrist [NEWS1056] -- our government has been routinely lying and covering up in order to further the goal: stage Antichrist on the world scene.
Lying and Staging Attacks To Provide Pretext For War
Cuba: In NEWS1595, we demonstrate the truth that our Pentagon Joint Chiefs created a plan whereby an excuse for all-out war with Cuba would be deliberately created by an attack by American pilots upon US naval ships posing as Cuban. We would claim Cuba has launched an unprovoked attack upon us, thus creating the pretext for us to overthrow Castro. Fortunately, President John Kennedy refused to allow this plan to go forth.
Kennedy Assassination: In our book, "Regicide: (Murder of the King) The OFFICIAL Assassination of President Kennedy", we report the truth that the CIA conceived the plan to assassinate President Kennedy, an allegation made extremely believable because the documents shown come from within the CIA and KGB. The CIA then gained the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, for the assassination murder.
Vietnam: Current historians now know that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never occurred; over 58,000 men lost their lives in the Vietnam War because the Pentagon staged the attack to provide the pretext for Congress and the President to commit our forces. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "New Light On Gulf Of Tonkin - Page 4 -- With fresh evidence now available, claims that the Tonkin Gulf incident was deliberately provoked gain new plausibility", by Captain Ronnie E. Ford, U.S. Army for Vietnam Magazine
"Coincidentally, on the very day McNamara was in Hanoi, American veterans,
historians and scholars met in Washington, D.C., for a conference sponsored
by the Vietnam Veterans Institute. One of the conference's many prominent guest
speakers was Daniel Ellsberg, the former Johnson administration member who leaked
the Pentagon Papers to the press. In his presentation, Ellsberg addressed the
question of whether the Johnson administration deliberately misled Congress:
'Did McNamara lie to Congress in 1964? I can answer that question. Yes, he did
lie, and I knew it at the time. I was working for John McNaughton....I was his
special assistant. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs. He knew McNamara had lied. McNamara knew he had lied. He is still lying.
[Former Secretary of State Dean] Rusk and McNamara testified to Congress...prior
to their vote....Congress was being lied into...what was to be used as a formal
declaration of war. I knew that...' "
McNamara and Rusk deliberately lied, and 58,000 Americans died.
World War II: Modern historians now realize that the preponderance of evidence strongly indicates that President Franklin Roosevelt deliberately led Japan to attack Pearl Harbor! Listen to Christian historian, Ralph Epperson:
"The new President (Roosevelt) again turned to the possibility of war with Japan. It is possible that President Roosevelt knew that war with Japan had been planned even before 1933. According to one historian, Charles C. Tansill ... war with Japan was planned as early as 1915 ... the plan was to move the American government into the area of Fascism ... It was decided that one of the main methods of achieving this goal was through a war and the plans for a war involving the United States was being laid." ["The Unseen Hand", by Ralph Epperson, p. 271]
The plan to achieve the New World Order was conceived to be a matter of forcing a collision between America and the Fascist governments! Isn't that the goal of our invasion of Iraq, and of our threatening all "Non-Integrating States" left in the world [Read NEWS1833]? We have always stated that the Illuminati plan to produce global government dated back to 1917, when secret societies decided to invent a global threat ["Behold A Pale Horse", Bill Cooper}, and we have noted that the general plan to stage three world wars in order to produce Antichrist began with the demonic vision given Masonic leader, Albert Pike, in 1870 [Read NEWS1056]. But Epperson's quote here makes it sound like Bush's policy of confronting "Non-Integrating States" by forcing a confrontation or threat of confrontation with America might just be a continuation of a long-term Illuminist plan!
Let us now return to Pearl Harbor: "In fact, the American government knew that they were vulnerable at Pearl Harbor, the site of Japan's 'surpise' attack to start World War II ... in 1932, the U.S. Navy conducted maneuvers to test the chances of success of an attack from the sea. They discovered that Pearl Harbored was vulnerable from as close as sixty miles off the shore. This means that Japan could attack from sixty miles away from Pearl Harbor and be undetected. The American Navy had proved it." [Ibid., p. 272]
"... on November 25, 1941, the very day that the Japanese fleet sailed for Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt convened a meeting of the various Cabinet officers ... The President brought up the event that we are likely to be attacked ... In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this, so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors." [Ibid., p. 281]
World War I: The Lusitania ship was set up to be destroyed!
"The pressure to involve the American government (in World War I) started in 1909 ... The trustees of the (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient to war ... So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the 'life of a people could be altered." [Ibid., p. 257]
But, with the American people being steadfastly opposed to getting involved in the world war engulfing Europe, the Illuminati needed a terrible tragedy that would fire the American and British anger toward war. Their answer was the passenger liner, the Lusitania.
"The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English government ... England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914., so that gy the end of January, 1915, British intelligence was able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U-Boat as it left for patrol. This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U-Boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France ..."
"The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J. P. Morgan & Co., to be sold to England and France to aid their war against Germany ... On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk in the English Channel by a U-Boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port .. Churchill issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel. Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-Boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was, as 1201 people lost their lives..." [Ibid., p. 257-259]
While the sinking of Lusitania did not directly bring America into World War I, it set the stage through further manipulation for America to be drawn into this terrible conflict. Historians today recognize the "value" of the sinking of the Lusitania in finally getting America into World War I.
Thus, you can see that most of the wars of the 20th Century -- fought to alter entire populations -- were started by deliberate provocation. Lying and scheming governments consistently -- daily -- have been planning for 100 years to so alter the populations of the world that the Masonic Christ could arise to take control of the global government, economy, and religion these wars were fought to produce.
Today's revelation that the government may have "set up" this small arms operator in order to further their goals of globalization through the threat of terror should come as no surprise, for they have been doing this very thing for almost 100 years. Today, their efforts seem almost at full fruition; Antichrist seems to be waiting to appear on the world scene.
Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.
If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.
If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.
If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.
We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.
Finally, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us by mail or email.
God bless you.
