posted 05-16-2003 06:48 PM            

Posted on Tuesday, May 14 @ 02:05:37 EDT by JohnBrown
Submitted by sv3n
http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1332

Conspiracy and Collusion By David Ruppe, ABC News [US]
May 1st, 2001

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

******************************************************************************************
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

******************************************************************************************
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.

posted 05-16-2003 10:14 PM            

If there was negligence, then you must have some suggestion as to how these acts of terrorism could have been avoided and what Bush did wrong.

posted 05-16-2003 10:50 PM            

Go to
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_navbar.htm

or
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

or
http://thebird.org/host/dcdave/article4/020106.html

Lots of information about how Bush had prior knowlage and let the attacks happen.

After all, they needed a "new pearl harbor" (PNAC)

posted 05-17-2003 02:14 AM            

FW obviously posted without even reading Mech's post:
>What part of "in your own words" didn't you understand Mech?
Typical dodging of the question we've come to expect from you. No surprises there....<

Hey! Braindead! Those were his own words!

Mech & I disagree on many things, but those were clearly "his own words"

FW, set down that conservative kool-aid for a minute and see if I can get past your cult's closed mindset:

FW posted:
>So how did Bush "let" these terrorist acts happen ____?<
You were attempting a strawman diversion of Mech, but;
"Stand Down Orders" which prevented the Nation's military responding to the four hijacked jets, until after the Pentagon was hit, is how King George II "Let" these 'terrorist' acts happen.
Payne Stewart's airplane went about 17minutes out of contact with air traffic controllers who scrambled jets back when President Clinton let the military protect america.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/augusta/stories/102599/payne.html[/URL]

>Monday October 25, 1999 <
>government officials said. Air traffic controllers couldn't raise anyone by radio.
Fighter jets were sent after the plane and followed it for much of its flight<
>An Air Force F-16 fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the jet, Air Force officials said. Two F-15 fighters from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., then took over to follow it and they later handed off the monitoring to two Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla. <
>Give some specific examples (in your own words) of what Bush should have done to prevent this, given that you are suggesting negligence.<
In MY own words:
"Visit a few links stupid! Or visit the topic Mech suggested."

www.world-action.co.uk/bushknows.html[/URL]
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042202_bushknows.html[/URL]

www.hopedance.org/issue32/articles/disturbing-banner.htm[/URL]

www.manilatimes.net/national/2002/may/26/opinion/20020526opi2.html[/URL]
Ot the most comprehensive single source for truth about
"Wag the Dog"- the sequel 'Wag the WTC'
Serendipity:
http://www.serendipity.li/_home.html

" ... Serendipity has sections on the following: America's Reichstag Fire, ... Bill of Rights, Brainwashing, Censorship... "

>If there was negligence, then you must have some suggestion as to how these acts of terrorism could have been avoided and what Bush did wrong.<
Let the government agencies do their jobs, not stand down orders; not:
Ordering the FBI to stop investigating BinLaden in summer of 2001; (what King George II did)
The world outside of Amerika's FAUX "news" knows that Bush and his cons are the only people in the world who benefitted from 9/11.

Police investigators solve crimes using the MOM pattern:
1. Who had the ability to commit and coverup the crime?
-Means- (they were able to give codes to terrorists & order a stand down of air defense and control media hype to present Northwoods scenario as desired to Wag the WTC as Bush needed)
2. Who was in a position to control or commit the criminal acts?
-Opportunity- (control of government and control of the media and Bush family ties to BinLaden family and cia history of training and financing those same agency employees who were called "terrorists".
3. Who stood to benefit from the criminal acts?
-Motive- (to divert from media conglomerates announced on Sept first 01 that they woudl "in ten days" 9/11/01 release the results of the actual count of all Florida ballots,
showing Gore won by a large margin.
and to rescue failing Bush admin from criticism
and to enable Suspension of our Constitution by "USA Patriot Act" and
enable Asscroft's implemention of the rightwing police state.

(the implausable Bush 'tinfoil hat' conspiracy theory is that terrorists decided to give the US cause to bomb them and invade their countries:
Al Queda leadership meeting-
"...and so we destroy the IRS & CIA offices and the American people rejoice and join their Arab brothers in fighting this monster the US government has turned into..."
BinLaden interrupts:
"No! No! NO! You're planning to do this all wrong...
We must attack and kill innocents and give the American people cause to support the destruction of us our families and our countries..."
"Well Osama, we know your family and that of the newly appointed American leader have always been close and that you work for their CIA. We will, of course trust your insider knowlege and follow your leadership."You believe the idiotic tinfoilhat Bush conspiracy theories?
I've got
-A bridge you can buy cheap.
It's in
Brooklyn now, but you can move it wherever you wish.
-Some nice swampland in the peoples' Republic of Bushylvania can be had for mere pennies on the dollar.
It's in a place called Florida.

Beachfront property in Arizona you can buy for a song.
It's the biggest beach in America.
Takes a mere 8 hours to drive to the waterline.

>Let's examine these pre-emptive measures that were neglected. Can you give me some examples of these pre-emptive measures Mech?<
To pre-empt gullibility or stupidity:
You should have given up drugs years ago FW.
That might have pre-empted being fooled by King George II.

It's stupid to respond to a post without even reading it first FW;
(ask your Team Leader to explain)

"Stupid is as stupid does." -Forrest Gump

posted 05-17-2003 07:15 AM            

Watch the fascist crawl. While the patriots are busy
waving flags and patting themselves on the back for
removing dictators that are in the way of oil, new
legal models are being introduced that will eventually
be applied to the American people themselves.

In Nazi Germany, the same almost imperceptible
crawl took place. By the time the people realized that
by not defending the communists, the Jews, the resisters,
they had not defended themselves. By then it was too
late. The machinery was in place and conscience
had been declared enemy of the state.

Rumsfeld Rankles http://www.law.com/jsp/printerfriendly.jsp?c=LawArticle&t=PrinterFriendlyArticle&cid=1052440727606

Dan Christensen
Miami Daily Business Review
05-14-2003

The federal government's ground rules for military
trials of foreign terrorist suspects detained on and off
the battlefield are just out, and they're sending chills
through veteran civilian defense lawyers.

The new rules spell out 33 crimes of war to be prosecuted
and procedures for imposing sentences that include death. In
addition, the U.S. Department of Defense's set of eight "military
commission instructions" imposes conditions of service on civilian
defense counsel that some lawyers say will make it extraordinarily
difficult to win acquittal for clients -- and will impose financial
hardships that will discourage involvement by skilled and
successful private attorneys.

"A competent attorney will face incredible obstacles in
simply presenting a meaningful defense," said Georgetown
University law school professor David Cole.

Under the rules, suspects facing a military trial may
retain a qualified private defense lawyer, assuming they
can find one. Hired lawyers, though, will play second banana
to the primary defense lawyer on cases -- the military
judge advocate general, or JAG.

To be eligible to participate, civilian attorneys must
swear an oath that includes the following: "I understand
that my communications with my client, even if traditionally
covered by the attorney-client privilege, may be subject to
monitoring or review by government officials using any
available means, for security and intelligence purposes."

And this: "I will not discuss or otherwise communicate or
share documents or information about the case with anyone
except persons who have been designated as members
of the defense team."

"That's a flat-out gag order," said Miami attorney Neal
Sonnett, a former president of the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers who currently chairs the American
Bar Association's task force on the treatment of enemy
combatants.

President Bush signed the order establishing military
commissions two months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Last
year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld enunciated the
basic procedures necessary to achieve "full and fair trials."

The new rules, issued by the Pentagon on May 2, are
intended to implement the program and ensure that trials
are open "to the maximum extent practicable."

So far, though, the president has not given the word to
actually begin prosecuting cases. Thus, no charges have
been filed, no defendants identified, no trials set and no
military personnel assigned to the commission,
prosecution or defense.

NO REVIEW, EVIDENCE RULES

Sonnett said the Defense Department has shaped the
commission system to be like the military's everyday justice
system. "That's their model and it's a pretty good system," he
said. "But the tribunals do not have the rights of the military
justice system.

They lack a couple of things that I think should have
been included if they really wanted to have something fair
and perceived by the world community as fair." That would
include, in his view, some right of civilian review.

Also lacking, according to New York attorney Michael Ratner,
are the customary rules of evidence, including protections against
hearsay. "It's not a setup for a full and fair trial," said Ratner, who
is the president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional
Rights. "In fact, it's the opposite of what we are used to in the
U.S. system of justice. You can't say it's a one-way road to
conviction, but it's close."

Miami attorney Albert Krieger, chairman of the criminal justice
section of the American Bar Association, said the commission
process is seriously flawed and will prove to be an
"embarrassment" to the Bush administration.

"I think there was an intention by the Defense Department
to cut through what they probably view as the irrational and
irrelevant antics of counsel at a trial," said Krieger, who is also
a former president of the criminal defense lawyers association.
"But if a fair trial is what they wanted, I think they've missed
very badly. What's being done is repugnant to our
traditional system."

SECRECY RULES

Secret evidence apparently will be used heavily at trial.
In fact, the rules require civilian defense attorneys to have
a security clearance of "secret" or higher. They must also declare
at the outset that they are aware such evidence may be used
against their clients, and that they won't get to see it if their
security clearance isn't sufficient. The defense team,
however, will have access to all secret evidence
because the JAGs will be cleared to see it.

"That seems to me a real problem," Cole said. "The
only one who can see such evidence is someone within
the military command."

The new operating rules also impose problematic
restrictions on how and where civilian defense lawyers
can do their job. All work in defense of a case, "including
electronic or other research," must be done at the site
of the trial.

Also, the prosecution is not required to give the
defense access to case evidence or the names and
contact information of witnesses until a week before
a trial is scheduled to begin.

Those restrictions amount to a government chokehold
on the time and opportunity to investigate a case. Some
experts say it places nearly insurmountable hurdles
between the accused and a verdict of not guilty.

"How do you prepare? I don't know how, when the
government controls access to information," Krieger said.

"We know that even if well-intentioned, substantial
errors can be made that are only uncovered by vigorous
investigation by defense counsel. With this I can't interview
witnesses because the information that would make my
questions relevant is derived from classified
information that I can't use."

INVITING 'BANKRUPTCY'

The new rules also present serious financial challenges
for private defense lawyers.

There are nearly 650 al-Qaida and Taliban terror suspects
held at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where
their location and status affords them no constitutional rights.
Most of them likely will be put on trial there. Other so-
called "unlawful combatants" now being held in Iraq
and Afghanistan also may be tried half a world away.

Despite this, the new rules declare that the federal
government won't pay any expenses incurred by the
civilian lawyers to defend indigent defendants.

In the oath, civilian lawyers also must pledge that
the military proceedings will be their "primary duty"
for the duration of the case. "I will not seek to delay or
to continue the proceedings for reasons relating to matters
that arise in the course of my law practice or other
professional or personal activities that are not
related to military commission proceedings,"
says the oath.

Sonnett calls the combination of no government
reimbursement for costs and the mandate that private
attorneys work primarily on the military tribunal case an
invitation to "bankruptcy" for defense lawyers. "They've
purposely tried to make it difficult for competent
counsel to get involved," he said.

Given all that, some of the nation's most talented
lawyers, here and elsewhere, are thinking twice -- or,
like Krieger, not at all -- about plunging into the pool
of qualified defense counsel.

"Who's going to want to take a case," Cole said, "where
your conversations are going to be overheard, you are not
going to be able to speak about the case to the press or
anyone else, you are not going to be able to see classified
evidence that's being used to convict your client and your
case is going to essentially take over your life -- often
without compensation? Very few lawyers are
going to be lining up."

"Maybe they'll get a bunch of retired lawyers," said
Ratner, who is part of a defense team that represents
the families of two Australians and two Britons
detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Sonnett was particularly bothered about the government's
eavesdropping plans. "How can you expect a client to confide
in you when he knows he's being overheard?" he complained.
"By signing the affidavit, you are acknowledging and
agreeing to the kind of surveillance it describes. I'm
not sure I could ever agree to that kind
of surveillance."

Whoever finally signs on, one thing is clear: No
foreigners can be retained as civilian attorneys, even
though the detainees hail from 42 different nations. Under
the rules, only U.S. citizens can apply as their lawyers.

With many nations pressing for the return of their citizens,
and Secretary of State Colin Powell's public caution last month
that the slow pace of legal review was hampering relations
between the United States and other countries, legal action
by the U.S. government is expected to intensify.

Indeed, the government announced the release of 13
ex-terror suspects from Guantanamo last week.

posted 05-17-2003 01:08 PM            

The war has already been declared on the American people by the globalists. It a silent war for the most part. Every onece in a while the people rise up and get angry about it...See Seattle WTO protests 1999. Expect to see a lot more Black ski masked police mowing people down over the next decade.

All in the name of globalism.

posted 05-17-2003 03:14 PM            

I'm going to be pointing it out more and more as it becomes more and more obvious.

posted 05-17-2003 03:18 PM            

I'd rather be the "monkeywrench"

Yes...monkeywrenching the New World Order.

posted 05-17-2003 05:09 PM            

When America is nothing but a new providence for sweatshop labor and resorts and golf courses for the elite, then MABYE..you will learn. Mabye when the squalor and delapidated housing behind the mall spreads to every corner of America..THEN...mabye.

posted 05-17-2003 05:14 PM            

Roger that chief, will do.

posted 05-17-2003 05:27 PM            

The European Union started out as a "trade" (SIC) Union (GATT)...now it is becoming a political Union..with a common government.

The United States, Mexico, Canada, South America is next...starting as a "trade" (Sic) Union (NAFTA)...which will progress to a political Union...disolving OUR sovereignty. It's already happening.

The excuse will be..."we have to compete with the Euro".

Ultimately...it all leads to a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.

Hence, Global tyranny. Corporate fascist rule.

posted 05-17-2003 07:16 PM            

Ya see, I'm willing to listen to a post like you just made, because it isn't full of fantical ranting bull****. While I may not agree, it's all alright.

posted 05-27-2003 07:03 AM            

by Jim Kirwan

NOTE: This article also appears at: http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ed050603-1.shtml

Since that day our bumbling boy wonder stole the office of president, some have wondered about the ulterior purposes behind this administration and its nefarious doings. They have not been alone in this mini-quest. Part of the dilemma for anyone who truly wants to understand these actions and re-actions is that 'nothing they do' within the circles of power and greed seems to make any logical sense.

Ordinary criminal schemes are usually easy to decipher. Money trails can be found, and their telltale tracks followed to whatever may have been the point of such an effort. But this 'super-plan' for domination includes the complete destruction of most (or all) that matters - and none of it makes sense to the civilized world.

The litanies of the theft of everything constitutional have been well documented. The voracious greed of the warlords, while perhaps less clearly delineated, are finally taking shape: At least as to which countries are now being targeted, even when it remains unclear as to why those countries might find themselves in that position. In addition to the above we also have the destruction of the entire system of social programs, the welfare of the states, the counties and the cities of the United States - as well as the total isolation of all the citizens of this country - inside a massive shroud of secrecy and fear.

In addition to all of this, the Bush Crime Family has targeted the viability of the environment, the supply of clean water, the fertility of the soil, and the quality of the air itself - as though they somehow will not have to suffer the same consequences as the rest of the human race once their policies begin to destroy all possibility for life on this planet.

Where's the sense - where's the profit in all the artificial fear, all the hate and all the aggression? Recently they've begun to destroy the very instruments of dialogue and discussion. In their haste to attack Iraq, they destroyed the Atlantic Alliance, did major damage to the United Nations, and managed to severely wound the NATO alliance. How can they hope to triumph against such a background of belligerence and destruction? What's left to crush or threaten once we've finished declaring ourselves to be the Supreme Rulers of the World?

It turns out that most of the above has only been a side-show, an 'introductory video' of what will happen to the United States and to all its citizens if we should fail to comply with every command on the Bushwhacker's hit list of rights to be taken, property to be stolen, or dreams to be denied. It seems there is a plan beneath all this after all.

This little nightmare called FEMA - The Federal Emergency Management Agency - was brought to us by Richard Nixon. And over the years each consecutive president has contributed to its continuing health and viability - until we got to '41,' bullyboy's daddy. GWH Bush saw to it that this weapon against the people was armed and ready - the only thing not in place was a sufficient excuse to implement it.

What exactly is FEMA, in terms of its powers, once it is activated?

"EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President - Congress cannot review the action for six months."

A complete explanation is here: http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon6.html

Then came the events of 9-11. Here was the beginning of the real possibility to make the transition from a science fiction fantasy to living reality. http://www.rense.com/general36/hoax.htm

To facilitate the onset of civil unrest in the United States, a number of actions by the executive branch of government have been undertaken with the complicity and collusion of both the Congress and the courts under the direction of a loosely defined coalition of the eager that involves both the USA and a faction of extremists within the government of Israel. All of this is being financed by you and me through the monetary choices we have allowed this government to make since the ascension of the Bush Crime Family to their executive posts in Washington D.C.

To understand how this was possible one needs to go back in time to a little known but extremely important occurrence that reshaped our country in 1871. The changes created by the "Act of 1871" altered the words "The Constitution for the United States of America - to read:

"THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

This latter form is the corporate constitution, and it operates in an economic capacity that was designed to deceive us into thinking that "it is the same parchment that was meant to govern the Republic. It absolutely is not." The differences go well beyond the capitalization. Legally, the entire key is to be found in the difference between a United States Constitution that is "for" and the one that is "OF" the United States. http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue66/uscorporation.html

Once the differences are understood between a Corporate Charter and a civil Constitution, it becomes clear that what serves the corporation may often work against the people of the civil society. This action killed the Republic created by our American Revolution and replaced our charter with a corporate democracy - and that is exactly what is playing out in history as it's being written today.

When one combines the "Act of 1871" with the 'rights of personhood' granted to the Corporations in an 1886 Supreme Court decision (that freed American corporations from individual responsibility for their actions) that act completely revised the intent and purposes behind the original Constitution "for" the people of the United States of America. Taken together, these two major alterations became the basis for our two-tiered system of both law and life. Americans are now trying to cope as second-class supplicants to the corporations that now rule our lives. Add to this the introduction of our defacto dictator, George Walker Bush, crown-prince-in-waiting for the title of Leader-of-the-World - and one can easily see that we are just one hair's breathe short of complete and outright slavery.

The amazing thing about these facts is how few people are even remotely aware of their existence - not to mention the above historical precedents that have become the bedrock of America as we now know it.

Americans since 9-11 have been traumatized by the shock of unfolding events. As such, we could be said to resemble a patient who has been in a coma for an extended period of time. IF we ever learn what happened to us, we will awake from that coma in a rage of righteous anger. Anger that while we were defenseless - the government has metaphorically 'been having its way with us.' Figuratively we've been raped and sodomized, used and abused at will by this government to flesh out their fantasies of world domination - at the expense of everything we thought our lives were made of.

The Bush Crime family has been secretly and voraciously devouring the critical funding for everything from schools and medicine to infrastructure and the 'privatization' of social security. The willful destruction of social programs, coupled with an economically irresponsible foreign policy of continual and unnecessary wars; plus a 'reorganization' of the entire federal government through implementation of the HOMELAND Security Act that has obviously all been created to bring this nation to the brink of economic collapse. This brings us back to the original question - "Why are we doing this?"

The answer is beyond ugly. The goal, it seems, is to get us to relinquish all our rights - to the government - to "protect us from all the evil in the world." The actual problem is that all the evil resides in the compacts that have been forged between the Cabal in Washington and the thugs in Tel Aviv under the international cover of 'fighting terror on a global scale.'

Once the next 9-11 happens, the nation will be put on condition RED, and then we'll have PATRIOT II by executive order. This will unleash FEMA to do what it was designed to do - which is to round us all up, strip us of anything anyone in government might want, and throw the rest of us away. This will be courtesy of that secretive black-ops shadow government known as FEMA - that rising curse that gives shape to all the nightmares that Bush wants each of us to fear. This terrifying new world will exceed all natural bonds, and will even surpass our innate wish to remain a viably free and prosperous society. This will make Orwell's 1984 look like a fairy tale. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html

Once FEMA has the reins in it's slavering jaws, there will be no going back, no governmental oversight, no review of events or of transgressions - we will be absorbed into a monolithic morass that serves the corporations (and only the corporation) for only as long as we may be useful to their purposes. All else will be discarded or recycled into something useful to the new powers that will replace what used-to-be the United States in America. Life as we have known it will cease to exist!

posted 05-27-2003 07:33 AM            

http://www.wfeca.net/users/clbjc/KOSMOS/Beast.htm

posted 05-27-2003 09:20 AM            

By Graduate Students Against the War

May 27, 2003 - After the fall of the Berlin Wall, President George H.W. Bush ushered in the post-Soviet era by calling it a “New World Order.” The former president Bush followed up his statement by invading Panama and then going to war against Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War.

Like his father, President George W. Bush is aggressively pursuing this New World Order. He has prosecuted unilateralism to the fullest, aggressively trumpeting violence in foreign affairs. In just over two years in office, President Bush has attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan government, escalated the Andean guerilla war via “Plan Colombia,” engendered a war in Afghanistan, disregarded the will of the U.N. Security Council and violating the organization’s charter and invaded Iraq a second time, finishing off Saddam Hussein. Yet, these worldwide interventions are not misguided blunders, but rather a rational policy aimed at global military domination.

Even before Bush’s election, a Washington neoconservative think tank, the Project for the New American Century, laid out the nature of this omnipotent American Empire. Headed by conservative strategists William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, PNAC is a central actor now defining the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. Senior members of the Bush Administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Department strategist Paul Wolfowitz and State Department Undersecretary Elliott Abrams, have signed on to PNAC’s Statement of Principles.

By advocating an invincible military as well as a bold and aggressive foreign policy, PNAC aims to duplicate the successes of Reagan’s bellicose Presidency. However, PNAC seeks to go beyond that in the current Administration, calling for a state of permanent global intervention. Neo-conservatives insist that the United States must have the will to create an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles. PNAC is arguing for a permanent state of war, in which the United States will be in perpetual conflict with all who seek to oppose American domination.

In order to achieve global military dominance, PNAC projects remaking the American military machine. In its paper “Remaking America’s Defenses,” the neo-conservative planners call for a “transformation” of the American military. PNAC advises a “revolution in military affairs” through the application of advanced technology and reorganization of the military. This includes missile defense, control of space and cyberspace, and a hybridization of robotic and conventional forces. PNAC envisions America to be the hegemonic military power on land, in the sea, over the air, and in outer space. This, of course, is precisely Donald Rumsfeld’s program as defense secretary. And to what end? A new technological military supremacy will secure vital resources and ensure political submission throughout the empire.

As ominous as this radical expansion of military control is, the domestic governmental change that PNAC advocates and that the Bush administration has begun to implement is just as frightening. Essentially, PNAC thinkers desire military control over the American polity. PNAC planners understand that America’s voters “will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.” Attaining absolute political power, then, will enable neo-conservatives to institutionalize their policy goals within the federal bureaucracy. As the new Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the ongoing infringement of civil liberties and the growing climate of fear demonstrate, some of these goals have already been met.

PNAC planners realized several years ago that the American public must live in fear in order for such imperialistic plans to be accepted as reasonable. Writing a year and a half before Sept. 11, 2001, the PNAC noted that the process of bringing about this public state of fear would likely take a considerable length of time, “absent some catastrophic and cataclysmic event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” In other words, a Pearl Harbor-type event offered the possibility of accelerating the American public’s willingness to accept the project of world domination (and the stifling of domestic dissent) as its own.

Bush saw Sept. 11, then, precisely as an “opportunity” — Condoleeza Rice’s word in a policy briefing the next day — to galvanize the American public into quickly accepting belligerent policies as necessary for America’s defense. Bush has fought his wars against Afghanistan and Iraq and has undermined Constitutional rights all in the name of the “war on terror.”

But before Sept. 11 and before the war on terror, the PNAC was already advocating just the policies that Bush is pursuing today. PNAC prescribes violence because it has no alternative. The Bush Administration will lose the upcoming election if domestic concerns are not deflected by military exploits abroad. A widening recession, rising unemployment, record level budget cuts, massive transfers of wealth to the wealthy and corporate scandals all require that Americans must turn their attention elsewhere. Consequently, neo-conservatives must rely on strong shows of force to retain their power.

Yet, relying on force alone is inherently weak. As James Baldwin, writing 30 years ago, eloquently put it, “When power translates itself into tyranny, it means that the principles on which that power depended, and which were its justification, are bankrupt. When this happens, and it is happening now, power can only be defended by thugs and mediocrities — and seas of blood.”