-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:07:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kevin Annett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [INGRAM] Fwd: Don't be an ostrich - Bush plans to attack
America!!!!!Note: forwarded message attached. ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/kCpqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In August, 2001, the popular Ingram show was cancelled, suddenly and without explanation. It was the only televised challenge to the social-political establishment of BC. Why did this happen? What can be done to remedy this assault against our by-Constitution "democratic society"? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- Begin Message --- Title: Don't be an ostrich - Bush plans to attack America!!!! -Caveat Lector-Don't be an ostrich - Bush plans to attack America!!!!!by Joe FriendlyIf Saddam doesn't unleash any of the biological weapons that he was supplied with by America and Britain on Americans, then the CIA will do it for him and make it look like Saddam did it. What a strange thing to say! That Bush plans to attack America and Canada, and that the planned invasion of Iraq is only a pretext to attack America? Why would Bush want to unleash biological weapons on North Americans?Study the policies, the goals, and the methods of the elite subculture that controls the US government. Their object is global military police state domination, with complete surveillance of every detail of every person's life. They want to exterminate all dissent, and impose absolute compliance to their dictates and policies. They want to implant microchips in everyone, and make all financial transactions electronic. And, though you may consider this bizarre and morbid - (seriously, I'm not making this up, you can read it from the horses' own mouths) they want to reduce the population of the earth significantly. They would particularly like to cull off the old, the weak, the very young, and certain racial groups.These certifiable maniacs are not satisfied to control and dominate all humankind. They are amateur social engineers as well, and they have their own, albeit bizarre, but explicitly laid out ideas, of how they want the world to work. They pretend to think the way that normal people think, but they are actually busy day and night implementing a totally different agenda than what they profess.Eugenics - population modification by selective genocide, controlled breeding patterns, genetic engineering, birth control, abortion, sterilizations, and "nonlethal" civilian targeted biowarfare are all central tenets of their philosophy which they historically have and continue to pursue with great determination. I know that this is a ugly subject, and that we hate to contemplate that people could actually be so demented and cruel, but the massive genocides of indigenous peoples, the residential schools, the mass forced sterilizations which are still being conducted around the world, the vaccination programs, the engineered plagues, the tens of billions being spent on developing genetically targetable bioweapons, etc. are all very real and important world events that fit into a deliberate and premeditated cultural context.In fact, this is probably the most important subject that we need to study and address as a global society at this time. The British Medical Association has recently made several strong warnings, stating that biological weapons development built on so-called medical research (with America at the forefront by a country mile) is the greatest threat to world security that the planet has ever known, and is currently far more threatening to world security than the nuclear arms race at the height of the Cold War.A US launched biowarfare attack on North America is imminent, likely to be followed by universal mandatory vaccinations with toxic chemicals and foreign genetical material, with probable mass microchipping of all citizens under their skin occurring either simultaneously or sequentially. Social and political dissenters will probably be pre-emptively rounded up and sequestered in remote camps. I know that these ideas are foreign to your usual way of thinking. You may be thinking, "It isn't supposed to be that way. People aren't like that. Nobody could be so cruel." What makes these fruitcakes able to get away with the insane things they do all over the world is the naive belief among well meaning people like you and me that no one could be so evil and demented to do such things. But some people are that evil and demented, and there is ample proof of it. Unfortunately, such people now control the "world's only superpower". But in fact the world greatest "superpower" is the world's population of good people - if they ever manage to wake up and unite to accomplish something. Let's hope that this looming threat of massive decimation of the population of North America triggers an awakening and that the "something" the people decide to unite and accomplish is to throw off the yoke of these racist genocidal maniacs right now!Please don't be naive and choose to live in never - never land and thus let this happen to you without any warning or protest. American troops have or are about to be given permission to invade Canada on the pretext of a "civil disturbance" or "terrorist attack" or any kind of "civil emergency" such as a biowarfare attack. FEMA has publicly declared that even one case of a reported smallpox infection ANYWHERE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE will trigger mass mandatory vaccinations of every North American within 5 to 10 days. Once FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the most powerful agency in America, set up by Oliver North and the CIA to implement martial law in all of the United States) goes into action, all civil liberties and other state or municipal authorities in the United States (and Canada) are officially suspended. Once FEMA gains control of the USA, there is no power, including the US Congress, that can end their reign of power, other than a general rebellion, which would be extremely bloody.This could be only days or weeks away. If Saddam is pushed against the wall by America / Blair / the UN, there is nothing left for him to do but strike back in the only way he can - through biowarfare aimed at America. According to the former head of the Russian biowarfare department, Saddam probably has the capability of accomplishing this biowarfare attack on America. if Saddam doesn't do it, or can't pull it off, I'm sure that the operatives who arranged 9/11 would be happy to accommodate. But if enough people wake up and declare their unwillingness to allow Bush to trigger a biological war on America, then the people of America have the power to stop Bush before he massacres half the population of North America, even if he has to be arrested or deposed by an armed popular insurrection.And we can certainly count on the corporate owned media to dutifully put whatever spin on the events that the psychological warfare department of the CIA asks them to. Is there any division between these two institutions any more? So it's time to spread this important information to everyone you know, to build up your immune systems and prepare your hideaways in the hills. And if you can't see the writing on the wall for yourself, and don't believe me, then read what CIA director George Tenet has to say :
CIA Contradicts Bush on Dangers of Invading IraqThursday October 10, 2002
The Guardian
President George Bush's attempt to maintain public support for military action against Iraq has taken a fresh blow from an unexpected quarter, with the publication of a letter from the CIA stating that while Saddam Hussein poses little threat to America now, a US invasion could push him into retaliating with chemical or biological weapons.
The unusually detailed public statement, in the form of a letter from the CIA director, George Tenet, to Congress, comes at a highly sensitive moment, potentially damaging Mr Bush's attempt to rally an overwhelming congressional mandate for the use of force against Iraq.
In a chilling excerpt, Mr Tenet warned that if Saddam was personally threatened he might seize "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him".
The risk of such an attack, possibly involving weapons of mass destruction, would rise from "low" to "pretty high" were Saddam to feel cornered by US military might.
Such a stark judgment seems likely to increase public anxiety about the prospect of a new war. There is still majority backing for military action, but that support appears to be fading despite a concerted public relations campaign by the administration to put its case.
Approval for military action has fallen from 57% last month to 53% this week, according to a US Gallup poll.
The CIA letter was seized on by Democrat opponents of military action, at the height of the congressional debate on a resolution authorising an invasion if and when the president deems it necessary.
Donald Payne, a House Democrat, said that Mr Tenet's letter showed that the Bush administration's aggressive strategy "could trigger the very things that our president has said that he is trying to prevent: the use of chemical or biological weapons. In view of this report, the policy of a pre-emptive strike is troublesome."
Mr Tenet's letter came in response to a congressional request to declassify segments of CIA briefings on Iraq over the past few days. He said: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States."
This assessment is reinforced by testimony given to Congress last week by an unnamed senior intelligence officer, which Mr Tenet allowed to be declassified.
The officer said: "My judgment would be that the probability of [Saddam] initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."
Asked about the likelihood of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack on the US in response to an invasion, the intelligence officer said: "Pretty high, in my view."
Mr Tenet emphasised the same point in his own words. "Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions," he wrote.
He added that Saddam might work with Islamist terrorists to carry out an attack.
It is unusual for the CIA to put such details of its intelligence assessments into a public document. The letter was produced after intense pressure from senators.
The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
"You have to ask yourself the question, since Tenet is part of the team, why now?" said Fred Hitz, a former CIA inspector general. "You have to go back to the Vietnam era to find a time when the judgment of the intelligence community was in the public eye on such a current affairs basis."
The White House last night denied that the CIA analysis undermined Mr Bush's message on the urgency of confronting Baghdad.
Mr Tenet "did not say we're OK," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said. "If Saddam Hussein holds a gun to someone's head, while he denies he even owns a gun, do you really want to take a chance that he'll never use it."
In a bid to dampen the controversy, Mr Tenet later put out a statement insisting: "There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed in [Bush's] speech.
"Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack at this moment are low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD, there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the US or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build."More details:http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/18706.phphttp://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/18801.php
The Global Domination Strategy of the Fascist Cabal Who Control AmericaThe president's real goal in Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 29, 2002
By Jay Bookman
Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/bookman/
(backup: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2412 )-------------------
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "
Familiar themes
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.
It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.
It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.
Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
'Constabulary duties'
Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."
To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.
Effect on allies
The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.
One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.
Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.
"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.
"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.
For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.
"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
Costly global commitment
Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.
Kagan is more blunt.
"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."
The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.
The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.
Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
-------------------------------------------------
SIDEBAR IN ARTICLE:
CONTRIBUTORS TO 2000 REPORT
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.
Paul Wolfowitz
Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.
John Bolton
Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.
Eliot Cohen
Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.I. Lewis Libby
Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.
Dov Zakheim
Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001
Stephen Cambone
Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. --Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om --- End Message ---
