1.
The first prediction is that we will not be given genuine options
regarding the war on terrorism.
We will have only two choices, both of which
are disastrous. It will be similar to the Vietnam War in which Americans
were expected to be either hawks or doves. Either they supported the
no-win war or they opposed it. They were not given the option of victory.
Their choice was between pulling out of the war and turning the country
over to the Vietcong quickly – or doggedly staying in the war and turning
the country over to the Vietcong slowly - which is the way it turned out.
Likewise, in the war on terrorism, we will be asked simply to choose
sides. Either we are for freedom or for terrorism. The necessity or wisdom
of US interventionism will not be allowed as a topic for public debate.
Epilogue:
On October 8, 2001, President Bush announced
the beginning of military strikes against Afghanistan and said:
“Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the
battle is broader. Every Nation has a choice to make. In this conflict,
there is no neutral ground.”1
On the day that Congress approved the first
$20 billion to finance the war on terrorism, Senator Hillary Clinton
said that the government should make it clear,
“to every nation in the world, you’re either
with us or you’re not, and there will be consequences.”2
Even so-called conservative spokesmen have
succumbed to the party line. On October 31, The Young America’s
Foundation based in Hendon, Virginia –an organization that promotes
conservative issues on the nation’s college campuses –found it alarming
that some professors were questioning the wisdom of US interventionist
policy.
One professor was quoted as saying such a
horrible thing as,
“We need to think about the resentment all
over the world felt by people who have been victims of American military
action.”
Another professor is quoted as saying “You
can’t plant hatred and not expect to reap hatred.” Such statements are not
acceptable to the Young America’s Foundation, which views them as
offensive and harmful to the war effort.3
1 “In this
conflict, there is no neutral ground,” USA Today, Oct. 8, 2001, p. 5ª.
2 “Congress ready
to pay the price to hit culprits,” by William M. Welch and Kathy Kiely,
USA Today, Sept. 13, 2001, p.5ª.
3 “Professors
blame US for terrorism,” by Jon Daugherty, WorldNetDaily.com, Article_ID=25137,
Oct. 1, 2001.
2.
Most American political leaders are now committed to world government,
so the second prediction is that they will
crow about how America will not tolerate terrorism, but they will not act
as Americans. Instead, they will act as internationalists. They will turn
to the UN to lead a global war against terrorism. They will seek to expand
the capacity of NATO and UN military forces. Although
American troops will provide the backbone of military action, they
ultimately will operate under UN authority.
Epilogue:
On March 11, 2002, President Bush gave
an address marking the passage of six months since the terrorist attack of
September 11. He said with satisfaction:
“A mighty coalition of civilized nations is
now defending our common security…. More than half the forces now
assisting the heroic Afghan fighters, or providing security in Kabul,
are from countries other than the United States.”
In the past, when speaking of American
involvement in military conflict, it has been customary for the President
to conclude his remarks by asking for Divine blessing upon the United
States and its fighting forces. In this case, however, Mr. Bush ended his
speech with: “May God bless our coalition.”
When the US invaded Iraq, supposedly to prevent Hussein from using weapons
of mass destruction, countries at the UN that were aligned with the
Leninist camp did not support the action, but that made no difference to
the globalist Bush Administration staffed almost entirely by
members of the CFR. They did not seek Congressional approval to declare
war, as is required by the US Constitution.
Instead, they said they were acting under
authority of a United Nations resolution. In other words, they were
serving the UN, not the US. In 2004, as the new Iraqi government was being
hand picked by the UN, the Bush Administration asked Congress to provide
funding for a permanent UN army of so-called “peacekeepers.” Called
the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), the proposal
calls for Americans to pay $600 million for recruiting and training 75,000
soldiers primarily from Third World countries.
3. The
third prediction is that the drive for national disarmament will be
intensified.
This will not lead to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, but
merely to the transfer of those weapons to UN control. It will be
popularized as a means of getting nuclear and bio-chemical weapons out
of the hands of terrorists.
The internationalists promoting this
move will not seem to care that many of the world’s most notorious
terrorists now hold seats of power at the UN and that the worst of them
will actually control these weapons.
Epilogue:
On October 20, 2001, former Soviet leader,
Mikhail Gorbachev, announced that nuclear and chemical disarmament
should become a top priority in the war on terrorism.1
On November 13, 2001, US President Bush and Russian President Putin
announced that, as a means of fighting global terrorism, they agreed to
cut their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.2
These reductions will be monitored by the UN.
Russia has broken every similar agreement in
the past, so there is no reason to expect that pattern to change. It must
be remembered that Putin is a former high-ranking officer of the Soviet
KGB, which created most of the international terrorist organizations.
1 “Gorbachev:
Anti-Terror Coalition Should Become Coalition for New World Order,”
Associated Press, October 20, 2001, FOXNews.com.
2 “US, Russia to sharply cut arsenals,” by
Laurence McQuillan, USA Today, Nov. 14, 2001, p. 1A.
4. The fourth prediction is that, if any
terrorists are captured, they will be brought before the UN World Court
and tried as international criminals.
This will create popular support for the Court
and will go a long way toward legitimizing it as the ultimate high
tribunal. The public will not realize the fateful precedent that is being
established – a precedent that will eventually be used to justify bringing
citizens of any country to trial based on charges made by their
adversaries in other countries.
Anyone who seriously opposes
the New World
Order could then be transported to The Hague in The
Netherlands and face charges of polluting the planet or committing hate
crimes or participating in social genocide or supporting terrorism.
Epilogue:
On November 14, 2001, President Bush announced
that terrorists are to be tried by US military courts. However, at the
time of the attack on September 11, the treaty establishing the
International Criminal Court (ICC) had not yet been ratified by
enough nations to fully empower it. It was still thirteen short of the
sixty nations that the UN claims are required. The rate of new
ratifications was accelerated after September 11, and the required number
was reached within a few months. The ICC came into existence in 2002, and
the stage was finally set for the fulfillment of this prediction.
In the February-March issue of Policy Review, CFR members Abraham
Soafer and Paul Williams explained that, once President Bush’s
military tribunals are established, the next step “could be accomplished
through a UN Security Council Resolution” to expand the jurisdiction of
the UN court to include terrorism. The problem, however, was that
the participating nations could not agree on a definition of terrorism,
which is understandable in light of the fact that any common-sense
definition would include many of the UN leaders themselves.
In spite of the fact that the United States had previously signed the ICC
treaty, the Bush Administration announced on May 6, 2002, that it
had no legal obligation to honor it. The reason stated was, not that the
treaty endangered the rights of American citizens and not that Americans
might be hauled into foreign courts and judged by magistrates who are
hostile to American traditions, but because the UN Security Council did
not have sufficient supervisory authority in the process. In making the
announcement, Undersecretary-of-State Marc Grossman intimated that,
if this technicality can be worked out, the US would support it.
However, on June 19, 2002, the Bush Administration proposed a UN Security
Council resolution stating that its real objection to the ICC was
that political leaders and soldiers from the United States and other
countries carrying out so-called peacekeeping operations around the world
might be brought to trial for terrorism or war crimes as a result of those
military actions.
That is a valid concern, but there is an
equally valid concern that ordinary citizens might also be become targets
of criminal charges by governments that are hostile to free expression of
opinion or political activities they consider to be against their best
interest. However, the Administration expressed no concern about the
rights of ordinary citizens. The sole concern was for government officials
and the soldiers who carry out their orders.
In early July of 2002, the Bush Administration
vetoed an extension of the UN military mission to Bosnia because it was
concerned that US personnel there might be hauled before the ICC on
war-crime charges. It promised to reverse its vote if the US were granted
immunity from such action. On July 11, the Administration accepted a
compromise offer in which immunity was extended for a period of twelve
months.
The important point is that, in spite of the
widespread play in the media that the US was opposing the ICC, the reality
is that it was endorsing the ICC in principle while only seeking to escape
its authority for a little while longer. 1
In June of 2003, The UN Security Council extended the exemption for
another twelve months, but not without strong opposition from other
nations. It was clear that these extensions could not be counted on
indefinitely.
Commenting on the event, Brigham Young law
professor, Richard Wilkins, warned that the Court,
“is without sufficient checks and balances.
It has the most powerful prosecutor ever with the vaguest criminal
statute passed anywhere. The I.C.C. leaves open to total discretion of
the prosecutor and the court the determining of what the ‘crimes’ mean.”
2
On June 23, 2004, the UN Security Council,
driven by the news of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, refused to
approve another twelve-month extension of the exemption for US personnel,
and the Bush Administration declined to pursue the issue further.
Technically, American soldiers in Iraq were
still exempt from ICC prosecution because the US was not yet a member of
the tribunal, and the Court’s jurisdiction is currently excluded from
countries that prosecute crimes by their own military.3
Nevertheless, the US was nudged another step closer to being subject to
the world court, and there can be no doubt about the ultimate goal.
1 “International
Criminal Court Sellout,” by William Norman Grigg,” The New American, Aus.,
12, 2002, p. 29.
2 “US safe
from global court – for now,” by Jon Dougherty, WorldNetDaily, June 7,
2003,
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33049.
3 “U.S. Drops Plan to Exempt G.I.s from U.N.
Court,” by Warren Hoge, New York Times, June 24, 2004.
The play is not yet over.
The CFR team that sets US policy is eager
to expand the authority of the UN, and that requires empowerment of the
ICC. The possibility of using captured terrorists as a means to that end
must be very tempting to them –provided only that they, themselves, are
exempt. We shall see.
5. The fifth prediction is that the FBI will be criticized for failing
to detect an attack as extensive and well coordinated as this.
In reply, we will be told that the FBI was
hampered by lack of funding, low manpower, and too little authority.
Naturally, that will be followed by an increase in funding, additional
manpower, and greatly expanded authority.
Epilogue:
Following the September 11 attack, there was
hardly a day that didn’t carry news about how the Justice Department and
the FBI had failed because of inadequate funding, manpower, and authority.
On February 27, 2002, Attorney General John
Ashcroft testified before Congress and formally requested nearly $2
billion in additional funding to expand FBI and other internal-security
manpower. As for expanded authority, see item seven, below.
6. The sixth prediction is that, eventually,
it will be discovered that the FBI and other intelligence agencies had
prior warning
and, possibly, specific knowledge of Tuesday’s
attack; yet they did nothing to prevent it or to warn the victims. This
will be a repeat of what happened at the bombing of the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City six years previously.
Epilogue:
The evidence of prior knowledge is now so
extensive that it fills en entire chapter entitled
The War on Terrorism,
Part 4 of
The Future Is Calling.
7. The seventh prediction is that much of the war on terrorism will be
waged against Americans inside their own country.
New laws, international treaties, and
executive orders will severely restrict travel, speech, privacy, and the
possession of firearms. Americans have consistently rejected these
measures in the past, but there will be much less opposition when they are
presented in the name of fighting terrorism.
Government agencies will demand to know
everything about us from our school records, our psychological profiles,
our buying habits, our political views, our medical histories, our
religious beliefs, the balances in our savings accounts, our social
patterns, a list of our friends – everything. Any opposition to these
measures will be branded as disruptive of national unity and helpful to
terrorism. This will not be unique to America. The same program will be
carried out in every nation in what is left of the free world.
Epilogue:
On October 30, 2001, the Center for Disease
Control released what it called the Model State Emergency Health
Powers Act (MEHPA) and sent copies to legislators in all fifty
states. The legislators immediately began to incorporate its provisions
into their state laws. Under the banner of protecting Americans from the
effect of bio-terrorism, the original draft authorized governors to
declare a state of emergency without the approval of their legislatures.
Under this emergency, the state can confiscate
personal property, including real estate, food, clothing, means of
transportation, and communications. It can control the distribution of
food, clothing, fuel, firearms, and most other commodities.
It can also compel citizens to submit to
testing for disease. If a disease is identified or even suspected, or if a
person refuses to undergo testing, he can be quarantined in a government
facility where, presumably, he will be subject to compulsory treatment of
whatever kind decreed by the state. The model act declares that state
legislatures cannot even challenge their governors in any of this for at
least two months after the plan has been executed.
Also in October 2001, Congress adopted so-called “anti-terrorism”
legislation that was a classic example of “Doublespeak” right out
of
Orwell’s 1984. In Orwell’s world, “war is
peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.” In our world,
Congress passed a bill to expand the federal government into many areas
forbidden by the Constitution and unblinkingly called it the USA
Patriot Act.
The full title is the,
“Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Act of 2001.”
It could not have been named better by
Orwell, himself. In addition to putting the government in charge of
airport security, it requires private citizens to inform on each other.
1 “Suspiciously
timed bets against airlines expire today,” by Greg Farrell, USA Today,
Oct. 19, 2001, p. 1B.
2 “Inmate says he
told FBI about danger to New York,” by Doris Bloodsworth, Orlando
Sentinel, Jan. 6, 2002,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-asecterror06010602jan06.story?coll=orl%sD
Anyone engaged in a trade or business is now
required to file a report with the government if any customer spends
$10,000 or more in cash. That is just the beginning. The bill easily can
be amended in the future to require a report of any “suspicious” or
“anti-government” activity.1
In this regard, Canada appears to have taken
the lead. On November 8, 2001, the Canadian parliament passed a bill
allegedly to control money laundering related to terrorism. It was similar
to a law that existed in Nazi Germany requiring all lawyers to inform the
government of suspicious anti-government activity on the part of their
clients.
The Canadian law goes much further. Instead of
involving only lawyers, it requires bankers, realtors, investors, and
other financial agents to report whenever they suspect a client may be
involved in money laundering. Money laundering is defined by most
governments today as any financial transaction that is not reported to the
tax collector, including cash sales, tips, and barter. With that
definition, literally everyone can be suspected of money laundering. If
people fail to inform on each other, they are subject to a fine of
$2-million and a five-year jail sentence.2
On November 24, it was revealed that the
Canadian National Defense Act was amended in response to the terrorist
attack against the US and now gives the Canadian government power to close
off any geographical area, to forcibly remove people from their homes
inside that area, and be exempt from any obligation to compensate them for
their loss.
The justification for doing so need not be for
national security. The government can act in the name of furthering
“international relations.” That means, of course, that there are no
definable limits on this power.3
1 “New Federal
Patriot Act Turns Retailers into Spies against Customers,” by Scott
Bernard Nelson, The Boston Globe,
www.bcentral.com, Nov. 20, 2001.
2 Ottawa approach akin to Nazis, judge
charges,” National Post, Nov. 9, 2001, p. A4.
3 “Anti-terror law gives military too much
power: experts,” by Ian Jack, National Post,
www.nationalpost.com, Nov. 24,
2001.
By January, 2002 – back in the United States –
Congress was on a fast track rubber-stamping the following proposals
emanating from
CFR social engineers:
(1) conversion of the states’
National Guard units into a federal police force
(2) establishing federal control over
local law enforcement and crisis-response agencies
(3) extending federal authority over medical services
(4) authorizing federal agencies to
use phone taps, open postal mail, and monitor email – without a warrant
or even probable cause
(5) requiring all citizens to obtain
a national ID card or nationalized driver’s license tied into a federal
and international data bank.
Many of these measures were proposed long
before September 11.
Their origin is a series of reports issued by
a group created in 1998 called The United States Commission on National
Security/21st Century – usually referred to as the
Hart-Rudman Commission because its
co-chairmen were former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman.
It appeared to be a government study group but, in fact, it was a front
for
the Council on Foreign Relations. The
Commission was sponsored by Congressman Newt Gingrich, a member of
the CFR. Both Hart and Rudman were members of the CFR. The Commission
based its findings on the work of futurist author, Alvin Toffler, a
member of the CFR. Executive Director Charles Boyde and Study Group
Director, Lynn Davis, were members of the CFR.
Commissioners Lee Hamilton and James
Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense) were members of the CFR. One
of the better-known commissioners was Leslie Gelb, who was
president of the CFR. Altogether, twelve of the twenty-nine study-group
members were from the CFR and virtually all of the key
positions were in their hands.
The first report released by the Commission,
entitled
New World Coming, said:
“States, terrorists, and other disaffected
groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and
some will use them. Americans are likely to die on American soil,
possibly in large numbers.”
The report looked forward hopefully to a time
when “the United Nations is a chief instrument in solving transnational
issues” and “assumes a central role in conflict prevention and
resolution.” A subsequent report, entitled
Road Map for National Security, laid out
plans for creating a Homeland Security agency, converting the
National Guard into a federal police force, and most of the other measures
previously reviewed.
The rush toward a national and international
police state – in the name of fighting terrorism – has been orchestrated
by members of the CFR who, incidentally, intend to manage it.
The FBI now is free to place wiretaps on telephones without a court
order. On November 21, 2001, the FBI announced its new eavesdropping
operation called “Magic Lantern” that allows it to secretly
plant a program into anyone’s computer so that every stroke made on
the keyboard will be reported back. That means the government now can
capture a record of everything you create on your computer, including
private passwords, encrypted files, and even deleted files.1
1 “FBI develops
‘Trojan horse’ software for better eavesdropping,” by Ted Bridis, AP,
Sacramento Bee, www.sacbee.com, Nov. 21, 2001.
The National Intelligence Reform Act of
2004 brought all intelligence agencies under the control of a federal
Director of National Intelligence, established national standards for
birth certificates and drivers’ licenses, initiated biometric screening
systems for airports, and extended the FBI’s authority to wiretap
citizens’ phones even if they are not suspected of being connected with a
terrorist group, such people as dissidents and so-called lone wolfs.
While the government clamors to prevent citizens from having any secrets
whatsoever, it moves in the opposite direction for itself. President Bush
issued Executive Order 13223 that forbids public access to
presidential papers, even those from previous administrations. The only
researchers who now have access to these sources of historical data are
those who are deemed to have a “need to know” – which means only those who
support the CFR spin on important issues.
Even Congress is now outside the
“need-to-know” category. White House briefings to Congressional leaders on
military operations in the Middle East have been greatly curtailed and now
contain little more than what is given to the press. In typical
Orwellian fashion, we are told that, if America’s elected
representatives were to know what the President is doing as
Commander-in-Chief, it would be a threat to national security.
If Congress is no longer entitled to know what
the Executive branch of government is doing, it is certain that mere
citizens will have even less access to information. Government agencies
have been instructed by President Bush to reject public requests for
documents under the Freedom of Information Act, and Justice
Department lawyers have been assigned to defend those rejections.
The excuse, of course, is that this action is
necessary for national security against terrorism. During a press
conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, President Bush was
asked why the newly appointed Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge,
had refused to testify before a bipartisan group of Congress.
The President’s reply clearly revealed the
new face of American government. It is no longer comprised of three
branches, each to check and balance the power of the others. It is a
throwback to the Old World concept of supreme power in the hands of one
man who rules from the top. The purpose of Congress now is primarily to
give advice to the President – which he is free to ignore – and to
authorize funding for his programs.
The President said:
“He doesn’t have to testify. He’s part of my
staff. And that’s part of the prerogative of the executive branch of
government, and we hold that very dear…. We consult with Congress all
the time. I’ve had meaningful breakfasts with the leadership in the
House and the Senate.
I break bread with both Republicans and
Democrats right back here in the Oval Office and have a good, honest
discussion about plans, objectives, what’s taking place, what’s not
taking place…. We understand the role of Congress. We must justify
budgets to Congress…. [But] I’m not going to let Congress erode the
power of the executive branch.”
In mid-November, 2001, President Bush issued
an executive order authorizing terrorists to be tried in secret military
tribunals without any of the due-process legal protections afforded in
civilian courts. At the end of World War II, Nazi war criminals were tried
in public, but now, anyone deemed to be a terrorist can be tried in
secret, even when the death penalty is involved.
Who will be classified as terrorists?
The disturbing answer to that question was
given by Congressman Ron Paul as he addressed the House of
Representatives on November 29, 2001:
Almost all of the new laws focus on
Americans citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For
example, the definition of “terrorism,” for federal criminal
purposes, has been greatly expanded. A person could now be considered a
terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitutional group, a citizen militia,
or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government
could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal
surveillance.1
1 “Keep Your Eye
on the Target,” by the Honorable Ron Paul, Congressional Record, Nov. 29,
2001. (www.house.gov/congrec2001/cr112901.htm)
By the end of November 2001, approximately
1,200 people had been arrested as terrorist suspects or as sources of
information regarding terrorism. Formal charges were not brought against
them. They were not allowed to have legal representation. They were not
brought before a judge or given a hearing or trial. They were simply
arrested and imprisoned without any Constitutional authority to do so.
Furthermore, no one outside of government even
knows who they are. Their names have been kept secret. This, allegedly,
was to protect their privacy. Incredible! These people were thrown into
prison and denied due process of law; yet we are expected to believe that
the government is concerned about their privacy?
All of these encroachments against freedom have been high-agenda items
among CFR-controlled government agencies for many years – long
before September 11. Most of them were originally promoted as instruments
for punishing tax evasion or controlling political unrest. No one
seriously believes that these measures would have prevented the September
attack. The war on terrorism has merely been an excuse to put them into
effect.
On February 27, 2002, the Federal Trade Commission ordered US
cell-phone companies to adopt technology enabling government agencies to
track the location of all phones. Since most customers carry their phones
with them, this allows the government to know their exact location at all
times. The official explanation was that this will help locate victims of
crime who make emergency 911 calls and also locate stranded drivers who
don’t know where they are. The companies announced they would be 95%
compliant by the year 2005.
8. The eighth prediction is that those who speak out against these
measures will be branded as right-wing extremists, anti-government kooks,
or paranoid militiamen.
The object will be to isolate all dissidents
from the mainstream and frighten everyone else into remaining silent.
It is always possible to find a few genuine
crackpots; and, even though they will constitute less than one percent of
the movement, they will be the ones selected by the media to represent the
dissident viewpoint. A little bit of garbage can stink up the whole
basket. In spite of that, responsible dissenters will still be heard.
If they begin to attract a following, they
will be accused of hindering the war effort, committing hate crimes,
terrorism, tax evasion, investment fraud, credit-card fraud, child
molestation, illegal possession of firearms, drug trafficking, money
laundering, or anything else that will demonize them in the public
mind. The mass media will uncritically report these charges, and the
public will assume they are true.
There is nothing quite so dramatic as watching
someone on the evening news being thrown against the wall by a SWAT team
and hauled off in handcuffs. TV viewers will assume that, surely, he must
be guilty of something. His neighbors will shake their heads and say “…
and he seemed like such a nice person.”
Epilogue:
It was the notorious Nazi, Hermann Goering,
who explained the strategy this way:
“The people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country.” 1
Indeed it does. On December 6, 2001, Attorney
General John Ashcroft spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee and
said:
“To those who scare peace-loving people with
phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid
terrorists – for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.
They give ammunition to America’s enemies.”
2
1 G.M.
Gilbert, Nuremberg Diaries (New York: Farrar, Straus and Co., 1947), pp.
278, 279.
2 “Justice
defends Ashcroft’s Congressional testimony, CNN, Dec. 7, 2001,
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/07/inv.ashcroft.testimony.
9. One of the few remaining obstacles to the
New World Order is the Internet,
because it allows the public to bypass the
mass media and have access to unfiltered information and opinion.
Therefore, the ninth prediction is that laws will be enacted to
restrict the use of the Internet. Child pornography has long been the
rallying cry to justify government control. Now, the specter of
terrorism and money laundering will be added to the list. The
real object will be to eliminate the voices of dissent.
Epilogue:
The Public Safety and Cyber Security
Enhancement Act of 2001 offers a long list of valid concerns about
genuine Internet crimes and then proposes vast power to the federal
government to access private email messages without even having to show
probable cause.
All that would be required is to claim that
the action is for the purpose of public safety or national security, and
this could be done by any government agency, not just law enforcement. It
is now increasingly common for Internet Service Providers to
terminate the service of customers who are strong critics of government
policy, apparently under the assumption that they are potential
terrorists.
At present, such terminations typically appear
as a sudden breakdown in service that, for some mysterious reason, cannot
be restored by technicians. Most ISPs are not willing to reject the
requests of government agencies, especially when the claim is being made
that the action is in the interest of national security.
10. The tenth prediction is that the war on terrorism will be dragged
out over many years or decades.
Like the war on drugs after which it is
patterned, there will be no victory. That is because both of these wars
are designed, not to be won, but to be waged. Their function is to
sensitize the population with fear and indignation, to
provide credible justification for the expansion of government
power and the
consolidation of that power into the UN.
Epilogue:
On October 21, 2001, General Richard B.
Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:
“The fact that it could last several years,
or many years, or maybe our lifetimes would not surprise me.”
Shortly after that, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld wrote an editorial appearing in the New York Times
in which he said:
“Forget about ‘exit strategies’; we’re
looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines.”
On March 13, 2002, President Bush
emphasized this theme again when he told reporters at a White House press
conference:
“This is going to be a long struggle. I keep
saying that. I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time
will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this
objective.”
11. The eleventh prediction is that it will
take a long time to locate Osama bin Laden.
A TV reporter can casually interview him at his mountain stronghold, but
the US military and CIA – with legions of spies and Delta
forces and high-tech orbiting satellites – they cannot find him. Why not?
Because they do not want to find him. His image as a mastermind
terrorist is necessary as a focus for American anger and patriotic
fervor. If we are to wage war, there must be someone to personify the
enemy. Bin Laden is useful in that role.
Of course, if his continued evasion becomes
too embarrassing, he will be killed in military action or captured – if he
doesn’t take his own life first. Either way, that will not put the matter
to rest, because bin Laden is not the cause of terrorism. He is not even
the leader of terrorism. He is the icon of terrorism. If he were to
be eliminated, someone else would only have to be found to take his place.
1 “US war may
last decades,” by Karen Masterson, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau,
Oct. 21, 2001, HousonChronicle.com.
So it is best to give each of them as much
longevity as possible. That is why terrorists like Arafat, Hussein,
Qadhafi and Khomeini, not only are allowed to remain in power, but receive
funding and military aid from the US government. They are the best enemies
money can buy.
If that sounds far-fetched, consider the words of Fareed Zakaria,
Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the
Council on Foreign Relations. (The goal
of the CFR is the creation of world government, and the great majority of
US foreign-policy planners – from the President on down – belong to it.)
In the September 16, 1996, issue of
Newsweek magazine, Zakaria said:
If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would
have to invent him. He is the linchpin of American policy in the Mideast….
If not for Saddam, would the Saudi royal family, terrified of being seen
as an American protectorate (which in a sense it is), allow American
troops on their soil? Would Kuwait house more than 30,000 pieces of
American combat hardware, kept in readiness should the need arise? Would
the king of Jordan, the political weather vane of the region, allow the
Marines to conduct exercises within his borders?… The end of Saddam
Hussein would be the end of the anti-Saddam coalition. Nothing destroys
an alliance like the disappearance of the enemy.1
Epilogue:
On November 15, 2001, USA Today
reported:
“Several hundred Army commandos have been
posted at road blocks outside Kandahar to help prevent Taliban and al-Qaeda
fighters from escaping. The US soldiers are interviewing captured
Taliban commanders and setting up surveillance gear, such as radar, heat
detectors and cameras. …
Teams of two to 12 men are searching
abandoned caves, tunnels and buildings for maps, documents or computer
disks that could lead to bin Laden, officials said. From the skies,
pilots are using heat detectors to locate warm bodies in cold Afghan
caves. CIA agents are using cash to bribe sources for information about
bin Laden’s whereabouts, officials said.”
2
On November 26, the first strong signal was
given from the White House that, eventually, bin Laden might be
replaced by Saddam Hussein as the icon of terrorism. “Saddam is
evil,” said President Bush, and he hinted that, after the conquest of
Afghanistan, the war on terrorism may be carried to Iraq.3
Meanwhile, bin Laden remains the preferred focus for hate.
On December 19, 2001, USA Today reported:
“One defense official claimed a bin Laden
escape could benefit the war on terrorism because popular support for
continued military action in other regions would remain strong.”
4
Please re-read that statement!
1 “If
he didn’t exist, we would have to invent him,” by Fareed Zakaria,
Newsweek, Sept. 16, 1996, p. 43.
2 “Bin Laden hunt
escalates as US aid workers freed,” by Barbara Slavin, Jonathan Weisman
and Jack Kelley, USA Today, Nov. 15, 2001, p. 1A
3 “Bush turns America’s fury towards Saddam,”
by Stephen Robinson, News Telegraph, http://news.telegraph.co.uk, Nov. 26,
2001.
4 “Bombs halted; search continues,” by
Jonathan Weisman, USA Today, Dec. 19, 2001. p. 1A.
To justify the US attack on Iraq, Hussein was essential as a hated enemy
icon. After the occupation, however, he no longer served that function, so
when he was discovered cowering in a hole, there was no reason not to take
him into custody. Bin Ladin, however, is another matter. Even
though his name has faded from the daily news, he still is remembered as
the symbol of the terrorist attack on 9-11.
A rumor was circulated in the Spring of 2004
that he already had been captured and hidden away by US forces pending a
spectacular announcement to be timed with the November elections. That, of
course, would be a big boost for the Bush campaign and conceivably could
get him re-elected in spite of voter dissatisfaction over the Iraqi
occupation. It will be interesting to see if this rumor proves to be true.
12. The twelfth prediction is that, when the Taliban is toppled in
Afghanistan, a new government will be established by the UN.
Like Kosovo before it, a so-called UN
“peacekeeping” military force will remain behind, and the country will not
be independent. There will be talk about how it will represent the Afghan
people, but it will serve the agendas of the internationalists who will
create it. The sad country will become just another pin on the map showing
the location of yet one more UN province.
Epilogue:
Even before the Taliban had been toppled in
Afghanistan, the wheels were set in motion for a coalition government to
be organized under UN supervision. On November 28, on the first day of the
UN-sponsored negotiations to that end, representatives of the Northern
Alliance agreed to most elements of the UN plan.
Even at that early date, UN spokesmen
announced that they intended to install a “temporary” multi-national
military force, under its control, after the fighting is over.1
After nine days of negotiations, representatives of the various Afghan
factions agreed to the UN blueprint. The agreement specifically specified
a multinational “peacekeeping” force to be stationed in Kabul and provided
for its future expansion into the rest of the country.2
On December 19, it was learned that a dozen
countries were preparing to contribute military forces to a UN
“peacekeeping” force in Afghanistan.3
On January 11, 2002, the peacekeeping force, under the lead of British
troops, was busy recruiting and training an army made up predominantly of
Afghans. Funding, supply, and command were under tight UN control.4
1 “Deal near in
Afghan talks,” by Elliot Blair Smith, USA Today, Nov. 28, 2001, p. 1-A.
2 “Afghan
factions sign landmark deal,” BBC News,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1692000/1692695.stm,
Dec. 5, 2001.
3 “Bombs halted,”
op. cit.
4 See “Afghanistan working to build national
army,” by Tom Squitieri, USA Today, January 11, 2002, p. 10A.
On January 28, 2002, the new Afghan leader
Hamid Karzai, who was brought into power by pressure from the US,
announced that he wanted the present multinational military force, not
just to remain in Kabul, but to expand throughout all of Afghanistan.1
Two days later, he addressed the UN Security
Council and, once again, called for UN military forces.2
After the US occupation of Iraq, the pattern was exactly the same in that
country. In June of 2004, when the US turned over power to an alleged
independent government, it was UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi who
appointed its Prime Minister, its chairman of the National Congress, its
two deputy presidents, and all of its thirty-three cabinet members.
1 “Bush Rejects
US Peacekeepers,” by George Gedda, Associated Press, Yahoo News, Jan. 28,
2002,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_afgh
…
2 “Afghan Leader Asks UN for Bigger Security
Force,” by Irwin Arieff, Reuters News Service, Jan. 30, 2002,
http://www.reuters/printerfriendly.jhtml?StoryID=556954
On November 8, 2005, the UN Security Council voted to extend the US-led
military occupation of Iraq another year beyond its previously
announced withdrawal date.
13. The thirteenth prediction is that, while all this is going on, US
politicians will continue waving the American flag
and giving lip service to traditional American
sentiments in order to placate their constituency who must never be
allowed to know that they are being delivered into slavery.
Yes, actions have consequences, and the long-range consequences of this
act of terrorism are even more devastating than the loss of life and
property that has been the focus of the media so far.