-Caveat Lector- "I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God,indivisible,with liberty and justice for all."
visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto: http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:34:21 -0400 From: John P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Birch Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Should America Go to War? http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/10-21-2002/vo18no21_war.htm Should America Go to War? by William Norman Grigg When our freedoms and sovereignty are threatened, we have to fight. But resuming the war on Iraq would actually empower a far greater threat - the United Nations. When the Twin Towers collapsed on 9-11, the American public was told that "everything changed," and an instant cliché was born. A year later, the Bush administration is striving to convince the public that its impending attack on Iraq is a vital part of the "war on terrorism" that began on Black Tuesday. But this is a deception. If the Black Tuesday hijackers had been caught, if the Twin Towers still stood proudly, if the Pentagon remained unblemished, if the 3,000 innocent people slain that morning were still among the living, the Bush administration and the Power Elite behind it would still be pursuing, to the extent possible, the policies that have brought us to the brink of an unjustified, aggressive war on Iraq. The impending war on Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime will have nothing to do with the 9-11 terrorist atrocity, or with protecting any rationally defined American national interest. These considerations were conspicuously absent from President Bush's September 12th address to the UN General Assembly. Indeed, apart from cursory references to the Black Tuesday attack, there was nothing in President Bush's speech that hadn't been said by Bill Clinton, or by Republican congressional leaders, during the last installment of the protracted Iraq crisis back in 1998. Submitting to UN Power "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace," stated Mr. Bush in his speech to the General Assembly. "Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" The president reprised that theme in his September 14th national radio address. And he recited the same mantra in remarks for reporters at a Camp David press conference that same day: "The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out.... This is the chance for the United Nations to show some backbone and resolve as we confront the true challenges of the 21st century." In this, as in so many other issues, Mr. Bush is following the same script as his predecessor. In a January 29, 1998 address to National Defense University, Bill Clinton urged Americans to prepare for military action against Iraq as part of an effort "to write the international rules of the road for the 21st Century, protecting those who've joined the family of nations and isolating those who do not." Urging Americans to be "strong and tough and mature enough to recognize that even the best-prepared, best-equipped force will suffer losses in action," Clinton predicted that a military strike would soon be launched against Iraq to force Saddam to "comply with the . will of the United Nations" and to advance the world body's "arms control and nonproliferation agenda." During a February 6, 1998 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Clinton pointedly observed that the anticipated military strike on Iraq was intended to force the regime to "fulfill all of the United Nations Security Council resolutions." Asked if the campaign would also seek Saddam's removal from power, Clinton replied: "That is not what the United Nations has authorized us to do." The only material difference between the Iraq policies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush is this: Clinton adhered precisely to UN Security Council guidelines; Mr. Bush favors enforcement of UN Security Council dictates with the added objective of regime change. In fact, the president's enthusiasm to carry out the UN's decrees apparently exceeds that of the UN itself. But once again, Mr. Bush seems to be working from an updated version of an old script. In a February 4, 1998 press conference, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) insisted that Saddam "will either agree to unlimited UN inspectors or we will have to replace him with a regime that will agree to end this kind of [weapons of mass destruction] program." During a January 18, 1998 installment of CNN's Late Edition, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) explained that because Saddam "continues to stick his finger in the eye of the international community . we should continue to try to have UN cooperation and strong resolutions through the UN" while being "committed to act [unilaterally] where necessary." Inverting the Constitution Submitted to Congress on September 19th, the White House's draft resolution to "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" makes scant mention of the 9-11 attack. Instead, it concentrates on what is described as the real threat to "vital interests of the United States and international peace and security," namely Iraq's persistent defiance of "resolutions of the United Nations Security Council," and its hostile acts in firing on "United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council." The latter refers to U.S. and British enforcement of the UN-established "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq. Put simply, Bush wants (in the words of the draft resolution) congressional authorization "to use all means that he determines to be appropriate . to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolution . and restore international peace and security in the region" - not to bring the September 11th terrorists to justice. Few realize that the 1991 Gulf War never really ended: UN sanctions continue to ravage the Iraqi population; warplanes operating under UN authorization regularly attack positions within Iraq. Less than a month after his inauguration, George W. Bush - without so much as informing Congress of his action - authorized a military assault on Iraq for the purpose of enforcing the UN-mandated no-fly zone. Explaining his decision to the media, the president insisted that "we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone until the world is told otherwise." Note this language carefully: Mr. Bush's statement implicitly but clearly acknowledges subordination to the UN, which is supposedly authorized to tell "the world" to call off the campaign against Iraq. Following that February 2001 military action, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking in Egypt, elaborated on the fact that it was dictated by the UN, rather than carried out for our national interests. According to Powell, Saddam "threatens not the United States. He threatens this region. He threatens Arab people. He threatens the children of Egypt, the children of Saudi Arabia, the children of Kuwait...." Even though Saddam posed no threat to our nation, Powell continued, "The United Nations has an obligation and, as part of the United Nations, the United States has an obligation to do everything we can to cause [Saddam] to come into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War." Again we see how, from its earliest stages, the Bush administration has continued the subversive policy of using our military to carry out UN-defined "obligations." In a handful of instances it is right to wage war. Free people recognize, however, that where war is justified, it is mandatory. Those of us who cherish freedom understand that we have no choice but to fight if an aggressor threatens our families, freedoms, property, and homeland. But we must also realize that if we are not fighting to protect any of these precious things, we are fighting the wrong war. Our military's constitutional purpose is to "provide for the common defense" of the United States, not to enforce the whims of a supra-national body such as the UN. And in its proposed "use of force" resolution against Iraq, the Bush administration asked Congress to acquiesce to the UN's will, rather than act on behalf of the American people. The White House's proposed resolution did provoke some mild congressional criticism. "It's much too broad, there's no limit at all on presidential powers," Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) complained to Fox News Sunday on September 22nd. "There need to be some changes.... It's not even limited to Iraq." Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) criticized the resolution for authorizing force to "restore international peace and security to the region," insisting that it should focus exclusively on Iraq. Biden's counterpart in the House International Relations committee, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), dismissed complaints about the White House draft as "specious." Not a single congressional leader on either side of the aisle publicly objected to the premise that Congress should authorize the use of America's military to carry out the UN Security Council's dictates. Establishment Playwrights Are there circumstances under which it would be justified to wage war on Iraq? Possibly. We have the right to defend our country from aggression and to demand satisfaction from foreign powers that commit acts of war on our nation. While no sane American relishes the thought of an Iraqi regime armed with nuclear or bio-warfare weapons, the question patriotic Americans must confront is this: Are we willing to send our nation's sons to kill and die on behalf of UN disarmament decrees, which would eventually apply to our own country as well? We've seen how the respective administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton followed the same script in dealing with Iraq. That script, in turn, grows out of a longstanding design to create "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations" - the title of a 1962 report compiled on behalf of the State Department by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield. Writing to what he assumed would be a privileged audience, Dr. Bloomfield dispensed with the double-speak that generally characterizes Establishment calls for world government. He pointed out that official U.S. disarmament policies carry "the unmistakable meaning, by whatever name, of world government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and enforce its judgments." Ultimately, all nations - including the United States - would be compelled to undergo "total disarmament down to police and internal security levels." (Emphasis in original.) Anticipating statements made in 1998 by Bill Clinton and 2002 by George W. Bush, Bloomfield wrote: [T]here is no theoretical reason why the present United Nations could not be transformed by extensive Charter amendment into an instrument of effective global control.... The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of sovereign power from the states to a supranational government.... The paramount issue in the creation of an "effective UN" [would be] . reaching the political agreement and establishing new ground rules about the possession and use of military power in the world.... The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control of their military power by individual nations. If this becomes achievable, the details will not be insurmountable.... The proposed system would explicitly forbid national possession of weapons of mass destruction, of the means of delivery, and of the trained personnel required to mount an attack.... The inspection system would be designed to minimize the possibility of successful evasion or violation of this prohibition. Making this system of disarmament work, continued Bloomfield, will require "the enforcement of the laws.... If the system did not abort such violation by imposing timely sanction upon a violator in the form of immediate seizure of the forbidden facilities, punishment of those responsible, etc., the danger to the nations who relied upon it would clearly be immense.... The ultimate question would then be the utilization of the international force after failure to use it preventively." (Emphasis added.) Bloomfield's 40-year-old prescriptions for UN-conducted inspections, backed by the threat of "preventive" force, could very well have been mined from recent public comments from the president and high-ranking members of his administration. "We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather," insisted Bush in his General Assembly address. "We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind." "How long are we going to wait to deal with what is clearly a gathering threat against the United States, against our allies and against [Saddam's] own region?" asked National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a September 8th television interview. "The goal must be to stop Saddam Hussein before he fires a weapon of mass destruction against our people," asserted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in congressional testimony on September 18th. "The goal isn't inspections, the goal is disarmament. That is what Iraq agreed to do." Carnegie Blueprint for War Although the Bush administration and the UN are not entirely in harmony regarding implementation of Security Council decrees, they have embraced a disarmament blueprint devised by the misnamed Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This Establishment powerhouse has for decades been a redoubt of globally minded elitists eager to use international conflict to advance the cause of world government. On September 12th, shortly before President Bush delivered his address to the UN, the Carnegie Endowment held a panel discussion at its Washington, D.C., headquarters to introduce its new report, "Iraq: A New Approach," offering a framework for "comply-or-else" arms inspections. Endowment President Jessica Mathews - proudly introduced as a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and founding vice president at the World Resources Institute - tidily summarized the proposal: "We propose the creation of a powerful multi-national military force, created by the United Nations Security Council, that would enable . the UN inspection regime to execute its current mandate. These would be . 'comply-or-else' inspections.... The 'or-else,' of course, . is overthrow of the regime, optimally . under UN auspices, or in the worst case politically, by the U.S." Retired Air Force General Charles Boyd, former senior vice president and Washington program director for the CFR, followed Mathews in the Carnegie panel discussion. A collaborator in the new Carnegie report, General Boyd was also a high-profile member of the CFR-created Hart-Rudman Commission, which established the framework for the proposed Department of Homeland Security. According to General Boyd, "disarmament [is] . the only political objective here, and it should be sufficient to meet our national objectives as well as, I believe, the United Nations' objectives." While the Bush administration presently insists that the U.S. is ready to act unilaterally against Iraq, General Boyd predicts: "With respect to command and control, I believe that . this must be a UN force, although I should imagine it would be led by the [nation] providing the largest force, and I would assume that to be the United States." It may also include military contributions from the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan. And how long would we be mired in Iraq? According to General Boyd, the arms inspectors "would be there as long as the United Nations wanted them to be there . even after disarmament has occurred with the provision implicit in that a [military] force would be reconstituted if [Saddam] begins a weapons program again." The Carnegie Endowment took great pride in pointing out that its proposal was the working draft of future UN and Bush administration policy. Observed Mathews: "We have met with senior White House officials.... The proposal made its way around the administration with extraordinary speed.... We have this week undertaken some briefings in Moscow and events at the Carnegie Moscow center there. We have plans underway for events like this in . 10 days in London and in Paris. We are meeting today with some key Arab diplomats here in Washington and tomorrow [September 13th] at the United Nations, including with the secretary-general. So we are beginning a major global set of consultations on this." Even though Congress had not committed our nation to a war against Iraq, and the public was largely unconvinced that an aggressive war of "pre-emption" was justified, the Carnegie cabal, working in tandem with other key elements of the globalist Power Elite, had already pre-set the dials for a war intended to enhance the UN's power to carry out global disarmament. This is hardly the first time Carnegie has worked behind the scenes to entangle our nation in a counterproductive war. Several years before the start of World War I, Carnegie trustees held a meeting to discuss the question: "Is there any means known to man more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?" Deciding that there was none, a second question was examined: "How do we involve the United States in a war?" According to congressional investigator Norman Dodd, after America became entangled in World War I, the Carnegie trustees were so delighted with the new opportunities for social engineering that they dispatched a telegram to President Woodrow Wilson "cautioning him to see that the war did not end too quickly." Warfare is an unfortunate, and probably inevitable, aspect of the fallen human condition. But Americans should fight wars on our terms, for our reasons, through the constitutional mechanisms provided by our Founding Fathers. Those mechanisms include a congressional declaration of war based on providing "for the common defense." The impending war on Iraq meets none of those conditions. We must contact our representatives in Congress - who control the power of the purse and the power of the sword - and tell them in no uncertain terms that we will not stand for any more UN wars. Visit The New American at www.thenewamerican.com for accurate information. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrCn8.bWdS6o Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^=============================================================== <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
