. . . increase and protect the rights of the poor of Venezuela, he must survive. He believes he must be willing to be militant in the face of US attempts against him that he sees as being aimed against a growing movement toward a giving, sharing, and cooperative international economy. In his view, one of the best ways to insure that the US does not take further illegal actions against him is by drawing great attention to the pattern of US behavior in the world about which the American people have been largely and deliberately kept in the dark. He has drawn great attention to the US directed, short-lived coup d'Ã©tat against him. He has drawn great attention to US continuing plans, and now more so wishful thinking, to remove him from power via whatever means. Pat Robertson has inadvertently helped Hugo in this regard by openly stating the conservative, antidemocratic, antichristian mentality that permeates the neocon Republican Party and Bush-43 administration. Hugo has made it very difficult now for the Empire to oust him without everyone knowing in advance that what Hugo has been saying about US covert action against democracies is true. He knows that the Empire depends upon duping its people or at least giving them the cover of fooling themselves under the neoconservative tenet of plausible deniability. He also knows that he rallies his people by educating them about the Empire's history. He also spreads the word throughout Latin America and the world.
All but Hugo's militancy is in line with the Christian view. Hugo Chavez Frias would be better serving were he to renounce all violence and let the US capitalists heap hot coals upon their own heads by undertaking whatever selfish things they will. That is how Jesus handled the Pharisees and others, and Jesus was right to do so.
Fighting with them and killing them and leading others to do so and to be hurt and killed themselves in such an endeavor would have been simply more of the same, old, less enlightened way. Hugo is mistaken that his militant-brand of giving and sharing is the way of Christ. He is far from alone in his view. Many of his enemies think that same way.
Now, the Bush-43 administration actually has mixed emotions concerning Pat Robertson. After all, Pat's followers voted heavily for Bush; however, Pat has questioned George's decision to go to war with Iraq. He made the statement about having no casualties, but more importantly, this latest statement about Chavez Frias is a statement that Bush was wrong concerning not assassinating Saddam in order to save hundreds of billions of dollars in invasion and occupation costs. Of course, George sees more profits in the oil than those expenditures for the war. Also, George's buddies make the billions. Pat's a little too soft, a little too lofty, if you can believe it, for George's brand of realpolitiks. Don't fool yourself, George's revolution is raw.
What did George W. Bush say when he was running and what happened?
During a New Hampshire primary ostensible debate, Bush said concerning Saddam, Iraq, and weapons of mass destruction, "I'd take 'em out, take out the weapons of mass destruction. I'm surprised he's still there." So that was his thinking during the primary campaign. He couldn't understand why president Bill Clinton before him hadn't already attacked Baghdad to remove Saddam from power. Obviously, he thought Clinton, as with Bush's father before Clinton, had missed his opportunity to build up political capital with what George W. Bush thought would be a quick and easy war against Iraq. He told Herskowitz, "If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it." Now, listen carefully to those words, "If I have a chance to invade." Couple those words with 1) his views concerning building political capital via war 2) his statement during the New Hampshire primary that he would "take 'em out" and 3) that in March of 2002, a full year before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq, he interrupted Condoleezza Rice and three US senators meeting in the White House meeting room to say, "F—k Saddam. We're taking him out." With all that in mind, what do the words "If I have a chance to invade" say? He meant that if he were elected president, he would more than hope to invade Iraq. He wanted it so much all along that he had his people assemble a team to help him twist 9-11 into a pretext for war on Iraq, his chance. It is all as clear as can be. Anyone who doesn't believe it doesn't know the truth when he or she hears it and can't possibly believe in Jesus.
Bush also told Herskowitz that concerning his, Bush's, oil businesses, "The companies were floundering." The campaign though wanted to, and did, paint Bush as a successful oilman, which he was not. He also said he had been "excused" from Alabama National Guard drills despite his later assertions that he had been at the drills. He changed his story.
Before that though, George H. W. Bush, when he was a Congressman, called in favors in Texas and got his son, George W. Bush, moved to the top of the waiting list to get into the Texas Air National Guard. George W. had signed up just twelve days before his deferment ran out and his draft number would have seen him possibly drafted. Of course, had he been drafted, he still wouldn't have had to serve on the frontline in Vietnam. The sons of Congressman and Senators just didn't have to serve on the frontline. He jumped ahead on the waiting list in front of thousands of others who had signed up before him.
He told Herskowitz the truth before he had been told by political handlers how such favoritism for the son of one of the most elitist, American, conservative families would be negatively viewed by otherwise rabid militarist supporters. Then he changed his story to cover over the truth of that elitist favoritism. There never has been any evidence that Bush showed up in Alabama.
All George W. Bush has learned during his time in office is how to polish his skills in the dark art of lying.
Despite the fact that George W. Bush fired Mickey Herskowitz as his campaign biography writer, George W. Bush's own father, George H. W. Bush, then hired Mickey Herskowitz to write the official biography of George H. W. Bush's father, Prescott Bush.
Some people believe that the greed of capitalism targeting trillions of dollars in oil in particular even caused some US neocons deliberately to facilitate the 9-11 attacks, make it easier to happen, deliberately avoid taking the steps to prevent it, so they could have the pretext for war just as Pearl Harbor was Japan being allowed to draw first blood. "The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act."
Well, the United States desired that some group commit the first overt act against the mainland US to such a degree (on the order of Pearl Harbor) that the US people would stand behind the drive for world takeover of all the oil fields not already within the strongest military nations such as Russia and China or under the strict control of close US allies in capitalism. Deny all would-be rival empires the oil outside their borders. That's the internally stated doctrine. Take the oil to be richer. That's the doctrine more directly stated.
Gore Vidal was instrumental early on in pointing out the fact that US fighter jets were by law required to scramble within he says four minutes of any skyjacking but were really only scrambled after the eternity of one hour and twenty minutes. This has never been investigated by the US Congress or adequately covered by mainstream media. Why not? Vidal says that it is because we do not live in a republic but rather a dictatorship. His point is that if the US were truly a republic, such investigations would be a given. His point is further that the powers that be have a lock on all the information that even under the mundane law ought to be public.
Even if fighters were scrambled sooner, they were ineffectual. Why?
Still others suspect the five US war games ongoing on 9-11 that saw US fighter jets sent far and wide away from where the attacks actually occurred as more than a mundane coincidence. Did al Qaeda know about the war games? If so, how did they find out and what other role did any leakers play? One of the war games was based upon an airplane flying into a building. Also, eyewitness accounts about where top-ranking administration and military personnel were at the time of the attacks and immediately thereafter vary widely. Where were they? What were they doing? How soon did they know what? Who gave what orders to whom and when? These are questions that have not been answered. The ostensible reason: National security.
This is not to say that we believe that interrogations will bring in the kingdom. They won't. Violence is wrong. Secrets and barriers will never bring in the kingdom. The only thing that will bring in the kingdom is being as harmless as doves while being as wise as the serpents. It is wise to see what the advocates of violence are up to, to comprehend how their way will never work, to advocate the opposite path that is the way of peace (being as harmless as doves). We aren't looking to harm the violent. We are looking for them to repent.
The suspicions of billions of people have not been laid to rest by the conservative administration, because the administration has maneuvered to avoid being openly scrutinized in detail on these issues.
One must ask him or herself whether any greedy Americans would sacrifice thousands of Americans and others for the sake of having a pretext for taking over the world starting with taking over the huge oil fields of Iraq worth many trillions of dollars. Are there people so hell-bent upon empire building and corporate globalization and privatization that they would see that effort as being more important than the lives of several thousand people? Are there American-Empire builders who would do that in order to keep rising powers such as China and India and others from making oil deals with Iraq and pipeline deals with others such as Afghanistan? What is the history? How many hundreds of thousands of people have died for American business access to markets? Look at the statement of Jonah Goldberg that the US ought to throw, in his words "some small crappy little country…against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." Look at how cheap life is under that mentality.
The lies about Iraq were after all proven to be numerous and flagrant. Those lies are enough to cause any sane person to distance him or herself from the liars and their agenda. Regardless, the hush is on at the top concerning all the events. The plan was to get it all behind them as soon as possible and just move on with empire building now that the dastardly deeds, such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, have been done. In other words, make the most out of the situation for the sake of the Empire.
The various commissions purportedly investigating did not address many of the issues still outstanding yet they have laid claim to being thorough and exhaustive investigations. Why were the commissions not exhaustive?
It is a high crime to have killed many tens of thousands of people in an American military invasion of Iraq. Many were innocent women and children. To plan and sell the plan with deceit where one knows the innocent will be killed by following through and then to follow through is murder of the innocent covered in lies. How many Americans died in 9-11 versus how many American troops have been expended after the deliberate lies leading up to the wars? What makes you think that the powers that be don't consider US civilians every bit as expendable as military troops?
If you think that people in high places would not even contemplate such a despicable act as 9-11, you obviously have too much faith in the satanic Empire spirit. You just don't understand that the spirit of Nero still exists. The US is far from immune to it. All the talk about how the US is the longest running constitutional democracy in the world and that the American people are somehow, therefore, immune to conversion from a republic to a totally undemocratic imperial dictatorship leading to a monarchical dynasty is self-delusion.
Given enough fear, many more Americans then currently imagined would plead for a strong and ruthless leader to bring torturous law and order to the planet. Look at how far the US has already slipped again down the slippery slope since Richard Nixon.
The US is definitely the same empire spirit as the one that gave rise to the Roman Empire and that polluted and then took over the church. The truth is that there is American Exceptionalism—exceptionally greedy, violent, decadent, and apostate, just as was the Roman Empire at its height.
These leaders today imagine they will write the history recording themselves as worthy of eternal praise. How wrong they are. Posterity will not look kindly on their exploits. In fact, they will be held up as being exactly what people ought not to be and never should have fallen to being. Hardheartedness is not good, never has been, and never will be.
If you imagine that thousands of years separate such evil lust for Empire and the American spirit, consider Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was for decades dismissed as just a conspiracy theory of kooks. Well, through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive, a document entitled Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba was released. It contained a proposed plan submitted to secretary of defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan was for what is called "false-flag actions." It means that the US would conduct terrorist attacks upon itself in a way to make it look as if Cuba did it. That way, the U.S. public could be whipped into a vengeful, wrathful frenzy demanding the US military takeover of Cuba. The proposal suggested that a CIA plane be disguised as a US commercial passenger jet to be shot down by the US which would claim the Cubans did it. Now, how does one trust anything coming out of the mouths of the kinds of people capable of proposing such pretexts for invading other nations? McNamara rejected the proposal. Had he accepted it, Cuba would have been invaded with substantial additional loss of life over and above the losses in the US attacking itself for pretext. So, do you think that the highest generals and admirals in the Pentagon and the neocons in the civilian sector and especially the war-mongering war-profiteering capitalists would never consider a 9-11 type attack on the US in order to whip the Americans into a state of security panic? In the face of everything that has happened historically concerning the US and in the face of the Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba, is it foolish to put it passed them? It is foolish not to assume they facilitated 9-11? Ask God.
If you think that a false-flag operation sounds too fanciful, then consider that the CIA was actually responsible for terrorist actions in Italy, under the CIA's Gladio network, that were blamed on the Red Brigades, a militant Communist group that was actually involved in terrorist activities making it easy for the CIA to use such false-flag activities against them.
Also, there is Able Danger that was a Department of Defense intelligence program many claim had identified four of the 9-11 attackers. It is said that the military destroyed 2.5 terabytes of Able Danger data two years before 9-11. Also, the September 11 Commission had to backtrack from previous statements that it had not been informed of Able Danger or that Mohamed Atta had been allegedly identified by Able Danger and that Able Danger data had been blocked from the FBI by the DoD (Department of Defense).
Further concerning 9-11 conspiracy ideas, Michael Meacher, former UK secretary of health, former UK secretary of commerce, former UK environmental minister, member of the UK parliament and Andreas von Bulow, former German member of parliament, former German secretary of defense, a now a private lawyer, together have made a great number of observations concerning 9-11.
It has been reported that Mossad, an Israeli intelligence agency, had supplied the US with the names of four of the hijackers one month before 9-11. It is known that at least eleven countries, including the UK, had warned the US in some detail of the potential for an attack. Zacarius Moussaoui was arrested in August, 2001, one month before 9-11. He had information on his computer, but the FBI was prevented from looking at the contents until 9-11. That computer contained detailed information on the hijackers and the attack plans. Of course the Phoenix Memo of the FBI said clearly that potential hijackers were training at flight school and firing ranges. [We also know that one of the hijackers received training in hand-to-hand combat and knife fighting at an elite martial arts school in Florida.] The US government was aware of fourteen of the nineteen attackers. The intelligence community had been watching Mohamed Atta, knew he was directly linked to al Qaeda, wanted to share the information, but was blocked by the Department of Defense.
According to Meacher, in the nine months just prior to 9-11, fighters had been scrambled sixty-seven times to check on commercial aircraft as possible hijackings. [Yet, on 9-11, no fighters even got a sighting of any of the hijacked jets. They would have us believe that the jets disappeared from radar. How?]
Couple these events with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) hoping for another Pearl Harbor size catastrophe as justification for a military buildup and the takeover of the strategic oil fields of the Middle East.
Before that, the was Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration national security advisor (and advisor to other presidents as well and co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Trilateral Commission), who wrote in his book, The Grand Chessboard, for the need for the US to control the Middle East oil by warfare which would not be supported by the US public without a complete disruption.
Add to that the Wolfowitz Doctrine, and other neocon advocacy, and 9-11 becomes extremely convenient timing.
Of course it was Brzezinski who came up with the idea of sucking the Soviets into a war in Afghanistan by having the US train, fund, and stimulate the Mujahideen (the Wahhabists, al Qaeda) in Pakistan and elsewhere to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet supported regime. Now the US is fighting those same people, the Taliban, whom Brzezinski told where fighting on the side of God. So if they fight on the side God and the US is fighting them, what does that make the US in Brzezinski's eyes? What does Brzezinski think about God?
We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours. You will go back to it one day, because your fight will prevail and you'll have your homes and your mosques back again, because your cause is right and God is on your side.
The US founded al Qaeda with the Egyptian Qutbist, Ayman al-Zawahiri and his Saudi moneyman, Osama bin Laden. The US revved them up more than they already were, which was too much. [We cover more about Wahhabism and Qutbism in the supplement to this work.]
Brzezinski has never repented. In fact, he has bragged about starting al Qaeda against the Soviets. He has said he'd do it all over again.
The US September 11 Commission avoided all the central questions. [It was a whitewash. It was a tool for scapegoating those who were later rewarded and honored.] The Commission deliberately avoided following the money concerning who funded the hijackers. Transactions had been recorded, but the Commission refused to trace them back [because of where they led, which was to people who would prove a public embarrassment for the government of the US of course].
Do those observations of Meacher and Bulow prove that the US planned the attack? No.
There is no doubt though that the Bush-43 administration wanted to hit out militarily without concern about justice. They wanted to hit Iraq regardless of Iraq's lack of involvement in the 9-11 attacks. How bad is that?
Now, there were dozens of people at 9-11 ground zero who heard rapid sounds like repeating gunfire and then a series of loud explosions way down in the lower stories of the buildings and well after the planes had hit the towers. Those explosions were reported right out in the open by the news reporters on scene. These were explosions that knocked people right off their feet and blew out windows low in the buildings. These explosions, among other things, led people, who have good reason to distrust the US government's official accounts and to suspect possible deliberate inside demolition via pre-planted explosives.
We aren't endorsing that view.
It is telling that so many people distrust this government to such a degree. They aren't above suspicion, because they've impeached themselves so many times concerning such grave matters. They've been caught in so many lies about killing hundreds of thousands of the innocent that the people are hard pressed to see where those lies might end.
Remember, this government is built upon imagining the worst and then doing it first.
Look, if the government were not constantly doing things that are disreputable, there would be nowhere near the numbers of citizens suspecting the motives of the government. That's just how it is.
The government and the vast majority of people who are highly educated in the fields of structural engineering give plausible answers concerning the collapses of the twin towers. Those possible answers don't address the other allegations that the government was at the very least deliberately less than vigilant about attacks. Those other allegations are simply ignored.
Look, George W. Bush was visibly shaken by 9-11. He was the deer caught in the headlights.
It doesn't represent proof he was unaware of what was essentially going to happen. It means he had visible self-doubts about whether or not he could act his way through it all (be the national cheerleader) enough to avoid wrath were the people to find out what was really going on behind the scenes: That he was to some degree a premeditated co-conspirator in the major false-flag operation (planning and allowing) and that he wasn't truly setting the agenda (wasn't being a real leader as president) but was rather, if the truth be accepted, taking orders, being led by the oligarchical neocons who literally, quite undemocratically, and illegally conspired to, and did, install Bush in office and who themselves take orders in their turn directly from the satanic spirit.
However, he soon became gleeful at the prospect of rising to the challenge in the traditional manner. He suddenly had visions of ...continues... Click next page number below.