"Just
like Adolf Hitler, who also made promises and signed treaties, trashing them
when it
became convenient, it is now politically
convenient as well as expedient for Rumsfeld, PNAC and therefore Bush, to
renege on the Geneva Convention." |
|
Control In America
THE CIA
Posted May 13, 2004 thepeoplesvoice.org
By:
Ted Lang
After I recently finished reading William L. Shirer's monumental work, The
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I came to a horrific conclusion.
Comparing the summary of reported events Shirer used to describe the
circumstances immediately preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it
must be understood that he merely reiterated what was known and accepted at
the time. Comparing what was then accepted information to what is now
known, a shocking conclusion is easily drawn.
Space does not permit laundry listing the dichotomies. Suffice it to say,
that facts in Shirer's book and what is known today prove indeed that FDR
and American government knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl
Harbor before it happened. Said another way, they let it happen! Now, here
comes the tough part. I asked myself: What would I have done if I had been
in Roosevelt's shoes? I regret to inform, I can't see him having any other
choice!
Back then, in 1941, Germany was the most powerful nation on Earth when
Hitler invaded Russia. Had he not delayed by putting down an anti-Nazi coup
in Yugoslavia, an action he took in an extreme fit of rage which delayed the
Russian invasion by three or four weeks, he would have conquered Russia.
That would have left the United States alone to fight Germany, Japan and
Italy. In my judgment, we would have lost that war. And Hitler was
predicting, and doing so publicly for worldwide consumption, that Russia
would fall before the winter of 1941!
Therefore it can be said, that rage was all the rage at that time! The
anger and rage that Hitler had towards Jews, international bankers, the
British and French for their rape of Germany via the Versailles Treaty
ending WW I, as well as the Balfour Declaration, allowed him to magnify his
anger and rage through the German people via the Nazi Party and his
Wehrmacht. Anger is indeed a strong motivator. Hitler's delay in attacking
Russia was indeed "blind" anger.
War is not only an acceptable form of political expression, it is also, of
course, an expression of collective anger on the part of one people against
another. And it can be blind collective anger. Hitler knew how to use the
anger of the German people, an anger that festered because of their sense of
being double-crossed by Versailles and Balfour and the bankers. The German
people were ripe for manipulation. But isn't that what all politics is
about?
I sincerely believe FDR would have preferred to avoid war, but with Hitler
growing in power, and it being known that Hitler eventually planned to
attack America, as he had attacked other nations in Europe and Africa, it
was only a matter of time before he was at our doorstep. But Americans
vehemently opposed war with Hitler, and so did their representatives in
Congress.
But that's the difference between Pearl Harbor and all the other
politician-manufactured necessities offered as an excuse for war since
America's justifiable involvement in WW II. And this was further reflected
in the need for Roosevelt to ask the Congress to declare war, a rule no
longer followed. For today, any American politician, banker, or rich and
powerful individual or group of individuals, can simply request the
President of the United States to attack any nation of their choosing and
for any reason. And if the president cannot be approached or bribed, well
then there's always the alternative of approaching his advisors.
How soon we've forgotten the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC,
whereby President Bush's Zionist advisors clamored for the United States to
attack Iraq, which posed absolutely no threat to our nation. This was
indeed a form of hostile political expression, the reasons for which may
never become clear. But the unnecessary and increasingly deadly war was
engineered and planned by the PNAC cabal in every way similar to Hitler's
plotting of invasion after invasion prior to WW II. And of course, it
entailed making promises and signing treaties, all of which Hitler broke and
reneged on when politically expedient and convenient.
Have PNACers offered any justification for the invasion of Iraq? Of course
they have, and here they are: "it was doable;" "it was an opportunity;"
"there aren't as many good targets in Afghanistan as there are in Iraq."
And since the Internet blew this "logic" to smithereens, justification for
the unjust invasion rose to the top of the Bush administration's "must do"
list. Enter now the plotting of America's most dangerous plotters,
overseers and controllers: the Central Intelligence Agency, a very dangerous
oxymoron.
It has been very strongly suggested in many circles that the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy was a collaborative plot between organized
crime and the CIA. The mob plotting against BOTH Kennedys is
understandable; the dependency of Kennedy patriarch Joseph Kennedy on
organized crime to rally the miners' union and control Cook County to get
his son John elected president was rewarded by Robert Kennedy's attack on
mobster union boss Jimmy Hoffa. It is much more difficult to see what
motivated the CIA, but in a nation where anyone rich and powerful can
orchestrate wars for no easily discernible reason, why should we now rack
our collective intellect?
And now we have intelligence "failures" regarding "yellowcake," the exposure
of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, and the involvement of the CIA
in the bungling of pre-9-11 intelligence. In addition to the plotting of
the CIA, we have the efforts on the part of Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, a key and integral part of the PNAC cabal, planning on
deliberately violating many of the specific principles of prisoner of war
protections as articulated in the Geneva Convention, a treaty signed with
190 other nations around the world.
Just like Adolf Hitler, who also made promises and signed treaties, trashing them when it
became convenient, it is now politically
convenient as well as expedient for Rumsfeld, PNAC and therefore Bush, to
renege on the Geneva Convention. This is the real crime as regards the
Iraqi POW scandal, a scandal that shows all indications of spreading broadly
across many more POW detention centers.
Rumsfeld's Pentagon prearranged and planned deliberate violations of the
Geneva Convention to justify the Iraqi invasion, thereby not only turning
our troops into war criminals, but also leaving them defenseless as well
should they be captured by the enemy. And on the surface, it appears that
this is precisely what happened to American civilian Nick Berg.
What is needed to establish an appropriate perspective is a review of all
the fraud, lies, propaganda, cover-ups and despicable political maneuvering
typified by this totally out-of-control administration to get a realistic
handle on precisely what's going on. Consider the lies involving WMD,
"regime change" and "bringing democracy to the people" while never ever
planning to remove our military presence in Iraq or the Mid East. Consider
the AA587 cover-up, and the cover-up of the non-bidding violations of
government contract and procurement law arranged for Bechtel and
Halliburton. Recall the embarrassment of the Boeing KC-135 fiasco. Recall
Bush's obstruction of the 9-11 investigation. Recall his redaction of 28
pages of a report from the 9-11 commission. Recall the O'Neill, Kaye and
Clarke scenarios, as well as the Joseph Wilson scandal. An appropriate
perspective has now been established.
Now for the all-important question: Who do you believe; the family of
Nicholas Berg or Bush's secret cabal government of liars, plotters, schemers
and war criminals? Who do you believe - the Bergs or the CIA/FBI? I for
one believe the Bergs are telling the truth and that the FBI is lying, as
usual. Why is this important?
The Berg family says that Nick Berg was in custody in Iraq by Iraqi
officials per the directions of the United States government conveyed
through the FBI. I believe this to be true. So what would this portend?
It offers that the CAI/FBI had at their disposal a potential American
victim, a victim that could be brutally sacrificed at the right time. I saw
the horrible video of the Berg butchery. It generated in me such a level of
rage and anger, that I believe I regressed to a level necessary to kill
another human being. It took me basically a day to get over it. Then, I
started to think, especially after hearing the rants of non-thinking
emotionalists and Bush sycophants.
Why is it so important for the United States government to conceal the fact
that Berg was in custody because of their intent and directions? What
precisely was their intent? Remember the admonition offered by FDR that
nothing in politics occurs unintended, and everything is executed according
to a pre-determined plan?
How completely convenient for the Bush administration to have this ghastly,
anger and rage-generating video available for public consumption when a
growing exposé of Geneva Convention violations and war crimes begins to
unfold. And of course there is no rock-solid evidence of this being a
deliberately staged psychological operation [PSY-OPS] plotted by the CIA.
But what is beginning to evolve as a new source of irrefutable proof, is the
vehement denial on the part of a lying, plotting, planning and despicable
government, one which increasingly resorts to violence and deceit, and unjustly kills innocent people.
-###-
©
Copyright THEODORE E. LANG 5/13/04 All rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political
analyst and a freelance writer.